Depot fluphenazine decanoate and enanthate for schizophrenia

Phenothiazines and their Evolving Roles in Clinical Practice: A Narrative Review

Phenothiazines, a diverse class of drugs, can be used to treat multiple mental health and physical conditions. Phenothiazines have been used for decades to treat mental illnesses, including schizophrenia, mania in bipolar disorder, and psychosis. Additionally, these drugs offer relief for physical illnesses, including migraines, hiccups, nausea, and vomiting in both adults and children. Further research is needed to prove the efficacy of phenothiazines in treating physical symptoms. Phenothiazines are dopaminergic antagonists that inhibit D2 receptors with varying potency. High potency phenothiazines such as perphenazine are used to treat various psychiatric conditions such as the positive symptoms of schizophrenia, the symptoms of psychosis, and mania that can occur with bipolar disorder. Low/mid potency phenothiazines such as chlorpromazine antipsychotic drugs that have been used to treat schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like disorders since the 1950s and are utilized in numerous disease states. The present investigation aims to elucidate the effects of phenothiazines in clinical practice.

Suicide in Schizophrenia: An Educational Overview

Suicide is an important public health problem. The most frequent psychiatric illnesses associated with suicide or severe suicide attempt are mood and psychotic disorders. The purpose of this paper is to provide an educational overview of suicidal behavior in individuals with schizophrenia. A lifetime suicide rate in individuals with schizophrenia is approximately 10%. Suicide is the largest contributor to the decreased life expectancy in individuals with schizophrenia. Demographic and psychosocial factors that increase a risk of suicide in individuals with schizophrenia include younger age, being male, being unmarried, living alone, being unemployed, being intelligent, being well-educated, good premorbid adjustment or functioning, having high personal expectations and hopes, having an understanding that life’s expectations and hopes are not likely to be met, having had recent (i.e., within past 3 months) life events, having poor work functioning, and having access to lethal means, such as firearms. Throughout the first decade of their disorder, patients with schizophrenia are at substantially elevated suicide risk, although they continue to be at elevated suicide risk during their lives with times of worsening or improvement. Having awareness of symptoms, especially, awareness of delusions, anhedonia, asociality, and blunted affect, having a negative feeling about, or non-adherence with, treatment are associated with greater suicide risk in patients with schizophrenia. Comorbid depression and a history of suicidal behavior are important contributors to suicide risk in patients with schizophrenia. The only reliable protective factor for suicide in patients with schizophrenia is provision of and compliance with comprehensive treatment. Prevention of suicidal behavior in schizophrenia should include recognizing patients at risk, delivering the best possible therapy for psychotic symptoms, and managing comorbid depression and substance misuse.

Fluphenazine decanoate (depot) and enanthate for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

[Long-acting injectable antipsychotics. Overview and advice for daily routine care]

Recent investigations have demonstrated a significant reduction of relapse and hospitalization rates associated with the use of long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) in the treatment of schizophrenia. There are only marginal differences in the effectiveness of different specific LAIs. Furthermore, LAIs are comparable to the oral equivalents with respect to effectiveness and side effects. The occurrence of extrapyramidal motor disorders (EPD) is less frequent in second generation (SG) LAIs than in first generation (FG) LAIs. Moreover, specific characteristics of some substances should be considered: In SG-LAIs immediate onset of action is only applicable for olanzapine and paliperidone and FG-LAIs should always be given as a test dose first to assure a general tolerance. All LAIs have a high variability of plasma levels which complicates the dose titration. Last but not least, current research concerning long-term consequences of continuous treatment with antipsychotics and the potentially poorer response to antipsychotics should be considered.

Fluphenazine versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between any other antipsychotic compounds, however, low-potency antipsychotic drugs are often perceived as less efficacious than high-potency compounds by clinicians, and they also seem to differ in their side effects. This review examined the effects of the high-potency antipsychotic fluphenazine compared to those of low-potency antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (November 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fluphenazine with first-generation low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes seven randomised trials and 1567 participants that compared fluphenazine with low-potency antipsychotic drugs. The size of the included studies was between 40 and 438 participants. Overall, sequence generation, allocation procedures and blinding were poorly reported. Fluphenazine was not significantly different from low-potency antipsychotic drugs in terms of response to treatment (fluphenazine 55%, low-potency drug 55%, 2 RCTs, n = 105, RR 1.06 CI 0.75 to 1.50, moderate quality evidence). There was also no significant difference in acceptability of treatment with equivocal numbers of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason (fluphenazine 36%, low-potency antipsychotics 36%, 6 RCTs, n = 1532, RR 1.00 CI 0.88 to 1.14, moderate quality evidence). There was no significant difference between fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics for numbers experiencing at least one adverse effect (fluphenazine 70%, low-potency antipsychotics 88%, 1 RCT, n = 65, RR 0.79 CI 0.58 to 1.07, moderate quality evidence). However, at least one movement disorder occurred significantly more frequently in the fluphenazine group (fluphenazine 15%, low-potency antipsychotics 10%, 3 RCTs, n = 971, RR 2.11 CI 1.41 to 3.15, low quality of evidence). In contrast, low-potency antipsychotics produced significantly more sedation (fluphenazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 64%, 1 RCT, n = 65, RR 0.31 CI 0.13 to 0.77, high quality evidence). No data were available for the outcomes of death and quality of life. The results of the primary outcome were robust in a number of subgroup and sensitivity analyses.Adverse effects such as akathisia (fluphenazine 15%, low-potency antipsychotics 6%, 5 RCTs, n = 1209, RR 2.28 CI 1.58 to 3.28); dystonia (fluphenazine 5%, low-potency antipsychotics 2%, 4 RCTs, n = 1309, RR 2.66 CI 1.25 to 5.64); loss of associated movement (fluphenazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 2%, 1 RCT, n = 338, RR 11.15 CI 3.95 to 31.47); rigor (fluphenazine 27%, low-potency antipsychotics 12%, 2 RCTs, n = 403, RR 2.18 CI 1.20 to 3.97); and tremor (fluphenazine 15%, low-potency antipsychotics 6%, 2 RCTs, n = 403, RR 2.53 CI 1.37 to 4.68) occurred significantly more frequently in the fluphenazine group.For other adverse effects such as dizziness (fluphenazine 8%, low-potency antipsychotics 17%, 4 RCTs, n = 1051, RR 0.49 CI 0.32 to 0.73); drowsiness (fluphenazine 18%, low-potency antipsychotics 25%, 3 RCTs, n = 986, RR 0.67 CI 0.53 to 0.86); dry mouth (fluphenazine 11%, low-potency antipsychotics 18%, 4 RCTs, n = 1051, RR 0.63 CI 0.45 to 0.89); nausea (fluphenazine 4%, low-potency antipsychotics 15%, 3 RCTs, n = 986, RR 0.25 CI 0.14 to 0.45); and vomiting (fluphenazine 3%, low-potency antipsychotics 8%, 3 RCTs, n = 986, RR 0.36 CI 0.18 to 0.72) results favoured fluphenazine with significantly more events occurring in the low-potency antipsychotic group for these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results do not show a clear difference in efficacy between fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics. The number of included studies was low and their quality moderate. Therefore, further studies would be needed to draw firm conclusions about the relative effects of fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics.

Pharmacological and psychosocial management of mental, neurological and substance use disorders in low- and middle-income countries: issues and current strategies

Mental, neurological, and substance use disorders (MNS) are among the largest sources of medical disability in the world, surpassing both cardiovascular disease and cancer. The picture is not different in low- and middle-income countries (LAMIC) where the relative morbidity associated with MNS is increasing, as a consequence of improvement in general health indicators and longevity. However, 80 % of individuals with MNS live in LAMIC but only close to 20 % of cases receive some sort of treatment. The main aim of this article is to provide non-specialist health workers in LAMIC with an accessible guide to the affordable essential psychotropics and psychosocial interventions which are proven to be cost effective for treating the main MNS. The MNS discussed in this article were selected on the basis of burden, following the key priority conditions selected by the Mental Health Action Programme (mhGAP) developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) (anxiety, stress-related and bodily distress disorders; depression and bipolar disorder; schizophrenia; alcohol and drug addiction; and epilepsy), with the addition of eating disorders, because of their emergent trend in middle-income countries. We review best evidence-based clinical practice in these areas, with a focus on drugs from the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines and the psychosocial interventions available in LAMIC for the management of these conditions in primary care. We do this by reviewing guidelines developed by prestigious professional associations and government agencies, clinical trials conducted in LAMIC and systematic reviews (including Cochrane reviews) identified from the main international literature databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO). In summary, it can be concluded that the availability and use of the psychotropics on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines in LAMIC, plus an array of psychosocial interventions, can represent a cost-effective way to expand treatment of most MNS. The translation of these findings into policies can be achieved by relatively low supplementary funding, and limited effort engendered by governments and policy makers in LAMIC.

Bromperidol decanoate (depot) for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs are the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia. Long-acting depot injections of drugs such as bromperidol decanoate are extensively used as a means of long-term maintenance treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of depot bromperidol versus placebo, oral antipsychotics and other depot antipsychotic preparations for people with schizophrenia in terms of clinical, social and economic outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

For this 2012 update we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (February 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought all randomised trials focusing on people with schizophrenia where depot bromperidol, oral antipsychotics or other depot preparations. Primary outcomes were clinically significant change in global function, service utilisation outcomes (hospital admission, days in hospital), relapse.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For the 2011 update MP independently extracted data, CEA carried out the reliability check. We calculated fixed-effect risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data, and calculated weighted or standardised means for continuous data. Where possible, we calculated the number needed to treat statistic (NNT). Analysis was by intention-to-treat.For the 2012 update, data collection and analysis was not carried out as no new studies were found.

MAIN RESULTS

The 2012 search found no new studies, we have therefore included no new trials in this 2012 update. The number of included trials remain 4 RCTs, total n = 117. A single, small study of six months' duration compared bromperidol decanoate with placebo injection. Similar numbers left the study before completion (n = 20, 1 RCT, RR 0.4 CI 0.1 to 1.6) and there were no clear differences between bromperidol decanoate and placebo for a list of adverse effects (n = 20, 1 RCT, RR akathisia 2.0 CI 0.21 to 18.69, RR increased weight 3.0 CI 0.14 to 65.9, RR tremor 0.33 CI 0.04 to 2.69). When bromperidol decanoate was compared with fluphenazine depot, we found no important change on global outcome (n = 30, RR no clinical important improvement 1.50 CI 0.29 to 7.73). People allocated to fluphenazine decanoate and haloperidol decanoate had fewer relapses than those given bromperidol decanoate (n = 77, RR 3.92 Cl 1.05 to 14.60, NNH 6 CI 2 to 341). People allocated bromperidol decanoate required additional antipsychotic medication somewhat more frequently than those taking fluphenazine decanoate and haloperidol decanoate, but the results did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance (n = 77, 2 RCTs, RR 1.72 CI 0.7 to 4.2). The use of benzodiazepine drugs was very similar in both groups (n = 77, 2 RCTs, RR 1.08 CI 0.68 to 1.70). People left the bromperidol decanoate group more frequent than those taking other depot preparation due to any cause (n = 97, 3 RCTs, RR 2.17 CI 1.00 to 4.73). Anticholinergic adverse effects were equally common between bromperidol and other depots (n = 47, RR 3.13 CI 0.7 to 14.0) and additional anticholinergic medication was needed with equal frequency in both depot groups, although results did tend to favour the bromperidol decanoate group (n = 97, 3 RCTs, RR 0.80 CI 0.64 to 1.01). The incidence of movement disorders was similar in both depot groups (n = 77, 2 RCTs, RR 0.74 CI 0.47 to 1.17).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Minimal poorly reported trial data suggests that bromperidol decanoate may be better than placebo injection but less valuable than fluphenazine or haloperidol decanoate. If bromperidol decanoate is available it may be a viable choice, especially when there are reasons not to use fluphenazine or haloperidol decanoate. Well-conducted and reported randomised trials are needed to inform practice.

Number needed to treat and number needed to harm with paliperidone palmitate relative to long-acting haloperidol, bromperidol, and fluphenazine decanoate for treatment of patients with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

We analyzed data retrieved through a PubMed search of randomized, placebo-controlled trials of first-generation antipsychotic long-acting injectables (haloperidol decanoate, bromperidol decanoate, and fluphenazine decanoate), and a company database of paliperidone palmitate, to compare the benefit-risk ratio in patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

From the eight studies that met our selection criteria, two efficacy and six safety parameters were selected for calculation of number needed to treat (NNT), number needed to harm (NNH), and the likelihood of being helped or harmed (LHH) using comparisons of active drug relative to placebo. NNTs for prevention of relapse ranged from 2 to 5 for paliperidone palmitate, haloperidol decanoate, and fluphenazine decanoate, indicating a moderate to large effect size.

RESULTS

Among the selected maintenance studies, NNH varied considerably, but indicated a lower likelihood of encountering extrapyramidal side effects, such as akathisia, tremor, and tardive dyskinesia, with paliperidone palmitate versus placebo than with first-generation antipsychotic depot agents versus placebo. This was further supported by an overall higher NNH for paliperidone palmitate versus placebo with respect to anticholinergic use and Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale positive score. LHH for preventing relapse versus use of anticholinergics was 15 for paliperidone palmitate and 3 for fluphenazine decanoate, favoring paliperidone palmitate.

CONCLUSION

Overall, paliperidone palmitate had a similar NNT and a more favorable NNH compared with the first-generation long-acting injectables assessed.

First-generation antipsychotic long-acting injections v. oral antipsychotics in schizophrenia: systematic review of randomised controlled trials and observational studies

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic long-acting injections (LAIs) are often used in an attempt to improve medication adherence in people with schizophrenia.

AIMS

To compare first-generation antipsychotic long-acting injections (FGA-LAIs) with first- and second-generation oral antipsychotics in terms of clinical outcome.

METHOD

Systematic literature review.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showed no difference in relapse or tolerability between oral antipsychotics and FGA-LAIs but global improvement was twice as likely with FGA-LAIs. Four prospective observational studies were identified; two studies reported lower discontinuation rates for FGA-LAIs compared with oral medication and two found that outcome was either no different or better with oral antipsychotics. Mirror-image studies consistently showed reduced in-patient days and admissions following a switch from oral antipsychotics to FGA-LAIs.

CONCLUSIONS

The results are variable and inconclusive. Some evidence suggests that FGA-LAIs may improve outcome compared with oral antipsychotics. Methodological issues may partly explain the variable results. Selective recruitment in RCTs and lack of randomisation in observational studies are biases against LAIs, whereas regression to the mean in mirror-image studies favours LAIs. In terms of future research, a long-term pragmatic RCT of an FGA-LAI against an oral antipsychotic, in patients with problematic adherence, would be of value.

The revolving door phenomenon in psychiatry: comparing low-frequency and high-frequency users of psychiatric inpatient services in a developing country

INTRODUCTION

Deinstitutionalization has led to a dramatic reduction of inpatient beds and subsequent increase in pressure on available beds. Another consequence of deinstitutionalization has been the phenomenon of the revolving door patient; high-frequency users (HFUs) admitted to hospital repeatedly, remaining well for only short periods of time. The purpose of the study was to determine factors that contribute to HFU of inpatient psychiatric services by schizophrenia and schizo-affective disorder subjects in a developing country with a view to understanding this phenomenon better.

METHODS

Subjects were divided into HFU and low-frequency user (LFUs) groups for comparison with regard to selected variables.

RESULTS

HFUs had higher PANSS scores (p < 0.01), were more likely to admit to lifetime substance use (p = 0.01), be on mood stabilizers (p < 0.01) and also to have been crisis (premature) discharges (p < 0.01). LFUs were more likely to have been treated with depot medication (p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis showed crisis discharge (p = 0.03) and depot use (p = 0.03) to be the only remaining significant predictors of HFU versus LFU status.

DISCUSSION

Our findings suggest HFUs' characteristics to be similar across different settings, with under-utilization of depot antipsychotics and early discharge from hospital as particular contributors to high-frequency use of services in our sample.

CONCLUSION

Results seem to indicate that HFU-specific interventions are vital to addressing these issues.

Packages of care for schizophrenia in low- and middle-income countries

In the third in a series of six articles on packages of care for mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries, Jair Mari and colleagues discuss the treatment of schizophrenia.