Olanzapine 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.

A new synthetic ultrasound-assisted method for dibenzoepines

In this study, we have developed a new ultrasonic synthesis method of dibenzoepines using olanzapine and quetiapine, which are well-known drugs for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The method is based on the N-alkylation reaction of the piperazine fragment in tricyclic compounds with methyl iodide or 2-(2-chloroethoxy)ethanol as the alkylating agent, respectively. The synthesis reactions were carried out in an ultrasonic bath with solvents such as acetonitrile or dimethylformamide in the presence of potassium or sodium carbonate or sodium hydroxide and metal-free, ecological phase transfer catalyst at a temperature of 40-50 °C. This allowed us to obtain olanzapine in 1 h (Y = 67%), and quetiapine in 3 h (Y = 72%). An ultrasonic reactor (Qsonica Q700) was used in the synthesis of olanzapine and made it possible to shorten the reaction time to 10 min and obtain 90% yield with very high purity. The developed method allows obtaining compounds in mild conditions and in a short time, thanks to which the process is more ecological than others described in the literature.

The Difficult Path to the Discovery of Novel Treatments in Psychiatric Disorders

CNS diseases, including psychiatric disorders, represent a significant opportunity for the discovery and development of new drugs and therapeutic treatments with the potential to have a significant impact on human health. CNS diseases, however, present particular challenges to therapeutic discovery efforts, and psychiatric diseases/disorders may be among the most difficult. With specific exceptions such as psychostimulants for ADHD, a large number of psychiatric patients are resistant to existing treatments. In addition, clinicians have no way of knowing which psychiatric patients will respond to which drugs. By definition, psychiatric diagnoses are syndromal in nature; determinations of efficacy are often self-reported, and drug discovery is largely model-based. While such models of psychiatric disease are amenable to screening for new drugs, whether cellular or whole-animal based, they have only modest face validity and, more importantly, predictive validity. Multiple academic, pharmaceutical industry, and government agencies are dedicated to the translation of new findings about the neurobiology of major psychiatric disorders into the discovery and advancement of novel therapies. The collaboration of these agencies provide a pathway for developing new therapeutics. These efforts will be greatly helped by recent advances in understanding the genetic bases of psychiatric disorders, the ongoing search for diagnostic and therapy-responsive biomarkers, and the validation of new animal models.

Opioid antagonists to prevent olanzapine-induced weight gain: A systematic review

Introduction

Olanzapine (OLZ) is a second generation antipsychotic that is approved for the treatment of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder type 1 as monotherapy (acute manic or mixed episodes, maintenance), or as an add-on to lithium or valproate (manic or mixed episodes). It is one of the most effective antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia, but concerns remain due to its significant metabolic adverse effects. Notably, OLZ has one of the highest rates of weight gain among all antipsychotic drugs. Previous studies report on potential mitigation of weight gain with opioid antagonists. A systematic review was conducted to summarize the impact of these agents on weight and BMI when used as adjuncts to OLZ.

Methods

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials was conducted with 3 searches between March 2, 2021 and March 27, 2022.

Results

Six studies met inclusion criteria, 5 of which assessed OLZ and samidorphan (SAM) and 1 of which assessed OLZ and naltrexone compared with OLZ monotherapy. A total of 1752 patients were included with 952 receiving SAM and 14 receiving naltrexone as an adjunct to OLZ. SAM was shown to mitigate OLZ-induced weight gain by 1.0 kg. Only 1 study assessed naltrexone with no statistically significant results for weight gain.

Discussion

SAM is effective at reducing OLZ-induced weight gain. Naltrexone did not reduce OLZ-induced increases in weight or BMI. However, there is a paucity of data on other opioid antagonists as adjuncts to OLZ treatment to prevent increases in weight or BMI.

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.

Atypical antipsychotic olanzapine inhibits voltage-dependent K+ channels in coronary arterial smooth muscle cells

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine, an FDA-approved atypical antipsychotic, is widely used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. In this study, the inhibitory effect of olanzapine on voltage-dependent K⁺ (Kv) channels in rabbit coronary arterial smooth muscle cells was investigated.

METHODS

Electrophysiological recordings were performed in freshly isolated coronary arterial smooth muscle cells.

RESULTS

Olanzapine inhibited the Kv channels in a concentration-dependent manner with an IC₅₀ value of 7.76 ± 1.80 µM and a Hill coefficient of 0.82 ± 0.09. Although olanzapine did not change the steady-state activation curve, it shifted the inactivation curve to a more negative potential, suggesting that it inhibited Kv currents by affecting the voltage sensor of the Kv channel. Application of 1 or 2 Hz train pulses did not affect the olanzapine-induced inhibition of Kv channels, suggesting that its effect on Kv channels occurs in a use (state)-independent manner. Pretreatment with DPO-1 (Kv1.5 subtype inhibitor) reduced the olanzapine-induced inhibition of Kv currents. In addition, pretreatment with guangxitoxin (Kv2.1 subtype inhibitor) and linopirdine (Kv7 subtype inhibitor) partially decreased the degree of Kv current inhibition. Olanzapine induced membrane depolarization.

CONCLUSION

From these results, we suggest that olanzapine inhibits the Kv channels in a concentration-dependent, but state-independent, manner by affecting the gating properties of Kv channels. The primary Kv channel target of olanzapine is the Kv1.5 subtype.

Empagliflozin Effectively Attenuates Olanzapine-Induced Body Weight Gain in Female Wistar Rats

Atypical antipsychotic drugs are commonly associated with undesirable side effects including body weight gain (BWG) and metabolic deficits. Many pharmacological interventions have been tested in an attempt to minimize or prevent these side effects. Preliminary evidence suggests that antidiabetic drugs may be effective in attenuating antipsychotic-induced BWG. In the current study, we examined the effect of an antidiabetic drug empagliflozin (EMPA) on BWG induced by anatypical antipsychotic drug olanzapine (Ola) in female and male Wistar rats. Rats were divided into six groups based on the dose they received: group 1 (female control), group 2 (female EMPA, 20 mg/kg; IG), group 3 (female Ola, 4 mg/kg; IP), group 4 (female Ola, 4 mg/kg; IP + EMPA, 20 mg/kg; IG), group 5 (male control), and group 6 (male Ola, 4 mg/kg; IP). Ola induced sustained increase in BWG. The subsequent treatment of Group 3 and 4 with EMPA attenuated the Ola-induced BWG in female Wistar rats. In terms of the gender difference between female and male Wistar rats, the male control group 5 gained more weight throughout the study as compared to the female control group 1. Similarly, the male Ola group 6 gained more weight throughout the study as compared to the female Ola group 3. However, Ola did not cause any weight difference between male rats treated with Ola in comparison with male control group, thus showing a significant gender difference regarding body weight between male and female Wistar rats regardless of Ola administration. In addition, the present findings showed that EMPA effectively attenuates the Ola induced BWG in female Wistar rats. These novel findings should help to better understand the underlying molecular and behavioral mechanisms contributing to the observed increase in body weight after treatment with Ola and other atypical antipsychotic drugs across male and female rats.

Olanzapine Increases Neural Chemorepulsant-Draxin Expression in the Adult Rat Hippocampus

Draxin belongs to the family of inhibitory axon-guiding factors that regulate neuronal migration and axonal spreading in the developing brain. This glycoprotein has recently been considered to play an important role both in hippocampal differentiation and adult neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus. Given that it has been reported that antipsychotic drugs may affect neurite growth and neurogenesis, we have therefore investigated whether chronic treatment with olanzapine modulates draxin immunoreactivity in the adult rat hippocampus. After analysis of local fluorescence intensity, we found a significant increase of draxin immunoexpression both in the subgranular zone (SGZ) and granular zone of the rat hippocampus following long-term olanzapine administration. This study reveals, for the first time, the modulatory effect of the atypical antipsychotic medication olanzapine on expression of the novel chemorepulsive protein draxin in the context of adult neurogenesis regulation. Moreover, this is the first report dealing with pharmacological aspects of draxin signaling. An elevated draxin expression may indirectly support a recently formulated hypothesis that olanzapine may drive adult neurogenesis via paracrine draxin-related signaling. This action of draxin is a new element in the neurogenesis mechanism that may be part of the action of second-generation antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia, indicating more detailed molecular studies are urgently required to fully investigate these potential novel mechanisms of neurogenesis.

Olanzapine induced reproductive toxicity in male rats

Although it is reported that olanzapine (OLZ), which is an atypical antipsychotic drug, causes sexual dysfunction in men, it is noteworthy that there is not any study evaluating the toxic effects of OLZ on the male reproductive system. In the scope of this research, it was aimed to assess the reproductive toxic effects of OLZ by oral administration of 2.5, 5, or 10 mg/kg of it to male rats for 28 days. For this purpose, sperm concentration, motility and morphology, and DNA damage were determined, and histopathological examination of testis tissue was carried out in rats. Also, the levels of serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and testosterone, which play roles in the regulation of reproductive functions, and the levels of glutathione (GSH), catalase (CAT), superoxide dismutase (SOD) and malondialdehyde (MDA) which play roles in reproductive pathologies as oxidative stress biomarkers, were determined. According to the results, normal sperm morphology was decreased in 5 ve 10 mg/kg OLZ-administered groups, and pathological findings were evident in the testicular structure of the OLZ-administered group when compared with the control group. It was determined that serum LH, FSH, and testosterone levels were decreased in the OLZ-administered group. Also, decreases of GSH levels in testis tissue were determined and evaluated as the markers of the oxidative stress induced by OLZ in the testis. In conclusion, it was determined that reproductive toxic effects were induced in rats by OLZ administration. This pathology was accompanied by alterations of the hormone levels and testicular oxidative stress.

Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

The symptoms and signs of schizophrenia have been linked to high levels of dopamine in specific areas of the brain (limbic system). Antipsychotic drugs block the transmission of dopamine in the brain and reduce the acute symptoms of the disorder. An original version of the current review, published in 2012, examined whether antipsychotic drugs are also effective for relapse prevention. This is the updated version of the aforesaid review.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of maintaining antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia compared to withdrawing these agents.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including the registries of clinical trials (12 November 2008, 10 October 2017, 3 July 2018, 11 September 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs and placebo for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD), again based on a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 75 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 9145 participants comparing antipsychotic medication with placebo. The trials were published from 1959 to 2017 and their size ranged between 14 and 420 participants. In many studies the methods of randomisation, allocation and blinding were poorly reported. However, restricting the analysis to studies at low risk of bias gave similar results. Although this and other potential sources of bias limited the overall quality, the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs for maintenance treatment in schizophrenia was clear. Antipsychotic drugs were more effective than placebo in preventing relapse at seven to 12 months (primary outcome; drug 24% versus placebo 61%, 30 RCTs, n = 4249, RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.45, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 3; high-certainty evidence). Hospitalisation was also reduced, however, the baseline risk was lower (drug 7% versus placebo 18%, 21 RCTs, n = 3558, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57, NNTB 8, 95% CI 6 to 14; high-certainty evidence). More participants in the placebo group than in the antipsychotic drug group left the studies early due to any reason (at seven to 12 months: drug 36% versus placebo 62%, 24 RCTs, n = 3951, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65, NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; high-certainty evidence) and due to inefficacy of treatment (at seven to 12 months: drug 18% versus placebo 46%, 24 RCTs, n = 3951, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.44, NNTB 3, 95% CI 3 to 4). Quality of life might be better in drug-treated participants (7 RCTs, n = 1573 SMD -0.32, 95% CI to -0.57 to -0.07; low-certainty evidence); probably the same for social functioning (15 RCTs, n = 3588, SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.34; moderate-certainty evidence). Underpowered data revealed no evidence of a difference between groups for the outcome 'Death due to suicide' (drug 0.04% versus placebo 0.1%, 19 RCTs, n = 4634, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.97,low-certainty evidence) and for the number of participants in employment (at 9 to 15 months, drug 39% versus placebo 34%, 3 RCTs, n = 593, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.41, low certainty evidence). Antipsychotic drugs (as a group and irrespective of duration) were associated with more participants experiencing movement disorders (e.g. at least one movement disorder: drug 14% versus placebo 8%, 29 RCTs, n = 5276, RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.85, number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 20, 95% CI 14 to 50), sedation (drug 8% versus placebo 5%, 18 RCTs, n = 4078, RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.86, NNTH 50, 95% CI not significant), and weight gain (drug 9% versus placebo 6%, 19 RCTs, n = 4767, RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.35, NNTH 25, 95% CI 20 to 50).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For people with schizophrenia, the evidence suggests that maintenance on antipsychotic drugs prevents relapse to a much greater extent than placebo for approximately up to two years of follow-up. This effect must be weighed against the adverse effects of antipsychotic drugs. Future studies should better clarify the long-term morbidity and mortality associated with these drugs.

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.

A commentary on the efficacy of olanzapine for the treatment of schizophrenia: the past, present, and future

Olanzapine is a second-generation atypical antipsychotic with proven efficacy for the treatment of schizophrenia. Approved in 1996, olanzapine is one of the most studied antipsychotics, resulting in a considerable amount of clinical data across diverse patient populations. Despite the fact that olanzapine is associated with a known risk of metabolic side effects, including weight gain, many clinicians continue to prescribe olanzapine for the treatment of schizophrenia with the expectation of additional therapeutic antipsychotic efficacy relative to other first-line atypical antipsychotics. The goal of this narrative is to revisit the role of oral olanzapine in the management of patients with schizophrenia, including those with recently diagnosed schizophrenia ("first-episode"), those with an established schizophrenia diagnosis who experience acute exacerbations, those receiving long-term antipsychotic treatment as a maintenance intervention, and those with suboptimal response to antipsychotic treatment, including treatment resistance. Collectively, data from published literature support the favorable efficacy of olanzapine compared with other first- and second-generation antipsychotics, including lower rates of treatment discontinuation and clinically meaningful improvements in the symptoms of schizophrenia. The development of antipsychotic medications with the favorable efficacy of olanzapine, but with reduced weight gain, could address a major unmet need in the treatment of schizophrenia.

Early prediction of olanzapine-induced weight gain for schizophrenia patients

The aim of this study was to determine whether weight changes at week 2 or other factors predicted weight gain at week 6 for schizophrenia patients receiving olanzapine. This study was the secondary analysis of a six-week trial for 94 patients receiving olanzapine (5 mg/d) plus trifluoperazine (5 mg/d), or olanzapine (10 mg/d) alone. Patients were included in analysis only if they had completed the 6-week trial (per protocol analysis). Weight gain was defined as a 7% or greater increase of the patient's baseline weight. The receiver operating characteristic curve was employed to determine the optimal cutoff points of statistically significant predictors. Eleven of the 67 patients completing the 6-week trial were classified as weight gainers. Weight change at week 2 was the statistically significant predictor for ultimate weight gain at week 6. A weight change of 1.0 kg at week 2 appeared to be the optimal cutoff point, with a sensitivity of 0.92, a specificity of 0.75, and an AUC of 0.85. Using weight change at week 2 to predict weight gain at week 6 is favorable in terms of both specificity and sensitivity. Weight change of 1.0 kg or more at 2 weeks is a reliable predictor.

Movement Disorders Associated With Antipsychotic Medication in People With Schizophrenia: An Overview of Cochrane Reviews and Meta-Analysis

Movement disorders associated with antipsychotic medications are relatively common, stigmatising, and potentially disabling. Their prevalence in people with psychosis who are prescribed second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) is uncertain, as is their level of recognition by clinicinas. We conducted meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials included in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses to estimate the prevalence of new-onset dystonia, akathisia, parkinsonism, and tremor with SGAs (amisulpride, asenapine, aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, L-sulpiride, and ziprasidone) approved in Canada and the UK, comparing them with haloperidol and chlorpromazine. We used a random effects model because of the heterogeneity between-studies in drug dosage and method of ascertainment of movement disorders. Our systematic search yielded 37 Cochrane systematic reviews (28 for SGAs), which generated 316 informative randomised controlled trials (243 for SGAs). With respect to SGAs, prevalence estimates ranged from 1.4% (quetiapine) to 15.3% (L-sulpiride) for dystonia, 3.3% (paliperidone) to 16.4% (L-sulpiride) for akathisia, 2.4% (asenapine) to 29.3% (L-sulpiride) for parkinsonism, and 0.2% (clozapine) to 28.2% (L-sulpiride) for tremor. Prevalence estimates were not influenced by treatment duration, the use of a flexible or fixed dosing scheme, or whether studies used validated instruments for the screening/rating of movement disorders. Overall, we found high overlap on the prevalence of new-onset movement disorders across different SGAs precribed for established psychoses. Variations in prevalence figures across antipsychotic medications were observed for the different movement disorders. Differences in pharmacological properties, such as for the dopamine D2 R association rate and serotonin 5-HT2A antagonism, could contribute to this variation.

Music therapy for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like disorders

BACKGROUND

Music therapy is a therapeutic approach that uses musical interaction as a means of communication and expression. Within the area of serious mental disorders, the aim of the therapy is to help people improve their emotional and relational competencies, and address issues they may not be able to using words alone.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of music therapy, or music therapy added to standard care, compared with placebo therapy, standard care or no treatment for people with serious mental disorders such as schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Study-Based Register (December 2010 and 15 January, 2015) and supplemented this by contacting relevant study authors, handsearching of music therapy journals and manual searches of reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared music therapy with standard care, placebo therapy, or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently selected, quality assessed and data extracted studies. We excluded data where more than 30% of participants in any group were lost to follow-up. We synthesised non-skewed continuous endpoint data from valid scales using a standardised mean difference (SMD). We employed a fixed-effect model for all analyses. If statistical heterogeneity was found, we examined treatment dosage (i.e. number of therapy sessions) and treatment approach as possible sources of heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten new studies have been added to this update; 18 studies with a total 1215 participants are now included. These examined effects of music therapy over the short, medium, and long-term, with treatment dosage varying from seven to 240 sessions. Overall, most information is from studies at low or unclear risk of biasA positive effect on global state was found for music therapy compared to standard care (medium term, 2 RCTs, n = 133, RR 0.38 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.59, low-quality evidence, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome NNTB 2, 95% CI 2 to 4). No binary data were available for other outcomes. Medium-term continuous data identified good effects for music therapy on negative symptoms using the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (3 RCTs, n = 177, SMD - 0.55 95% CI -0.87 to -0.24, low-quality evidence). General mental state endpoint scores on the Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale were better for music therapy (2 RCTs, n = 159, SMD -0.97 95% CI -1.31 to -0.63, low-quality evidence), as were average endpoint scores on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (1 RCT, n = 70, SMD -1.25 95% CI -1.77 to -0.73, moderate-quality evidence). Medium-term average endpoint scores using the Global Assessment of Functioning showed no effect for music therapy on general functioning (2 RCTs, n = 118, SMD -0.19 CI -0.56 to 0.18, moderate-quality evidence). However, positive effects for music therapy were found for both social functioning (Social Disability Screening Schedule scores; 2 RCTs, n = 160, SMD -0.72 95% CI -1.04 to -0.40), and quality of life (General Well-Being Schedule scores: 1 RCT, n = 72, SMD 1.82 95% CI 1.27 to 2.38, moderate-quality evidence). There were no data available for adverse effects, service use, engagement with services, or cost.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate- to low-quality evidence suggests that music therapy as an addition to standard care improves the global state, mental state (including negative and general symptoms), social functioning, and quality of life of people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders. However, effects were inconsistent across studies and depended on the number of music therapy sessions as well as the quality of the music therapy provided. Further research should especially address the long-term effects of music therapy, dose-response relationships, as well as the relevance of outcome measures in relation to music therapy.

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.

Risperidone versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Risperidone is the first new-generation antipsychotic drug made available in the market in its generic form.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effects, safety and cost-effectiveness of risperidone compared with placebo for treating schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

On 19th October 2015, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We checked the references of all included studies and contacted industry and authors of included studies for relevant studies and data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing oral risperidone with placebo treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies, assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR), and the 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and the 95% CI. We created a 'Summary of findings table' using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 15 studies (N = 2428). Risk of selection bias is unclear in most of the studies, especially concerning allocation concealment. Other areas of risk such as missing data and selective reporting also caused some concern, although not affected on the direction of effect of our primary outcome, as demonstrated by sensitivity analysis. Many of the included trials have industry sponsorship of involvement. Nonetheless, generally people in the risperidone group are more likely to achieve a significant clinical improvement in mental state (6 RCTs, N = 864, RR 0.64, CI 0.52 to 0.78, very low-quality evidence). The effect withstood, even when three studies with >50% attrition rate were removed from the analysis (3 RCTs, N = 589, RR 0.77, CI 0.67 to 0.88). Participants receiving placebo were less likely to have a clinically significant improvement on Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI) than those receiving risperidone (4 RCTs, N = 594, RR 0.69, CI 0.57 to 0.83, very low-quality evidence). Overall, the risperidone group was 31% less likely to leave early compared to placebo group (12 RCTs, N = 2261, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.78, low-quality evidence), but Incidence of significant extrapyramidal side effect was more likely to occur in the risperidone group (7 RCTs, N = 1511, RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.15, very low-quality evidence).When risperidone and placebo were augmented with clozapine, there is no significant differences between groups for clinical response as defined by a less than 20% reduction in PANSS/BPRS scores (2 RCTs, N = 98, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.42, low-quality evidence) and attrition (leaving the study early for any reason) (3 RCTs, N = 167, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.42, low quality evidence). One study measured clinically significant responses using the CGI, no effect was evident (1 RCT, N = 68, RR 1.12 95% CI 0.87 to 1.44, low quality evidence). No data were available for extrapyramidal adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low quality evidence, risperidone appears to be benefitial in improving mental state compared with placebo, but it also causes more adverse events. Eight out of the 15 included trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies. The currently available evidence isvery low to low quality.

Bifeprunox versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Bifeprunox is a novel antipsychotic drug designed to treat schizophrenia. However, research into the drug was ceased in 2009 due to rejection of licence to go to market by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who could not approve the drug for acute or long-term symptoms of schizophrenia because more research was required to demonstrate convincing effects "beyond those already achieved" with currently licenced drugs. There were also concerns expressed over one death of a person whilst on the drug.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the clinical and adverse effects of bifeprunox for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register on 23 October 2015, which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, PubMed, PsycINFO, and clinical trials registries. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised clinical trials focusing on bifeprunox versus placebo for schizophrenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included four randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We found evidence of missing data and poor reporting. When bifeprunox 20 mg was compared with placebo for schizophrenia, the drug resulted in a reduction of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) positive subscale score regarding positive symptoms (n = 549, 2 RCTs, MD -1.89, 95% CI -2.85 to -0.92, low-quality evidence) and the PANSS negative subscale regarding negative symptoms (n = 549, 2 RCTs, MD -1.53, 95% CI -2.37 to -0.69, low-quality evidence). There was a clear improvement regarding deterioration in the bifeprunox 20 mg group (n = 231, 1 RCT, RR 0.71 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.93, very low-quality evidence). The total number of participants with equal to or greater than 7% weight increase was similar between bifeprunox and placebo (n = 483, 1 RCT, RR 1.02 95% CI 0.31 to 3.33 moderate-quality evidence). There were no useable data for quality of life, economic outcomes, and service use.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed some positive effects and a favourable adverse effect profile for bifeprunox, although there were few data overall and none were of high quality. It would seem that these data alone would not have been enough for the FDA to decide to halt progress of the drug to market. We can only assume that we are missing important data. Both the FDA and the relevant pharmaceutical companies have not made all relevant data accessible. As some of these trials also involved an additional haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, or risperidone arm, these data are not only relevant to evaluation of bifeprunox. In not making all data accessible, it is hard to see how the FDA and the drug companies have fulfilled their full obligations to people with schizophrenia or their clinicians.

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.

The SWITCH study: rationale and design of the trial

Many patients do not respond to the first antipsychotic drug prescribed, but require multiple trials with different drugs before response is achieved. Current treatment guidelines vary substantially in their recommendations as to how long clinicians should wait before an antipsychotic treatment attempt should be considered as failed and the compound switched. It has, however, recently been shown that poor early response to an antipsychotic is associated with continuous poor later response in the course of the same treatment attempt. This finding suggests that patients who do experience poor early response might benefit from a switch in antipsychotic medication as early as 2 weeks after treatment initiation. In the SWITCH trial, 350 patients suffering from an acute episode of schizophrenia are randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with either olanzapine or amisulpride. The primary endpoint is symptomatic remission at week 8. Patients not experiencing at least minor response after 2 weeks are randomized again to either staying on the initially assigned drug or being switched to the alternative compound for another 6 weeks. In case early switching proves superior to maintaining treatment, time wasted for unsuccessful treatment attempts could be minimized, patients' outcomes improved, duration of hospital stays reduced, and thus overall treatment expenses saved. The current report will present the methods of the trial, focusing on various specific features which could be adopted by future studies.

The atypical antipsychotic, olanzapine, potentiates ghrelin-induced receptor signaling: An in vitro study with cells expressing cloned human growth hormone secretagogue receptor

The growth hormone secretagogue receptor (GHS-R) belongs to Gαq-coupled G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) that mediates growth hormone release, food intake, appetite, glucose metabolism and body composition. Ghrelin has been identified as an endogenous ligand for GHS-R, and it is the only orexigenic peptide found in the peripheral organs. Olanzapine, an atypical antipsychotic agent that binds to and inhibits the activation of GPCR for several neurotransmitters, has metabolic side effects such as excessive appetite and weight gain. Recently, studies have revealed that the orexigenic mechanism of olanzapine is mediated via GHS-R signaling, although the precise mechanisms have not been clarified. In this study, we investigated the effect of olanzapine on ghrelin-mediated GHS-R signaling by using an electrical impedance-based receptor biosensor assay system (CellKey™). Olanzapine at concentrations of 10(-7) and 10(-6)mol/L enhanced ghrelin-induced (10(-10)-10(-8)mol/L) GHS-R activation. A Ca(2+) imaging assay revealed that olanzapine (10(-7) and 10(-6)mol/L) enhanced ghrelin (10(-7) M)-induced GHS-R activity. In contrast, haloperidol (an antipsychotic agent) failed to enhance this ghrelin-mediated GHS-R activation, as demonstrated by both the CellKey™ and Ca(2+) imaging assays. Together, these results suggest that olanzapine, but not haloperidol, promotes appetite by enhancing ghrelin-mediated GHS-R signaling.

Asenapine versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a highly prevalent and chronic disorder that comprises a wide range of symptomatology. Asenapine is a recently developed atypical antipsychotic that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effects of asenapine for adults with schizophrenia or other schizophrenia-like disorders by comparing it with placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (July 04, 2014) which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, PubMed, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitation for inclusion of records into the register. We inspected references of all included studies for further relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Our review includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing asenapine with placebo in adults (however defined) with schizophrenia or related disorders, including schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder and delusional disorder, again, by any means of diagnosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We inspected citations from the searches and identified relevant abstracts, and extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and for continuous data we calculated mean differences (MD). We used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' table which included our outcomes of interest, where possible. We used a fixed-effect model for our analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We obtained and scrutinised 41 potentially relevant records, and from these we could include only six trials (n = 1835). Five of the six trials had high risk of attrition bias and all trials were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Results showed a clinically important change in global state (1 RCT, n = 336, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.97, low-quality evidence) and mental state (1 RCT, n = 336, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.86, very low-quality evidence) at short-term amongst people receiving asenapine. People receiving asenapine demonstrated significant reductions in negative symptoms (1 RCT, n = 336, MD -1.10, 95% CI -2.29 to 0.09, very low-quality evidence) at short-term. Individuals receiving asenapine demonstrated significantly fewer incidents of serious adverse effects (1 RCT, n = 386, RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.63, very low-quality evidence) at medium-term. There was no clear difference in people discontinuing the study for any reason between asenapine and placebo at short-term (5 RCTs, n = 1046, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04, very low-quality evidence). No trial reported data for extrapyramidal symptoms or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some, albeit preliminary, evidence that asenapine provides an improvement in positive, negative, and depressive symptoms, whilst minimising the risk of adverse effects. However due to the low-quality and limited quantity of evidence, it remains difficult to recommend the use of asenapine for people with schizophrenia. We identify a need for large-scale, longer-term, better-designed and conducted randomised controlled trials investigating the clinical effects and safety of asenapine.

A Review of the Updated Pharmacophore for the Alpha 5 GABA(A) Benzodiazepine Receptor Model

An updated model of the GABA(A) benzodiazepine receptor pharmacophore of the α5-BzR/GABA(A) subtype has been constructed prompted by the synthesis of subtype selective ligands in light of the recent developments in both ligand synthesis, behavioral studies, and molecular modeling studies of the binding site itself. A number of BzR/GABA(A) α5 subtype selective compounds were synthesized, notably α5-subtype selective inverse agonist PWZ-029 (1) which is active in enhancing cognition in both rodents and primates. In addition, a chiral positive allosteric modulator (PAM), SH-053-2′F-R-CH₃ (2), has been shown to reverse the deleterious effects in the MAM-model of schizophrenia as well as alleviate constriction in airway smooth muscle. Presented here is an updated model of the pharmacophore for α5β2γ2 Bz/GABA(A) receptors, including a rendering of PWZ-029 docked within the α5-binding pocket showing specific interactions of the molecule with the receptor. Differences in the included volume as compared to α1β2γ2, α2β2γ2, and α3β2γ2 will be illustrated for clarity. These new models enhance the ability to understand structural characteristics of ligands which act as agonists, antagonists, or inverse agonists at the Bz BS of GABA(A) receptors.

Haloperidol versus first-generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol is worldwide one of the most frequently used antipsychotic drugs with a very high market share. Previous narrative, unsystematic reviews found no differences in terms of efficacy between the various first-generation ("conventional", "typical") antipsychotic agents. This established the unproven psychopharmacological assumption of a comparable efficacy between the first-generation antipsychotic compounds codified in textbooks and treatment guidelines. Because this assumption contrasts with the clinical impression, a high-quality systematic review appeared highly necessary.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of haloperidol with other first-generation antipsychotics in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

In October 2011 and July 2012, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. To identify further relevant publications, we screened the references of all included studies and contacted the manufacturers of haloperidol for further relevant trials and missing information on identified studies. Furthermore, we contacted the corresponding authors of all included trials for missing data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral haloperidol with another oral first-generation antipsychotic drug (with the exception of the low-potency antipsychotics chlorpromazine, chlorprothixene, levopromazine, mesoridazine, perazine, prochlorpromazine, and thioridazine) in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis. Clinically important response to treatment was defined as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were global state, mental state, behaviour, overall acceptability (measured by the number of participants leaving the study early due to any reason), overall efficacy (attrition due to inefficacy of treatment), overall tolerability (attrition due to adverse events), and specific adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using The Cochrane Collaboration`s 'Risk of bias' tool.We analysed dichotomous outcomes with risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes with mean differences (MD), both with the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). All analyses were based on a random-effects model and we preferably used data on an intention-to-treat basis where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

The systematic review currently includes 63 randomised trials with 3675 participants. Bromperidol (n = 9), loxapine (n = 7), and trifluoperazine (n = 6) were the most frequently administered antipsychotics comparator to haloperidol. The included studies were published between 1962 and 1993, were characterised by small sample sizes (mean: 58 participants, range from 18 to 206) and the predefined outcomes were often incompletely reported. All results for the main outcomes were based on very low or low quality data. In many trials the mechanism of randomisation, allocation, and blinding was frequently not reported. In short-term studies (up to 12 weeks), there was no clear evidence of a difference between haloperidol and the pooled group of the other first-generation antipsychotic agents in terms of the primary outcome "clinically important response to treatment" (40 RCTs, n = 2132, RR 0.93 CI 0.87 to 1.00). In the medium-term trials, haloperidol may be less effective than the other first-generation antipsychotic group but this evidence is based on only one trial (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.51 CI 0.37 to 0.69).Based on limited evidence, haloperidol alleviated more positive symptoms of schizophrenia than the other antipsychotic drugs. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in global state, other mental state outcomes, behaviour, leaving the study early due to any reason, due to inefficacy, as well as due to adverse effects. The only statistically significant difference in specific side effects was that haloperidol produced less akathisia in the medium term.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the meta-analytic calculations support the statements of previous narrative, unsystematic reviews suggesting comparable efficacy of first-generation antipsychotics. In efficacy-related outcomes, there was no clear evidence of a difference between the prototypal drug haloperidol and other, mainly high-potency first-generation antipsychotics. Additionally, we demonstrated that haloperidol is characterised by a similar risk profile compared to the other first-generation antipsychotic compounds. The only statistically significant difference in specific side effects was that haloperidol produced less akathisia in the medium term. The results were limited by the low methodological quality in many of the included original studies. Data for the main results were low or very low quality. Therefore, future clinical trials with high methodological quality are required.

Time to discontinuation of antipsychotic drugs in a schizophrenia cohort: influence of current treatment strategies

BACKGROUND

Rates of discontinuation of antipsychotic treatment for patients with schizophrenia are high and evidence is limited by selective inclusion and high attrition in randomized controlled trials.

AIMS

To study time to discontinuation of antipsychotic treatment for patients with schizophrenia.

METHOD

All patients with schizophrenia (n = 396) discharged between 2005 and 2011 were followed until discontinuation (clinician or patient decided) of antipsychotic treatment or other endpoints. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses (with time on antipsychotic treatment as the dependent variable) using time-dependent variables were performed.

RESULTS

Clozapine displayed lower risk for all-cause (p < 0.001), clinician-decided (p = 0.012) and patient-decided (p = 0.039) discontinuation versus olanzapine oral treatment in the multivariate Cox regression. Second-generation long-acting injection antipsychotics (LAI) (p = 0.015) and first-generation long-acting injection antipsychotics (p = 0.013) showed significantly lower risks for patient-decided discontinuation than olanzapine oral.

CONCLUSION

Higher effectiveness of clozapine and LAI treatment versus oral olanzapine were identified in a clinical cohort of patients with schizophrenia.

How much do we know about schizophrenia and how well do we know it? Evidence from the Schizophrenia Library

BACKGROUND

True findings about schizophrenia remain elusive; many findings are not replicated and conflicting results are common. Well-conducted systematic reviews have the ability to make robust, generalizable conclusions, with good meta-analyses potentially providing the closest estimate of the true effect size. In this paper, we undertake a systematic approach to synthesising the available evidence from well-conducted systematic reviews on schizophrenia.

METHOD

Reviews were identified by searching Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Current Contents and PsycINFO. The decision to include or exclude reviews, data extraction and quality assessments were conducted in duplicate. Evidence was graded as high quality if reviews contained large samples and robust results; and as moderate quality if reviews contained imprecision, inconsistency, smaller samples or study designs that may be prone to bias.

RESULTS

High- and moderate-quality evidence shows that numerous psychosocial and biomedical treatments are effective. Patients have relatively poor cognitive functioning, and subtle, but diverse, structural brain alterations, altered electrophysiological functioning and sleep patterns, minor physical anomalies, neurological soft signs, and sensory alterations. There are markers of infection, inflammation or altered immunological parameters; and there is increased mortality from a range of causes. Risk for schizophrenia is increased with cannabis use, pregnancy and birth complications, prenatal exposure to Toxoplasma gondii, childhood central nervous system viral infections, childhood adversities, urbanicity and immigration (first and second generation), particularly in certain ethnic groups. Developmental motor delays and lower intelligence quotient in childhood and adolescence are apparent.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that while our knowledge of schizophrenia is very substantial, our understanding of it remains limited.

Haloperidol 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 antipsychotic compounds, however, low-potency antipsychotic drugs are often clinically perceived as less efficacious than high-potency compounds, and they also seem to differ in their side-effects.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects in clinical response of haloperidol and low-potency antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing haloperidol 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. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), again based on a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 17 randomised trials and 877 participants. The size of the included studies was between 16 and 109 participants. All studies were short-term with a study length between two and 12 weeks. Overall, sequence generation, allocation procedures and blinding were poorly reported. We found no clear evidence that haloperidol was superior to low-potency antipsychotic drugs in terms of clinical response (haloperidol 40%, low-potency drug 36%, 14 RCTs, n = 574, RR 1.11, CI 0.86 to 1.44 lowquality evidence). There was also no clear evidence of benefit for either group in acceptability of treatment with equivocal difference in the number of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason (haloperidol 13%, low-potency antipsychotics 17%, 11 RCTs, n = 408, RR 0.82, CI 0.38 to 1.77, low quality evidence). Similar equivocal results were found between groups for experiencing at least one adverse effect (haloperidol 70%, low-potency antipsychotics 35%, 5 RCTs n = 158, RR 1.97, CI 0.69 to 5.66, very low quality evidence ). More participants from the low-potency drug group experienced sedation (haloperidol 14%, low-potency antipsychotics 41%, 2 RCTs, n = 44, RR 0.30, CI 0.11 to 0.82, moderate quality evidence), orthostasis problems (haloperidol 25%, low-potency antipsychotics 71%, 1 RCT, n = 41, RR 0.35, CI 0.16 to 0.78) and weight gain (haloperidol 5%, low-potency antipsychotics 29%, 3 RCTs, n = 88, RR 0.22, CI 0.06 to 0.81). In contrast, the outcome 'at least one movement disorder' was more frequent in the haloperidol group (haloperidol 72%, low-potency antipsychotics 41%, 5 RCTs, n = 170, RR 1.64, CI 1.22 to 2.21, low quality evidence). No data were available for death or quality of life. The results of the primary outcome were robust in several subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results do not clearly show a superiority in efficacy of haloperidol compared with low-potency antipsychotics. Differences in adverse events were found for movement disorders, which were more frequent in the haloperidol group, and orthostatic problems, sedation and weight gain, which were more frequent in the low-potency antipsychotic group. The quality of studies was low, and the quality of evidence for the main outcomes of interest varied from moderate to very low, so more newer studies would be needed in order to draw a definite conclusion about whether or not haloperidol is superior or inferior to low-potency antipsychotics.

Prior antipsychotic drug treatment prevents response to novel antipsychotic agent in the methylazoxymethanol acetate model of schizophrenia

Trials of novel compounds for the treatment of schizophrenia are typically tested in patients following brief withdrawal of ongoing medication despite known long-term changes in the dopamine (DA) system following chronic antipsychotic drug therapy. The present study explored the impact of withdrawal from repeated haloperidol (HAL) treatment, as well as the response to a novel α5 gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA(A)) receptor positive allosteric modulator (α5PAM), on the activity of the DA system in the methylazoxymethanol acetate (MAM) neurodevelopmental model of schizophrenia. Electrophysiological recordings were conducted from DA neurons in the ventral tegmental area of MAM and saline (SAL) rats following 7-day withdrawal from repeated HAL (21 d, 0.6 mg/kg, orally). In separate animals, amphetamine-induced locomotion was measured to assess changes in DA behavioral sensitivity. SAL rats withdrawn from HAL demonstrated reduced spontaneous DA neuron activity along with an enhanced locomotor response to amphetamine, indicative of the development of DA supersensitivity. Both α5PAM treatment and ventral hippocampal (vHPC) inactivation reversed the DA neuron depolarization block following HAL withdrawal in SAL rats. In contrast, MAM rats withdrawn from HAL exhibited reduced spontaneous DA activity and enhanced locomotor response to amphetamine compared with untreated SAL rats; however, this condition was unresponsive to α5PAM treatment or vHPC inactivation. Withdrawal from prior HAL treatment interferes with the therapeutic actions of this novel treatment in the MAM model of schizophrenia. Consequently, testing novel compounds on chronically treated schizophrenia patients may be ineffective.

Perazine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Perazine is an old phenothiazine derivative used for the treatment of people with schizophrenia and is reputed to have a low level of extrapyramidal adverse effects. As far as we are aware, its use is limited to Germany, Poland, the former Yugoslavia and the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of perazine for those with schizophrenia or related psychoses in comparison with placebo, no treatment or other antipsychotic medications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the bibliographic databases Biological Abstracts, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycLIT, LILACS, PSYNDEX, Sociological Abstracts and Sociofile. We searched the references of all included studies for further trials. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials. We updated this search on 16th July 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomised controlled trials that compared perazine with other treatments for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors (SL, BH, BHe) independently inspected the citations and where possible abstracts and ordered papers for re-inspection and quality assessment. We independently extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD). We inspected all data for heterogeneity, assessed trials for risk of bias and created summary of findings tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

The review now includes seven trials with a total of 479 participants. In only one trial, with 95 participants, perazine appeared superior to 'active placebo' (trimipramine) at five weeks for the outcome of 'no important global improvement' (n = 95, RR 0.43 CI 0.2 to 0.8, low quality evidence), but there was no statistically significant difference in most measures of mental state. Perazine did not induce more general adverse events than placebo but more participants received at least one dose of antiparkinson medication (n = 95, RR 4.50 CI 1.0 to 19.5, very low quality evidence).Six small trials comparing perazine with other antipsychotics, including 384 participants in total, were incompletely reported and the outcomes were presented in various ways so that meta-analysis was not possible on most occasions. In the six studies, a similar number of participants receiving perazine or comparator antipsychotics (amisulpride, haloperidol, olanzapine, ziprasidone, zotepine) left the studies early (n = 384, RR 0.97 CI 0.68 to 1.38, low quality evidence). The results on efficacy could not be meta-analysed because the authors presented their results in very different ways. No obvious differences in adverse events between perazine and other antipsychotics could be derived from the limited data. Two haloperidol comparisons did not present extrapyramidal side-effects in a way that was suitable for use in meta-analysis, but three small comparisons with the second-generation antipsychotics zotepine and amisulpride showed no higher risk of akathisia (n = 111, RR 0.31 CI 0.1 to 1.1), dyskinesia (n = 111, RR 0.47 CI 0.1 to 3.5), parkinsonism (n = 81, RR 1.21 CI 0.5 2.8) or tremor (n = 40, RR 0.80 CI 0.3 to 2.6) with perazine.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The number, size and reporting of randomised controlled perazine trials are insufficient to present firm conclusions about the properties of this antipsychotic. It is possible that perazine is associated with a similar risk of extrapyramidal side-effects as some atypical antipsychotics but this is based on small comparisons. This should be clarified in larger, well-designed trials.

Aripiprazole versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

In most western industrialised countries, second generation (atypical) antipsychotics are recommended as first-line drug treatments for people with schizophrenia. In this review, we specifically examine how the efficacy and tolerability of one such agent - aripiprazole - differs from that of other comparable second generation antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of aripiprazole compared with other atypical antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (November 2012), inspected references of all identified studies for further trials and contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies, drug approval agencies and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing aripiprazole (oral) with oral and parenteral forms of amisulpride, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, sertindole, ziprasidone or zotepine for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

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. Where possible, we calculated illustrative comparative risks for primary outcomes. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), again based on a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias for each included study and used GRADE approach to rate quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We now have included 174 trials involving 17,244 participants. Aripiprazole was compared with clozapine, quetiapine, risperidone, ziprasidone and olanzapine. The overall number of participants leaving studies early was 30% to 40%, limiting validity (no differences between groups).When compared with clozapine, there were no significant differences for global state (no clinically significant response, n = 2132, 29 RCTs, low quality evidence); mental state (BPRS, n = 426, 5 RCTs, very low quality evidence); or leaving the study early for any reason (n = 240, 3 RCTs, very low quality evidence). Quality of life score using the WHO-QOL-100 scale demonstrated significant difference, favouring aripiprazole (n = 132, 2 RCTs, RR 2.59 CI 1.43 to 3.74, very low quality evidence). General extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) were no different between groups (n = 520, 8 RCTs,very low quality evidence). No study reported general functioning or service use.When compared with quetiapine, there were no significant differences for global state (n = 991, 12 RCTs, low quality evidence); mental state (PANSS positive symptoms, n = 583, 7 RCTs, very low quality evidence); leaving the study early for any reason (n = 168, 2 RCTs, very low quality evidence), or general EPS symptoms (n = 348, 4 RCTs, very low quality evidence). Results were significantly in favour of aripiprazole for quality of life (WHO-QOL-100 total score, n = 100, 1 RCT, MD 2.60 CI 1.31 to 3.89, very low quality evidence). No study reported general functioning or service use.When compared with risperidone, there were no significant differences for global state (n = 6381, 80 RCTs, low quality evidence); or leaving the study early for any reason (n = 1239, 12 RCTs, very low quality evidence). Data were significantly in favour of aripiprazole for improvement in mental state using the BPRS (n = 570, 5 RCTs, MD 1.33 CI 2.24 to 0.42, very low quality evidence); with higher adverse effects seen in participants receiving risperidone of general EPS symptoms (n = 2605, 31 RCTs, RR 0.39 CI 0.31 to 0.50, low quality evidence). No study reported general functioning, quality of life or service use.When compared with ziprasidone, there were no significant differences for global state (n = 442, 6 RCTs, very low quality evidence); mental state using the BPRS (n = 247, 1 RCT, very low quality evidence); or leaving the study early for any reason (n = 316, 2 RCTs, very low quality evidence). Weight gain was significantly greater in people receiving aripiprazole (n = 232, 3 RCTs, RR 4.01 CI 1.10 to 14.60, very low quality evidence). No study reported general functioning, quality of life or service use.When compared with olanzapine, there were no significant differences for global state (n = 1739, 11 RCTs, very low quality evidence); mental state using PANSS (n = 1500, 11 RCTs, very low quality evidence); or quality of life using the GQOLI-74 scale (n = 68, 1 RCT, very low quality of evidence). Significantly more people receiving aripiprazole left the study early due to any reason (n = 2331, 9 RCTs, RR 1.15 CI 1.05 to 1.25, low quality evidence) and significantly more people receiving olanzapine gained weight (n = 1538, 9 RCTs, RR 0.25 CI 0.15 to 0.43, very low quality evidence). None of the included studies provided outcome data for the comparisons of 'service use' or 'general functioning'.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Information on all comparisons is of limited quality, is incomplete and problematic to apply clinically. The quality of the evidence is all low or very low. Aripiprazole is an antipsychotic drug with an important adverse effect profile. Long-term data are sparse and there is considerable scope for another update of this review as new data emerge from ongoing larger, independent pragmatic trials.

Quetiapine versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

In many countries, second-generation ('atypical') antipsychotic drugs have become the first-line drug treatment for people with schizophrenia. It is not clear how the effects of the various second-generation antipsychotic drugs differ.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of quetiapine compared with other second-generation (atypical) antipsychotic drugs in the treatment of people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (May 2010), inspected references of all identified studies, and contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies, drug approval agencies and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral quetiapine with other oral forms of atypical antipsychotic medication in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. We calculated number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MDs), again based on a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Efficacy data tended to favour the control drugs over quetiapine (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score vs olanzapine: 11 RCTs, n = 1486, mean quetiapine endpoint score 3.67 higher, CI 1.95 to 5.39, low quality; vs risperidone: 13 RCTs, n = 2155, mean quetiapine endpoint score 1.74 higher, CI 0.19 to 3.29, moderate quality; vs paliperidone: 1 RCT, n = 319, mean quetiapine endpoint score 6.30 higher, CI 2.77 to 9.83, moderate quality), but the clinical meaning of these data is unclear. No clear mental state differences were noted when quetiapine was compared with clozapine, aripiprazole or ziprasidone. Compared with olanzapine, quetiapine produced slightly fewer movement disorders (7 RCTs, n = 1127, RR use of antiparkinson medication 0.51, CI 0.32 to 0.81, moderate quality) and less weight gain (8 RCTs, n = 1667, RR 0.68, CI 0.51 to 0.92, moderate quality) and glucose elevation, but increased QTc prolongation (3 RCTs, n = 643, MD 4.81, CI 0.34 to 9.28). Compared with risperidone, quetiapine induced slightly fewer movement disorders (8 RCTs, n = 2163, RR use of antiparkinson medication 0.5, CI 0.36 to 0.69, moderate quality), less prolactin increase (7 RCTs, n = 1733, MD -35.25, CI -43.59 to -26.91) and some related adverse effects but greater cholesterol increase (6 RCTs, n = 1473, MD 8.57, CI 4.85 to 12.29). On the basis of limited data, compared with paliperidone, quetiapine induced fewer parkinsonian side effects (1 RCT, n = 319, RR use of antiparkinson medication 0.64, CI 0.45 to 0.91, moderate quality) and less prolactin increase (1 RCT, n = 319, MD -49.30, CI -57.80 to -40.80) and weight gain (1 RCT, n = 319, RR weight gain of 7% or more of total body weight 2.52, CI 0.5 to 12.78, moderate quality). Compared with ziprasidone, quetiapine induced slightly fewer extrapyramidal adverse effects (1 RCT, n = 522, RR use of antiparkinson medication 0.43, CI 0.2 to 0.93, moderate quality) and less prolactin increase. On the other hand, quetiapine was more sedating and led to greater weight gain (2 RCTs, n = 754, RR 2.22, CI 1.35 to 3.63, moderate quality) and cholesterol increase when compared with ziprasidone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence from trials suggests that most people who start quetiapine stop taking it within a few weeks (around 60%). Comparisons with amisulpride, sertindole and zotepine do not exist. Although efficacy data favour olanzapine and risperidone compared with quetiapine, the clinical meaning of these data remains unclear. Quetiapine may produce fewer parkinsonian effects than paliperidone, aripiprazole, ziprasidone, risperidone and olanzapine. Quetiapine appears to have a similar weight gain profile to risperidone, as well as clozapine and aripiprazole (although data are very limited for the latter two comparators). Quetiapine may produce greater weight gain than ziprasidone and less weight gain than olanzapine and paliperidone. Most data that have been reported within existing comparisons are of very limited value because of assumptions and biases within them. Much scope is available for further research into the effects of this widely used drug.

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.

Haloperidol dose for the acute phase of schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol is a benchmark, accessible antipsychotic drug against which the effects of newer treatments are gauged.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the best range of doses for haloperidol for the treatment of people acutely ill with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (February 2010), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected studies if they involved people being treated for acute schizophrenia, randomised to two or more dose ranges of non-depot haloperidol, and if they reported clinically meaningful outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, we inspected all citations and independently re-inspected a sample of citations in order to ensure reliable selection. We resolved any disagreement by discussion, and where doubt remained, we acquired the full-text article for further inspection. We then ordered papers, and reliably re-inspected and quality assessed the full reports, and extracted data. For homogeneous dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. We assumed that people who left the study early or were lost to follow-up had a negative outcome. We calculated mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes that reported ITT, last observation carried forward (LOCF) data. We excluded data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50%.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 trials with 19 different randomised dose comparisons. No studies reported data on relapse rates or quality of life and only one compared low dose (> 1.5 to 3 mg/day) haloperidol to higher dose ranges. Using standard lower dose (> 3 to 7.5 mg/day) did not result in loss of efficacy (no clinically important improvement in global state, versus standard higher dose (> 7.5 to 15 mg/day, n = 48, 1 RCT, RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.8, very-low-quality evidence); versus high dose (> 15 to 35 mg/day, n = 81, 2 RCTs, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.2, very-low-quality evidence). Doses of haloperidol in the range of > 3 to 7.5 mg/day had a lower rate of development of clinically significant extrapyramidal adverse effects than higher doses (clinically significant extrapyramidal adverse effects, versus standard higher dose, n = 64, 2 RCTs, RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.1, very-low-quality evidence); versus high dose, n = 144, 3 RCTs, RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.8, very-low-quality evidence; versus very high dose (> 35 mg/day, n = 86, 2 RCTs, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.1, very-low-quality evidence). None of the other comparisons between dose ranges yielded statistically significant differences, but several, particularly with lower dose ranges, were underpowered to detect clinically meaningful differences.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Noresults were conclusive and all were based on small, short studies of limited quality. However, it would be understandable if clinicians were cautious in prescribing doses in excess of 7.5 mg/day of haloperidol to a person with uncomplicated acute schizophrenia, and if people with schizophrenia were equally reticent to take greater doses. Further research is needed regarding the efficacy and tolerability of the lower dose ranges, especially > 1.5 to 3 mg/day.

Randomized controlled study of the T-type calcium channel antagonist MK-8998 for the treatment of acute psychosis in patients with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate whether the T-type calcium channel antagonist MK-8998 was effective in treating acute psychosis in patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. After a placebo lead-in, acutely psychotic inpatients with schizophrenia were randomized to 4 weeks of MK-8998 12/16 mg daily (N = 86), olanzapine 10/15 mg daily (N = 47), or placebo (N = 83). The primary efficacy measure was score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS).

RESULTS

Out of 216 randomized patients, 158 completed the 4-week study: MK-8998 = 58 (67.4%), olanzapine = 38 (80.9%), and placebo = 62 (74.7%). The mean changes from baseline in PANSS score at week 4 for MK-8998 and olanzapine were not significantly different from placebo: MK-8998-placebo difference = -0.6 [95% confidence interval (CI): -7.0, 5.8], p = 0.9; olanzapine-placebo difference = -4.3 [95% CI: -11.7, 3.1), p = 0.3. A responder rate analysis (≥20% improvement from baseline in PANSS score) suggested an advantage of olanzapine over placebo (odds ratio = 2.20 [95% CI: 0.95, 5.09], p = 0.07) but no effect of MK-8998 over placebo (odds ratio = 1.28 [95% CI: 0.62, 2.64], p = 0.5). Treatments were generally well tolerated, but more patients reported adverse events for MK-8998 (47.7%) and olanzapine (48.9%) than placebo (37.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

MK-8998 was not effective in treating acutely psychotic inpatients with schizophrenia, as measured by PANSS score at week 4. Because of the limited efficacy of the active comparator, we cannot exclude the possibility that T-type calcium channel antagonists could prove to be effective in schizophrenia.

Aripiprazole versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

In most western industrialised countries, second generation (atypical) antipsychotics are recommended as first line drug treatments for people with schizophrenia. In this review we specifically examine how the efficacy and tolerability of one such agent - aripiprazole - differs from that of other comparable second generation antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of aripiprazole compared with other atypical antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (November 2011), inspected references of all identified studies for further trials, and contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies, drug approval agencies and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing aripiprazole (oral) with oral and parenteral forms of amisulpride, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, sertindole, ziprasidone or zotepine for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

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. Where possible, we calculated illustrative comparative risks for primary outcomes. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), again based on a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias for each included study.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 trials involving 6389 patients. Aripiprazole was compared to olanzapine, risperidone and ziprasidone. All trials were sponsored by an interested drug manufacturer. The overall number of participants leaving studies early was 30% to 40%, limiting validity (no differences between groups).When compared with olanzapine no differences were apparent for global state (no clinically important change: n = 703, 1 RCT, RR short-term 1.00 95% CI 0.81 to 1.22; n = 317, 1 RCT, RR medium-term 1.08 95% CI 0.95 to 1.22) but mental state tended to favour olanzapine (n = 1360, 3 RCTs, MD total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) 4.68 95% CI 2.21 to 7.16). There was no significant difference in extrapyramidal symptoms (n = 529, 2 RCTs, RR 0.99 95% CI 0.62 to 1.59) but fewer in the aripiprazole group had increased cholesterol levels (n = 223, 1 RCT, RR 0.32 95% CI 0.19 to 0.54) or weight gain of 7% or more of total body weight (n = 1095, 3 RCTs, RR 0.39 95% CI 0.28 to 0.54).When compared with risperidone, aripiprazole showed no advantage in terms of global state (n = 384, 2 RCTs, RR no important improvement 1.14 95% CI 0.81 to 1.60) or mental state (n = 372, 2 RCTs, MD total PANSS 1.50 95% CI -2.96 to 5.96).One study compared aripiprazole with ziprasidone (n = 247) and both the groups reported similar change in the global state (n = 247, 1 RCT, MD average change in Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) score -0.03 95% CI -0.28 to 0.22) and mental state (n = 247, 1 RCT, MD change PANSS -3.00 95% CI -7.29 to 1.29).When compared with any one of several new generation antipsychotic drugs the aripiprazole group showed improvement in global state in energy (n = 523, 1 RCT, RR 0.69 95% CI 0.56 to 0.84), mood (n = 523, 1 RCT, RR 0.77 95% CI 0.65 to 0.92), negative symptoms (n = 523, 1 RCT, RR 0.82 95% CI 0.68 to 0.99), somnolence (n = 523, 1 RCT, RR 0.80 95% CI 0.69 to 0.93) and weight gain (n = 523, 1 RCT, RR 0.84 95% CI 0.76 to 0.94). Significantly more people given aripiprazole reported symptoms of nausea (n = 2881, 3 RCTs, RR 3.13 95% CI 2.12 to 4.61) but weight gain (7% or more of total body weight) was less common in people allocated aripiprazole (n = 330, 1 RCT, RR 0.35 95% CI 0.19 to 0.64). Aripiprazole may have value in aggression but data are limited. This will be the focus of another review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Information on all comparisons are of limited quality, are incomplete and problematic to apply clinically. Aripiprazole is an antipsychotic drug with a variant but not absent adverse effect profile. Long-term data are sparse and there is considerable scope for another update of this review as new data emerges from the many Chinese studies as well as from ongoing larger, independent pragmatic trials.

Gene-microRNA interactions associated with antipsychotic mechanisms and the metabolic side effects of olanzapine

RATIONALE

Changes in the cortical expression of small non-coding microRNA (miRNA) have been observed in postmortem analysis of psychotic disorders. Antipsychotic drugs (APDs) are the most effective treatment option for these disorders and have been associated with changes in gene expression. MicroRNA regulate numerous genes involved in brain development and function. It is therefore plausible to question whether miRNA expression is also altered and hence whether they take part in the neuroleptic mechanism of action.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to investigate whether treatment with APDs induces changes in miRNA expression and query the functional implications of such changes. Furthermore, we investigated the possible functional interplay of miRNA-gene regulatory interactions.

METHOD

High-throughput miRNA profiling of the whole brain of C57BL/6 mice treated with haloperidol, olanzapine or clozapine for 7 days was performed. Functional analysis was conducted on the putative targets of altered microRNA. Significant miRNA-gene regulatory interactions were evaluated by the integration of genome-wide mRNA expression analysis using the Bayesian networks with splitting-averaging strategy and functional analysis conducted.

RESULTS

Small subsets of miRNA were altered with each treatment with potential neurologically relevant influence. Metabolic pathways were enriched in olanzapine and clozapine treatments, possibly associated with their weight gain side effects. Neurologically and metabolically relevant miRNA-gene interaction networks were identified in the olanzapine treatment group.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first to suggest a role for miRNA in the mechanism of APD action and the metabolic side effects of the atypical ADPs, and adds support for their consideration in pharmacogenomics.

Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

The symptoms and signs of schizophrenia have been firmly linked to high levels of dopamine in specific areas of the brain (limbic system). Antipsychotic drugs block the transmission of dopamine in the brain and reduce the acute symptoms of the disorder. This review examined whether antipsychotic drugs are also effective for relapse prevention.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of maintaining antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia compared to withdrawing these agents.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Specialised Register (November 2008), with additional searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and clinicaltrials.gov (June 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs and placebo for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) again based on a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 65 randomised controlled trials (RCT(s)) and 6493 participants comparing antipsychotic medication with placebo. The trials were published from 1959 to 2011 and their size ranged between 14 and 420 participants. In many studies the methods of randomisation, allocation and blinding were poorly reported. Although this and other potential sources of bias limited the overall quality, the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs for maintenance treatment in schizophrenia was clear. Antipsychotic drugs were significantly more effective than placebo in preventing relapse at seven to 12 months (primary outcome; drug 27%, placebo 64%, 24 RCT(s), n=2669, RR 0.40 CI 0.33 to 0.49, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB 3 CI 2 to 3). Hospitalisation was also reduced, however, the baseline risk was lower (drug 10%, placebo 26%, 16 RCT(s), n=2090, RR 0.38 CI 0.27 to 0.55, NNT 5 CI 4 to 9). More participants in the placebo group than in the antipsychotic drug group left the studies early due to any reason (at 7-12 months: drug 38%, placebo 66%, 18 RCT(s), n=2420, RR 0.55 CI 0.46 to 0.66, NNTB 4 CI 3 to 5) and due to inefficacy of treatment (at 7-12 months: drug 20%, placebo 50%, 18 RCT(s), n=2420, RR 0.36 CI 0.28 to 0.45, NNTB 3 CI 2 to 4). Quality of life was better in drug-treated participants (3 RCT(s), n=527, SMD -0.62 CI -1.15 to -0.09). Conversely, antipsychotic drugs as a group and irrespective of duration, were associated with more participants experiencing movement disorders (e.g. at least one movement disorder: drug 16%, placebo 9%, 22 RCT(s), n=3411, RR 1.55 CI 1.25 to 1.93, NNTH 25 CI 13 to 100), sedation (drug 13%, placebo 9%, 10 RCT(s), n=146, RR 1.50 CI 1.22 to 1.84, number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) not significant) and weight gain (drug 10%, placebo 6%, 10 RCT(s), n=321, RR 2.07 CI 1.31 to 3.25, NNTH 20 CI 14 to 33). The results of the primary outcome were robust in a number of subgroup, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses, the main exception being that the drug-placebo difference in longer trials was smaller than in shorter trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results clearly demonstrate the superiority of antipsychotic drugs compared to placebo in preventing relapse. This effect must be weighed against the side effects of antipsychotic drugs. Future studies should focus on outcomes of social participation and clarify the long-term morbidity and mortality associated with these drugs.

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.

Early intervention for psychosis

BACKGROUND

Proponents of early intervention have argued that outcomes might be improved if more therapeutic efforts were focused on the early stages of schizophrenia or on people with prodromal symptoms. Early intervention in schizophrenia has two elements that are distinct from standard care: early detection, and phase-specific treatment (phase-specific treatment is a psychological, social or physical treatment developed, or modified, specifically for use with people at an early stage of the illness).Early detection and phase-specific treatment may both be offered as supplements to standard care, or may be provided through a specialised early intervention team. Early intervention is now well established as a therapeutic approach in America, Europe and Australasia.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of: (a) early detection; (b) phase-specific treatments; and (c) specialised early intervention teams in the treatment of people with prodromal symptoms or first-episode psychosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (March 2009), inspected reference lists of all identified trials and reviews and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) designed to prevent progression to psychosis in people showing prodromal symptoms, or to improve outcome for people with first-episode psychosis. Eligible interventions, alone and in combination, included: early detection, phase-specific treatments, and care from specialised early intervention teams. We accepted cluster-randomised trials but excluded non-randomised trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Studies were diverse, mostly small, undertaken by pioneering researchers and with many methodological limitations (18 RCTs, total n=1808). Mostly, meta-analyses were inappropriate. For the six studies addressing prevention of psychosis for people with prodromal symptoms, olanzapine seemed of little benefit (n=60, 1 RCT, RR conversion to psychosis 0.58 CI 0.3 to 1.2), and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) equally so (n=60, 1 RCT, RR conversion to psychosis 0.50 CI 0.2 to 1.7). A risperidone plus CBT plus specialised team did have benefit over specialist team alone at six months (n=59, 1 RCT, RR conversion to psychosis 0.27 CI 0.1 to 0.9, NNT 4 CI 2 to 20), but this was not seen by 12 months (n=59, 1 RCT, RR 0.54 CI 0.2 to 1.3). Omega 3 fatty acids (EPA) had advantage over placebo (n=76, 1 RCT, RR transition to psychosis 0.13 CI 0.02 to 1.0, NNT 6 CI 5 to 96). We know of no replications of this finding.The remaining trials aimed to improve outcome in first-episode psychosis. Phase-specific CBT for suicidality seemed to have little effect, but the single study was small (n=56, 1 RCT, RR suicide 0.81 CI 0.05 to 12.26). Family therapy plus a specialised team in the Netherlands did not clearly affect relapse (n=76, RR 1.05 CI 0.4 to 3.0), but without the specialised team in China it may (n=83, 1 RCT, RR admitted to hospital 0.28 CI 0.1 to 0.6, NNT 3 CI 2 to 6). The largest and highest quality study compared specialised team with standard care. Leaving the study early was reduced (n=547, 1 RCT, RR 0.59 CI 0.4 to 0.8, NNT 9 CI 6 to 18) and compliance with treatment improved (n=507, RR stopped treatment 0.20 CI 0.1 to 0.4, NNT 9 CI 8 to 12). The mean number of days spent in hospital at one year were not significantly different (n=507, WMD, -1.39 CI -2.8 to 0.1), neither were data for 'Not hospitalised' by five years (n=547, RR 1.05 CI 0.90 to 1.2). There were no significant differences in numbers 'not living independently' by one year (n=507, RR 0.55 CI 0.3 to 1.2). At five years significantly fewer participants in the treatment group were 'not living independently' (n=547, RR 0.42 CI 0.21 to 0.8, NNT 19 CI 14 to 62). When phase-specific treatment (CBT) was compared with befriending no significant differences emerged in the number of participants being hospitalised over the 12 months (n=62, 1 RCT, RR 1.08 CI 0.59 to 1.99).Phase-specific treatment E-EPA oils suggested no benefit (n=80, 1 RCT, RR no response 0.90 CI 0.6 to 1.4) as did phase-specific treatment brief intervention (n=106, 1 RCT, RR admission 0.86 CI 0.4 to 1.7). Phase-specific ACE found no benefit but participants given vocational intervention were more likely to be employed (n=41, 1 RCT, RR 0.39 CI 0.21 to 0.7, NNT 2 CI 2 to 4). Phase-specific cannabis and psychosis therapy did not show benefit (n=47, RR cannabis use 1.30 CI 0.8 to 2.2) and crisis assessment did not reduce hospitalisation (n=98, RR 0.85 CI 0.6 to 1.3). Weight was unaffected by early behavioural intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is emerging, but as yet inconclusive evidence, to suggest that people in the prodrome of psychosis can be helped by some interventions. There is some support for specialised early intervention services, but further trials would be desirable, and there is a question of whether gains are maintained. There is some support for phase-specific treatment focused on employment and family therapy, but again, this needs replicating with larger and longer trials.

Antipsychotic medication for early episode schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Long-term treatment with antipsychotic medications in early episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders is common, but both short and long-term effects on the illness are unclear. There have been numerous suggestions that people with early episodes of schizophrenia appear to respond differently than those with multiple prior episodes. The number of episodes may moderate response to drug treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antipsychotic medication treatment on people with early episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group register (July 2007) as well as references of included studies. We contacted authors of studies for further data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies with a majority of first and second episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders comparing initial antipsychotic medication treatment with placebo, milieu, or psychosocial treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Working independently, we critically appraised records from 681studies, of which five studies met inclusion criteria. John Rathbone from the Schizophrenia Group supported us with the data extraction. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) where possible. For continuous data, we calculated mean difference (MD). We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies with a combined N = 998 met inclusion criteria. Four studies (N = 724) provided leaving the study early data and results suggested that individuals treated with a typical antipsychotic medication are less likely to leave the study early than those treated with placebo (Chlorpromazine: 3 RCTs N = 353, RR 0.4 CI 0.3 to 0.5, NNT 3.2, Fluphenaxine: 1 RCT N = 240, RR 0.5 CI 0.3 to 0.8, NNT 5; Thioridazine: 1 RCT N = 236, RR 0.44 CI 0.3 to 0.7, NNT 4.3, Trifulperazine: 1 RCT N = 94, RR 0.96 CI 0.3 to 3.6). Two studies (Cole 1964; May 1976) contributed data to assessment of side effects and present a general pattern of more frequent side effects among individuals treated with typical antipsychotic medications compared to placebo. Rappaport 1978 suggested a higher rehospitalisation rate for those receiving chlorpromazine compared to placebo (N = 80, RR 2.29 CI 1.3 to 4.0, NNH 2.9). However, a higher attrition in the placebo group is likely to have introduced a survivor bias into this comparison, as this difference becomes non-significant in a sensitivity analysis on intent-to-treat participants (N = 127, RR 1.69 CI 0.9 to 3.0). One study (May 1976) contributes data to a comparison of trifluoperazine to psychotherapy on long-term health in favour of the trifluoperazine group (N = 92, MD 5.8 CI 1.6 to 0.0); however, data from this study are also likely to contain biases due to selection and attrition. One study (Mosher 1995) contributes data to a comparison of typical antipsychotic medication to psychosocial treatment on six-week outcome measures of global psychopathology (N = 89, MD 0.01 CI -0.6 to 0.6) and global improvement (N = 89, MD -0.03 CI -0.5 to 0.4), indicating no between-group differences. On the whole, there is very little useable data in the few studies meeting inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

With only a few studies meeting inclusion criteria, and with limited useable data in these studies, it is not possible to arrive at definitive conclusions. The preliminary pattern of evidence suggests that people with early episode schizophrenia treated with typical antipsychotic medications are less likely to leave the study early, but more likely to experience medication-related side effects. Data are too sparse to assess the effects of antipsychotic medication on outcomes in early episode schizophrenia.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of pharmacological and psychosocial interventions for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Information on cost-effectiveness of interventions to treat schizophrenia can assist health policy decision making, particularly given the lack of health resources in developing countries like Thailand. This study aims to determine the optimal treatment package, including drug and non-drug interventions, for schizophrenia in Thailand.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of typical antipsychotics, generic risperidone, olanzapine, clozapine and family interventions. Health outcomes were measured in disability adjusted life years. We evaluated intervention benefit by estimating a change in disease severity, taking into account potential side effects. Intervention costs included outpatient treatment costs, hospitalization costs as well as time and travel costs of patients and families. Uncertainty was evaluated using Monte Carlo simulation. A sensitivity analysis of the expected range cost of generic risperidone was undertaken.

RESULTS

Generic risperidone is more cost-effective than typicals if it can be produced for less than 10 baht per 2 mg tablet. Risperidone was the cheapest treatment with higher drug costs offset by lower hospital costs in comparison to typicals. The most cost-effective combination of treatments was a combination of risperidone (dominant intervention). Adding family intervention has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 1,900 baht/DALY with a 100% probability of a result less than a threshold for very cost-effective interventions of one times GDP or 110,000 baht per DALY. Treating the most severe one third of patients with clozapine instead of risperidone had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 320,000 baht/DALY with just over 50% probability of a result below three times GDP per capita.

CONCLUSIONS

There are good economic arguments to recommend generic risperidone as first line treatment in combination with family intervention. As the uncertainty interval indicates the addition of clozapine may be dominated and there are serious side effects, treating severe patients with clozapine is advisable only for patients who do not respond to risperidone and only in the presence of a stricter side effect monitoring system than currently exists.

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.