Blonanserin versus haloperidol in Japanese patients with schizophrenia: A phase 3, 8-week, double-blind, multicenter, randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

This Japanese, multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, evaluating the efficacy and safety of blonanserin compared with haloperidol in patients with schizophrenia, was previously published by Murasaki in the Japanese language. In this article, we present the results of the trial based on full analysis dataset instead of per protocol dataset formerly reported and discuss the findings in light of the latest knowledge of pharmacological treatment for schizophrenia.

METHODS

A total of 265 patients were randomized to receive blonanserin (8 to 24 mg/d) or haloperidol (4 to 12 mg/d) twice daily for 8 weeks. Efficacy assessments included the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS).

RESULTS

Blonanserin was not inferior to haloperidol with a margin of 10% with respect to the improvement rate on CGI-I at end of study (60.5% vs 50.0%, P < 0.001). The decrease in the PANSS total score did not differ between the drugs (-10.3 vs -7.1). For the PANSS negative symptom score, the decrease was significantly greater with blonanserin than with haloperidol (P = 0.006). Blonanserin was well tolerated. The incidence of adverse events was similar for the two drugs. Extrapyramidal adverse events, sedation, hypotension, and prolactin increase were rarer with blonanserin than with haloperidol. No clinically important weight gain was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Blonanserin is as effective as haloperidol for the treatment of schizophrenia. Blonanserin is more effective for negative symptoms with a lower risk of extrapyramidal symptoms compared with haloperidol.

Haloperidol discontinuation for people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a disabling serious mental illness that can be chronic. Haloperidol, one of the first generation of antipsychotic drugs, is effective in the treatment of schizophrenia but can have adverse side effects. The effects of stopping haloperidol in people with schizophrenia who are stable on their prescription are not well researched in the context of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of haloperidol discontinuation in people with schizophrenia who are stable on haloperidol.

SEARCH METHODS

On 20 February 2015, 24 May 2017, and 12 January 2019, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included clinical trials randomising adults with schizophrenia or related disorders who were receiving haloperidol, and were stable. We included trials that randomised such participants to either continue their current treatment with haloperidol or discontinue their haloperidol treatment. We included trials that met our selection criteria and reported usable data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently checked all records retrieved from the search and obtained full reports of relevant records for closer inspection. We extracted data from included studies independently. All usable data were dichotomous, and we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) using a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias within the included studies and used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 232 participants comparing haloperidol discontinuation with haloperidol continuation. Discontinuation was achieved in all five studies by replacing haloperidol with placebo. The trials' size ranged between 23 and 87 participants. The methods of randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding were poorly reported.Participants allocated to discontinuing haloperidol treatment were more likely to show no improvement in global state compared with those in the haloperidol continuation group (n = 49; 1 RCT; RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.20; very low quality evidence: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited due to relevant methodological shortcomings of included trials). Those who continued haloperidol treatment were less likely to experience a relapse compared to people who discontinued taking haloperidol (n = 165; 4 RCTs; RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.74; very low quality evidence). Satisfaction with treatment (measured as numbers leaving the study early) was similar between groups (n = 43; 1 RCT; RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.28; very low quality evidence).No usable mental state, general functioning, general behaviour or adverse effect data were reported by any of the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides limited evidence derived from small, short-term studies. The longest study was for one year, making it difficult to generalise the results to a life-long disorder. Very low quality evidence shows that discontinuation of haloperidol is associated with an increased risk of relapse and a reduction in the risk of 'global state improvement'. However, participant satisfaction with haloperidol treatment was not different from participant satisfaction with haloperidol discontinuation as measured by leaving the studies early. Due to the very low quality of these results, firm conclusions cannot be made. In addition, the available studies did not report usable data regarding the adverse effects of haloperidol treatment.Considering that haloperidol is one of the most widely used antipsychotic drugs, it was surprising that only a small number of studies into the benefit and harm of haloperidol discontinuation were available. Moreover, the available studies did not report on outcomes that are important to clinicians and to people with schizophrenia, particularly adverse effects and social outcomes. Better designed trials are warranted.

Haloperidol and Ziprasidone for Treatment of Delirium in Critical Illness

BACKGROUND

There are conflicting data on the effects of antipsychotic medications on delirium in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium to receive intravenous boluses of haloperidol (maximum dose, 20 mg daily), ziprasidone (maximum dose, 40 mg daily), or placebo. The volume and dose of a trial drug or placebo was halved or doubled at 12-hour intervals on the basis of the presence or absence of delirium, as detected with the use of the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, and of side effects of the intervention. The primary end point was the number of days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points included 30-day and 90-day survival, time to freedom from mechanical ventilation, and time to ICU and hospital discharge. Safety end points included extrapyramidal symptoms and excessive sedation.

RESULTS

Written informed consent was obtained from 1183 patients or their authorized representatives. Delirium developed in 566 patients (48%), of whom 89% had hypoactive delirium and 11% had hyperactive delirium. Of the 566 patients, 184 were randomly assigned to receive placebo, 192 to receive haloperidol, and 190 to receive ziprasidone. The median duration of exposure to a trial drug or placebo was 4 days (interquartile range, 3 to 7). The median number of days alive without delirium or coma was 8.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6 to 9.9) in the placebo group, 7.9 (95% CI, 4.4 to 9.6) in the haloperidol group, and 8.7 (95% CI, 5.9 to 10.0) in the ziprasidone group (P=0.26 for overall effect across trial groups). The use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, had no significant effect on the primary end point (odds ratios, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.21] and 1.04 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.48], respectively). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to the secondary end points or the frequency of extrapyramidal symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, in patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium in the ICU did not significantly alter the duration of delirium. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the VA Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center; MIND-USA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01211522 .).

Comparison of the analgesic effects of haloperidol with or without morphine in patients with acute renal colic: A randomized double-blind clinical trial study

BACKGROUND

Given the increasing number of patients with acute renal colic, the present study examined the analgesic effects of haloperidol with or without morphine in order to find an effective method with fewer side effects for pain reduction in these patients.

METHOD

In the present randomized double-blind clinical trial study, patients with a pain severity score of above 3 were randomly divided into 2 equal groups: Group A received intravenous morphine and haloperidol, and Group B received intravenous morphine with normal saline. Pain severity was recorded at Times 0, 20, 40, and 60 min following the injections based on a visual pain analog scale (VPAS) from 0 to 10.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients were included in this study. A comparison of the recorded pain severity scores did not show a significant difference between the 2 study groups (P = 0.38). The mean heart rate, the mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures, and the mean incidence rate of nausea and vomiting were not significantly different between Group A and Group B. The frequency of extrapyramidal side effects was 4.3% in the haloperidol group, which was not significantly different from that of the other group. The frequency of extra analgesic requirement was not significantly different between the 2 groups (P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In our patients with acute renal colic, haloperidol failed to reduce pain and the incidence of nausea or vomiting, while it caused extrapyramidal side effects. Therefore, the prescription of this medication for acute pains, especially in renal colic, is not recommended.

Interplay between adenosine receptor antagonist and cyclooxygenase inhibitor in haloperidol-induced extrapyramidal effects in mice

Antipsychotic drugs are the mainstay of psychotic disorders. The 'typical' antipsychotic agents are commonly employed for the positive symptoms of schizophrenia, though at an expense of extrapyramidal side effects (EPS). In the present study, we employed haloperidol (HP)-induced catalepsy model in mice to evaluate the role of adenosine receptor antagonist and cyclooxygenase (COX) enzyme inhibitor in the amelioration of EPS. HP produced a full blown catalepsy, akinesia and a significant impairment in locomotion and antioxidant status. Pre-treatment with COX inhibitor; naproxen (NPx) and adenosine receptor antagonist; caffeine (CAF), showed a significant impact on HP-induced cataleptic symptoms. Adenosine exerts pivotal control on dopaminergic receptors and is also involved in receptor internalization and recycling. On the other hand, prostaglandins (PGs) are implicated as neuro-inflammatory molecules released due to microglial activation in both Parkinson's disease (PD) and antipsychotics-induced EPS. The involvement of these neuroeffector molecules has led to the possibility of use of CAF and COX inhibitors as therapeutic approaches to reduce the EPS burden of antipsychotic drugs. Both these pathways seem to be interlinked to each other, where adenosine modulates the formation of PGs through transcriptional modulation of COXs. We observed an additive effect with combined treatment of NPx and CAF against HP-induced movement disorder. These effects lead us to propose that neuromodulatory pathways of dopaminergic circuitry need to be explored for further understanding and utilizing the full therapeutic potential of antipsychotic agents.

Antipsychotics for treatment of delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients

BACKGROUND

Guidelines suggest limited and cautious use of antipsychotics for treatment of delirium where nonpharmacological interventions have failed and symptoms remain distressing or dangerous, or both. It is unclear how well these recommendations are supported by current evidence.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to assess the efficacy of antipsychotics versus nonantipsychotics or placebo on the duration of delirium in hospitalised adults. Our secondary objectives were to compare the efficacy of: 1) antipsychotics versus nonantipsychotics or placebo on delirium severity and resolution, mortality, hospital length of stay, discharge disposition, health-related quality of life, and adverse effects; and 2) atypical vs. typical antipsychotics for reducing delirium duration, severity, and resolution, hospital mortality and length of stay, discharge disposition, health-related quality of life, and adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane EBM Reviews, CINAHL, Thomson Reuters Web of Science and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) from their respective inception dates until July 2017. We also searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment Database, Web of Science ISI Proceedings, and other grey literature.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing 1) antipsychotics to nonantipsychotics or placebo and 2) typical to atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of delirium in adult hospitalised (but not critically ill) patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We examined titles and abstracts of identified studies to determine eligibility. We extracted data independently in duplicate. Disagreements were settled by further discussion and consensus. We used risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as a measure of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes, and between-group standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine trials that recruited 727 participants. Four of the nine trials included a comparison of an antipsychotic to a nonantipsychotic drug or placebo and seven included a comparison of a typical to an atypical antipsychotic. The study populations included hospitalised medical, surgical, and palliative patients.No trial reported on duration of delirium. Antipsychotic treatment did not reduce delirium severity compared to nonantipsychotic drugs (standard mean difference (SMD) -1.08, 95% CI -2.55 to 0.39; four studies; 494 participants; very low-quality evidence); nor was there a difference between typical and atypical antipsychotics (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.02; seven studies; 542 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no evidence antipsychotics resolved delirium symptoms compared to nonantipsychotic drug regimens (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.98; three studies; 247 participants; very low-quality evidence); nor was there a difference between typical and atypical antipsychotics (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.52; five studies; 349 participants; low-quality evidence). The pooled results indicated that antipsychotics did not alter mortality compared to nonantipsychotic regimens (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.27; three studies; 319 participants; low-quality evidence) nor was there a difference between typical and atypical antipsychotics (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.82 to 3.35; four studies; 342 participants; low-quality evidence).No trial reported on hospital length of stay, hospital discharge disposition, or health-related quality of life. Adverse event reporting was limited and measured with inconsistent methods; in those reporting events, the number of events were low. No trial reported on physical restraint use, long-term cognitive outcomes, cerebrovascular events, or QTc prolongation (i.e. increased time in the heart's electrical cycle). Only one trial reported on arrhythmias and seizures, with no difference between typical or atypical antipsychotics. We found antipsychotics did not have a higher risk of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) compared to nonantipsychotic drugs (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.04 to 65.57; three studies; 247 participants; very-low quality evidence); pooled results showed no increased risk of EPS with typical antipsychotics compared to atypical antipsychotics (RR 12.16, 95% CI 0.55 to 269.52; two studies; 198 participants; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There were no reported data to determine whether antipsychotics altered the duration of delirium, length of hospital stay, discharge disposition, or health-related quality of life as studies did not report on these outcomes. From the poor quality data available, we found antipsychotics did not reduce delirium severity, resolve symptoms, or alter mortality. Adverse effects were poorly or rarely reported in the trials. Extrapyramidal symptoms were not more frequent with antipsychotics compared to nonantipsychotic drug regimens, and no different for typical compared to atypical antipsychotics.

QTc interval prolongation in critically ill patients: Prevalence, risk factors and associated medications

PURPOSE

To investigate the prevalence and risk factors of acquired long QT syndrome (LQTS) on admission to a general Intensive Care Unit (ICU), and to assess the risk of LQTS associated with prescribed medications.

METHODS

Prospective observational, cross-sectional study approved by the Institutional Review Board. Between May 2014 and July 2016, 412 patients >18 years-old consecutively admitted to the ICU of a university hospital were included. LQTS was defined as a QT interval on the admission electrocardiogram corrected using Bazett's formula (QTc) >460 ms for men and >470 ms for women. All medications administered within 24 hours before admission were recorded. Logistic regression was used.

RESULTS

LQTS prevalence was 27.9%. In LQTS patients, 70.4% had ≥ 1 LQTS-inducing drug prescribed in the 24 hours prior to ICU admission versus 70.4% in non-LQTS patients (p = 0.99). Bradycardia and Charlson morbidity index score are independent risk factors for LQTS. Haloperidol (OR 4.416), amiodarone (OR 2.509) and furosemide (OR 1.895) were associated with LQTS, as well as another drug not yet described, namely clopidogrel (OR 2.241).

CONCLUSIONS

The LQTS is highly prevalent in critically ill patients, ICU patients are often admitted with LQTS-inducing medications, and patients with slow heart rate or with high Charlson comorbidity index should be evaluated for LQTS.

Effect of Haloperidol on Survival Among Critically Ill Adults With a High Risk of Delirium: The REDUCE Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Results of studies on use of prophylactic haloperidol in critically ill adults are inconclusive, especially in patients at high risk of delirium.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether prophylactic use of haloperidol improves survival among critically ill adults at high risk of delirium, which was defined as an anticipated intensive care unit (ICU) stay of at least 2 days.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled investigator-driven study involving 1789 critically ill adults treated at 21 ICUs, at which nonpharmacological interventions for delirium prevention are routinely used in the Netherlands. Patients without delirium whose expected ICU stay was at least a day were included. Recruitment was from July 2013 to December 2016 and follow-up was conducted at 90 days with the final follow-up on March 1, 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received prophylactic treatment 3 times daily intravenously either 1 mg (n = 350) or 2 mg (n = 732) of haloperidol or placebo (n = 707), consisting of 0.9% sodium chloride.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the number of days that patients survived in 28 days. There were 15 secondary outcomes, including delirium incidence, 28-day delirium-free and coma-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

All 1789 randomized patients (mean, age 66.6 years [SD, 12.6]; 1099 men [61.4%]) completed the study. The 1-mg haloperidol group was prematurely stopped because of futility. There was no difference in the median days patients survived in 28 days, 28 days in the 2-mg haloperidol group vs 28 days in the placebo group, for a difference of 0 days (95% CI, 0-0; P = .93) and a hazard ratio of 1.003 (95% CI, 0.78-1.30, P=.82). All of the 15 secondary outcomes were not statistically different. These included delirium incidence (mean difference, 1.5%, 95% CI, -3.6% to 6.7%), delirium-free and coma-free days (mean difference, 0 days, 95% CI, 0-0 days), and duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU, and hospital length of stay (mean difference, 0 days, 95% CI, 0-0 days for all 3 measures). The number of reported adverse effects did not differ between groups (2 [0.3%] for the 2-mg haloperidol group vs 1 [0.1%] for the placebo group).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among critically ill adults at high risk of delirium, the use of prophylactic haloperidol compared with placebo did not improve survival at 28 days. These findings do not support the use of prophylactic haloperidol for reducing mortality in critically ill adults.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01785290.

Haloperidol versus placebo for delirium prevention in acutely hospitalised older at risk patients: a multi-centre double-blind randomised controlled clinical trial

Background

because the few randomised placebo-controlled trials investigating the potential role for prophylactic haloperidol in delirium prevention have focused on specific surgical populations, we investigated its efficacy and safety in acutely hospitalised older patients.

Methods

this multi-centre, double-blind, stratified, block randomised, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at six Dutch hospitals. Patients age ≥70 years, acutely admitted through the emergency department for general medicine or surgical specialties and at risk for delirium were randomised (n = 245) to haloperidol or placebo 1 mg orally twice-daily (maximum of 14 doses) on top of standard nonpharmacological prevention strategies. The primary outcome was delirium incidence. Other endpoints included delirium severity and duration, drug safety and clinical outcomes.

Results

intention-to-treat analysis included 242 participants (calculated sample size n = 390, statistical power of current sample 59%) allocated to haloperidol (n = 118) or placebo (n = 124). In the haloperidol and placebo group, delirium incidence was 19.5 versus 14.5% (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.78); median (IQR) delirium duration 4 (2, 5) versus 3 (1, 6) days (P = 0.366); maximum DRS-R-98 score 16 (9.8, 19.5) versus 10 (5.5, 22.5) (P = 0.549; 53.7% missing data); hospital LOS 7 (4, 10.3) versus 7 (5, 11.8) days (P = 0.343); 3-month mortality 9.9 versus 12.5% (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.75), respectively. No treatment-limiting side effects were noted.

Conclusions

prophylactic low-dose oral haloperidol did not reduce delirium incidence in acutely hospitalised older patients. Therefore, prophylactic use of haloperidol in this population is not recommended.

Effects of Haloperidol on Delirium in Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate whether or not the use of haloperidol could reduce the incidence of delirium in adult patients.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Elsevier, Wiley, and Ovid were searched for randomized controlled trials and prospective interventional cohort studies that compared haloperidol with placebo for delirium prophylaxis or with second generation antipsychotics for delirium treatment. The primary end point was the incidence and severity of delirium. After reviewing 272 relevant articles, 10 studies with 1,861 patients were finally included (haloperidol vs. placebo in 8 studies [n = 1,734], and haloperidol vs. second-generation antipsychotics in 2 studies [n = 127]). Revman 5.3 was used for the data analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, a high dose of prophylactic haloperidol (≥5 mg/day) may help reduce the incidence of delirium in surgical patients (risk ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.32, 0.79). There were no differences in the duration of delirium, QTc interval prolongation, extrapyramidal symptoms, intensive care unit stay, hospital stay, or mortality between the haloperidol and placebo groups. For delirium treatment, haloperidol exhibited similar effects as the second-generation antipsychotics.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the limited available data revealed that prophylaxis haloperidol at a dose of ≥5 mg/day might help reduce delirium in adult surgical patients. Further outcome studies with larger sample sizes are required to confirm these findings.

Influence of intravenous administration of the antipsychotic drug benperidol on the QT interval

A group effect is generally assumed regarding the prolongation of the QT interval through butyrophenone antipsychotics like haloperidol. Consequently intravenous administration of benperidol is seen critically notwithstanding sparse evidence; thus benperidol and haloperidol were compared regarding their cardiac risk of prolonging the QT interval when administered intravenously for acute sedation of psychotic patients. The QT interval was measured by a 12-lead ECG. For the correction of QT values Bazett's formula was used. The resulting QTc intervals of the benperidol and the haloperidol group were compared using Mann-Whitney U-test. Our data provide statistical evidence for benperidol being less prone to cause QTc prolongation than haloperidol (p = 0.049). The results of our study indicate a more favourable risk profile of benperidol compared to haloperidol regarding QTc prolongation when administered intravenously.

Update in perioperative medicine: practice changing evidence published in 2016

This summary reviews 18 key articles published in 2016 which have significant practice implications for the perioperative medical care of surgical patients. Due to the multi-disciplinary nature of the practice of perioperative medicine, important new evidence is published in journals representing a variety of medical and surgical specialties. Keeping current with the evidence that drives best practice in perioperative medicine is therefore challenging. We set out to identify, critically review, and summarize key evidence which has the most potential for practice change. We integrated the new evidence into the existing body of medical knowledge and identified practical implications for real world patient care. The articles address issues related to anticoagulation, transfusion threshold, immunosuppressive medications, postoperative delirium, myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, postoperative pain management, perioperative management of antihypertensives, perioperative fasting, and perioperative diabetic control.

Genotyping and phenotyping of CYP2D6 and CYP3A isoenzymes in patients with alcohol use disorder: correlation with haloperidol plasma concentration

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol is used for the treatment of alcohol use disorders in patients with signs of alcohol-related psychosis. Haloperidol therapy poses a high risk of adverse drug reactions (ADR). Contradictory data, which include the effects of genetic polymorphisms in genes encoding the elements of haloperidol biotransformation system on haloperidol metabolism rate and plasma drug concentration ratio, are described in patients with different genotypes. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the effects of CYP2D6 and CYP3A5 genetic polymorphisms on haloperidol equilibrium concentration in patients with alcohol use disorder.

METHODS

The study included 69 male patients with alcohol use disorder. Genotyping was performed using the allele-specific real-time PCR. CYP2D6 and CYP3A were phenotyped with HPLC-MS using the concentration of endogenous substrate of the enzyme and its urinary metabolites [6-hydroxy-1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-β-carboline(6-HO-THBC) to pinoline ratio for CYP2D6 and 6-β-hydroxycortisol to cortisol ratio for CYP3A]. The equilibrium plasma concentration was determined using LC-MS-MS.

RESULTS

Results indicated that both C/D indexes and equilibrium concentration levels depend on CYP2D6 genetic polymorphism, but only in patients receiving haloperidol intramuscular injections [0.26 (0.09; 0.48) vs. 0.54 (0.44; 0.74), p=0.037].

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrates that CYP2D6 genetic polymorphism (1846G>A) can affect haloperidol concentration levels in patients with alcohol use disorder.

Effect of Lorazepam With Haloperidol vs Haloperidol Alone on Agitated Delirium in Patients With Advanced Cancer Receiving Palliative Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The use of benzodiazepines to control agitation in delirium in the last days of life is controversial.

Objective

To compare the effect of lorazepam vs placebo as an adjuvant to haloperidol for persistent agitation in patients with delirium in the setting of advanced cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Single-center, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial conducted at an acute palliative care unit at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas, enrolling 93 patients with advanced cancer and agitated delirium despite scheduled haloperidol from February 11, 2014, to June 30, 2016, with data collection completed in October 2016.

Interventions

Lorazepam (3 mg) intravenously (n = 47) or placebo (n = 43) in addition to haloperidol (2 mg) intravenously upon the onset of an agitation episode.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was change in Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score (range, -5 [unarousable] to 4 [very agitated or combative]) from baseline to 8 hours after treatment administration. Secondary end points were rescue neuroleptic use, delirium recall, comfort (perceived by caregivers and nurses), communication capacity, delirium severity, adverse effects, discharge outcomes, and overall survival.

Results

Among 90 randomized patients (mean age, 62 years; women, 42 [47%]), 58 (64%) received the study medication and 52 (90%) completed the trial. Lorazepam + haloperidol resulted in a significantly greater reduction of RASS score at 8 hours (-4.1 points) than placebo + haloperidol (-2.3 points) (mean difference, -1.9 points [95% CI, -2.8 to -0.9]; P < .001). The lorazepam + haloperidol group required less median rescue neuroleptics (2.0 mg) than the placebo + haloperidol group (4.0 mg) (median difference, -1.0 mg [95% CI, -2.0 to 0]; P = .009) and was perceived to be more comfortable by both blinded caregivers and nurses (caregivers: 84% for the lorazepam + haloperidol group vs 37% for the placebo + haloperidol group; mean difference, 47% [95% CI, 14% to 73%], P = .007; nurses: 77% for the lorazepam + haloperidol group vs 30% for the placebo + haloperidol group; mean difference, 47% [95% CI, 17% to 71%], P = .005). No significant between-group differences were found in delirium-related distress and survival. The most common adverse effect was hypokinesia (3 patients in the lorazepam + haloperidol group [19%] and 4 patients in the placebo + haloperidol group [27%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this preliminary trial of hospitalized patients with agitated delirium in the setting of advanced cancer, the addition of lorazepam to haloperidol compared with haloperidol alone resulted in a significantly greater reduction in agitation at 8 hours. Further research is needed to assess generalizability and adverse effects.

Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01949662.

Effect of psychotropic drug treatment on sterol metabolism

Cholesterol metabolism is vital for brain function. Previous work in cultured cells has shown that a number of psychotropic drugs inhibit the activity of 7-dehydrocholesterol reductase (DHCR7), an enzyme that catalyzes the final steps in cholesterol biosynthesis. This leads to the accumulation of 7-dehydrocholesterol (7DHC), a molecule that gives rise to oxysterols, vitamin D, and atypical neurosteroids. We examined levels of cholesterol and the cholesterol precursors desmosterol, lanosterol, 7DHC and its isomer 8-dehydrocholesterol (8DHC), in blood samples of 123 psychiatric patients on various antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs, and 85 healthy controls, to see if the observations in cell lines hold true for patients as well. Three drugs, aripiprazole, haloperidol and trazodone increased circulating 7DHC and 8DHC levels, while five other drugs, clozapine, escitalopram/citalopram, lamotrigine, olanzapine, and risperidone, did not. Studies in rat brain verified that haloperidol dose-dependently increased 7DHC and 8DHC levels, while clozapine had no effect. We conclude that further studies should investigate the role of 7DHC and 8DHC metabolites, such as oxysterols, vitamin D, and atypical neurosteroids, in the deleterious and therapeutic effects of psychotropic drugs. Finally, we recommend that drugs that increase 7DHC levels should not be prescribed during pregnancy, as children born with DHCR7 deficiency have multiple congenital malformations.

Haloperidol for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation (rapid tranquillisation)

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol used alone is recommended to help calm situations of aggression or agitation for people with psychosis. It is widely accessible and may be the only antipsychotic medication available in limited-resource areas.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether haloperidol alone is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation, wherein clinicians are required to intervene to prevent harm to self and others.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (26th May 2016). This register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings, with no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people exhibiting aggression and/or agitation thought to be due to psychosis, allocated rapid use of haloperidol alone (by any route), compared with any other treatment. Outcomes of interest included tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes, repeated need for rapid tranquillisation within 24 hours, specific behaviours (threat or injury to others/self), adverse effects. We included trials meeting our selection criteria and providing useable data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected all citations from searches, identified relevant abstracts, and independently extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR), for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), and for cognitive outcomes we derived standardised mean difference (SMD) effect sizes, all with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and using a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce 'Summary of findings' tables which included our pre-specified main outcomes of interest.

MAIN RESULTS

We found nine new RCTs from the 2016 update search, giving a total of 41 included studies and 24 comparisons. Few studies were undertaken in circumstances that reflect real-world practice, and, with notable exceptions, most were small and carried considerable risk of bias. Due to the large number of comparisons, we can only present a summary of main results.Compared with placebo, more people in the haloperidol group were asleep at two hours (2 RCTs, n=220, RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.82 to 0.95, very low-quality evidence) and experienced dystonia (2 RCTs, n=207, RR 7.49, 95%CI 0.93 to 60.21, very low-quality evidence).Compared with aripiprazole, people in the haloperidol group required fewer injections than those in the aripiprazole group (2 RCTs, n=473, RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.62 to 0.99, low-quality evidence). More people in the haloperidol group experienced dystonia (2 RCTs, n=477, RR 6.63, 95%CI 1.52 to 28.86, very low-quality evidence).Four trials (n=207) compared haloperidol with lorazepam with no significant differences with regard to number of participants asleep at one hour (1 RCT, n=60, RR 1.05, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.44, very low-quality of evidence) or those requiring additional injections (1 RCT, n=66, RR 1.14, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.43, very low-quality of evidence).Haloperidol's adverse effects were not offset by addition of lorazepam (e.g. dystonia 1 RCT, n=67, RR 8.25, 95%CI 0.46 to 147.45, very low-quality of evidence).Addition of promethazine was investigated in two trials (n=376). More people in the haloperidol group were not tranquil or asleep by 20 minutes (1 RCT, n=316, RR 1.60, 95%CI 1.18 to 2.16, moderate-quality evidence). Acute dystonia was too common in the haloperidol alone group for the trial to continue beyond the interim analysis (1 RCT, n=316, RR 19.48, 95%CI 1.14 to 331.92, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Additional data from new studies does not alter previous conclusions of this review. If no other alternative exists, sole use of intramuscular haloperidol could be life-saving. Where additional drugs are available, sole use of haloperidol for extreme emergency could be considered unethical. Addition of the sedating promethazine has support from better-grade evidence from within randomised trials. Use of an alternative antipsychotic drug is only partially supported by fragmented and poor-grade evidence. Adding a benzodiazepine to haloperidol does not have strong evidence of benefit and carries risk of additional harm.After six decades of use for emergency rapid tranquillisation, this is still an area in need of good independent trials relevant to real-world practice.

Narcolepsy-cataplexy and psychosis: a case study

AIMS

To report a challenging patient a girl who developed narcolepsyy with cataplexy (NT1) and a psychosis during adolescence. To discuss diagnostic and therapeutic challenges of the comorbid cases.

CASE REPORT

A 14-year-old girl was referred to Sleep and Epilepsy Unit for excessive daytime sleepiness, impaired nocturnal sleep, binge eating and weight gain, over the last year. After being diagnosed with a NT1 the patient was treated with modafinil and sodium oxybate. She was hospitalized for psychotic symptoms after starting NT1 treatment. Withdrawal of the narcolepsy treatment and initiation of haloperidol 1 mg/day (the only antipsychotic treatment she could tolerate) improved the delusions, hallucinations and dysphoria but worsened the narcolepsy symptoms. Polysomnography showed fragmented nocturnal sleep and five sleep REM onset periods in MSLT. Positive HLA-QB1*06:02 and undetectable level of hypocretine in the cerebrospinal fluid were found. MRI and CT-scan were normal. Diagnostic Interview for Genetic Studies Adapted for Narcolepsy (DIGSAN) questionnaire confirmed that patient presented a dual diagnostic NT1 and psychotic symptoms. The last sleep follow-up while on psychopharmacological treatment, showed an increased sleep efficiency index. She currently has severe somnolence, obesity, and partial cataplectic attacks along with normal mood, academic failure and social isolation.

CONCLUSION

The coexistence of narcolepsy with psychoses is a rare clinical entity, more frequent in adolescents than in adults. The comorbidity of the two illnesses worsens clinical and therapeutic prognosis and also suggests interesting pathophysiological hypotheses.

Clozapine combined with different antipsychotic drugs for treatment-resistant schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Between 40% and 70% of people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia do not respond to clozapine, despite adequate blood levels. For these people, a number of treatment strategies have emerged, including the prescription of a second anti-psychotic drug in combination with clozapine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effects of various clozapine combination strategies with antipsychotic drugs in people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia both in terms of efficacy and tolerability.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (to 28 August 2015) and MEDLINE (November 2008). We checked the reference lists of all identified randomised controlled trials (RCT). For the first version of the review, we also contacted pharmaceutical companies to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs recruiting people of both sexes, aged 18 years or more, with a diagnosis of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (or related disorders) and comparing clozapine plus another antipsychotic drug with clozapine plus a different antipsychotic drug.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis using a random-effects meta-analysis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% CIs. We used GRADE to create 'Summary of findings' tables and assessed risk of bias for included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two further studies with 169 participants that met our inclusion criteria. This review now includes five studies with 309 participants. The quality of evidence was low, and, due to the high degree of heterogeneity between studies, we were unable to undertake a formal meta-analysis to increase the statistical power.For this update, we specified seven main outcomes of interest: clinical response in mental state (clinically significant response, mean score/change in mental state), clinical response in global state (mean score/change in global state), weight gain, leaving the study early (acceptability of treatment), service utilisation outcomes (hospital days or admissions to hospital) and quality of life.We found some significant differences between clozapine combination strategies for global and mental state (clinically significant response and change), and there were data for leaving the study early and weight gain. We found no data for service utilisation and quality of life. Clozapine plus aripiprazole versus clozapine plus haloperidolThere was no long-term significant difference between aripiprazole and haloperidol combination strategies in change of mental state (1 RCT, n = 105, MD 0.90, 95% CI -4.38 to 6.18, low quality evidence). There were no adverse effect data for weight gain but there was a benefit of aripiprazole for adverse effects measured by the LUNSERS at 12 weeks (1 RCT, n = 105, MD -4.90, 95% CI -8.48 to -1.32) and 24 weeks (1 RCT, n = 105, MD -4.90, 95% CI -8.25 to -1.55), but not 52 weeks (1 RCT, n = 105, MD -4.80, 95% CI -9.79 to 0.19). Similar numbers of participants from each group left the study early (1 RCT, n = 106, RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.22, very low quality evidence). Clozapine plus amisulpride versus clozapine plus quetiapine One study showed a significant benefit of amisulpride over quetiapine in the short term, for both change in global state (Clinical Global Impression (CGI): 1 RCT, n = 50, MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.42, very low quality evidence) and mental state (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS): 1 RCT, n = 50, MD -4.00, 95% CI -5.86 to -2.14, low quality evidence). Similar numbers of participants from each group left the study early (1 RCT, n = 56, RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.60, very low quality evidence) Clozapine plus risperidone versus clozapine plus sulpirideThere was no difference between risperidone and sulpiride for clinically significant response, defined by the study as 20% to 50% reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.68, very low quality evidence). There were similar equivocal results for weight gain (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.90, very low quality evidence) and mental state (PANSS total: 1 RCT, n = 60, MD -2.28, 95% CI -7.41 to 2.85, very low quality evidence). No-one left the study early. Clozapine plus risperidone versus clozapine plus ziprasidoneThere was no difference between risperidone and ziprasidone for clinically significant response (1 RCT, n = 24, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.27, very low quality evidence), change in global state CGI-II score (1 RCT, n = 22, MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.82 to 0.22, very low quality evidence), change in PANSS total score (1 RCT, n = 16, MD 1.00, 95% CI -7.91 to 9.91, very low quality evidence) or leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 24, RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.49, very low quality evidence). Clozapine plus ziprasidone versus clozapine plus quetiapineOne study found, in the medium term, a superior effect for ziprasidone combination compared with quetiapine combination for clinically significant response in mental state (> 50% reduction PANSS: 1 RCT, n = 63, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.81, low quality evidence), global state (CGI - Severity score: 1 RCT, n = 60, MD -0.70, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.22, low quality evidence) and mental state (PANSS total score: 1 RCT, n = 60, MD -12.30, 95% CI -22.43 to -2.17, low quality evidence). There was no effect for leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 63, RR 0.52, CI 0.05 to 5.41, very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The reliability of results from this review is limited, evidence is of low or very low quality. Furthermore, due to the limited number of included studies, we were unable to undertake formal meta-analyses. As a consequence, any conclusions drawn from these findings are based on single, small-sized RCTs with high risk of type II error. Properly conducted and adequately powered RCTs are required. Future trialists should seek to measure patient-important outcomes such as quality of life, as well as clinical response and adverse effects.

USING OF CELL LINE HepG2 FOR ASSESSMENT OF TOXIC AND METABOLIC EFECTS OF ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS

In order to study in vitro the toxic and metabolic effects of antipsychotic drugs (AP) on the cells of hepatic origin we used human hepatoblastoma cell line HepG2. We cultured HepG2 cells in the presence of two AP of the first and second generations (haloperidol and olanzapine, respectively) adding them to the culture medium in concentrations that may at the therapeutic use of AP take place in liver and other tissues of a high lipid content. In the process of cultivation, we detected several products of carbohydrate and lipid metabolism, measured activity of four hepatocellular enzymes in the culture medium, and estimated cell viability/proliferation in the MTS-test. We observed that both AP performed a toxic effect on HepG2 cells, the effect was manifested by a decrease in cell viability/proliferation and an increase in alkaline phosphatase activity in the culture medium. The toxic effect of olanzapine was less pronounced in comparison to haloperidol. According to the data from literature, AP upregulate the expression of lipogenesis genes in the cells of central nervous system, adipose tissue and liver, that might lead to hyperlipidemia. However, we observe in our experiments no increase in the levels of total cholesterol, of cholesterol in lipoproteins of high and low density, of triglycerides in the culture medium containing haloperidol or olanzapine. That observation may have been due to the fact that both AP, which are cationic amphiphiles, are capable to inhibit intracellular traffic of lipids. We also found no effects of haloperidol and olanzapine on the activity of aspartate aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyltransferase, while both AP did reduce the alanine aminotransferase activity. Our work proves that HepG2 cells can be helpful as an in vitro model to obtain new data on metabolic effects of drugs on the cells of hepatic origin and to assess the risk of a drug hepatotoxicity in preclinical studies.

Ginkgo biloba leaf extract and alpha-tocopherol attenuate haloperidol-induced orofacial dyskinesia in rats: Possible implication of antiapoptotic mechanisms by preventing Bcl-2 decrease and Bax elevation

BACKGROUND

Tardive dyskinesia (TD) is a serious side effect of long-term administration of typical neuroleptics, such as haloperidol. The pathophysiology of TD remains unclear, but the experimental evidence suggests that free radical-induced neuronal apoptosis in the basal ganglia may play an important role.

PURPOSE

This study was to investigate changes in Bax and Bcl-2 expression levels in TD-associated brain regions and the effects of the antioxidant EGb761 on Bax and Bcl-2 levels in an animal model of TD.

METHODS

Thirty-two rats were randomly divided into four study groups: saline control (saline), haloperidol-alone (haloperidol), EGb761-haloperidol (EGb), and alpha-tocopherol-haloperidol (vitamin E). Rats were treated with daily intraperitoneal haloperidol injections (2 mg/kg/day) for 5 weeks. EGb761 (50 mg/kg/day) and alpha-tocopherol (20 mg/kg/day) were then administered for another 5 weeks during the withdrawal period. Behavioral assessments were performed, and Bax and Bcl-2 protein expression levels were immunohistochemically analyzed in four brain regions, including the prefrontal cortex, striatum, substantia nigra, and globus pallidum.

RESULTS

We found that increased vacuous chewing movements (VCMs) were associated with increased proapoptotic Bax protein expression, decreased antiapoptotic Bcl-2 protein expression, and an increased Bax/Bcl-2 ratio. EGb761 and alpha-tocopherol treatment reversed the increase in VCMs, decreased Bax expression, increased Bcl-2 expression, and decreased the Bax/Bcl-2 ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that long-term haloperidol administration may affect Bcl-2 protein family expression and promote neuronal apoptosis in the basal ganglia. In combination with their antioxidant capacity, EGb761 and alpha-tocopherol's antiapoptotic effects through Bcl-2 might account for the symptom improvement observed in haloperidol-induced TD rats.

Olanzapine Is Faster than Haloperidol in Inducing Metabolic Abnormalities in Schizophrenic and Bipolar Patients

The effects of olanzapine and haloperidol on metabolic parameters in bipolar patients have been evaluated much less comprehensively than in schizophrenic patients. Therefore, in this study, medical records of 343 schizophrenic and bipolar patients treated with haloperidol or olanzapine for 1 year were retrospectively reviewed and metabolic outcomes were evaluated. After 12 months of follow-up, 25.9% of patients showed ≥3 metabolic abnormalities with a point prevalence of 27.2% in the bipolar and 24.9% in the schizophrenic group: 22.0% of the schizophrenic patients treated with haloperidol and 29.8% of those treated with olanzapine achieved ≥3 metabolic alterations; in bipolar patients, these percentages were 15.8% of those treated with haloperidol and 37.8% of those treated with olanzapine (p < 0.0001). Significant changes were reported over time in fasting glucose, triglycerides and cholesterol blood levels, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, and BMI. Overall, a significant number of schizophrenic and bipolar patients treated with olanzapine showed ≥3 metabolic alterations in the first month of treatment when compared to those treated with haloperidol. Moreover, the number of olanzapine-treated patients developing metabolic changes in the first month was significantly higher in both diagnostic groups when compared to those who reached metabolic abnormal values in the subsequent 11 months. These data suggest that both antipsychotics could increase the metabolic risk in schizophrenic and bipolar patients with a higher prevalence in olanzapine-treated patients. On the other hand, olanzapine-treated patients seem to achieve metabolic abnormalities faster than haloperidol-treated subjects in both diagnostic groups.