Effect of Phenothiazines on the Thinking of Acute Schizophrenics

Fluphenazine (oral) versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Fluphenazine is one of the first drugs to be classed as an 'antipsychotic' and has been widely available for five decades.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of oral fluphenazine with placebo for the treatment of schizophrenia. To evaluate any available economic studies and value outcome data.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (23 July 2013, 23 December 2014, 9 November 2016 and 28 December 2017 ) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. There is no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought all randomised controlled trials comparing oral fluphenazine with placebo relevant to people with schizophrenia. Primary outcomes of interest were global state and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For the effects of interventions, a review team inspected citations and abstracts independently, ordered papers and re-inspected and quality assessed trials. We extracted data independently. Dichotomous data were analysed using fixed-effect risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were excluded if more than 50% of people were lost to follow-up, but, where possible, mean differences (MD) were calculated. Economic studies were searched and reliably selected by an economic review team to provide an economic summary of available data. Where no relevant economic studies were eligible for inclusion, the economic review team valued the already-included effectiveness outcome data to provide a rudimentary economic summary.

MAIN RESULTS

From over 1200 electronic records of 415 studies identified by our initial search and this updated search, we excluded 48 potentially relevant studies and included seven trials published between 1964 and 1999 that randomised 439 (mostly adult participants). No new included trials were identified for this review update. Compared with placebo, global state outcomes of 'not improved or worsened' were not significantly different in the medium term in one small study (n = 50, 1 RCT, RR 1.12 CI 0.79 to 1.58, very low quality of evidence). The risk of relapse in the long term was greater in two small studies in people receiving placebo (n = 86, 2 RCTs, RR 0.39 CI 0.05 to 3.31, very low quality of evidence), however with high degree of heterogeneity in the results. Only one person allocated fluphenazine was reported in the same small study to have died on long-term follow-up (n = 50, 1 RCT, RR 2.38 CI 0.10 to 55.72, low quality of evidence). Short-term extrapyramidal adverse effects were significantly more frequent with fluphenazine compared to placebo in two other studies for the outcomes of akathisia (n = 227, 2 RCTs, RR 3.43 CI 1.23 to 9.56, moderate quality of evidence) and rigidity (n = 227, 2 RCTs, RR 3.54 CI 1.76 to 7.14, moderate quality of evidence). For economic outcomes, we valued outcomes for relapse and presented them in additional tables.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings in this review confirm much that clinicians and recipients of care already know, but they provide quantification to support clinical impression. Fluphenazine's global position as an effective treatment for psychoses is not threatened by the outcome of this review. However, fluphenazine is an imperfect treatment and if accessible, other inexpensive drugs less associated with adverse effects may be an equally effective choice for people with schizophrenia.

Effects of Three Types of Verbal Distractors on Thinking in Acute Schizophrenia

Fifty acute schizophrenics were given a multiple choice verbal concept formation test (Distractor Test). Included among erroneous responses which might be chosen by Ss were associatively linked distractors (ALD), word contiguity distractors (WCD) and rhyme or clang distractors (RD). It was found that most of the treatment effect was produced by the contrast between the number of ALD produced errors and the number resulting from WCDs and RDs combined. However, WCDs also produced significantly more errors than RDs.

Intrusion of Associative Distractors into Conceptual Performance by Acute Schizophrenics: Role of Associative Strength

37 acute schizophrenic patients were given a test measuring the extent to which associatively linked distractors intruded inappropriately into the formation of concepts. The test was administered both on admission to the hospital and after 6 wk. of phenothiazine or placebo treatment. Distractors were divided into four levels ranging from strong to weak associative linkages with relevant concept words. Stronger associative linkages in distractors were associated with more conceptual errors at both the pre- and post-treatment points ( p < .001). These findings provide further support for the view that cognitive pathology in schizophrenia is characterized by pathological distractibility rather than loss in “abstract attitude.”

Fluphenazine decanoate (depot) and enanthate for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Intramuscular injections (depot preparations) offer an advantage over oral medication for treating schizophrenia by reducing poor compliance. The benefits gained by long-acting preparations, however, may be offset by a higher incidence of adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of fluphenazine decanoate and enanthate versus oral anti-psychotics and other depot neuroleptic preparations for individuals with schizophrenia in terms of clinical, social and economic outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (February 2011 and October 16, 2013), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on people with schizophrenia comparing fluphenazine decanoate or enanthate with placebo or oral anti-psychotics or other depot preparations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected, assessed the quality, and extracted data of the included studies. For dichotomous data, we estimated risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. We used the mean difference (MD) for normal continuous data. We excluded continuous data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50%. Tests of heterogeneity and for publication bias were undertaken. We used a fixed-effect model for all analyses unless there was high heterogeneity. For this update. we assessed risk of bias of included studies and used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

This review now includes 73 randomised studies, with 4870 participants. Overall, the quality of the evidence is low to very low.Compared with placebo, use of fluphenazine decanoate does not result in any significant differences in death, nor does it reduce relapse over six months to one year, but one longer-term study found that relapse was significantly reduced in the fluphenazine arm (n = 54, 1 RCT, RR 0.35, CI 0.19 to 0.64, very low quality evidence). A very similar number of people left the medium-term studies (six months to one year) early in the fluphenazine decanoate (24%) and placebo (19%) groups, however, a two-year study significantly favoured fluphenazine decanoate (n = 54, 1 RCT, RR 0.47, CI 0.23 to 0.96, very low quality evidence). No significant differences were found in mental state measured on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) or in extrapyramidal adverse effects, although these outcomes were only reported in one small study each. No study comparing fluphenazine decanoate with placebo reported clinically significant changes in global state or hospital admissions.Fluphenazine decanoate does not reduce relapse more than oral neuroleptics in the medium term (n = 419, 6 RCTs, RR 1.46 CI 0.75 to 2.83, very low quality evidence). A small study found no difference in clinically significant changes in global state. No difference in the number of participants leaving the study early was found between fluphenazine decanoate (17%) and oral neuroleptics (18%), and no significant differences were found in mental state measured on the BPRS. Extrapyramidal adverse effects were significantly less for people receiving fluphenazine decanoate compared with oral neuroleptics (n = 259, 3 RCTs, RR 0.47 CI 0.24 to 0.91, very low quality evidence). No study comparing fluphenazine decanoate with oral neuroleptics reported death or hospital admissions.No significant difference in relapse rates in the medium term between fluphenazine decanoate and fluphenazine enanthate was found (n = 49, 1 RCT, RR 2.43, CI 0.71 to 8.32, very low quality evidence), immediate- and short-term studies were also equivocal. One small study reported the number of participants leaving the study early (29% versus 12%) and mental state measured on the BPRS and found no significant difference for either outcome. No significant difference was found in extrapyramidal adverse effects between fluphenazine decanoate and fluphenazine enanthate. No study comparing fluphenazine decanoate with fluphenazine enanthate reported death, clinically significant changes in global state or hospital admissions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are more data for fluphenazine decanoate than for the enanthate ester. Both are effective antipsychotic preparations. Fluphenazine decanoate produced fewer movement disorder effects than other oral antipsychotics but data were of low quality, and overall, adverse effect data were equivocal. In the context of trials, there is little advantage of these depots over oral medications in terms of compliance but this is unlikely to be applicable to everyday clinical practice.

Chlorpromazine versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Chlorpromazine, formulated in the 1950s, remains a benchmark treatment for people with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of chlorpromazine compared with placebo, for the treatment of schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (15 May 2012). We also searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chlorpromazine with placebo for people with schizophrenia and non-affective serious/chronic mental illness irrespective of mode of diagnosis. Primary outcomes of interest were death, violent behaviours, overall improvement, relapse and satisfaction with care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations and abstracts, ordered papers, re-inspected and quality assessed these. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and estimated the 95% confidence interval (CI) around this. We excluded continuous data if more than 50% of participants were lost to follow-up. Where continuous data were included, we analysed this data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval. We used a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We inspected over 1100 electronic records. The review currently includes 315 excluded studies and 55 included studies. The quality of the evidence is very low. We found chlorpromazine reduced the number of participants experiencing a relapse compared with placebo during six months to two years follow-up (n = 512, 3 RCTs, RR 0.65 CI 0.47 to 0.90), but data were heterogeneous. No difference was found in relapse rates in the short, medium or long term over two years, although data were also heterogeneous. We found chlorpromazine provided a global improvement in a person's symptoms and functioning (n = 1164, 14 RCTs, RR 0.71 CI 0.58 to 0.86). Fewer people allocated to chlorpromazine left trials early ( n = 1831, 27 RCTs, RR 0.64 CI 0.53 to 0.78) compared with placebo. There are many adverse effects. Chlorpromazine is clearly sedating (n = 1627, 23 RCTs, RR 2.79 CI 2.25 to 3.45), it increases a person's chances of experiencing acute movement disorders (n = 942, 5 RCTs, RR 3.47 CI 1.50 to 8.03) and parkinsonism (n = 1468, 15 RCTs, RR 2.11 CI 1.59 to 2.80). Akathisia did not occur more often in the chlorpromazine group than placebo. Chlorpromazine clearly causes a lowering of blood pressure with accompanying dizziness (n = 1488, 18 RCTs, RR 2.38 CI 1.74 to 3.25) and considerable weight gain (n = 165, 5 RCTs, RR 4.92 CI 2.32 to 10.43).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review confirm much that clinicians and recipients of care already know but aim to provide quantification to support clinical impression. Chlorpromazine's global position as a 'benchmark' treatment for psychoses is not threatened by the findings of this review. Chlorpromazine, in common use for half a century, is a well-established but imperfect treatment. Judicious use of this best available evidence should lead to improved evidence-based decision making by clinicians, carers and patients.

Fluphenazine (oral) versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Fluphenazine is one of the first drugs to be classed as an 'antipsychotic' and has been widely available for five decades.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of oral fluphenazine with placebo for the treatment of schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's trials register, which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the bibliographic databases Biological Abstracts, CINAHL, The Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycLIT, LILACS, PSYNDEX, Sociological Abstracts and Sociofile, 15 May, 2012. References of all identified studies were searched for further trial citations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought all randomised controlled trials comparing oral fluphenazine with placebo relevant to people with schizophrenia. Primary outcomes of interest were global state and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We inspected citations and abstracts independently, ordered papers and re-inspected and quality assessed trials. We extracted data independently. Dichotomous data were analysed using fixed-effect risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were excluded if more than 50% of people were lost to follow-up, but, where possible, mean differences (MD) were calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

From over 1200 electronic records of 415 studies identified by our initial search and this updated search, we excluded 48 potentially relevant studies and included seven trials published between 1964 and 1999 that randomised 439 (mostly adult participants). No new included trials were identified for this review update. Compared with placebo, global state outcomes of 'not improved or worsened' were not significantly different in the medium term in one small study (n = 50, 1 RCT, RR 1.12 CI 0.79 to 1.58, very low quality of evidence). The risk of relapse in the long term was greater in two small studies in people receiving placebo (n = 86, 2 RCTs, RR 0.39 CI 0.05 to 3.31, very low quality of evidence), however with high degree of heterogeneity in the results. Only one person allocated fluphenazine was reported in the same small study to have died on long-term follow-up (n = 50, 1 RCT, RR 2.38 CI 0.10 to 55.72, low quality of evidence). Short-term extrapyramidal adverse effects were significantly more frequent with fluphenazine compared to placebo in two other studies for the outcomes of akathisia (n = 227, 2 RCTs, RR 3.43 CI 1.23 to 9.56, moderate quality of evidence) and rigidity (n = 227, 2 RCTs, RR 3.54 CI 1.76 to 7.14, moderate quality of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings in this review confirm much that clinicians and recipients of care already know, but they provide quantification to support clinical impression. Fluphenazine's global position as an effective treatment for psychoses is not threatened by the outcome of this review. However, fluphenazine is an imperfect treatment and if accessible, other inexpensive drugs less associated with adverse effects may be an equally effective choice for people with schizophrenia.

Thioridazine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Thioridazine is an antipsychotic that can still be used for schizophrenia although it is associated with the cardiac arrhythmia, torsades de pointe.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of thioridazine for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this 2006 update, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (June 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing thioridazine with other treatments for people with schizophrenia or other psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected, quality rated and extracted data from relevant studies. For dichotomous data, we estimated relative risks (RR), with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, we calculated the number needed to treat/harm statistic (NNT/H) on an intention-to-treat basis.

MAIN RESULTS

This review currently includes 42 RCTs with 3498 participants. When thioridazine was compared with placebo (total n=668, 14 RCTs) we found global state outcomes favoured thioridazine (n=105, 3 RCTs, RR 'no change or worse' by 6 months 0.33 CI 0.2 to 0.5, NNT of 2 CI 2 to 3). Thioridazine is sedating (n=324, 3 RCTs, RR 5.37 CI 3.2 to 9.1, NNH 4 CI 2 to 74). Generally, thioridazine did not cause more movement disorders than placebo.Twenty-seven studies (total n=2598) compared thioridazine with typical antipsychotics. We found no significant difference in global state (n=743, 11 RCTs, RR no short-term change or worse 0.98 CI 0.8 to 1.2) and medium-term assessments (n=142, 3 RCTs, RR 0.99, CI 0.6 to 1.6). We found no significant differences in the number of people leaving the study early 'for any reason' (short-term, n=1587, 19 RCTs, RR 1.07 CI 0.9 to 1.3). Extrapyramidal adverse events lower for those allocated to thioridazine (n=1082, 7 RCTs, RR use of antiparkinsonian drugs 0.45 CI 0.4 to 0.6). Thioridazine did seem associated with cardiac adverse effects (n=74, 1 RCT, RR 'any cardiovascular adverse event' 3.17 CI 1.4 to 7.0, NNH 3 CI 2 to 5). Electrocardiogram changes were significantly more frequent in the thioridazine group (n=254, 2 RCTs, RR 2.38, CI 1.6 to 3.6, NNH 4 CI 3 to 10). Six RCTs (total n=344) randomised thioridazine against atypical antipsychotics. Global state rating did not reveal any short-term difference between thioridazine and remoxipride and sulpiride (n=203, RR not improved or worse 1.00 CI 0.8 to 1.3). Limited data did not highlight differences in adverse event profiles.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although there are shortcomings, there appears to be enough consistency over different outcomes and periods to confirm that thioridazine is an antipsychotic of similar efficacy to other commonly used antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia. Its adverse events profile is similar to that of other drugs, but it may have a lower level of extrapyramidal problems and higher level of ECG changes. We would advocate the use of alternative drugs, but if its use in unavoidable, cardiac monitoring is justified.

Chlorpromazine versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Chlorpromazine, formulated in the 1950s, remains a benchmark treatment for people with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of chlorpromazine for schizophrenia in comparison with placebo.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We updated previous searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (October 1999), Biological Abstracts (1982-1995), the Cochrane Library (1999, Issue 2), EMBASE (1980-1995), MEDLINE (1966-1995), PsycLIT (1974-1995), and the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (June 2002), by searching The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (January 2007). We searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chlorpromazine with placebo for people with schizophrenia and non-affective serious/chronic mental illness irrespective of mode of diagnosis. Primary outcomes of interest were death, violent behaviours, overall improvement, relapse and satisfaction with care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations and abstracts, ordered papers, re-inspected and quality assessed these. BT and JR extracted data. CEA and GA independently checked a 10% sample for reliability. We analysed dichotomous data using fixed effects relative risk (RR) and estimated the 95% confidence interval (CI) around this. Where possible we calculated the number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm (NNH) statistics. We excluded continuous data if more than 50% of participants were lost to follow up; where continuous data were included, we analysed this data using fixed effects weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval.

MAIN RESULTS

We inspected over 1000 electronic records. The review currently includes 302 excluded studies and 50 included studies. We found chlorpromazine reduces relapse over the short (n=74, 2 RCTs, RR 0.29 CI 0.1 to 0.8) and medium term (n=809, 4 RCTs, RR 0.49 CI 0.4 to 0.6) but data are heterogeneous. Longer term homogeneous data also favoured chlorpromazine (n=512, 3 RCTs, RR 0.57 CI 0.5 to 0.7, NNT 4 CI 3 to 5). We found chlorpromazine provided a global improvement in a person's symptoms and functioning (n=1121, 13 RCTs, RR 'no change/not improved' 0.80 CI 0.8 to 0.9, NNT 6 CI 5 to 8). Fewer people allocated to chlorpromazine left trials early (n=1780, 26 RCTs, RR 0.65 CI 0.5 to 0.8, NNT 15 CI 11 to 24) compared with placebo. There are many adverse effects. Chlorpromazine is clearly sedating (n=1404, 19 RCTs, RR 2.63 CI 2.1 to 3.3, NNH 5 CI 4 to 8), it increases a person's chances of experiencing acute movement disorders (n=942, 5 RCTs, RR 3.5 CI 1.5 to 8.0, NNH 32 CI 11 to 154), parkinsonism (n=1265, 12 RCTs, RR 2.01 CI 1.5 to 2.7, NNH 14 CI 9 to 28). Akathisia did not occur more often in the chlorpromazine group than placebo (n=1164, 9 RCTs, RR 0.78 CI 0.5 to 1.1). Chlorpromazine clearly causes a lowering of blood pressure with accompanying dizziness (n=1394, 16 RCTs, RR 2.37 CI 1.7 to 3.2, NNH 11 CI 7 to 21) and considerable weight gain (n=165, 5 RCTs, RR 4.92 CI 2.3 to 10.4, NNH 2 CI 2 to 3).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review confirm much that clinicians and recipients of care already know but aim to provide quantification to support clinical impression. Chlorpromazine's global position as a 'benchmark' treatment for psychoses is not threatened by the findings of this review. Chlorpromazine, in common use for half a century, is a well established but imperfect treatment. Judicious use of this best available evidence should lead to improved evidence-based decision making by clinicians, carers and patients.

Oral fluphenazine versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Fluphenazine is one of the first drugs to be classed as an 'antipsychotic' and has been widely available for five decades.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of oral fluphenazine for schizophrenia in comparison with placebo.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's trials register (September 2006) which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the bibliographic databases Biological Abstracts, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycLIT, LILACS, PSYNDEX, Sociological Abstracts and Sociofile. References of all identified studies were searched for further trial citations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought all randomised controlled trials comparing oral fluphenazine with placebo relevant to people with schizophrenia. Primary outcomes of interest were global state and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We inspected citations and abstracts independently, ordered papers and re-inspected and quality assessed trials. We extracted data independently. Dichotomous data were analysed using fixed effects relative risk (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were excluded if more than 50% of people were lost to follow up, but, where possible, weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

We found over 1200 electronic records for 415 studies, 47 of which were relevant but only seven could be included. Compared with placebo, in the short-term, global state outcomes for 'not improved' were not significantly different (n=75, 2 RCTs, RR 0.71 CI 0.5 to 1.1). There is evidence that oral fluphenazine, in the short term, increases a person's chances of experiencing extrapyramidal effects such as akathisia (n=227, 2 RCTs, RR 3.43 CI 1.2 to 9.6, NNH 13 CI 4 to 128) and rigidity (n=227, 2 RCTs, RR 3.54 CI 1.8 to 7.1, NNH 6 CI 3 to 17). We found study attrition to be lower in the oral fluphenazine group, but data were not statistically significant (n=227, 2 RCTs, RR 0.70 CI 0.4 to 1.1).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings in this review confirm much that clinicians and recipients of care already know, but they provide quantification to support clinical impression. Fluphenazine's global position as an effective treatment for psychoses is not threatened by the outcome of this review. However, fluphenazine is an imperfect treatment and If accessible, other inexpensive drugs less associated with adverse effects may be an equally effective choice for people with schizophrenia.

Depot fluphenazine decanoate and enanthate for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Intramuscular injections (depot preparations) offer an advantage over oral medication for treating schizophrenia by reducing poor compliance. The benefits gained by long acting preparations, however, may be offset by a higher incidence of adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the clinical effects of fluphenazine decanoate and enanthate.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this update we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (May 2002).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all relevant randomised clinical controlled trials focusing on people with schizophrenia comparing fluphenazine decanoate or enanthate with placebo or oral anti-psychotics or other depot preparations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected, quality rated and data extracted studies. For dichotomous data we estimated relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and, where possible, the number needed to treat/harm (NNT/H). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. We used the weighted mean difference (WMD) for normal continuous data. Tests of heterogeneity and for publication bias were undertaken.

MAIN RESULTS

This review now includes 70 randomised studies. Compared with placebo, fluphenazine decanoate did not reduce relapse over 6 months to 1 year, but one longer term study found that relapse was significantly reduced in the fluphenazine arm (n=54, RR 0.35, CI 0.2 to 0.6, NNT 2 CI 2 to 4). Fluphenazine decanoate does not reduce relapse more than oral neuroleptics (n=419, 6 RCTs, RR relapse 26-52 weeks 1.46 CI 0.8 to 2.8) or other depot antipsychotics (n=581, 11 RCTs, RR relapse 26-52 weeks 0.82 CI 0.6 to 1.2). Relapse rates over 6 months to 1 year were not significantly different between standard dosage of fluphenazine decanoate over a low dose group (n=523, 4 RCTs, RR 2.09 CI 0.6 to 7.1). Movement disorders were significantly less for people receiving fluphenazine decanoate compared with oral neuroleptics (n=259, 3 RCTs, RR 0.47 CI 0.2 to 0.9, NNT 14 CI 10 to 82). For fluphenazine enanthate there were limited data but no clear difference in global change (0 to 5 weeks) when compared with oral neuroleptics (n=31, 1 RCTs, RR 0.67 CI 0.3 to 1.7), and in relapse rates over 6-26 weeks between fluphenazine enanthate and other depots. Compared with placebo, giving the enanthate caused no more people to need need anticholinergic drugs (n=25, 1 RCT, RR 9.69 CI 0.6 to 163.0) and movement disorders, tardive dyskinesia, tremor, blurred vision and dry mouth were equally prevalent when enanthate was compared with other depot neuroleptics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are more data for fluphenazine decanoate than for the enanthate ester. Both are effective antipsychotic preparations. In the context of trials, there is little advantage of these depots over oral medications in terms of compliance but this is unlikely to be applicable to everyday clinical practice.

Chlorpromazine versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Chlorpromazine, formulated in the 1950s, remains a benchmark treatment for people with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of chlorpromazine for schizophrenia in comparison with placebo.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We updated previous searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (October 1999), Biological Abstracts (1982-1995), the Cochrane Library (1999, Issue 2), EMBASE (1980-1995), MEDLINE (1966-1995) and PsycLIT (1974-1995), by searching Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (June 2002). References of all identified studies were searched for further trial citations. Pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chlorpromazine with placebo relevant to people with schizophrenia, and non-affective serious/chronic mental illness irrespective of mode of diagnosis. Primary outcomes of interest were death, violent behaviours, overall improvement, relapse and satisfaction with care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Citations and, where possible, abstracts were inspected independently by reviewers, papers ordered, re-inspected and quality assessed. Data were extracted by BT and JR. CA and GA independently checked a 10% sample for reliability. Dichotomous data were analysed using random effects relative risk (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) around this was estimated. Where possible the number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm statistics (NNH) were calculated. Continuous data were excluded if more than 50% of people were lost to follow up, but, where possible, weighted mean difference (WMD) was calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

Over 1000 electronic records were inspected. The review currently mentions 302 papers in its Excluded Studies table and 50 studies in its Included Studies table. Four papers are awaiting translation. Chlorpromazine reduces relapse over six months to two years (n=512, 3 RCTs, RR 0.65 CI 0.5 to 0.9, NNT 3 CI 2.5 to 4) and promotes a global improvement in a person's symptoms and functioning (n=1121, 13 RCTs, RR 0.76 CI 0.7 to 0.9, NNT 7 CI 5 to 10) although the placebo response is also considerable. Fewer people allocated to chlorpromazine leave trials early (n=1755, 25 RCTs, RR 0.77 CI 0.6 to 1.1) but the difference iss not statistically significant. There are many adverse effects. Chlorpromazine is clearly sedating (n=1242, 18 RCTs, RR 2.3 CI 1.7 to 3.1, NNH 6 CI 5 to 8), it increases a person's chances of experiencing acute movement disorders (n=780, 4 RCTs, RR 3.1 CI 1.3 to 7.7, NNH 24 CI 15 to 57), parkinsonism (n=1265, 12 RCTs, RR 2.6 CI 1.2 to 5.4, NNH 10 CI 8 to 16) and, perhaps, fits (n=695, 3 RCTs, RR 2.4 CI 0.4 to 16). Amongst other things it clearly causes a lowering of blood pressure with accompanying dizziness (n=1232, 15 RCTs, RR 1.9 CI 1.4 to 27, NNH 12 CI 8 to 19) and considerable increases in weight (n=165, 5 RCTs, RR 4.4 CI 2.1 to 9, NNH 3 CI 2 to 5).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

This review will confirm much that clinicians and recipients of care already know, but provides quantification to support clinical impression. Chlorpromazine's global position as a 'benchmark' treatment for psychoses is not threatened by this review. Chlorpromazine, in common use for half a century, is a well established but imperfect treatment. Judicious use of this best available evidence should lead to improved evidence-based decision making by clinicians, carers and patients.

Thioridazine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Thioridazine is a piperidine phenothiazine used for the treatment of people with schizophrenia. It has often been considered the drug of choice in the elderly because of reputed lower levels of extrapyramidal adverse events. It may, however, be more likely to cause cognitive adverse events, such as delirium or worsening of memory, and, on rare occasions, thioridazine has caused pigmentary retinopathy.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of thioridazine for those with schizophrenia, and, in particular, elderly people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1980-1999), CINAHL (1982-1999), The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 1999), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (January 1999), EMBASE (1980-1999), MEDLINE (1966-1999), PsycLIT (1974-1999) and Sociofile (1974-1999) were undertaken. References of all identified studies were searched for further trials. Pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised clinical trials that compared thioridazine to other treatments for people with schizophrenia or other psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Citations and, where possible, abstracts were independently inspected by reviewers, papers ordered, re-inspected and quality assessed. Data were independently extracted. Data were excluded if loss to follow up was greater than 40%. For homogeneous dichotomous data the Relative Risk (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, weighted mean differences were calculated (WMD). All data were inspected for heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

560 people from 11 studies were randomised to thioridazine or placebo. For change in global state, small, short term studies (three months or less) found no difference between groups (RR 0.66 CI 0.35-1.23, n=100). At six months, however, two small studies (n=65) favoured thioridazine (RR 0.34 CI 0.21-0. 56, NNT 2 CI 1-6). Fourteen percent in the thioridazine group left early compared to 32% of people allocated to placebo (RR 0.43 CI 0. 31-0.61, NNT 6 CI 4-10, n=510). Few differences in terms of adverse effects, between thioridazine and placebo, were apparent. Limited data from trials suggest that thioridazine is not strongly anticholinergic (blurred vision RR 2.01 CI 0.56-7.25, n=224). Thioridazine is not sedating (at three months to one year RR 2.48 CI 0.96-6.4, n=122). No data were presented on retinal changes. Two thousand three hundred ninety-seven patients from 26 studies were randomised to thioridazine versus typical antipsychotics. For the outcome 'no better or worse', those allocated to thioridazine were no better off than people given control typical neuroleptics (RR 0. 97 CI 0.78-1.21, n=771). There were no clear differences between thioridazine and other drugs for the outcome 'Mental state - no better or worse' on the BPRS by three months (RR 1.3 CI 0.8-2.11, n=208). Twenty-one studies (n=1737) had 19% attrition in both groups. Few differences were seen in the lists of adverse effects. As expected from the placebo comparison, thioridazine does not cause more anticholinergic-type symptoms than other drugs. About half of people given thioridazine felt drowsy or sedated but this was no different from other drugs (RR 1.06 CI 0.93-1.2, n=909). Parkinsonism was less common in the thioridazine group in the short term (RR 0.29 CI 0.12-0.7, n=340). One small study (n=40) found no clear differences between thioridazine and clozapine.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Although there are shortcomings and gaps in the data, there appears to be enough consistency over different outcomes and periods to confirm that thioridazine is an antipsychotic of similar efficacy to other commonly used neuroleptics for people with schizophrenia. Its adverse events profile is similar to that of other drugs, but it may have a lower level of extrapyramidal problems. (ABSTRACT TRU

Schizophrenia and semantic aphasia: a clinical comparison

In recent years, there has been an emerging body of evidence which suggests that some types of schizophrenia may have a neurologic pathogenesis. This paper is addressed to the exploration of cortical mechanisms in schizophrenia by comparing the language disturbances of chronic schizophrenia with those of semantic aphasia. While there is little commonality between schizophrenic word-salad and jargon aphasia, there are similarities between schizophrenic agrammatism and semantic aphasia in terms of impressive and expressive grammar and in the manifestation of paraphasia and paralogia. It is concluded that while no cortical lesions are likely in schizophrenia, there may be a neurologic arousal/attention abnormality which impairs cortical efficiency, giving rise to a language disturbance symptomatically similar to, but pathogenically different from semantic aphasia.

Cognitive functioning in schizophrenia. I. Stimulus analysing and response selection processes

It has long been accepted that inadequate or abnormal cognitive performance is a characteristic of those patients described as schizophrenic (Cameron, 1938, 1939; Goldstein, 1939). A number of theories have been advanced to suggest that the basic deficit underlying this abnormal performance lies in impaired information processing. McGhie (1969, 1970) and Payne (1960) consider the defect to be in the filter that normally operates to exclude irrelevant stimuli, while Yates (1966a, 1966b) suggests that the impairment may reflect a slowed rate of information transfer in the primary processing channel. Hawks and Marshall (1971) also argue for slowed processing, but although they talk about overload due to inappropriately filtered input they appear to identify their position with Broen's (1968) response interference theory.