Comparison of Pharmacological Treatments for Agitated Delirium in the Last Days of Life

CONTEXT

Antipsychotics are often used in managing symptoms of terminal delirium, but evidence is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the comparative effectiveness of haloperidol with as-needed benzodiazepines (HPD) vs. chlorpromazine (CPZ) vs. levomepromazine (LPZ) for agitated delirium in the last days.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted in two palliative care units in Japan. Adult cancer patients who developed agitated delirium with a modified Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS-PAL) of one or more were included; palliative care specialist physicians determined that the etiology was irreversible; and estimated survival was 3 weeks or less. Patients treated with HPD, CPZ, or LPZ were analyzed. We measured RASS, NuDESC, Agitation Distress Scale (ADS), and Communication Capacity Scale (CCS) on Days 1 and 3.

RESULTS

A total of 277 patients were enrolled, and 214 were analyzed (112 in HPD, 50 in CPZ, and 52 in LPZ). In all groups, the mean RASS-PAL score significantly decreased on Day 3 (1.37 to -1.01, 1.87 to -1.04, 1.79 to -0.62, respectively; P < 0.001); the NuDESC and ADS scores also significantly decreased. The percentages of patients with moderate to severe agitation and those with full communication capacity on Day 3 were not significantly different. The treatments were well-tolerated. While one-fourth of HPD group changed antipsychotics, 88% or more of CPZ and LPZ groups continued the initial antipsychotics.

CONCLUSION

Haloperidol with as-needed benzodiazepine, chlorpromazine, or levomepromazine may be effective and safe for terminal agitation. Chlorpromazine and levomepromazine may have an advantage of no need to change medications.

Current management of neonatal abstinence syndrome: a survey of practice in the UK and Ireland

OBJECTIVE

To study the current management practices of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) throughout the UK and Ireland and identify changes in practice from the most recent survey in 2008.

DESIGN

Postal questionnaire to a consultant paediatrician or neonatologist in all 215 neonatal units in the UK and Ireland in January 2020.

RESULTS

Response rate was 62%. An objective scoring tool was used in 97% of units and the Finnegan score was favoured by 70%. Morphine sulfate use as first line for the treatment of opiate withdrawal was almost universal and 70% used a dose of 40 µg/kg every 4 hours (240 µg/kg/day). Phenobarbitone administration as a second-line agent for opiate withdrawal increased to 61% of units with significant reductions in chloral hydrate and chlorpromazine use compared with the previous survey. Morphine sulfate and phenobarbitone remain the preferred first-line and second-line agents, respectively, for polysubstance withdrawal. There was a significant increase in chlorpromazine use as first line for polydrug withdrawal (1.5-14.2%). The practice of units discharging infants' home on medication increased to 46% from 29%. All units now permit breastfeeding in mothers taking methadone, compared with 81% previously.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Compared with the previous survey, improvements in evidence-based practices were noted, highlighting the benefits of this type of research. Nonetheless, significant variation still exists in some aspects of the management of NAS. Post-discharge follow-up varies widely, with particular deficits in ophthalmology follow-up.

Targeting GRP75 with a Chlorpromazine Derivative Inhibits Endometrial Cancer Progression Through GRP75-IP3R-Ca2+-AMPK Axis

Tumors often overexpress glucose-regulated proteins, and agents that interfere with the production or activity of these proteins may represent novel cancer treatments. The chlorpromazine derivative JX57 exhibits promising effects against endometrial cancer with minimal extrapyramidal side effects; however, its mechanisms of action are currently unknown. Here, glucose-regulated protein 75 kD (GRP75) is identified as a direct target of JX57 using activity-based protein profiling and loss-of-function experiments. The findings show that GRP75 is necessary for the biological activity of JX57, as JX57 exhibits moderate anticancer properties in GRP75-deficient cancer cells, both in vitro and in vivo. High GRP75 expression is correlated with poor differentiation and poor survival in patients with endometrial cancer, whereas the knockdown of GRP75 can significantly suppress tumor growth. Mechanistically, the direct binding of JX57 to GRP75 impairs the structure of the mitochondria-associated endoplasmic reticulum membrane and disrupts the endoplasmic reticulum-mitochondrial calcium homeostasis, resulting in a mitochondrial energy crisis and AMP-activated protein kinase activation. Taken together, these findings highlight GRP75 as a potential prognostic biomarker and direct therapeutic target in endometrial cancer and suggest that the chlorpromazine derivative JX57 can potentially be a new therapeutic option for endometrial cancer.

Antipsychotic Medications and Mortality in Children and Young Adults

Importance

Dose-related effects of antipsychotic medications may increase mortality in children and young adults.

Objective

To compare mortality for patients aged 5 to 24 years beginning treatment with antipsychotic vs control psychiatric medications.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a US national retrospective cohort study of Medicaid patients with no severe somatic illness or schizophrenia or related psychoses who initiated study medication treatment. Study data were analyzed from November 2022 to September 2023.

Exposures

Current use of second-generation antipsychotic agents in daily doses of less than or equal to 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents or greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents vs that for control medications (α agonists, atomoxetine, antidepressants, and mood stabilizers).

Main Outcome and Measures

Total mortality, classified by underlying cause of death. Rate differences (RDs) and hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for potential confounders with propensity score-based overlap weights.

Results

The 2 067 507 patients (mean [SD] age, 13.1 [5.3] years; 1 060 194 male [51.3%]) beginning study medication treatment filled 21 749 825 prescriptions during follow-up with 5 415 054 for antipsychotic doses of 100 mg or less, 2 813 796 for doses greater than 100 mg, and 13 520 975 for control medications. Mortality was not associated with antipsychotic doses of 100 mg or less (RD, 3.3; 95% CI, -5.1 to 11.7 per 100 000 person-years; HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32) but was associated with doses greater than 100 mg (RD, 22.4; 95% CI, 6.6-38.2; HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.70). For higher doses, antipsychotic treatment was significantly associated with overdose deaths (RD, 8.3; 95% CI, 0-16.6; HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02-2.42) and other unintentional injury deaths (RD, 12.3; 95% CI, 2.4-22.2; HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.12-2.22) but was not associated with nonoverdose suicide deaths or cardiovascular/metabolic deaths. Mortality for children aged 5 to 17 years was not significantly associated with either antipsychotic dose, whereas young adults aged 18 to 24 years had increased risk for doses greater than 100 mg (RD, 127.5; 95% CI, 44.8-210.2; HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.23-2.29).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of more than 2 million children and young adults without severe somatic disease or diagnosed psychosis, antipsychotic treatment in doses of 100 mg or less of chlorpromazine equivalents or in children aged 5 to 17 years was not associated with increased risk of death. For doses greater than 100 mg, young adults aged 18 to 24 years had significantly increased risk of death, with 127.5 additional deaths per 100 000 person-years.

Chlorpromazine affects glioblastoma bioenergetics by interfering with pyruvate kinase M2

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most frequent and lethal brain tumor, whose therapeutic outcome - only partially effective with current schemes - places this disease among the unmet medical needs, and effective therapeutic approaches are urgently required. In our attempts to identify repositionable drugs in glioblastoma therapy, we identified the neuroleptic drug chlorpromazine (CPZ) as a very promising compound. Here we aimed to further unveil the mode of action of this drug. We performed a supervised recognition of the signal transduction pathways potentially influenced by CPZ via Reverse-Phase Protein microArrays (RPPA) and carried out an Activity-Based Protein Profiling (ABPP) followed by Mass Spectrometry (MS) analysis to possibly identify cellular factors targeted by the drug. Indeed, the glycolytic enzyme PKM2 was identified as one of the major targets of CPZ. Furthermore, using the Seahorse platform, we analyzed the bioenergetics changes induced by the drug. Consistent with the ability of CPZ to target PKM2, we detected relevant changes in GBM energy metabolism, possibly attributable to the drug's ability to inhibit the oncogenic properties of PKM2. RPE-1 non-cancer neuroepithelial cells appeared less responsive to the drug. PKM2 silencing reduced the effects of CPZ. 3D modeling showed that CPZ interacts with PKM2 tetramer in the same region involved in binding other known activators. The effect of CPZ can be epitomized as an inhibition of the Warburg effect and thus malignancy in GBM cells, while sparing RPE-1 cells. These preclinical data enforce the rationale that allowed us to investigate the role of CPZ in GBM treatment in a recent multicenter Phase II clinical trial.

The History of Drug Development in Psychiatry: A Lesson in Serendipity

The goal of this book is to provide a guide on modern day drug development in psychiatry. However, in order to understand current practices in drug development, it is important to first understand the history of psychiatry including early attempts at drug discovery and develoment. The early history of psychiatry is mired with the use of inhumane experimental treatments and the institutionalization of patients in asylums. Some of the earliest drugs used in these asylums were meant to sedate patients rather than treat underlying mental disorders. The earliest identified drugs treating mental disorders were born out of serendipitous discoveries which later led to their clinical effects being demonstrated through clinical trials and case studies. This is evident from the history of chlorpromazine, monoamine oxidase inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, lithium, and others. We discuss in detail about each of these psychotropic drugs, the events leading up to their discovery, and their role in formulating the biological basis of mental disorders including schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder. Psychiatry, it seems has worked its way backwards from first identifying treatments before understanding the biological basis of mental disorders, in a sharp contrast to the other fields of medicine. With our growing understanding of the etiopathogenesis of mental disorders, drug development in psychiatry is evolving to develop treatments that target the underlying physiology of mental disorders.

Rapid tranquillisation in a psychiatric emergency hospital in Lebanon: TREC-Lebanon - a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of intramuscular haloperidol and promethazine v. intramuscular haloperidol, promethazine and chlorpromazine

BACKGROUND

Agitated patients constitute 10% of all emergency psychiatric treatment. Management guidelines, the preferred treatment of clinicians differ in opinion and practice. In Lebanon, the use of the triple therapy haloperidol plus promethazine plus chlorpromazine (HPC) is frequently used but no studies involving this combination exists.

METHOD

A pragmatic randomised open trial (September 2018-July 2019) in the Lebanese Psychiatric Hospital of the Cross in Beirut Lebanon involving 100 people requiring urgent intramuscular sedation due to aggressive behaviour were given intramuscular chlorpromazine 100 mg plus haloperidol 5 mg plus promethazine 25 mg (HPC) or intramuscular haloperidol 5 mg plus promethazine 25 mg.

RESULTS

Primary outcome data were available for 94 (94%) people. People allocated to the haloperidol plus promethazine (HP) group showed no clear difference at 20 min compared with patients allocated to the HPC group [relative risk (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-1.50].

CONCLUSIONS

Neither intervention consistently impacted the outcome of 'calm', or 'asleep' and had no discernible effect on the use of restraints, use of additional drugs or recurrence. If clinicians are faced with uncertainty on which of the two intervention combinations to use, the simpler HP is much more widely tested and the addition of chlorpromazine adds no clear benefit with a risk of additional adverse effects.

Observation of Clinical Efficacy of Anisodamine and Chlorpromazine in the Treatment of Intractable Hiccup after Stroke

Objective

This study is aimed at investigating the clinical efficacy of anisodamine combined with chlorpromazine on intractable hiccups after stroke.

Methods

150 patients admitted to Affiliated Hospital of the Hebei University of Engineering from 2017 to 2021 were selected as the research objects, all of which received the computed tomography (CT) examination. During CT examination, intelligent algorithms were used to segment the images. An unsupervised multilayer image threshold segmentation algorithm was proposed by using Kullback-Leibler (K-L) divergence and the modified particle swarm optimization (MPSO) algorithm. All patients were divided into three groups, with each group of 50 patients. Patients in the control group (group A) took the calcium tablets, vitamin C tablets, and vitamin B1 tablets orally. Patients in the control group (group B) received the acupoint injection of anisodamine, and those in the observation group (group C) received the acupoint injection of anisodamine combined with chlorpromazine. The therapeutic effect and patient satisfaction of the three groups were compared.

Results

The two-dimensional (2D) K-L divergence was applied for the multilayer segmentation of images, which was helpful to obtain accurate images. The MPSO algorithm was adopted to reduce the computational complexity. The total efficiency of group C was 98%, that of group B was 56%, and that of group A was 22%. The total efficiency and satisfaction rate of group C were signally better than those of group A and group B (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The combination of 2D K-L divergence and MPSO algorithm could improve the accuracy of multilayer image segmentation and CT imaging. Acupoint injection of anisodamine combined with chlorpromazine had better efficacy than the injection of anisodamine alone for the treatment of intractable hiccups after stroke, with high safety and clinical promotion value.

Effective Treatment of Intraoperative Hiccups With Chlorpromazine Under General Anesthesia Without Muscle Relaxants: A Case Report

Hiccups are common reflexes and many treatment methods have been reported. Chlorpromazine is a known treatment option for hiccups, but its efficacy under general anesthesia remains unclear. We report the case of a patient with vagal schwannoma who developed hiccups while under general anesthesia. Muscle relaxants were not used because the patient was under neuromonitoring. The depth of anesthesia was deepened; however, the hiccups did not disappear. The hiccups were relieved by intravenous chlorpromazine administration (total; 5 mg), which allowed for surgery under neuromonitoring. This case indicates that chlorpromazine may be effective to treat hiccups under general anesthesia.

Chlorpromazine induces cytotoxic autophagy in glioblastoma cells via endoplasmic reticulum stress and unfolded protein response

BACKGROUND

Glioblastoma (GBM; grade IV glioma) is characterized by a very short overall survival time and extremely low 5-year survival rates. We intend to promote experimental and clinical research on rationale and scientifically driven drug repurposing. This may represent a safe and often inexpensive way to propose novel pharmacological approaches to GBM. Our precedent work describes the role of chlorpromazine (CPZ) in hindering malignant features of GBM. Here, we investigate in greater detail the molecular mechanisms at the basis of the effect of CPZ on GBM cells.

METHODS

We employed proteomics platforms, i.e., activity-based protein profiling plus mass spectrometry, to identify potential cellular targets of the drug. Then, by means of established molecular and cellular biology techniques, we assessed the effects of this drug on GBM cell metabolic and survival pathways.

RESULTS

The experimental output indicated as putative targets of CPZ several of factors implicated in endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress, with consequent unfolded protein response (UPR). Such a perturbation culminated in a noticeable reactive oxygen species generation and intense autophagic response that resulted in cytotoxic and abortive effects for six GBM cell lines, three of which growing as neurospheres, while it appeared cytoprotective for the RPE-1 human non-cancer neuro-ectodermal cell line.

CONCLUSIONS

This discrepancy could be central in explaining the lethal effects of the drug on GBM cells and the relatively scarce cytotoxicity toward normal tissues attributed to this compound. The data presented here offer support to the multicenter phase II clinical trial we have undertaken, which consists of the addition of CPZ to first-line treatment of GBM patients carrying a hypo- or un-methylated MGMT gene, i.e. those characterized by intrinsic resistance to temozolomide.

Opioid treatment for opioid withdrawal in newborn infants

BACKGROUND

Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties, weight loss, seizures and neurodevelopmental problems.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of using an opioid for treatment of NAS due to withdrawal from opioids in newborn infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran an updated search on 17 September 2020 in CENTRAL via Cochrane Register of Studies Web and MEDLINE via Ovid. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for eligible trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi- and cluster-RCTs which enrolled infants born to mothers with opioid dependence and who were experiencing NAS requiring treatment with an opioid.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 trials (1110 infants) with NAS secondary to maternal opioid use in pregnancy. Seven studies at low risk of bias were included in sensitivity analysis. Opioid versus no treatment / usual care: a single trial (80 infants) of morphine and supportive care versus supportive care alone reported no difference in treatment failure (risk ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 4.07; very low certainty evidence). No infant had a seizure. The trial did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. Morphine increased days hospitalisation (mean difference (MD) 15.00, 95% CI 8.86 to 21.14; very low certainty evidence) and treatment (MD 12.50, 95% CI 7.52 to 17.48; very low certainty evidence), but decreased days to regain birthweight (MD -2.80, 95% CI -5.33 to -0.27) and duration (minutes) of supportive care each day (MD -197.20, 95% CI -274.15 to -120.25). Morphine versus methadone: there was no difference in treatment failure (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.67; 2 studies, 147 infants; low certainty evidence). Seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study reported no difference in days hospitalisation (MD 1.40, 95% CI -3.08 to 5.88; 116 infants; low certainty evidence), whereas data from two studies found an increase in days treatment (MD 2.71, 95% CI 0.22 to 5.21; 147 infants; low certainty) for infants treated with morphine. A single study reported no difference in breastfeeding, adverse events, or out of home placement. Morphine versus sublingual buprenorphine: there was no difference in treatment failure (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.74; 3 studies, 113 infants; very low certainty evidence). Neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. There was moderate certainty evidence of an increase in days hospitalisation (MD 11.45, 95% CI 5.89 to 17.01; 3 studies, 113 infants), and days treatment (MD 12.79, 95% CI 7.57 to 18.00; 3 studies, 112 infants) for infants treated with morphine. A single adverse event (seizure) was reported in infants exposed to buprenorphine. Morphine versus diluted tincture of opium (DTO): a single study (33 infants) reported no difference in days hospitalisation, days treatment or weight gain (low certainty evidence). Opioid versus clonidine: a single study (31 infants) reported no infant with treatment failure in either group. This study did not report seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability. There was low certainty evidence for no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment. This study did not report adverse events. Opioid versus diazepam: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of an opioid (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80; 2 studies, 86 infants; low certainty evidence). Seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study of 34 infants comparing methadone versus diazepam reported no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment (very low certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported. Opioid versus phenobarbital: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of an opioid (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.74; 6 studies, 458 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis found a reduction in treatment failure in trials titrating morphine to ≧ 0.5 mg/kg/day (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.45; 3 studies, 230 infants), whereas a single study using morphine < 0.5 mg/kg/day reported no difference compared to use of phenobarbital (subgroup difference P = 0.05). Neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study (111 infants) of paregoric versus phenobarbital reported seven infants with seizures in the phenobarbital group, whereas no seizures were reported in two studies (170 infants) comparing morphine to phenobarbital. There was no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment. A single study (96 infants) reported no adverse events in either group. Opioid versus chlorpromazine: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of morphine versus chlorpromazine (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.62; 1 study, 90 infants; moderate certainty evidence). No seizures were reported in either group. There was low certainty evidence for no difference in days treatment. This trial reported no adverse events in either group. None of the included studies reported time to control of NAS. Data for duration and severity of NAS were limited, and we were unable to use these data in quantitative synthesis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to supportive care alone, the addition of an opioid may increase duration of hospitalisation and treatment, but may reduce days to regain birthweight and the duration of supportive care each day. Use of an opioid may reduce treatment failure compared to phenobarbital, diazepam or chlorpromazine. Use of an opioid may have little or no effect on duration of hospitalisation or treatment compared to use of phenobarbital, diazepam or chlorpromazine. The type of opioid used may have little or no effect on the treatment failure rate. Use of buprenorphine probably reduces duration of hospitalisation and treatment compared to morphine, but there are no data for time to control NAS with buprenorphine, and insufficient evidence to determine safety. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness and safety of clonidine.

Sedatives for opioid withdrawal in newborn infants

BACKGROUND

Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties, weight loss, seizures and neurodevelopmental problems.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of using a sedative versus control (placebo, usual treatment or non-pharmacological treatment) for NAS due to withdrawal from opioids and determine which type of sedative is most effective and safe for NAS due to withdrawal from opioids.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran an updated search on 17 September 2020 in CENTRAL via CRS Web and MEDLINE via Ovid. We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials enrolling infants with NAS born to mothers with an opioid dependence with more than 80% follow-up and using randomised, quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised allocation to sedative or control.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 trials (581 infants) with NAS secondary to maternal opioid use in pregnancy. There were multiple comparisons of different sedatives and regimens. There were limited data available for use in sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias. Phenobarbital versus supportive care: one study reported there may be little or no difference in treatment failure with phenobarbital and supportive care versus supportive care alone (risk ratio (RR) 2.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 7.94; 62 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No infant had a clinical seizure. The study did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. There may be an increase in days' hospitalisation and treatment from use of phenobarbital (hospitalisation: mean difference (MD) 20.80, 95% CI 13.64 to 27.96; treatment: MD 17.90, 95% CI 11.98 to 23.82; both 62 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital versus diazepam: there may be a reduction in treatment failure with phenobarbital versus diazepam (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.62; 139 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. One study reported there may be little or no difference in days' hospitalisation and treatment (hospitalisation: MD 3.89, 95% CI -1.20 to 8.98; 32 participants; treatment: MD 4.30, 95% CI -0.73 to 9.33; 31 participants; both low-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital versus chlorpromazine: there may be a reduction in treatment failure with phenobarbital versus chlorpromazine (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.92; 138 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), and no infant had a seizure. The studies did not report mortality and neurodevelopmental disability. One study reported there may be little or no difference in days' hospitalisation (MD 7.00, 95% CI -3.51 to 17.51; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 0/100 infants had an adverse event. Phenobarbital and opioid versus opioid alone: one study reported no infants with treatment failure and no clinical seizures in either group (low-certainty evidence). The study did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. One study reported there may be a reduction in days' hospitalisation for infants treated with phenobarbital and opioid (MD -43.50, 95% CI -59.18 to -27.82; 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). Clonidine and opioid versus opioid alone: one study reported there may be little or no difference in treatment failure with clonidine and dilute tincture of opium (DTO) versus DTO alone (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.59; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All five infants with treatment failure were in the DTO group. There may be little or no difference in seizures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.68; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All three infants with seizures were in the DTO group. There may be little or no difference in mortality after discharge (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.37 to 131.28; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All three deaths were in the clonidine and DTO group. The study did not report neurodevelopmental disability. There may be little or no difference in days' treatment (MD -4.00, 95% CI -8.33 to 0.33; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One adverse event occurred in the clonidine and DTO group. There may be little or no difference in rebound NAS after stopping treatment, although all seven cases were in the clonidine and DTO group. Clonidine and opioid versus phenobarbital and opioid: there may be little or no difference in treatment failure (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.98 to 5.25; 2 studies, 93 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported one infant in the clonidine and morphine group had a seizure, and there were no infant mortalities. The studies did not report neurodevelopmental disability. There may be an increase in days' hospitalisation and days' treatment with clonidine and opioid versus phenobarbital and opioid(hospitalisation: MD 7.13, 95% CI 6.38 to 7.88; treatment: MD 7.57, 95% CI 3.97 to 11.17; both 2 studies, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in adverse events (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 5.40; 2 studies, 93 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, there was oversedation only in the phenobarbital and morphine group; and hypotension, rebound hypertension and rebound NAS only in the clonidine and morphine group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-certainty evidence that phenobarbital increases duration of hospitalisation and treatment, but reduces days to regain birthweight and duration of supportive care each day compared to supportive care alone. There is low-certainty evidence that phenobarbital reduces treatment failure compared to diazepam and very low-certainty evidence that  phenobarbital reduces treatment failure compared to chlorpromazine. There is low-certainty evidence of an increase in days' hospitalisation and days' treatment with clonidine and opioid compared to phenobarbital and opioid. There are insufficient data to determine the safety and incidence of adverse events for infants treated with combinations of opioids and sedatives including phenobarbital and clonidine.

Drugs, Metabolites, and Lung Accumulating Small Lysosomotropic Molecules: Multiple Targeting Impedes SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Progress to COVID-19

Lysosomotropism is a biological characteristic of small molecules, independently present of their intrinsic pharmacological effects. Lysosomotropic compounds, in general, affect various targets, such as lipid second messengers originating from lysosomal enzymes promoting endothelial stress response in systemic inflammation; inflammatory messengers, such as IL-6; and cathepsin L-dependent viral entry into host cells. This heterogeneous group of drugs and active metabolites comprise various promising candidates with more favorable drug profiles than initially considered (hydroxy) chloroquine in prophylaxis and treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections/Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and cytokine release syndrome (CRS) triggered by bacterial or viral infections. In this hypothesis, we discuss the possible relationships among lysosomotropism, enrichment in lysosomes of pulmonary tissue, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and transition to COVID-19. Moreover, we deduce further suitable approved drugs and active metabolites based with a more favorable drug profile on rational eligibility criteria, including readily available over-the-counter (OTC) drugs. Benefits to patients already receiving lysosomotropic drugs for other pre-existing conditions underline their vital clinical relevance in the current SARS-CoV2/COVID-19 pandemic.

Comprehensive analysis of drugs to treat SARS‑CoV‑2 infection: Mechanistic insights into current COVID‑19 therapies (Review)

The major impact produced by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) focused many researchers attention to find treatments that can suppress transmission or ameliorate the disease. Despite the very fast and large flow of scientific data on possible treatment solutions, none have yet demonstrated unequivocal clinical utility against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19). This work represents an exhaustive and critical review of all available data on potential treatments for COVID‑19, highlighting their mechanistic characteristics and the strategy development rationale. Drug repurposing, also known as drug repositioning, and target based methods are the most used strategies to advance therapeutic solutions into clinical practice. Current in silico, in vitro and in vivo evidence regarding proposed treatments are summarized providing strong support for future research efforts.

Advances and challenges in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19

Since the end of 2019, a new type of coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been spreading rapidly throughout the world. Previously, there were two outbreaks of severe coronavirus caused by different coronaviruses worldwide, namely Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV). This article introduced the origin, virological characteristics and epidemiological overview of SARS-CoV-2, reviewed the currently known drugs that may prevent and treat coronavirus, explained the characteristics of the new coronavirus and provided novel information for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

Repurposing chlorpromazine to treat COVID-19: The reCoVery study

OBJECTIVES

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused approximately 2,350,000 infections worldwide and killed more than 160,000 individuals. In Sainte-Anne Hospital (GHU PARIS Psychiatrie & Neuroscience, Paris, France) we have observed a lower incidence of symptomatic forms of COVID-19 among patients than among our clinical staff. This observation led us to hypothesize that psychotropic drugs could have a prophylactic action against SARS-CoV-2 and protect patients from the symptomatic and virulent forms of this infection, since several of these psychotropic drugs have documented antiviral properties. Chlorpromazine (CPZ), a phenothiazine derivative, is also known for its antiviral activity via the inhibition of clathrin-mediated endocytosis. Recentin vitro studies have reported that CPZ exhibits anti-MERS-CoV and anti-SARS-CoV-1 activity.

METHODS

In this context, the ReCoVery study aims to repurpose CPZ, a molecule with an excellent tolerance profile and a very high biodistribution in the saliva, lungs and brain. We hypothesize that CPZ could reduce the unfavorable course of COVID-19 infection among patients requiring respiratory support without the need for ICU care, and that it could also reduce the contagiousness of SARS-CoV-2. For this purpose, we plan a pilot, multicenter, randomized, single blind, controlled, phase III therapeutic trial (standard treatment vs. CPZ+standard treatment).

CONCLUSION

This repurposing of CPZ for its anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity could offer an alternative, rapid strategy to alleviate infection severity. This repurposing strategy also avoids numerous developmental and experimental steps, and could save precious time to rapidly establish an anti-COVID-19 therapy with well-known, limited and easily managed side effects.

[Repurposing of chlorpromazine in COVID-19 treatment: the reCoVery study]

OBJECTIVES

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic comprises a total of more than 2,350,000 cases and 160,000 deaths. The interest in anti-coronavirus drug development has been limited so far and effective methods to prevent or treat coronavirus infections in humans are still lacking. Urgent action is needed to fight this fatal coronavirus infection by reducing the number of infected people along with the infection contagiousness and severity. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak several weeks ago, we observe in GHU PARIS Psychiatrie & Neurosciences (Sainte-Anne hospital, Paris, France) a lower prevalence of symptomatic and severe forms of COVID-19 infections in psychiatric patients (∼4%) compared to health care professionals (∼14%). Similar observations have been noted in other psychiatric units in France and abroad. Our hypothesis is that psychiatric patients could be protected from severe forms of COVID-19 by their psychotropic treatments. Chlorpromazine (CPZ) is a phenothiazine derivative widely used in clinical routine in the treatment of acute and chronic psychoses. This first antipsychotic medication has been discovered in 1952 by Jean Delay and Pierre Deniker at Sainte-Anne hospital. In addition, to its antipsychotic effects, several in vitro studies have also demonstrated a CPZ antiviral activity via the inhibition of clathrin-mediated endocytosis. Recently, independent studies revealed that CPZ is an anti-MERS-CoV and an anti-SARS-CoV-1 drug. In comparison to other antiviral drugs, the main advantages of CPZ lie in its biodistribution: (i) preclinical and clinical studies have reported a high CPZ concentration in the lungs (20-200 times higher than in plasma), which is critical because of the respiratory tropism of SARS-CoV-2; (ii) CPZ is highly concentrated in saliva (30-100 times higher than in plasma) and could therefore reduce the contagiousness of COVID-19; (iii) CPZ can cross the blood-brain barrier and could therefore prevent the neurological forms of COVID-19.

METHODS

Our hypothesis is that CPZ could decrease the unfavorable evolution of COVID-19 infection in oxygen-requiring patients without the need for intensive care, but also reduce the contagiousness of SARS-CoV-2. At this end, we designed a pilot, phase III, multicenter, single blind, randomized controlled clinical trial. Efficacy of CPZ will be assessed according to clinical, biological and radiological criteria. The main objective is to demonstrate a shorter time to response (TTR) to treatment in the CPZ+standard-of-care (CPZ+SOC) group, compared to the SOC group. Response to treatment is defined by a reduction of at least one level of severity on the WHO-Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement (WHO-OSCI). The secondary objectives are to demonstrate in the CPZ+SOC group, compared to the SOC group: (A) superior clinical improvement; (B) a greater decrease in the biological markers of viral attack by SARS-CoV-2 (PCR, viral load); (C) a greater decrease in inflammatory markers (e.g. CRP and lymphopenia); (D) a greater decrease in parenchymal involvement (chest CT) on the seventh day post-randomization; (E) to define the optimal dosage of CPZ and its tolerance; (F) to evaluate the biological parameters of response to treatment, in particular the involvement of inflammatory cytokines. Patient recruitment along with the main and secondary objectives are in line with WHO 2020 COVID-19 guidelines.

CONCLUSION

This repositioning of CPZ as an anti-SARS-CoV-2 drug offers an alternative and rapid strategy to alleviate the virus propagation and the infection severity and lethality. This CPZ repositioning strategy also avoids numerous developmental and experimental steps and can save precious time to rapidly establish an anti-COVID-19 therapy with well-known, limited and easy to manage side effects. Indeed, CPZ is an FDA-approved drug with an excellent tolerance profile, prescribed for around 70 years in psychiatry but also in clinical routine in nausea and vomiting of pregnancy, in advanced cancer and also to treat headaches in various neurological conditions. The broad spectrum of CPZ treatment - including antipsychotic, anxiolytic, antiemetic, antiviral, immunomodulatory effects along with inhibition of clathrin-mediated endocytosis and modulation of blood-brain barrier - is in line with the historical French commercial name for CPZ, i.e. LARGACTIL, chosen as a reference to its "LARGe ACTion" properties. The discovery of those CPZ properties, as for many other molecules in psychiatry, is both the result of serendipity and careful clinical observations. Using this approach, the field of mental illness could provide innovative therapeutic approaches to fight SARS-CoV-2.

Drug therapy for delirium in terminally ill adults

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a syndrome characterised by an acute disturbance of attention and awareness which develops over a short time period and fluctuates in severity over the course of the day. It is commonly experienced during inpatient admission in the terminal phase of illness. It can cause symptoms such as agitation and hallucinations and is distressing for terminally ill people, their families and staff. Delirium may arise from any number of causes and treatment should aim to address these causes. When this is not possible, or treatment is unsuccessful, drug therapy to manage the symptoms may become necessary. This is the second update of the review first published in 2004.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of drug therapies to manage delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to July 2019, reference lists of retrieved papers, and online trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of drug therapies in any dose by any route, compared to another drug therapy, a non-pharmacological approach, placebo, standard care or wait-list control, for the management of delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults (18 years or older).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were delirium symptoms; agitation score; adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: use of rescue medication; cognitive status; survival. We applied the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome and we include eight 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies (three new to this update), with 399 participants. Most participants had advanced cancer or advanced AIDS, and mild- to moderate-severity delirium. Meta-analysis was not possible because no two studies examined the same comparison. Each study was at high risk of bias for at least one criterion. Most evidence was low to very low quality, downgraded due to very serious study limitations, imprecision or because there were so few data. Most studies reported delirium symptoms; two reported agitation scores; three reported adverse events with data on extrapyramidal effects; and none reported serious adverse events. 1. Haloperidol versus placebo There may be little to no difference between placebo and haloperidol in delirium symptoms within 24 hours (mean difference (MD) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to 0.75; 133 participants). Haloperidol may slightly worsen delirium symptoms compared with placebo at 48 hours (MD 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.88; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Haloperidol may reduce agitation slightly compared with placebo between 24 and 48 hours (MD -0.14, 95% -0.28 to -0.00; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Haloperidol probably increases extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with placebo (MD 0.79, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.41; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). 2. Haloperidol versus risperidone There may be little to no difference in delirium symptoms with haloperidol compared with risperidone within 24 hours (MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.90 to 0.06; 126 participants) or 48 hours (MD -0.36, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.20; 106 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Agitation scores and adverse events were not reported for this comparison. 3. Haloperidol versus olanzapine We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with olanzapine within 24 hours (MD 2.36, 95% CI -0.75 to 5.47; 28 participants) or 48 hours (MD 1.90, 95% CI -1.50 to 5.30, 24 participants). Agitation scores and adverse events were not reported for this comparison. 4. Risperidone versus placebo Risperidone may slightly worsen delirium symptoms compared with placebo within 24 hours (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.22; 129 participants); and at 48 hours (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.38; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). There may be little to no difference in agitation with risperidone compared with placebo between 24 and 48 hours (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.09; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Risperidone may increase extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with placebo (MD 0.73 95% CI 0.09 to 1.37; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). 5. Lorazepam plus haloperidol versus placebo plus haloperidol We are uncertain whether lorazepam plus haloperidol compared with placebo plus haloperidol improves delirium symptoms within 24 hours (MD 2.10, 95% CI -1.00 to 5.20; 50 participants with moderate to severe delirium), reduces agitation within 24 hours (MD 1.90, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.80; 52 participants), or increases adverse events (RR 0.70, 95% CI -0.19 to 2.63; 31 participants with moderate to severe delirium). 6. Haloperidol versus chlorpromazine We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with chlorpromazine at 48 hours (MD 0.37, 95% CI -4.58 to 5.32; 24 participants). Agitation scores were not reported. We are uncertain whether haloperidol increases adverse events compared with chlorpromazine (MD 0.46, 95% CI -4.22 to 5.14; 24 participants). 7. Haloperidol versus lorazepam We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with lorazepam at 48 hours (MD -4.88, 95% CI -9.70 to 0.06; 17 participants). Agitation scores were not reported. We are uncertain whether haloperidol increases adverse events compared with lorazepam (MD -6.66, 95% CI -14.85 to 1.53; 17 participants). 8. Lorazepam versus chlorpromazine We are uncertain whether lorazepam reduces delirium symptoms compared with chlorpromazine at 48 hours (MD 5.25, 95% CI 0.38 to 10.12; 19 participants), or increases adverse events (MD 7.12, 95% CI 1.08 to 15.32; 18 participants). Agitation scores were not reported.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

use of rescue medication, cognitive impairment, survival There were insufficient data to draw conclusions or assess GRADE.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of drug therapy for delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults. We found low-quality evidence that risperidone or haloperidol may slightly worsen delirium symptoms of mild to moderate severity for terminally ill people compared with placebo. We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that haloperidol and risperidone may slightly increase extrapyramidal adverse events for people with mild- to moderate-severity delirium. Given the small number of studies and participants on which current evidence is based, further research is essential.

The Psychopharmacological Revolution in the USSR: Schizophrenia Treatment and the Thaw in Soviet Psychiatry, 1954-64

Twentieth-century psychiatry was transformed in the 1950s and 1960s by the introduction of powerful psychopharmaceuticals, particularly Chlorpromazine (Thorazine). This paper examines the reception of Chlorpromazine in the Soviet Union and its effect on the Soviet practice of psychiatry. The drug, known in the USSR by the name Aminazine, was first used in Moscow in 1954 and was officially approved in 1955. I argue that Soviet psychiatrists initially embraced it because Aminazine enabled them to successfully challenge the Stalin-era dogma in their field (Ivan Pavlov's 'theory of higher nervous activity'). Unlike in the West, however, the new psychopharmaceuticals did not lead to deinstitutionalisation. I argue that the new drugs did not disrupt the existing Soviet system because, unlike the system in the West, the Soviets were already dedicated, at least in theory, to a model which paired psychiatric hospitals with community-based 'neuropsychiatric dispensaries.' Chlorpromazine gave this system a new lease on life, encouraging Soviet psychiatrists to more rapidly move patients from in-patient treatment to 'supporting' treatment in the community.

Self-Nanoemulsifying Drug Delivery System (SNEDDS) for Improved Oral Bioavailability of Chlorpromazine: In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation

Background and Objectives: Lipid-based self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery systems (SNEDDS) have resurged the eminence of nanoemulsions by modest adjustments and offer many valuable opportunities in drug delivery. Chlorpromazine, an antipsychotic agent with poor aqueous solubility-with extensive first-pass metabolism-can be a suitable candidate for the development of SNEDDS. The current study was designed to develop triglyceride-based SNEDDS of chlorpromazine to achieve improved solubility, stability, and oral bioavailability. Materials and Methods: Fifteen SNEDDS formulations of each short, medium, and long chain, triglycerides were synthesized and characterized to achieve optimized formulation. The optimized formulation was characterized for several in vitro and in vivo parameters. Results: Particle size, zeta potential, and drug loading of the optimized SNEDDS (LCT14) were found to be 178 ± 16, -21.4, and 85.5%, respectively. Long chain triglyceride (LCT14) showed a 1.5-fold increased elimination half-life (p < 0.01), up to 6-fold increased oral bioavailability, and 1.7-fold decreased plasma clearance rate (p < 0.01) compared to a drug suspension. Conclusion: The findings suggest that SNEDDS based on long-chain triglycerides (LCT14) formulations seem to be a promising alternative for improving the oral bioavailability of chlorpromazine.

Tardive Dyskinesia: New Treatments Available

Tardive dyskinesia (TD), the choreoathetoid movements of fingers, arms, legs, and trunk and irregular stereotypical movements of the mouth, face, and tongue, has been the scourge of antipsychotic medications since the approval of chlorpromazine. TD tends to occur late in treatment and sometimes remains after discontinuation of the antipsychotic medication. With the recent approval of two medications, valbenazine (Ingrezza^®) and deutetrabenazine (Austedo^®), there are now treatments for this disfiguring consequence of dopamine-blocking medications. The current article distinguishes the movement disorder adverse effects of dopamine antagonists, explains the putative mechanism of action, and describes how best to treat TD with the new vesicular monamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) medications now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. [Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 57(5), 11-14.].

Chlorpromazine versus piperacetazine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a severe mental disorder with a prevalence of about 1% among the general population. It is listed among the top 10 causes of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) worldwide. Antipsychotics are the mainstay treatment. Piperacetazine has been reported to be as clinically effective as chlorpromazine, a well established 'benchmark' antipsychotic, for people with schizophrenia. However, the side effect profiles of these antipsychotics differ and it is important that an evidence base is available comparing the benefits, and potential harms of these two antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical and side effects of chlorpromazine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses in comparison with piperacetazine.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (6 June 2015 and 8 October 2018) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, CENTRAL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on chlorpromazine versus piperacetazine for people with schizophrenia, reporting useable data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 12 records referring to six trials. We included five trials, all from the 1970s, randomising 343 participants. We excluded one trial. The overall methodology and data reporting by the trials was poor. Only short-term data were available.Results from the included trials found that, in terms of global state improvement, when rated by a psychiatrist, there was no clear difference between chlorpromazine and piperacetazine (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; participants = 208; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence). One trial reported change scores on the mental state scale Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS); no clear difference was observed (MD -0.40, 95% CI -1.41 to 0.61; participants = 182; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). Chlorpromazine appears no worse or better than piperacetazine regarding adverse effects. In both treatment groups, around 60% of participants experienced some sort of adverse effect (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.33; participants = 74; studies = 3; very low-quality evidence), with approximately 40% of these participants experiencing some parkinsonism-type movement disorder (RR 0.95, CI 0.61 to 1.49; participants = 106; studies = 3; very low-quality evidence). No clear difference in numbers of participants leaving the study early for any reason was observed (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.56; participants = 256; studies = 4; very low-quality evidence). No trial reported data for change in negative symptoms or economic costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review show chlorpromazine and piperacetazine may have similar clinical efficacy, but data are based on very small numbers of participants and the evidence is very low quality. We can not make firm conclusions based on such data. Currently, should clinicians and people with schizophrenia need to choose between chlorpromazine and piperacetazine they should be aware there is no good quality evidence to base decisions. More high quality research is needed.

Identifying improvable employment-related factors in schizophrenia patients

Although many studies report various factors related to future employment of schizophrenia patients, few identify the treatable or improvable ones. The responses to the first year of treatment and daily antipsychotic drug doses may be the treatable and improvable factors. We surveyed 235 schizophrenia outpatients in three facilities, of whom 129 and 106 were employed and unemployed, respectively. Through face-to-face interviews and medical record reviews, we investigated symptomatic and social functioning responses to the first year of treatment using the Global Assessment of Psychopathology Scale (GAPS) and the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS). We investigated daily antipsychotic drug doses and other clinical assessments at the interview time. Finally, we used multivariable logistic regression analysis. SOFAS-measured improvements in the period 6 to 12 months after beginning treatment and daily antipsychotic drug doses equivalent to less than 600 mg of chlorpromazine were identified as an employment-related factor, but GAPS-measure improvements were not. Social functioning improvements in the period 6 to 12 months after beginning treatment and low-to-moderate daily antipsychotic drug doses were detected as employment-related factors, suggesting that early efforts to improve social functioning and optimize antipsychotic drug doses could lead to future employment for schizophrenia patients.

Critical Study of the Organic Integrity Test as a Diagnostic and Therapeutic Index in Schizophrenia1

The Organic Integrity Test (OIT) was repeatedly administered in conjunction with other clinical measures to 18 hospitalized schizophrenics over a 20-wk. period, during which patients were treated with neuroleptics. The results showed inadequacies with regard to reliability and stability of the OIT. There was no evidence to indicate that the test is valid for detecting and evaluating schizophrenic psychopathology or for monitoring clinical changes during the course of treatment. Problems with the theoretical and empirical validity of the OIT and shortcomings in the test design were cited in explanation of the findings.

Cancer Therapy: Phenothiazines in an Unexpected Role

Four lines of evidence (clinical findings, epidemiology, inhibition of tumor growth together with prolongation of survival time, and mechanism of action) which suggest that certain phenothiazines, particularly chlorpromazine, possess a range of anti-neoplastic activities in man and in rodents which has not been generally recognised are reviewed and discussed. Chlorpromazine interferes with energy production in sensitive tumours; the mode of action appears to correspond to autooxidative cellular injury, a common form of cell death.

Methylene Blue: The Long and Winding Road From Stain to Brain: Part 2

Methylene blue was the first synthetic drug ever used in medicine, having been used to treat clinical pain syndromes, malaria, and psychotic disorders more than one century ago. Methylene blue is a cationic thiazine dye with redox-cycling properties and a selective affinity for the nervous system. This drug also inhibits the activity of monoamine oxidase, nitric oxide synthase, and guanylyl cyclase, as well as tau protein aggregation; increases the release of neurotransmitters, such as serotonin and norepinephrine; reduces amyloid-beta levels; and increases cholinergic transmission. The action of methylene blue on multiple cellular and molecular targets justifies its investigation in various neuropsychiatric disorders. Investigations of methylene blue were instrumental in the serendipitous development of phenothiazine antipsychotic drugs. Although chlorpromazine is heralded as the first antipsychotic drug used in psychiatry, methylene blue is a phenothiazine drug that had been used to treat psychotic patients half a century earlier. It has also been studied in bipolar disorder and deserves further investigation for the treatment of unipolar and bipolar disorders. More recently, methylene blue has been the subject of preclinical and clinical investigations for cognitive dysfunction, dementia, and other neurodegenerative disorders. [Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 54(10), 21-26.].

A Controlled Study of the Prognostic Significance of Autonomic Responses in the Chlorpromazine Treatment of Disturbed Psychotic Patients

Despite the widespread use of chlorpromazine in psychiatric treatment during recent years and the voluminous literature on its use, there is still considerable difficulty in forecasting which patients are likely to benefit.

Investigation of a New Compound, B.W.203, and of Chlorpromazine in the Treatment of Psychosis

The discovery of chlorpromazine in the Rhône-Poulenc-Spécia laboratories in France, and the subsequent early clinical studies which were carried out in that country, for example in 1952 by Hamon et al. (5) and in 1953 by Delay and Deniker (1), eventually resulted in the enthusiastic and widespread application of this compound in the field of clinical psychiatry. Chemists and pharmacologists, in many countries, have been actively engaged during the ensuing years in the search for new compounds which might prove to be more potent therapeutic agents than chlorpromazine in the treatment of mental illness. One of the tangible manifestations of their labours is the present crop of “tranquillizers” which are being extensively used in the treatment of neurosis and psychosis. Whereas opinion may be divided with regard to the real or specific value of any one of these new drugs, few would disagree with the contention that none of them is ideal. Despite the considerable number and variety of phenothiazine derivatives and other new substances which have been developed as a result of extensive research, chlorpromazine has retained much of its original therapeutic reputation, in open competition with its rivals, down the years, and is still probably the most widely used tranquillizer today. This would seem to imply that no outstanding advance has been made since the early days of the new biochemical era in psychiatry. Valuable knowledge may have been obtained as a result of the application of scientific theory and empirical methods in this field, but in terms of effective therapeutic agents the results have been meagre, with the accent on quantity rather than quality. Nevertheless, a continued search is justifiable, and any new compound which holds forth promise must be put to a clinical test if final success is to be assured and if valuable therapeutic potential is not to be summarily dismissed or heedlessly cast aside.

The Relative Efficacy of “Vespral” and Chlorpromazine in the Treatment of a Group of Chronic Schizophrenic Patients

Vespral, or triflupromazine Squibb, is a new phenothiazine derivative. Chemically the compound is 10-(3-dimethylaminopropyl)-2-(trifluoro methyl) phenothiazine hydrochloride. Its structural formula compares with that of chlorpromazine as follows:

Until recently “Vespral” has been available in this country only for clinical trials, but its supposed therapeutic effects have been investigated fairly extensively in the United States and Canada (Goldman; Gallagher and Pfeiffer; Niswander, Lind and Schlesinger; Freed; Azima; Pennington; Saunders; Freyhan; Cahn and Levy).

A Double-Blind Controlled Comparison of the Effects of Chlorpromazine, Barbiturate and a Placebo in 142 Chronic Psychotic In-Patients

Since the original article by Elkes and Elkes (1954) numerous reports have been published in the world literature on the use of chlorpromazine in chronic psychotic in-patients. The majority of these studies indicate that the drug is indeed effective in improving the behaviour of these patients; a small minority of authors is more sceptical including Mitchell (1956) using doses up to 300 mg. daily, Sarwer-Foner and Ogle (1956) with doses of 150–400 mg. daily, and Trelles and Saavedra (1954) using sleep treatment. The literature contains numerous reports of controlled and uncontrolled studies on chlorpromazine and comparisons of its effects with those of a placebo, Reserpine, Azacyclonal, etc.; attention is now turning to the effects of such drugs in various combinations.

A Controlled Comparative Investigation of the Effects of Promazine, Chlorpromazine, and a Placebo in Chronic Psychosis

Tranquillizing drugs have become widely accepted as a major form of treatment in psychiatry. However, reports in the literature on these drugs have frequently been conflicting, with a marked tendency for the results of uncontrolled studies to be much more favourable than those obtained in studies where some method of control has been adopted. Sargant (1956) has emphasized many of the social, economic, and moral implications inherent in the extravagant and indiscriminate use of tranquillizers in general and has stressed the need for the proper evaluation of their therapeutic effects. In view of this need, we undertook a controlled comparative study of the effects of two of the phenothiazine compounds, promazine (“Sparine”) and chlorpromazine (“Largactil”), in the treatment of chronic psychosis.

Observations on the Effect of Largactil in Psychiatric Illness

Largactil is one of the phenothiazine group of compounds. It is, therefore, related to promethazine (phenergan) and diethazine (diparcol). It is also known as R.P. 4560 and chlorpromazine. It has been used on the Continent in psychiatric cases since 1951, because of the relaxation and calm it produces. It has been on trial at Netherne Hospital since 1953 and 80 patients have received this treatment.

A Comparison of the Psychological Effects of Acute and Chronic Administration of Chlorpromazine and Secobarbital (Quinalbarbitone) in Schizophrenic Patients

In two previous studies (3 and 4) certain psychological effects of single doses of chlorpromazine and secobarbital (quinalbarbitone) were studied in young normal subjects. It was found that 100 and 200 mg. of chlorpromazine had a greater effect on tests of motor co-ordination than did 100 and 200 mg. of secobarbital, respectively, and that 200 mg. of secobarbital had a greater effect on a test related to intellectual functioning than did 200 mg. of chlorpromazine. The results in our study of the effects of single doses of chlorpromazine differed from the results of studies of the effects of chronic administration of chlorpromazine by Lehmann and Hanrahan (5) and Shaten et al. (7). These investigators found that chronic administration of chlorpromazine to schizophrenic patients was followed by improvement or only slight impairment in performance on most of the psychological tests used. The differences between the results we have obtained following administration of single doses of chlorpromazine to normal subjects, and the results of Lehmann and Hanrahan and Shaten et al. could be attributed either to differences between the effects of chronic and acute administration of chlorpromazine or to differences in the response between normal subjects and schizophrenic patients.

The relationship between moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and executive function among individuals with schizophrenia: differences by illness duration

OBJECTIVE

Schizophrenia is a chronic mental illness characterized by positive and negative symptoms. Cognitive impairment continues to be a core and consistent deficit. Previous studies have shown that physical activity (PA) is positively associated with cognitive performance. Thus, it may play a supportive role in mitigating cognitive impairments among individuals with schizophrenia. The aim of this study was to analyze the relationship between moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and executive function among adults with schizophrenia.

METHODS

The weekly amount of MVPA (assessed using accelerometers) and executive function (as per Brief Neurocognitive Assessment for Schizophrenia) of 78 adults with schizophrenia (mean [SD] age 42.4 [11.4] years; illness duration 17.0 [11.0] years; 58.2% male) were assessed in this cross-sectional study. Pearson correlations were calculated, followed by a linear regression. Participants were first analyzed together and then dichotomized on the basis of illness duration.

RESULTS

There was no significant association between MVPA and executive function, independent of the duration of illness. For individuals with < 15 years of illness, there was a significant association between weekly MVPA and working memory performance.

CONCLUSION

PA appears to be associated with executive function in some, but not all, individuals with schizophrenia.

Chlorpromazine versus penfluridol for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of chlorpromazine, a benchmark antipsychotic, has not been fully assessed in direct comparison with different individual antipsychotics. Penfluridol is another old antipsychotic with a long half-life so one oral dose may last up to one week. This could confer advantage.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effects of chlorpromazine compared with penfluridol for adults with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

On 31 March 2017, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials focusing on chlorpromazine versus penfluridol for adults with schizophrenia or related disorders. Outcomes of interest were death, service utilisation, global state, mental state, adverse effects and leaving the study early. We included trials meeting our selection criteria and reporting useable data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we planned to estimate the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes three studies with a total of 130 participants. Short-term results for hospital admissions showed no clear difference between chlorpromazine and penfluridol (1 RCT, n = 29, RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.60, low-quality evidence). No clear difference in the incidence of akathisia was found at medium term (2 RCTs, n = 85, RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.06, low-quality evidence), and similar numbers of participants - nearly half - from each treatment group left the study early (3 RCTs, n = 130, RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.77, low-quality evidence). The risk of needing additional antiparkinsonian medication was less in the chlorpromazine group (2 RCTs, n = 74, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.95). No useable data reported clinically important change in global or mental state. No data were reported for relapse. No deaths were reported by the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only three small studies provided data and the quality of reporting and evidence is low. Limited data indicate the efficacy and adverse effects profiles of chlorpromazine and penfluridol are generally similar. Penfluridol, however, may confer advantage by needing to be given only once per week. Firm conclusions are not possible without good-quality trials, and where these treatments are used, such trials are justified.

Corticosteroids for adult patients with advanced cancer who have nausea and vomiting (not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery)

BACKGROUND

Nausea is a common symptom in advanced cancer, with a prevalence of up to 70%. While nausea and vomiting can be related to cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery, a significant number of people with advanced cancer also suffer from nausea unrelated to such therapies. Nausea and vomiting may also cause psychological distress, and have a negative impact on the quality of life of cancer patients; similarly to pain, nausea is often under-treated. The exact mechanism of action of corticosteroids on nausea is unclear, however, they are used to manage a number of cancer-specific complications, including spinal cord compression, raised intracranial pressure, and lymphangitis carcinomatosis. They are also commonly used in palliative care for a wide variety of non-specific indications, such as pain, nausea, anorexia, fatigue, and low mood. However, there is little objective evidence of their efficacy in symptom control, and corticosteroids have a wide range of adverse effects that are dose and time dependent. In view of their widespread use, it is important to seek evidence of their effects on nausea and vomiting not related to cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of corticosteroids on nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in adult cancer patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL EBSCO, Science Citation Index Web of Science, Latin America and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science Web of Science, and clinical trial registries, from inception to 23rd August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any double-blind randomised or prospective controlled trial that included adults aged 18 years and over with advanced cancer with nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery were eligible for the review, when using corticosteroids as antiemetic treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used arithmetic means and standard deviations for each outcome to report the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies met the inclusion criteria, enrolling 451 participants. The trial size varied from 51 to 280 participants. Two studies compared dexamethasone to placebo, and the third study compared a number of additional interventions in various combinations, including metoclopramide, chlorpromazine, tropisetron, and dexamethasone. The duration of the studies ranged from seven to 14 days. We included two studies (127 participants) with data at eight days in the meta-analysis for nausea intensity; no data were available that incorporated the same outcome measures for the third study. Corticosteroid therapy with dexamethasone resulted in less nausea (measured on a scale of 0 to 10, with a lower score indicating less nausea) compared to placebo at eight days (MD 0.48 lower nausea, 95% CI 1.53 lower to 0.57 higher; very low-quality evidence), although this result was not statistically significant (P = 0.37). Frequency of adverse events was not significantly different between groups, and the interventions were well tolerated. Factors limiting statistical analysis included the lack of standardised measurements of nausea, and the use of different agents, dosages, and comparisons. Subgroup analysis according to type of cancer was not possible due to insufficient data. The quality of this evidence was downgraded by three levels, from high to very low due to imprecision, likely selection bias, attrition bias, and the small number of participants in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are few studies assessing the effects of corticosteroids on nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in adult cancer patients. This review found very low-quality evidence which neither supported nor refuted corticosteroid use in this setting. Further high quality studies are needed to determine if corticosteroids are efficacious in this setting.

Wendan decoction (Traditional Chinese medicine) for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Wendan decoction (WDD) is one of the classical Chinese herb formulas used for psychotic symptoms. It is thought to be safe, accessible and inexpensive.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of WDD for treatment of people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illness compared with placebo, antipsychotic drugs and other interventions for outcomes of clinical importance.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (February 2016), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, China biomedical databases group (SinoMed, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang) and clinical trials registries. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. We also inspected references of identified studies and contacted relevant authors for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials with useable data comparing WDD with antipsychotics, placebo or other interventions for people with schizophrenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated mean differences (MD) between groups and their 95% CIs. We employed a random-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 randomised trials (1437 participants) of WDD for schizophrenia. There was a high risk of performance bias within the trials but overall, risk for selection, attrition and reporting bias was low or unclear.Data showed WDD improved the short-term global state of participants compared with placebo or no treatment (1 RCT n = 72, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.73, low-quality evidence).When WDD was compared with antipsychotic drugs, such as chlorpromazine or risperidone, no difference in short-term global state of participants was observed (2 RCTs n = 140, RR 1.18 95% CI 0.98 to 1.43, moderate-quality evidence) and mental state (total endpoint Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS): 2 RCTs, n = 140, MD 0.84, 95% CI -4.17 to 5.84, low-quality evidence). However, WDD was associated with fewer people experiencing extrapyramidal effects (EPS) compared with other treatments (2 RCTs 0/70 versus 47/70, n = 140, RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.15, moderate-quality evidence).WDD is often used as an add-on intervention alongside antipsychotics. When WDD + antipsychotic was compared to antipsychotic alone, the combination group had better global state (short-term results, 6 RCTs, n = 684, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.72, moderate-quality evidence) and mental state (short-term total endpoint PANSS: 5 RCTs, n = 580, MD -11.64, 95% CI -13.33 to - 9.94, low-quality evidence), fewer people with EPS (2 RCTs n = 308, RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.70, moderate-quality evidence) and reduction of the mean use of risperidone (1 RCT n = 107, MD -0.70, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.53, low-quality evidence). But, there was no effect on weight gain (1 RCT n = 108, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.24, low-quality evidence).When WDD + low-dose antipsychotic was compared with normal-dose antipsychotic alone, the combination again showed benefits for short-term global state (7 RCTs n = 522, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.93, moderate-quality evidence), mental state (total endpoint PANSS: 4 RCTs n = 250, MD -9.53, 95% CI -17.82 to -1.24, low-quality evidence), and fewer participants with EPS (3 RCTS n = 280, RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.51, moderate-quality evidence).Across all comparisons, we found no data on outcomes directly reporting quality of life, hospital service use and economics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence suggests that WDD may have some positive short-term antipsychotic global effects compared to placebo or no treatment. However when WDD was compared with other antipsychotics there was no effect on global or mental state, but WDD was associated with fewer adverse effects. When WDD was combined with an antipsychotic, positive effects were found for global and mental state and the combination caused fewer adverse effects. The available evidence is not high quality. Better designed large studies are needed to fully and fairly test the effects of WDD for people with schizophrenia.

Antipsychotic treatment and the Rorschach Perceptual Thinking Index (PTI) in psychotic disorder patients: Effects of treatment

The Rorschach-based Perceptual Thinking Index (PTI) is used to identify and rate features of psychotic disorders, but effects of antipsychotic treatment on such ratings is not clear. Accordingly, we examined potential effects of antipsychotic drugs on PTI measures in 114 patients with a psychotic or bipolar-I disorder. Use and doses of antipsychotic drugs (as chlorpromazine-equivalent [CPZ-eq] mg/day) were unrelated to PTI total or subscale scores in any diagnostic group. PTI scores were independently and significantly associated with psychotic symptomatic severity (PANSS score) and less with female sex. These findings support the validity and value of the PTI in identifying features of psychosis even in the presence of antipsychotic treatment.

Chlorpromazine versus clotiapine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a chronic, disabling and severe mental disorder, characterised by disturbance in perception, thought, language, affect and motor behaviour. Chlorpromazine and clotiapine are among antipsychotic drugs used for the treatment of people with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effects, safety and cost-effectiveness of chlorpromazine compared with clotiapine for adults with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's Trials Register (last update search 16/01/2016), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and clinical trials registries. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the Register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised clinical trials focusing on chlorpromazine versus clotiapine for schizophrenia. We included trials meeting our selection criteria and reporting useable data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included four studies, published between 1974 and 2003, randomising 276 people with schizophrenia to receive either chlorpromazine or clotiapine. The studies were poor at concealing allocation of treatment and blinding of outcome assessment. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in global and mental state, specific change in negative symptoms, incidence of movement disorder (dyskinesia), leaving the study early for any reason, and costs. All reported data were short-term (under six months' follow-up).The trials did not report data for the important outcomes of clinically important change in global or mental state, or cost of care. Improvement in mental state was reported using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). When chlorpromazine was compared with clotiapine the average improvement scores for mental state using the PANSS total was higher in the clotiapine group (1 RCT, N = 31, MD 11.50 95% CI 9.42 to 13.58, very low-quality evidence). The average change scores on the PANSS negative sub-scale were similar between treatment groups (1 RCT, N = 21, MD -0.97 95% CI -2.76 to 0.82, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in incidence of dyskinesia (1 RCT, N = 68, RR 3.00 95% CI 0.13 to 71.15, very low-quality evidence). Similar numbers of participants left the study early from each treatment group (3 RCTs, N = 158, RR 0.68 95% CI 0.24 to 1.88, very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Clinically important changes in global and mental state were not reported. Only one trial reported the average change in overall mental state; results favour clotiapine but these limited data are very difficult to trust due to methodological limitations of the study. The comparative effectiveness of chlorpromazine compared to clotiapine on change in global state remains unanswered. Results in this review suggest chlorpromazine and clotiapine cause similar adverse effects, although again, the quality of evidence for this is poor, making firm conclusions difficult.

Chlorpromazine versus metiapine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Chlorpromazine, a widely available and inexpensive antipsychotic drug, is considered the benchmark treatment for schizophrenia worldwide. Metiapine, a dibenzothiazepine derivative, has been reported to have potent antipsychotic characteristics. However, no evidence currently exists on the effectiveness of chlorpromazine in treatment of people with schizophrenia compared to metiapine, a newer antipsychotic.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of chlorpromazine versus metiapine for the treatment of people with schizophrenia SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials in November 2015 and 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on chlorpromazine versus metiapine for adults with schizophrenia. We included trials meeting our selection criteria and reporting useable data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies randomising 161 people with schizophrenia. Data were available for only two of our seven prestated main outcomes. Clinically important improvement in global state was measured using the Clinical Global Impression (CGI). There was no clear difference between chlorpromazine and metiapine groups (2 RCTs, n = 120, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.47, very low quality evidence) and numbers of participants with parkinsonism at eight weeks were similar (2 RCTs, n = 70, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.03, very low quality evidence). There were no useable data available for the other key outcomes of clinically important improvement in mental state, readmission due to relapse, satisfaction with treatment, aggressive or violent behaviour, or cost of care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Chlorpromazine has been the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia for decades, yet available evidence comparing this drug to metiapine fails to provide high-quality trial based data. However, the need to determine whether metiapine is more or less effective than chlorpromazine seems to be lacking in clinical relevance and future research on this comparison seems unlikely.

Chlorpromazine versus reserpine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

In the 1940s reserpine, refined from a plant extract that had been used for centuries, began to be used as a treatment for people with mental disorders and was one of the very first antipsychotic drugs. Its irreversible pharmacological potency and adverse effects meant that it has been withdrawn in the UK and its role has been superceded by 'newer' compounds. The effects of reserpine are of historical interest although there are some reports of it still being used in highly specialist situations in psychiatry. Chlorpromazine is also an old drug but it is still used for treatment of people with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of two old medications (reserpine and chlorpromazine) for people with schizophrenia. Reserpine is now rarely used while chlorpromazine remains on the essential list of drugs of the World Health Organization (WHO).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (24 March 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials focusing on chlorpromazine versus reserpine for schizophrenia that presented useable data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes nine studies with an average 60 participants per study. All of these studies are now over 60 years old, conducted between 1955 and 1962. When chlorpromazine was compared with reserpine for people with schizophrenia, improvement in global state was better at short term for those receiving chlorpromazine (n = 781, 6 RCTs, RR 'not improved' 0.75 95% CI 0.62 to 0.92, low-quality evidence). Short-term improvement in paranoid distortion was measured using the Multidimensional Scale for Rating Psychiatric Patients (MSRPP). Data showed no clear difference between treatment groups (n = 19, 1 RCT, RR 1.33 95% CI 0.62 to 2.89, very low-quality evidence). There was no difference in functioning: occupational adjustment, medium term (n = 40, 1 RCT, RR 0.83 95% CI 0.47 to 1.47, moderate-quality evidence) and general behaviour (n = 98, 1 RCT, RR 0.79 CI 0.41 to 1.53, moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events were poorly reported. For 'toxic reaction' there was, again, no obvious difference between the two compounds (n = 210, 3 RCTs, RR 1.68 95% CI 0.43 to 6.54, moderate-quality evidence), and this also applied to leaving the study early (n = 229, 4 RCTs, RR 1.16 95% CI 0.94 to 1.42, moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Judged by standards of today, the evidence is largely of limited quality. However, some of these 1950s studies are remarkable in their foresight and clarity. Reserpine did have some effect on global state - but chlorpromazine did seem to perform better. Important issues regarding adverse effects were not really addressed by these trials. Chlorpromazine remains on the WHO list of essential drugs. Reserpine is now almost obsolete, although, probably as a result of evidence other than that reported in the pioneering trials used in this review.

Chlorpromazine versus atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Chlorpromazine is an aliphatic phenothiazine, which is one of the widely-used typical antipsychotic drugs. Chlorpromazine is reliable for its efficacy and one of the most tested first generation antipsychotic drugs. It has been used as a 'gold standard' to compare the efficacy of older and newer antipsychotic drugs. Expensive new generation drugs are heavily marketed worldwide as a better treatment for schizophrenia, but this may not be the case and an unnecessary drain on very limited resources.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of chlorpromazine with atypical or second generation antipsychotic drugs, for the treatment of people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register up to 23 September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared chlorpromazine with any other atypical antipsychotic drugs for treating people with schizophrenia. Adults (as defined in each trial) diagnosed with schizophrenia, including schizophreniform, schizoaffective and delusional disorders were included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently screened the articles identified in the literature search against the inclusion criteria and extracted data from included trials. For homogeneous dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, we determined the mean difference (MD) values and 95% CIs. We assessed the risk of bias in included studies and rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 71 studies comparing chlorpromazine to olanzapine, risperidone or quetiapine. None of the included trials reported any data on economic costs. 1. Chlorpromazine versus olanzapineIn the short term, there appeared to be a significantly greater clinical response (as defined in each study) in people receiving olanzapine (3 RCTs, N = 204; RR 2.34, 95% CI 1.37 to 3.99, low quality evidence). There was no difference between drugs for relapse (1 RCT, N = 70; RR 1.5, 95% CI 0.46 to 4.86, very low quality evidence), nor in average endpoint score using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) for mental state (4 RCTs, N = 245; MD 3.21, 95% CI -0.62 to 7.05,very low quality evidence). There were significantly more extrapyramidal symptoms experienced amongst people receiving chlorpromazine (2 RCTs, N = 298; RR 34.47, 95% CI 4.79 to 248.30,very low quality evidence). Quality of life ratings using the general quality of life interview (GQOLI) - physical health subscale were more favourable with people receiving olanzapine (1 RCT, N = 61; MD -10.10, 95% CI -13.93 to -6.27, very low quality evidence). There was no difference between groups for people leaving the studies early (3 RCTs, N = 139; RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.45 to 6.40, very low quality evidence). 2. Chlorpromazine versus risperidoneIn the short term, there appeared to be no difference in clinical response (as defined in each study) between chlorpromazine or risperidone (7 RCTs, N = 475; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.34, low quality of evidence), nor in average endpoint score using the BPRS for mental state 4 RCTs, N = 247; MD 0.90, 95% CI -3.49 to 5.28, very low quality evidence), or any observed extrapyramidal adverse effects (3 RCTs, N = 235; RR 1.7, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.40,very low quality evidence). Quality of life ratings using the QOL scale were significantly more favourable with people receiving risperidone (1 RCT, N = 100; MD -14.2, 95% CI -20.50 to -7.90, very low quality evidence). There was no difference between groups for people leaving the studies early (one RCT, N = 41; RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.11, very low quality evidence). 3. Chlorpromazine versus quetiapineIn the short term, there appeared to be no difference in clinical response (as defined in each study) between chlorpromazine or quetiapine (28 RCTs, N = 3241; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06, moderate quality evidence) nor in average endpoint score using the BPRS for mental state (6 RCTs, N = 548; MD -0.18, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.88, very low quality evidence). Quality of life ratings using the GQOL1-74 scale were significantly more favourable with people receiving quetiapine (1 RCT, N = 59; MD -6.49, 95% CI -11.30 to -1.68, very low quality evidence). Significantly more people receiving chlorpromazine experienced extrapyramidal adverse effects (8 RCTs, N = 644; RR 8.03, 95% CI 4.78 to 13.51, low quality of evidence). There was no difference between groups for people leaving the studies early in the short term (12 RCTs, N = 1223; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.41,moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most included trials included inpatients from hospitals in China. Therefore the results of this Cochrane review are more applicable to the Chinese population. Mostincluded trials were short term studies, therefore we cannot comment on the medium and long term use of chlorpromazine compared to atypical antipsychotics. Low qualityy evidence suggests chlorpromazine causes more extrapyramidal adverse effects. However, all studiesused varying dose ranges, and higher doses would be expected to be associated with more adverse events.

A Case Report: Anti-Psychotic Agents Related Ocular Toxicity

Chlorpromazine is known to cause ocular pigmentary deposits. However, delayed presentation after cessation of chlorpromazine has not been reported. There are also no reports on whether newer generation of anti-psychotic agents contribute to ocular toxicity. We describe a case of ocular toxicity related to anti-psychotic agents. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reported case of anterior segment pigmentary deposits associated with olanzapine use, 2 years after the cessation of chlorpromazine. We report a case of ocular toxicity in a patient with history of chlorpromazine usage of 100 mg per day for 13 years and subsequently switched to olanzapine 5 mg for 2 years. There were no signs of ocular toxicity while the patient was on chlorpromazine. However, when the patient switched to olanzapine, she developed the ocular side effect as described for chlorpromazine-induced ocular toxicity, with pigmentary depositions on both corneas and the anterior lens surface and decrease in vision. Olanzapine, a newer anti-psychotic agent, may play a role in the ocular pigmentary deposition, either directly causing pigmentary deposition itself or accentuating the effect of chlorpromazine as the 2 drugs act on the same receptors, although further studies are required to support this hypothesis. As patients with psychiatric conditions may not voluntarily complain of visual symptoms, ocular screening could be considered in these patients receiving chronic anti-psychotic treatment, so that any ocular toxicity could be diagnosed in a timely manner.

Cannabinoids for nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Cannabis has a long history of medicinal use. Cannabis-based medications (cannabinoids) are based on its active element, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and have been approved for medical purposes. Cannabinoids may be a useful therapeutic option for people with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting that respond poorly to commonly used anti-emetic agents (anti-sickness drugs). However, unpleasant adverse effects may limit their widespread use.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of cannabis-based medications for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies by searching the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and LILACS from inception to January 2015. We also searched reference lists of reviews and included studies. We did not restrict the search by language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a cannabis-based medication with either placebo or with a conventional anti-emetic in adults receiving chemotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently conducted eligibility and risk of bias assessment, and extracted data. We grouped studies based on control groups for meta-analyses conducted using random effects. We expressed efficacy and tolerability outcomes as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs. Most were of cross-over design, on adults undergoing a variety of chemotherapeutic regimens ranging from moderate to high emetic potential for a variety of cancers. The majority of the studies were at risk of bias due to either lack of allocation concealment or attrition. Trials were conducted between 1975 and 1991. No trials involved comparison with newer anti-emetic drugs such as ondansetron. Comparison with placebo People had more chance of reporting complete absence of vomiting (3 trials; 168 participants; RR 5.7; 95% CI 2.6 to 12.6; low quality evidence) and complete absence of nausea and vomiting (3 trials; 288 participants; RR 2.9; 95% CI 1.8 to 4.7; moderate quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo. The percentage of variability in effect estimates that was due to heterogeneity rather than chance was not important (I(2) = 0% in both analyses).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (2 trials; 276 participants; RR 6.9; 95% CI 1.96 to 24; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence) and less chance of withdrawing due to lack of efficacy when they received cannabinoids, compared with placebo (1 trial; 228 participants; RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.0 to 0.89; low quality evidence). In addition, people had more chance of 'feeling high' when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo (3 trials; 137 participants; RR 31; 95% CI 6.4 to 152; I(2) = 0%).People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than placebo (2 trials; 256 participants; RR 4.8; 95% CI 1.7 to 13; low quality evidence). Comparison with other anti-emetics There was no evidence of a difference between cannabinoids and prochlorperazine in the proportion of participants reporting no nausea (5 trials; 258 participants; RR 1.5; 95% CI 0.67 to 3.2; I(2) = 63%; low quality evidence), no vomiting (4 trials; 209 participants; RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.44; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence), or complete absence of nausea and vomiting (4 trials; 414 participants; RR 2.0; 95% CI 0.74 to 5.4; I(2) = 60%; low quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis where the two parallel group trials were pooled after removal of the five cross-over trials showed no difference (RR 1.1; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.7) with no heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (5 trials; 664 participants; RR 3.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 12; I(2) = 17%; low quality evidence), due to lack of efficacy (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; very low quality evidence) and for any reason (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; low quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People had more chance of reporting dizziness (7 trials; 675 participants; RR 2.4; 95% CI 1.8 to 3.1; I(2) = 12%), dysphoria (3 trials; 192 participants; RR 7.2; 95% CI 1.3 to 39; I(2) = 0%), euphoria (2 trials; 280 participants; RR 18; 95% CI 2.4 to 133; I(2) = 0%), 'feeling high' (4 trials; 389 participants; RR 6.2; 95% CI 3.5 to 11; I(2) = 0%) and sedation (8 trials; 947 participants; RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.8; I(2) = 31%), with significantly more participants reporting the incidence of these adverse events with cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than prochlorperazine (7 trials; 695 participants; RR 3.3; 95% CI 2.2 to 4.8; I(2) = 51%; low quality evidence).In comparisons with metoclopramide, domperidone and chlorpromazine, there was weaker evidence, based on fewer trials and participants, for higher incidence of dizziness with cannabinoids.Two trials with 141 participants compared an anti-emetic drug alone with a cannabinoid added to the anti-emetic drug. There was no evidence of differences between groups; however, the majority of the analyses were based on one small trial with few events. Quality of the evidence The trials were generally at low to moderate risk of bias in terms of how they were designed and do not reflect current chemotherapy and anti-emetic treatment regimens. Furthermore, the quality of evidence arising from meta-analyses was graded as low for the majority of the outcomes analysed, indicating that we are not very confident in our ability to say how well the medications worked. Further research is likely to have an important impact on the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cannabis-based medications may be useful for treating refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, methodological limitations of the trials limit our conclusions and further research reflecting current chemotherapy regimens and newer anti-emetic drugs is likely to modify these conclusions.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Antipsychotics for Treatment of Schizophrenia in Uganda

BACKGROUND

Reductions in prices following the expiry of patents on second-generation antipsychotics means that they could be made available to patients with schizophrenia in low-income countries. In this study we examine the cost effectiveness of antipsychotics for schizophrenia in Uganda.

METHODS

We developed a decision-analytic 10-state Markov model to represent the clinical and treatment course of schizophrenia and the experience of the average patient within the Uganda healthcare system. The model was run for a base population of 25-years-old patients attending Butabika National Referral Mental Hospital, in annual cycles over a lifetime horizon. Parameters were derived from a primary chart abstraction study, a local community pharmacy survey, published literature, and expert opinion where necessary. We computed mean disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) and costs (in US$ 2012) for each antipsychotic, incremental cost, and DALYs averted as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, mean DALYs were highest with chlorpromazine (27.608), followed by haloperidol (27.563), while olanzapine (27.552) and risperidone had the lowest DALYs (27.557). Expected costs were highest with quetiapine (US$4943), and lowest with risperidone (US$4424). Compared to chlorpromazine, haloperidol was a dominant option (i.e. it was less costly and more effective); and risperidone was dominant over both haloperidol and quetiapine. The ICER comparing olanzapine to risperidone was US$5868 per DALY averted.

CONCLUSION

When choosing between first-generation antipsychotics, clinicians should consider haloperidol as the first-line agent for schizophrenia. However, overall, risperidone is a cost-saving strategy; policymakers should consider its addition to essential medicines lists for treatment of schizophrenia in Uganda.

A case of tardive dyskinesia in the last weeks of life

Tardive dyskinesia (TD) is a chronic and often irreversible movement disorder that usually evolves after years of neuroleptic use but can sometimes develop over a much shorter time frame. Paradoxically, a higher dose of the neuroleptic agent that causes TD can often temporarily suppress the movement disorder. This is generally an inadvisable approach, though, as its effectiveness is probably limited to only a matter of weeks and as it will worsen the problem in the long run. We describe a patient with widely metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the lung who developed severe TD when treated with chlorpromazine for severe hiccups. As his prognosis was only days to weeks, we were able to effectively suppress his TD with haloperidol. Hospice care emphasizes relief of suffering at the end of life, often at the expense of attention to long-range adverse effects, and this approach may be a viable management strategy for patients with TD and very limited prognosis.