Newer atypical antipsychotic medication versus clozapine for schizophrenia

Haloperidol (oral) versus olanzapine (oral) for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is often a severe and disabling psychiatric disorder. Antipsychotics remain the mainstay of psychotropic treatment for people with psychosis. In limited resource and humanitarian contexts, it is key to have several options for beneficial, low-cost antipsychotics, which require minimal monitoring. We wanted to compare oral haloperidol, as one of the most available antipsychotics in these settings, with a second-generation antipsychotic, olanzapine.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical benefits and harms of haloperidol compared to olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia study-based register of trials, which is based on monthly searches of CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and WHO ICTRP. We screened the references of all included studies. We contacted relevant authors of trials for additional information where clarification was required or where data were incomplete. The register was last searched on 14 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing haloperidol with olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in global state, relapse, clinically important change in mental state, extrapyramidal side effects, weight increase, clinically important change in quality of life and leaving the study early due to adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently evaluated and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB or NNTH) with 95% CI. For continuous data, we estimated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. For all included studies, we assessed risk of bias (RoB 1) and we used the GRADE approach to create a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 68 studies randomising 9132 participants. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in clinically important change in global state (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02; 6 studies, 3078 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in relapse (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.02; 7 studies, 1499 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in overall mental state compared to olanzapine (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.81; 13 studies, 1210 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every eight people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this improvement. The evidence suggests that haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects compared to olanzapine (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.28 to 5.02; 14 studies, 3290 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every three people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one additional person would experience extrapyramidal side effects. For weight gain, the evidence suggests that there may be a large reduction in the risk with haloperidol compared to olanzapine (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; 18 studies, 4302 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 10 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience weight increase. A single study suggests that haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in quality of life compared to olanzapine (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 828 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every nine people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience clinically important improvement in quality of life. Haloperidol may result in an increase in the incidence of leaving the study early due to adverse effects compared to olanzapine (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.47; 21 studies, 5047 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 22 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this outcome. Thirty otherwise relevant studies and several endpoints from 14 included studies could not be evaluated due to inconsistencies and poor transparency of several parameters. Furthermore, even within studies that were included, it was often not possible to use data for the same reasons. Risk of bias differed substantially for different outcomes and the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The most common risks of bias leading to downgrading of the evidence were blinding (performance bias) and selective reporting (reporting bias).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low to very low for the main outcomes in this review, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in terms of clinically important global state and relapse. Olanzapine may result in a slightly greater overall clinically important change in mental state and in a clinically important change in quality of life. Different side effect profiles were noted: haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects and olanzapine in a large increase in weight gain. The drug of choice needs to take into account side effect profiles and the preferences of the individual. These findings and the recent inclusion of olanzapine alongside haloperidol in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines should increase the likelihood of it becoming more easily available in low- and middle- income countries, thereby improving choice and providing a greater ability to respond to side effects for people with lived experience of schizophrenia. There is a need for additional research using appropriate and equivalent dosages of these drugs. Some of this research needs to be done in low- and middle-income settings and should actively seek to account for factors relevant to these. Research on antipsychotics needs to be person-centred and prioritise factors that are of interest to people with lived experience of schizophrenia.

Efficacy and safety of clozapine in psychotic disorders-a systematic quantitative meta-review

A recent increase in the literature regarding the evidence base for clozapine has made it increasingly difficult for clinicians to judge "best evidence" for clozapine use. As such, we aimed at elucidating the state-of-the-art for clozapine with regard to efficacy, effectiveness, tolerability, and management of clozapine and clozapine-related adverse events in neuropsychiatric disorders. We conducted a systematic PRISMA-conforming quantitative meta-review of available meta-analytic evidence regarding clozapine use. Primary outcome effect sizes were extracted and transformed into relative risk ratios (RR) and standardized mean differences (SMD). The methodological quality of meta-analyses was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 checklist. Of the 112 meta-analyses included in our review, 61 (54.5%) had an overall high methodological quality according to AMSTAR-2. Clozapine appears to have superior effects on positive, negative, and overall symptoms and relapse rates in schizophrenia (treatment-resistant and non-treatment-resistant subpopulations) compared to first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) and to pooled FGAs/second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS). Despite an unfavorable metabolic and hematological adverse-event profile compared to other antipsychotics, hospitalization, mortality and all-cause discontinuation (ACD) rates of clozapine surprisingly show a pattern of superiority. Our meta-review outlines the superior overall efficacy of clozapine compared to FGAs and most other SGAs in schizophrenia and suggests beneficial efficacy outcomes in bipolar disorder and Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP). More clinical studies and subsequent meta-analyses are needed beyond the application of clozapine in schizophrenia-spectrum disorders and future studies should be directed into multidimensional clozapine side-effect management to foster evidence and to inform future guidelines.

Chlorpromazine dose for people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) Model Lists of Essential Medicines lists chlorpromazine as one of its five medicines used in psychotic disorders.

OBJECTIVES

To determine chlorpromazine dose response and dose side-effect relationships for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (December 2008; 2 October 2014; 19 December 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing low doses of chlorpromazine (≤ 400 mg/day), medium dose (401 mg/day to 800 mg/day) or higher doses (> 800 mg/day) for people with schizophrenia, and which reported clinical outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We included studies meeting review criteria and providing useable data. Review authors extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated fixed-effect risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and their 95% CIs based on a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and graded trial quality using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

MAIN RESULTS

As a result of searches undertaken in 2014, we found one new study and in 2016 more data for already included studies. Five relevant studies with 1132 participants (585 are relevant to this review) are now included. All are hospital-based trials and, despite over 60 years of chlorpromazine use, have durations of less than six months and all are at least at moderate risk of bias. We found only data on low-dose (≤ 400 mg/day) versus medium-dose chlorpromazine (401 mg/day to 800 mg/day) and low-dose versus high-dose chlorpromazine (> 800 mg/day).When low-dose chlorpromazine (≤ 400 mg/day) was compared to medium-dose chlorpromazine (401 mg/day to 800 mg/day), there was no clear benefit of one dose over the other for both global and mental state outcomes (low-quality and very low-quality evidence). There was also no clear evidence for people in one dosage group being more likely to leave the study early, over the other dosage group (moderate-quality evidence). Similar numbers of participants from each group experienced agitation and restlessness (very low-quality evidence). However, significantly more people in the medium-dose group (401 mg/day to 800 mg/day) experienced extrapyramidal symptoms in the short term (2 RCTS, n = 108, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.74, moderate-quality evidence). No data for death were available.When low-dose chlorpromazine (≤ 400 mg/day) was compared to high-dose chlorpromazine (> 800 mg/day), data from one study with 416 patients were available. Clear evidence of a benefit of the high dose was found with regards to global state. The low-dose group had significantly fewer people improving (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.25, moderate-quality evidence). There was also a marked difference between the number of people leaving the study from each group for any reason, with significantly more people leaving from the high-dose group (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.89, moderate-quality evidence). More people in the low-dose group had to leave the study due to deterioration in behaviour (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.44, low-quality evidence). There was clear evidence of a greater risk of people experiencing extrapyramidal symptoms in general in the high-dose group (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, moderate-quality evidence). One death was reported in the high-dose group yet no effect was shown between the two dosage groups (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.14, moderate-quality evidence). No data for mental state were available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The dosage of chlorpromazine has changed drastically over the past 50 years with lower doses now being the preferred of choice. However, this change was gradual and arose not due to trial-based evidence, but due to clinical experience and consensus. Chlorpromazine is one of the most widely used antipsychotic drugs yet appropriate use of lower levels has come about after many years of trial and error with much higher doses. In the absence of high-grade evaluative studies, clinicians have had no alternative but to learn from experience. However, such an approach can lack scientific rigor and does not allow for proper dissemination of information that would assist clinicians find the optimum treatment dosage for their patients. In the future, data for recently released medication should be available from high-quality trials and studies to provide optimum treatment to patients in the shortest amount of time.

WITHDRAWN: Risperidone versus other atypical antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Risperidone is one of a number of 'atypical antipsychotics' which are currently being marketed for the treatment of those with schizophrenia, largely on the basis of claims of improved tolerability and effectiveness compared to much cheaper conventional antipsychotics. The efficacy of risperidone has already been compared to conventional drugs, but it remains unclear how risperidone compares with other atypical antipsychotic drugs such as clozapine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of risperidone compared with other atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1980-1999), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2000), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (January 1999), EMBASE (1980-1999), MEDLINE (1966-1999), LILACS (1982-1999), PSYNDEX (1977-1999) and PsycLIT (1974-1999) were undertaken. In addition, pharmaceutical databases on the Dialog Corporation Datastar and Dialog services were searched. References of all identified studies were searched for further trials. Pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled clinical trials that compared risperidone to other atypical antipsychotic treatments for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses were included by independent assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Citations and, where possible, abstracts were independently inspected by reviewers, papers ordered, re-inspected and quality assessed. Data were independently extracted. For homogeneous dichotomous data the risk ratio (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, standardised and weighted mean differences were calculated (SMD, WMD). All data were inspected for heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies were obtained, comparing risperidone with clozapine (five studies - largely amongst treatment resistant patients); olanzapine (three studies); and amisulpiride (one study). The research was beset by problems of high attrition rates and short term follow up.Clozapine does seem equally acceptable to risperidone in the short term (leaving the study early, n=466, RR 1.00 CI 0.73-1.37). For most other outcomes wide confidence intervals were obtained, which meant that it was impossible to judge whether the two compounds were equally effective, or whether one was in fact superior to the other.Olanzapine and risperidone seem broadly similar according to numbers of patients responding to treatment (40% reduction in PANSS scores: n=339, RR 1.14, CI 0.99-1.32). Olanzapine caused fewer people to leave the study early (n=404, RR 1.31 CI 1.06-1.60; NNT 8 CI 4-32) and fewer extrapyramidal side effects (n=339, RR 1.67 CI 1.14-2.46; NNH 8 CI 5-33), although comparative doses of risperidone were higher than those recommended in practice.In one single study (n=228) amisulpiride seemed broadly similar to risperidone in most respects.There were no useful data presented relating to service use and costs. Very few data relating to quality of life were presented.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The equivalence of clozapine and risperidone for treatment resistant schizophrenia cannot yet be assumed and there seems to be little to chose between risperidone and both olanzapine and amisulpiride. The research is limited in many respects, and longer term studies measuring clinically important outcomes, including service use and quality of life are needed to judge the comparative value of the various atypical drugs.

Diurnal neurobiological alterations after exposure to clozapine in first-episode schizophrenia patients

BACKGROUND

Irregular circadian rhythm and some of its most characteristic symptoms are frequently observed in patients with schizophrenia. However, changes in the expression of clock genes or neuropeptides that are related to the regulation of circadian rhythm may influence the susceptibility to recurrence after antipsychotic treatment in schizophrenia, but this possibility has not been investigated.

METHODS

Blood samples were collected from 15 healthy male controls and 13 male schizophrenia patients at 4h intervals for 24h before and after treatment with clozapine for 8 weeks. The outcome measures included the relative expression of clock gene mRNA PERIOD1 (PER1), PERIOD2 (PER2), PERIOD3 (PER3) and the levels of plasma cortisol, orexin, and insulin.

RESULTS

Compared with healthy controls, schizophrenia patients presented disruptions in diurnal rhythms of the expression of PER1, PER3, and NPAS2 and the release of orexin, accompanied by a delayed phase in the expression of PER2, decreases in PER3 and NPAS2 expression, and an increase in cortisol levels at baseline. Several of these disruptions (i.e., in PER1 and PER3 expression) persisted after 8 weeks of clozapine treatment, similar to the decreases in the 24-h expression of PER3 and NPAS2. Clozapine treatment for 8 weeks significantly decreased the 24-h levels of PER2 and increased the 24-h levels of insulin.

CONCLUSION

These persistent neurobiological changes that occur after 8 weeks of clozapine treatment may contribute to the vulnerability to recurrence and efficacy of long-term maintenance treatment in schizophrenia.

Quo Vadis Clozapine? A Bibliometric Study of 45 Years of Research in International Context

We have carried out a bibliometric study about the international scientific publications on clozapine. We have used the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases, and we applied bibliometric indicators of production, as Price's Law on the increase of scientific literature. We also calculated the participation index (PI) of the different countries. The bibliometric data have also been correlated with some social and health data from the 12 most productive countries in biomedicine and health sciences. In addition, 5607 original documents dealing with clozapine, published between 1970 and 2013, were downloaded. Our results state non-fulfilment of Price's Law, with scientific production on clozapine showing linear growth (r=0.8691, vs. r=0.8478 after exponential adjustment). Seven of the 12 journals with the highest numbers of publications on clozapine have an Impact Factor>2. Among the countries generating clozapine research, the most prominent is the USA (PI=24.32), followed by the UK (PI=6.27) and Germany (PI=5.40). The differences among countries on clozapine research are significantly related to economic variables linked to research. The scientific interest in clozapine remains remarkable, although after the application of bibliometric indicators of production, a saturation point is evident in the growth of scientific literature on this topic.

Current approaches to treatments for schizophrenia spectrum disorders, part I: an overview and medical treatments

During the last three decades, an increasing understanding of the etiology, psychopathology, and clinical manifestations of schizophrenia spectrum disorders, in addition to the introduction of second-generation antipsychotics, has optimized the potential for recovery from the illness. Continued development of various models of psychosocial intervention promotes the goal of schizophrenia treatment from one of symptom control and social adaptation to an optimal restoration of functioning and/or recovery. However, it is still questionable whether these new treatment approaches can address the patients' needs for treatment and services and contribute to better patient outcomes. This article provides an overview of different treatment approaches currently used in schizophrenia spectrum disorders to address complex health problems and a wide range of abnormalities and impairments resulting from the illness. There are different treatment strategies and targets for patients at different stages of the illness, ranging from prophylactic antipsychotics and cognitive-behavioral therapy in the premorbid stage to various psychosocial interventions in addition to antipsychotics for relapse prevention and rehabilitation in the later stages of the illness. The use of antipsychotics alone as the main treatment modality may be limited not only in being unable to tackle the frequently occurring negative symptoms and cognitive impairments but also in producing a wide variety of adverse effects to the body or organ functioning. Because of varied pharmacokinetics and treatment responsiveness across agents, the medication regimen should be determined on an individual basis to ensure an optimal effect in its long-term use. This review also highlights that the recent practice guidelines and standards have recommended that a combination of treatment modalities be adopted to meet the complex health needs of people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. In view of the heterogeneity of the risk factors and the illness progression of individual patients, the use of multifaceted illness management programs consisting of different combinations of physical, psychological, and social interventions might be efficient and effective in improving recovery.

The impact of newer atypical antipsychotics on patient-reported outcomes in schizophrenia

Over the past two decades there has been increasing interest in including patients' self-reports in the management of their illness. Among the many reasons for such recent interest has been a rising consumer movement over the past few decades, which has led patients, their caregivers and their families to press for more meaningful sharing with physicians in the clinical decision-making process, with the clear expectations of better therapies and improved outcomes. Patients as consumers of services, their views, attitudes towards healthcare, as well as their level of satisfaction with care, have become increasingly recognized. The recent interest by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as well as other regulatory agencies, in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the process of developing and testing new antipsychotics, has also added more impetus. It is clear that including patients in the decision-making process about the management of their psychiatric conditions also broadens the concept of 'recovery', by empowering patients to be active participants and gives a clear message that successful treatment in schizophrenia is more than a symptomatic improvement, but also includes improved functional status. Additionally, the recent interest in personalized medicine puts the patient in the centre of such development. Since 2004, when we published our review about the impact of new antipsychotics on quality of life in CNS Drugs, a number of newer antipsychotics have been introduced and include ziprasidone, aripiprazole, paliperidone, asenapine, iloperidone and lurasidone. The current review is based on 31 selected publications that cover the years 2004-2012, and deals with the impact of such newer antipsychotics on specific domains of PROs, such as subjective tolerability, quality of life, medication preference, satisfaction and social functioning. Most of the available data deal with ziprasidone, aripiprazole and paliperidone. Though the great majority of the studies indicate the newer antipsychotics have favourably impacted on aspects of PROs, such a conclusion can only be considered a trend due to the many design and methodological limitations of many of these studies. It is interesting to note, as the field awaits more rigorous studies, that there seems to be a unifying core that exists among the various subjective outcomes and that tends to generalize from one subjective outcome to other subjective outcomes. The patient who experiences good subjective tolerability to medications tends generally to be more satisfied and has a strong medication preference. The identification of such a unifying core can prove helpful, not only in the development of appropriate scales, but also in informing and guiding the process of development of new antipsychotics.

Challenges in validating quality of care data in a schizophrenia registry: experience from the Danish National Indicator Project

BACKGROUND

Improvement of quality of care for psychiatric patients is a key objective of health care systems worldwide. Consequently, there is an increasing interest in documenting quality of care; however, little is known about the validity of the available data on psychiatric care.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the validity of process of care data recorded in the Danish National Indicator Project (DNIP), a national population-based registry containing quality of care data of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia in Denmark.

METHODS

A random sample of 1% of patients with schizophrenia registered in the DNIP between 2004 and 2009 (111 inpatient and 85 outpatient) was identified for validation. Medical records for these patients, which were used as the gold standard, were retrieved and reviewed for information on the processes of care received. Agreement between the data in the DNIP and the medical records were assessed by computing sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values.

RESULTS

The agreement between the recorded processes of care in the DNIP and in the medical records varied substantially across the individual process of care variables. However, a collection of the processes of care demonstrated a high agreement (80% or more) between data in the DNIP and the medical records, according to all examined aspects of data validity (sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values). The medical records contained varying levels of missing information regarding the processes of care, from 1% for antipsychotic medication prescription to 54% for psychoeducation.

CONCLUSION

Current documentation practices in Danish psychiatric hospitals appear to be inconsistent and may preclude the use of psychiatric medical records as the gold standard when validating registry data.

Where Does Evidence from New Trials for Schizophrenia Fit with the Existing Evidence: A Case of the Emperor's New Clothes?

Advent of "atypical" antipsychotics has spawned new trials in the recent years and the number of such trial reports has been increasing exponentially. As clinicians we have been led to believe that "atypicals" are better than "typicals" despite the odd dissenting voice in academic and clinical circles. This has been largely ignored until the publication of two landmark, independent, pragmatic trials, Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) and Cost Utility of the Latest Antipsychotic Drugs in Schizophrenia Study (CUtLASS), which proved that thoughtfully chosen "typical" antipsychotics were as good as the newer "atypicals." We pooled "leaving the study early data" from Cochrane Reviews that existed before CATIE and CUtLASS and added data from CATIE and CUtLASS to the pool for a "before and after" comparison. Addition of CATIE and CUtLASS data only led to narrowing of the already existing confidence intervals, merely increasing precision, and decreasing the risk of Type II error. Perhaps surprisingly, CATIE and CUtLASS when pooled with the already existing data showed us that we had chosen to turn a blind eye to findings that already existed. This leads clinicians to question as to whether, in future, we need to feel less guilty about crying out early on that the emperor has no clothes on.

Do findings from new trials for schizophrenia fit with existing evidence: not duped … just beguiled?

No treatment has caused a greater revolution in the treatment of people with schizophrenia than chlorpromazine. The new generation of drugs has been embraced by psychiatry with an enthusiasm fostered by the unmet needs of both patients and industry. Recent, independently funded trials have highlighted already existing data illustrating how the new antipsychotics drugs are an additional advance but not a revolution. In this story there are lessons for psychiatry to opt for science rather than seduction.

Effects on prolongation of Bazett's corrected QT interval of seven second-generation antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia: a meta-analysis

The use of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for the treatment of schizophrenia has surged worldwide. Amisulpride, aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, sertindole and ziprasidone have now been commonly prescribed. Their effects on QT interval differ but evidence remains sparse and mostly inconclusive. Since prolongation of heart-rate corrected QT interval has been implicated as an useful surrogate marker to predict drug-related cardiac mortality and pro-arrhythmic potentials, it is timely and necessary to compare the effects of Bazett's corrected QT interval (QT(Bc)) prolongation for the commonly prescribed SGAs. A meta-analysis was conducted according to suggestions by the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis group with literature identified using various databases and augmented with hand-searching to assess the magnitude and risk on QT(Bc) prolongation by these seven SGAs for treatments in adult subjects with schizophrenia. Because of incomplete QT(Bc) data reporting, quetiapine could not be assessed by the meta-analytical approach in this study. Aripiprazole was the only SGA associated with both statistically significant lower risk and mean change in QT(Bc), with sertindole giving a statistically significant worsening effect on mean QT(Bc). Other analyses did not demonstrate any statistically significant pooled effects for the studied SGAs, neither on the magnitude over mean or mean change, nor the risk on QT(Bc) prolongation.

Clozapine versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Clozapine is an atypical antipsychotic demonstrated to be superior in the treatment of refractory schizophrenia which causes fewer movement disorders. Clozapine, however, entails a significant risk of serious blood disorders such as agranulocytosis which could be potentially fatal. Currently there are a number of newer antipsychotics which have been developed with the purpose to find both a better tolerability profile and a superior effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effects of clozapine with other atypical antipsychotics (such as amisulpride, aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, sertindole, ziprasidone and zotepine) in the treatment of schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Groups Register (June 2007) and reference lists of all included randomised controlled trials. We also manually searched appropriate journals and conference proceedings relating to clozapine combination strategies and contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised, at least single-blind trials, comparing clozapine with other atypical antipsychotics, any dose and oral formulations, for people with schizophrenia or related disorders.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We selected trials and extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on a random-effects model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) again based on a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 27 blinded randomised controlled trials, which involved 3099 participants. Twelve randomised control trials compared clozapine with olanzapine, five with quetiapine, nine with risperidone, one with ziprasidone and two with zotepine. Attrition from these studies was high (overall 30.1%), leaving the interpretation of results problematic. Clozapine had a higher attrition rate due to adverse effects than olanzapine (9 RCTs, n=1674, RR 1.60 CI 1.07 to 2.40, NNT 25 CI 15 to 73) and risperidone (6 RCTs, n=627, RR 1.88 CI 1.11 to 3.21, NNT 16 CI 9 to 59). Fewer participants in the clozapine groups left the trials early due to inefficacy than risperidone (6 RCTs, n=627, RR 0.40 CI 0.23 to 0.70, NNT 11 CI 7 to 21), suggesting a certain higher efficacy of clozapine.Clozapine was more efficacious than zotepine in improving the participants general mental state (BPRS total score: 1 RCT, n=59, MD -6.00 CI -9.83 to -2.17), but not consistently more than olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone and ziprasidone. There was no significant difference between clozapine and olanzapine or risperidone in terms of positive or negative symptoms of schizophrenia. According to two studies from China quetiapine was more efficacious for negative symptoms than clozapine (2 RCTs, n=142, MD 2.23 CI 0.99 to 3.48).Clozapine produced somewhat fewer extrapyramidal side-effects than risperidone (use of antiparkinson medication: 6 RCTs, n=304, RR 0.39 CI 0.22 to 0.68, NNT 7 CI 5 to 18) and zotepine (n=59, RR 0.05 CI 0.00 to 0.86, NNT 3 CI 2 to 5). More participants in the clozapine group showed decreased white blood cells than those taking olanzapine, more hypersalivation and sedation than those on olanzapine, risperidone and quetiapine and more seizures than people on olanzapine and risperidone. Also clozapine produced an important weight gain not seen with risperidone.Other differences in adverse effects were less documented and should be replicated, for example, clozapine did not alter prolactin levels whereas olanzapine, risperidone and zotepine did; compared with quetiapine, clozapine produced a higher incidence of electrocardiogram (ECG) alterations; and compared with quetiapine and risperidone clozapine produced a higher increase of triglyceride levels. Other findings that should be replicated were: clozapine improved social functioning less than risperidone and fewer participants in the clozapine group had to be hospitalised to avoid suicide attempts compared to olanzapine.Other important outcomes such as service use, cognitive functioning, satisfaction with care or quality of life were rarely reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Clozapine may be a little more efficacious than zotepine and risperidone but further trials are required to confirm this finding. Clozapine differs more clearly in adverse effects from other second generation antipsychotics and the side-effect profile could be key in the selection of treatment depending on the clinical situation and a patient's preferences. Data on other important outcomes such as cognitive functioning, quality of life, death or service use are currently largely missing, making further large and well-designed trials necessary. It is also important to take into account that the large number of people leaving the studies early limits the validity and interpretation of our findings.

Indian research: Focus on clozapine

Clozapine has been used in the treatment of schizophrenia for about two decades and extensive data have been accumulated with regard to its use in various parts of the world. However, in contrast to Western countries, there are few studies which have evaluated the usefulness of clozapine in Indian patients. This article attempts to review the available data on clozapine originating from India. This review reflects the fact that there are few studies from the Indian subcontinent and most of these are case reports. In view of the same, there is a need for further research to evaluate the effectiveness of clozapine in India.

Effectiveness of second generation antipsychotics: a systematic review of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews based on efficacy trials are inconclusive about which second generation antipsychotic drug (SGA) should be preferred in normal clinical practice, and studies with longer duration and more pragmatic designs are called for. Effectiveness studies, also known as naturalistic, pragmatic, practical or real life studies, adhere to these principles as they aim to mimic daily clinical practice and have longer follow-up.

OBJECTIVE

To review the head-to-head effectiveness of SGAs in the domains of global outcomes, symptoms of disease, and tolerability.

METHODS

Searches were made in Embase, PubMED, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials for effectiveness studies published from 1980 to 2008, week 1. Different combinations of the keywords antipsychotic*, neuroleptic* AND open, pragmatic, practical, naturalistic, real life, effectiveness, side effect*, unwanted effect*, tolera* AND compar* AND random* were used.

RESULTS

Sixteen different reports of randomized head-to-head comparisons of SGA effectiveness were located. There were differences regarding sample sizes, inclusion criteria and follow-up periods, as well as sources of financial sponsorship. In acute-phase and first-episode patients no differences between the SGAs were disclosed regarding alleviating symptoms of disease. Olanzapine was associated with more weight gain and adverse effects on serum lipids. In the chronic phase patients olanzapine groups had longer time to discontinuation of treatment and better treatment adherence compared to other SGAs. The majority of studies found no differences between the SGAs in alleviating symptoms of psychosis in chronically ill patients. Olanzapine was associated with more metabolic adverse effects compared to the others SGAs. There were surprisingly few between-drug differences regarding side effects. First generation antipsychotics were associated with lower total mental health care costs in 2 of 3 studies on chronically ill patients, but were also associated with more extrapyramidal side effects compared to the SGAs in several studies.

CONCLUSION

In chronically ill patients olanzapine may have an advantage over other SGAs regarding longer time to treatment discontinuation and better drug adherence, but the drug is also associated with more metabolic side effects. More effectiveness studies on first-episode psychosis are needed.

Randomized controlled trial of effect of prescription of clozapine versus other second-generation antipsychotic drugs in resistant schizophrenia

There is good evidence that clozapine is more efficacious than first-generation antipsychotic drugs in resistant schizophrenia. It is less clear if clozapine is more effective than the other second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) drugs. A noncommercially funded, pragmatic, open, multisite, randomized controlled trial was conducted in the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS). Participants were 136 people aged 18-65 with DSM-IV schizophrenia and related disorders whose medication was being changed because of poor clinical response to 2 or more previous antipsychotic drugs. Participants were randomly allocated to clozapine or to one of the class of other SGA drugs (risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, amisulpride) as selected by the managing clinician. Outcomes were assessed blind to treatment allocation. One-year assessments were carried out in 87% of the sample. The intent to treat comparison showed no statistically significant advantage for commencing clozapine in Quality of Life score (3.63 points; CI: 0.46-7.71; p = .08) but did show an advantage in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score that was statistically significant (-4.93 points; CI: -8.82 to -1.05; p = .013) during follow-up. Clozapine showed a trend toward having fewer total extrapyramidal side effects. At 12 weeks participants who were receiving clozapine reported that their mental health was significantly better compared with those receiving other SGA drugs. In conclusion, in people with schizophrenia with poor treatment response to 2 or more antipsychotic drugs, there is an advantage to commencing clozapine rather than other SGA drugs in terms of symptom improvement over 1 year.

Modern antipsychotic drugs: a critical overview

Conventional antipsychotic drugs, used for a half century to treat a range of major psychiatric disorders, are being replaced in clinical practice by modern "atypical" antipsychotics, including aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone and ziprasidone among others. As a class, the newer drugs have been promoted as being broadly clinically superior, but the evidence for this is problematic. In this brief critical overview, we consider the pharmacology, therapeutic effectiveness, tolerability, adverse effects and costs of individual modern agents versus older antipsychotic drugs. Because of typically minor differences between agents in clinical effectiveness and tolerability, and because of growing concerns about potential adverse long-term health consequences of some modern agents, it is reasonable to consider both older and newer drugs for clinical use, and it is important to inform patients of relative benefits, risks and costs of specific choices.

Dropout rates with olanzapine or risperidone: a multi-centre observational study

OBJECTIVE

In patients with schizophrenia, risperidone and olanzapine are the two most commonly used atypical anti-psychotics. A recent meta-analysis based on randomized trials suggests that, in the long term, olanzapine can have a lower frequency of treatment discontinuation (or dropout) in comparison with risperidone. To better test this hypothesis, our observational study was aimed at assessing whether or not this advantage of olanzapine versus risperidone could be confirmed in a patient series examined in an observational setting.

METHODS

Our study was based on a retrospective multi-centre observational design. We collected the following information from each patient: demographic characteristics; current anti-psychotic treatment (olanzapine or risperidone, under the condition of a stable therapy over months -1 to -4); cumulative dose of the drug; previous anti-psychotic treatment (during months -5, -6, -7 and/or, when available, also before month -7); daily dose and treatment duration. Our primary analysis traced back the patient's history from the date of enrollment retrospectively up to month -7. The secondary analysis followed-up the patient's history prior to month -7, thus extending this retrospective recording as long as possible (depending on what information was actually available for individual patients).

RESULTS

The patients were enrolled from 31 institutions. In our primary analysis (months -1 to -7), a total of 144 patients were included; in this subgroup treated with olanzapine or risperidone as initial drug ( n=94), we observed 4 of 54 switches from olanzapine to risperidone and 11 of 40 switches from risperidone to olanzapine ( P=0.01). A total of 454 patients were enrolled in our secondary analysis (from month -1 up to month -73); the same comparison showed 9 of 236 switches from olanzapine to risperidone and 17 of 150 switches from risperidone to olanzapine ( P=0.004).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis confirms the results of a recent meta-analysis and shows that olanzapine might imply a lower risk of dropout than risperidone.

Half a century of antipsychotics and still a central role for dopamine D2 receptors

A review of the history of antipsychotics reveals that while the therapeutic effects of chlorpromazine and reserpine were discovered and actively researched almost concurrently, subsequent drug development has been restricted to drugs acting on postsynaptic receptors rather than modulation of dopamine release. The fundamental property of atypical antipsychotics is their ability to produce an antipsychotic effect in the absence of extrapyramidal side effects (EPS) or prolactin elevation. Modulation of the dopamine D2 receptor remains both necessary and sufficient for antipsychotic drug action, with affinity to the D2-receptor being the single most important discriminator between a typical and atypical drug profile. Most antipsychotics, including atypical antipsychotics, show a dose-dependent threshold of D2 receptor occupancy for their therapeutic effects, although the precise threshold is different for different drugs. Some atypical antipsychotics do not appear to reach the threshold for EPS and prolactin elevation, possibly accounting for their atypical nature. To link the biological theories of antipsychotics to their psychological effects, a hypothesis is proposed wherein psychosis is a state of aberrant salience of stimuli and ideas, and antipsychotics, via modulation of the mesolimbic dopamine system, dampen the salience of these symptoms. Thus, antipsychotics do not excise psychosis: they provide the neurochemical platform for the resolution of symptoms. Future generations of antipsychotics may need to move away from a "one-size-fits-all polypharmacy-in-a-pill" approach to treat all the different aspects of schizophrenia. At least in theory a preferred approach would be the development of specific treatments for the different dimensions of schizophrenia (e.g., positive, negative, cognitive, and affective) that can be flexibly used and titrated in the service of patients' presenting psychopathology.

Newer atypical antipsychotic medication in comparison to clozapine: a systematic review of randomized trials

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of newer atypical antipsychotic drugs in comparison to clozapine for schizophrenia. Publications in all languages were searched from all relevant databases and all randomized controlled trials comparing clozapine with newer atypical drugs were included. The review and meta-analysis includes eight studies, most of them short in duration. Newer atypical drugs were broadly similar to clozapine when improvement was measured using a psychosis symptom rating scale or a global index. There was a trend for clozapine to be more effective than the others for positive symptoms, and less effective for the negative symptoms. The adverse effect profile of clozapine and newer atypical drugs was dissimilar: while clozapine produced more fatigue, hypersalivation, and orthostatic dizziness, new atypical drugs, with the exception of olanzapine, produced more extrapyramidal symptoms. As these results were obtained from few studies and a relatively small amount of patients, the equal effectiveness and tolerability of new atypical drugs in comparison with clozapine is not yet demonstrated. More trials of sufficient power, with longer duration, and measuring clinically important outcomes are urgently needed.

The cost-effectiveness of clozapine: a controlled, population-based, mirror-image study

A retrospective cohort study, with a mirror-image design, was used to measure inpatient service utilization in 63 consecutive patients started on clozapine from a geographical catchment area compared to a control group matched for previous inpatient service use. An intent-to-treat analysis, including those patients (n = 28) who discontinued clozapine during the study period, showed a significant reduction in number of admissions and total time spent in hospital in the 2 years following clozapine initiation compared to the previous 2 years and to the follow-up period in the control group. This translated into a reduction of 7,300 pounds in hospitalization costs per patient started on clozapine, over the 2-year period. In those patients who continued clozapine treatment for the whole of the 2-year period, there was a two-thirds reduction in number of admissions and total time spent in hospital compared to no change in the clozapine discontinuers. These findings suggest that clozapine is a clinically and cost-effective intervention for severe schizophrenia in routine clinical settings.

Estimating the consequences of anti-psychotic induced weight gain on health and mortality rate

Many anti-psychotic medications produce marked weight gain. In this study, we estimate the expected impact of degrees of antipsychotic-induced weight gain on selected mortality rate and incidence rates of impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and hypertension (HTN) among US adults. Using raw data from 5209 respondents from the Framingham Heart Study's public use data set and national statistics on population demographics, we estimated the expected effect of weight gain on number of deaths and incident cases of IGT and HTN for a 10-year period commencing in 1999. Results indicated that the estimated deleterious effects of weight gain were greater for people with higher BMIs at baseline, for greater degrees of weight gain, for men than women, and for older than younger persons. Because there is a 'U-shaped' relation between BMI and mortality rate, small to moderate weight gains among people with baseline BMIs less than 23 were predicted to decrease mortality rates, whereas weight gains among people with baseline BMIs above that level were expected to increase mortality rates. However, the relations of IGT and HTN with BMI are monotonically increasing. Thus, the anticipated effect of weight gain on IGT and HTN is deleterious regardless of baseline BMI. Because it is unclear whether the beneficial effects of the atypical agents on, for example, reducing suicide mortality, outweigh the putative increase in mortality due to weight gain, we estimate the beneficial effects due to decreased death from suicide with the potential deleterious effects due to a 10-kg weight gain. We found that 492 suicide deaths per 100,000 schizophrenic patients would be prevented over 10 years with the use of clozapine compared to 416 additional deaths due to antipsychotic induced weight gain. Although this estimate is rather crude and should be seen only as offering a sense of the likely situation, results suggest that the lives saved via clozapine may essentially be offset by the deaths due to weight gain. As we discuss, it is not possible to provide definitive estimates of the effect of antipsychotic-induced weight gain on health and mortality, but our findings suggest that the magnitude of weight gains induced by many antipsychotic agents is likely to have important deleterious effects on mortality and health.

Risperidone versus other atypical antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Risperidone is one of a number of 'atypical antipsychotics' which are currently being marketed for the treatment of those with schizophrenia, largely on the basis of claims of improved tolerability and effectiveness compared to much cheaper conventional antipsychotics. The efficacy of risperidone has already been compared to conventional drugs, but it remains unclear how risperidone compares with other atypical antipsychotic drugs such as clozapine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of risperidone compared with other atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1980-1999), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2000), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (January 1999), EMBASE (1980-1999), MEDLINE (1966-1999), LILACS (1982-1999), PSYNDEX (1977-1999) and PsycLIT (1974-1999) were undertaken. In addition, pharmaceutical databases on the Dialog Corporation Datastar and Dialog services were searched. References of all identified studies were searched for further trials. Pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled clinical trials that compared risperidone to other atypical antipsychotic treatments for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses were included by independent assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Citations and, where possible, abstracts were independently inspected by reviewers, papers ordered, re-inspected and quality assessed. Data were independently extracted. For homogeneous dichotomous data the risk ratio (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, standardised and weighted mean differences were calculated (SMD, WMD). All data were inspected for heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies were obtained, comparing risperidone with clozapine (five studies - largely amongst treatment resistant patients); olanzapine (three studies); and amisulpiride (one study). The research was beset by problems of high attrition rates and short term follow up. Clozapine does seem equally acceptable to risperidone in the short term (leaving the study early, n=466, RR 1. 00 CI 0.73-1.37). For most other outcomes wide confidence intervals were obtained, which meant that it was impossible to judge whether the two compounds were equally effective, or whether one was in fact superior to the other. Olanzapine and risperidone seem broadly similar according to numbers of patients responding to treatment (40% reduction in PANSS scores: n=339, RR 1.14, CI 0.99-1.32). Olanzapine caused fewer people to leave the study early (n=404, RR 1. 31 CI 1.06-1.60; NNT 8 CI 4-32) and fewer extrapyramidal side effects (n=339, RR 1.67 CI 1.14-2.46; NNH 8 CI 5-33), although comparative doses of risperidone were higher than those recommended in practice. In one single study (n=228) amisulpiride seemed broadly similar to risperidone in most respects. There were no useful data presented relating to service use and costs. Very few data relating to quality of life were presented.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The equivalence of clozapine and risperidone for treatment resistant schizophrenia cannot yet be assumed and there seems to be little to chose between risperidone and both olanzapine and amisulpiride. The research is limited in many respects, and longer term studies measuring clinically important outcomes, including service use and quality of life are needed to judge the comparative value of the various atypical drugs.

Newer atypical antipsychotic medication versus clozapine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Clozapine is an atypical antipsychotic drug, which is claimed to have superior efficacy and to cause fewer movement disorders. However, clozapine carries a significant risk of serious blood disorders. Newer atypical antipsychotics are safer alternatives that might share the benefits of clozapine. It is thus of interest to compare the effectiveness of newer atypical antipsychotics with the effectiveness of clozapine.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effects of newer atypical antipsychotic drugs in comparison to clozapine for schizophrenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Publications in all languages were searched from the following databases: Biological Abstracts/BIOSIS (1980-1999), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials (1998), The Cochrane Library CENTRAL Register (Issue 4, 1999), EMBASE (1980-1998), MEDLINE (1966-1999), LILACS/CD-ROM (1998), and PsycLIT/PsycINFO (1974-1999). Trials were also sought from recent conference proceedings and reference lists of included papers. Authors of recent trials and the manufacturers of clozapine, iloperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, remoxipride, risperidone, sertindole, ziprasidone and zotepine were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing clozapine with newer atypical antipsychotic drugs were included by independent assessment by two reviewers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of homogenous dichotomous data were calculated. A random effects model was used for heterogeneous dichotomous data. Where possible the number needed to treat (NNT) statistic with 95%CI were also calculated. Weighted or standardised means were calculated for continuous data. Due to the small number of included studies, sensitivity analyses or funnel plot statistics were not undertaken for this version of the review.

MAIN RESULTS

The current review includes eight studies (22 papers), of which three studies are 4-6 weeks in duration and only one study is of more than 12 weeks' duration. Newer atypical drugs seemed to be broadly similar to clozapine using a clinical global index or trialists' definitions of improvement, but this result was obtained from a relatively small number of studies. Due to the small number of studies and patients, wide confidence intervals were seen when their effectiveness as measured by symptom rating scales was compared. Social functioning was better in patients on newer atypical medication (risperidone) than in those on clozapine, but this finding is based on a single underpowered trial and has to be interpreted with caution. Clozapine and newer atypical drugs showed their adverse effect profile to be dissimilar: while clozapine produced more fatigue, hypersalivation, nausea, and orthostatic dizziness, new atypical drugs, with the exception of olanzapine, produced more extrapyramidal symptoms. The impact of these drugs and their effects on patients' day-to-day quality of life, service use, hospital admission, and pharmacoeconomics was not measured.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The equal effectiveness and tolerability of new atypical drugs in comparison with clozapine is not yet demonstrated. Lack of statistical power to determine the comparative efficacy and effectiveness of newer atypical drugs makes it difficult to judge whether newer drugs are more effective, less effective or equivalent. Trials of sufficient power, with longer duration, measuring clinically important outcomes, are needed to assess the true comparative clinical effectiveness, tolerability and cost effectiveness of newer drugs in relation to clozapine.