Pimozide for schizophrenia or related psychoses

A Rare Presentation of Delusional Parasitosis With Koro-Like Syndrome

Delusional parasitosis (DP) with Koro-like syndrome poses a complex clinical challenge, demanding a comprehensive and empathetic approach from healthcare professionals. This exceptional combination of fixed beliefs about infestation and experiences of genital retraction can profoundly impact patients' well-being and daily functioning. The associated stigma and misconceptions further compound the difficulties faced by individuals struggling with these co-occurring conditions. Given the rarity of encountering both conditions simultaneously, navigating the diagnosis and treatment of delusional parasitosis with Koro-like syndrome requires a thorough understanding of its multifaceted nature. Embracing a holistic strategy encompassing psychoeducation, psychotherapy, and pharmacological interventions is essential for effectively addressing these dual conditions.

GADD45A and GADD45B as Novel Biomarkers Associated with Chromatin Regulators in Renal Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury

Chromatin regulators (CRs) are essential upstream regulatory factors of epigenetic modification. The role of CRs in the pathogenesis of renal ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) remains unclear. We analyzed a bioinformatic analysis on the differentially expressed chromatin regulator genes in renal IRI patients using data from public domains. The hub CRs identified were used to develop a risk prediction model for renal IRI, and their expressions were also validated using Western blot, qRT-PCR, and immunohistochemistry in a murine renal IRI model. We also examined the relationships between hub CRs and infiltrating immune cells in renal IRI and used network analysis to explore drugs that target hub CRs and their relevant downstream microRNAs. The results of machine learning methods showed that five genes (DUSP1, GADD45A, GADD45B, GADD45G, HSPA1A) were upregulated in renal IRI, with key roles in the cell cycle, p38 MAPK signaling pathway, p53 signaling pathway, FoxO signaling pathway, and NF-κB signaling pathway. Two genes from the network, GADD45A and GADD45B (growth arrest and DNA damage-inducible protein 45 alpha and beta), were chosen for the renal IRI risk prediction model. They all showed good performance in the testing and validation cohorts. Mice with renal IRI showed significantly upregulated GADD45A and GADD45B expression within kidneys compared to sham-operated mice. GADD45A and GADD45B showed correlations with plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs) in infiltrating immune cell analysis and enrichment in the MAPK pathway based on the weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) method. Candidate drugs that target GADD45A and GADD45B include beta-escin, sertraline, primaquine, pimozide, and azacyclonol. The dysregulation of GADD45A and GADD45B is related to renal IRI and the infiltration of pDCs, and drugs that target GADD45A and GADD45B may have therapeutic potential for renal IRI.

Seventy Years of Treating Delusional Disorder with Antipsychotics: A Historical Perspective

For many decades, delusional disorder (DD) has been considered a treatment-resistant disorder, with antipsychotics acknowledged as the best, though imperfect, treatment. It is possible that the discovery of the right drug could turn treatment resistance into treatment response. The goal of this narrative review is to provide a historical perspective of the treatment of DD since the introduction of antipsychotics 70 years ago. The following search terms were used to scan the literature: antipsychotics AND "delusional disorder". Findings were that therapy for DD symptoms has changed over time. Initial reports suggested that the drug of choice was the antipsychotic pimozide, and that this drug was especially effective for the somatic subtype of DD. Subsequent studies demonstrated that other antipsychotics, for instance, risperidone and olanzapine, were also highly effective. Treatment response may vary according to the presence or absence of specific symptoms, such as cognitive defect and depression. Clozapine, partial D2 agonists, and long-acting injectable drugs may be more effective than other drugs, but the evidence is not yet in. Because of the absence of robust evidence, treatment guidelines for the optimal management of DD are not yet available.

The long non-coding RNA T cell leukemia homeobox 1 neighbor enhances signal transducer and activator of transcription 5A phosphorylation to promote colon cancer cell invasion, migration, and metastasis

Colon cancer is among the most prevalent gastrointestinal tumor types. The long noncoding RNA (lncRNA) T cell leukemia homeobox 1 neighbor (TLX1NB) is up-regulated in colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the functional role of this lncRNA in colon cancer remains unknown. In our study, we investigated the clinical significance of TLX1NB in colon cancer through bioinformatics analysis and explored its role in migration, invasion and metastasis of colon cancer cell with a series of experiments. Firstly, TLX1NB was up-regulated in colon cancer tissues and increased TLX1NB expression was significantly associated with advanced N stages. In wound healing assays and transwell assays, TLX1NB overexpression promoted HCT116 cell migration and invasion while TLX1NB knockdown inhibited SW620 cell migration and invasion. In vivo, TLX1NB knockdown suppressed pulmonary metastasis of SW620 cell and vimentin expression but increased E-cadherin expression. Then, TLX1NB overexpression enhanced signal transducer and activator of transcription 5A (STAT5A) phosphorylation and TLX1NB knockdown suppressed STAT5A phosphorylation. Moreover, the inhibition of STAT5A phosphorylation reversed TLX1NB overexpression-associated increase in HCT116 cell migratory and invasive activity. In conclusion, TLX1NB enhances STAT5A phosphorylation to promote colon cancer cell invasion, migration, and metastasis.

Targeting Reactive Oxygen Species Capacity of Tumor Cells with Repurposed Drug as an Anticancer Therapy

Accumulating evidence shows that elevated levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) are associated with cancer initiation, growth, and response to therapies. As concentrations increase, ROS influence cancer development in a paradoxical way, either triggering tumorigenesis and supporting the proliferation of cancer cells at moderate levels of ROS or causing cancer cell death at high levels of ROS. Thus, ROS can be considered an attractive target for therapy of cancer and two apparently contradictory but virtually complementary therapeutic strategies for the regulation of ROS to treat cancer. Despite tremendous resources being invested in prevention and treatment for cancer, cancer remains a leading cause of human deaths and brings a heavy burden to humans worldwide. Chemotherapy remains the key treatment for cancer therapy, but it produces harmful side effects. Meanwhile, the process of de novo development of new anticancer drugs generally needs increasing cost, long development cycle, and high risk of failure. The use of ROS-based repurposed drugs may be one of the promising ways to overcome current cancer treatment challenges. In this review, we briefly introduce the source and regulation of ROS and then focus on the status of repurposed drugs based on ROS regulation for cancer therapy and propose the challenges and direction of ROS-mediated cancer treatment.

Pimozide Suppresses the Growth of Brain Tumors by Targeting STAT3-Mediated Autophagy

Brain tumors are considered as one of the most aggressive and incurable forms of cancer. The majority of the patients with brain tumors have a median survival rate of 12%. Brain tumors are lethal despite the availability of advanced treatment options such as surgical removal, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. In this study, we have evaluated the anti-cancer effects of pimozide, which is a neuroleptic drug used for the treatment of schizophrenia and chronic psychosis. Pimozide significantly reduced the proliferation of U-87MG, Daoy, GBM 28, and U-251MG brain cancer cell lines by inducing apoptosis with IC₅₀ (Inhibitory concentration 50) ranging from 12 to 16 μM after 48 h of treatment. Our Western blotting analysis indicated that pimozide suppressed the phosphorylation of STAT3 at Tyr705 and Src at Tyr416, and it inhibited the expression of anti-apoptotic markers c-Myc, Mcl-1, and Bcl-2. Significant autophagy induction was observed with pimozide treatment. LC3B, Beclin-1, and ATG5 up-regulation along with autolysosome formation confirmed the induction of autophagy with pimozide treatment. Inhibiting autophagy using 3-methyladenine or LC3B siRNA significantly blocked the apoptosis-inducing effects of pimozide, suggesting that pimozide mediated its apoptotic effects by inducing autophagy. Oral administration of 25 mg/kg pimozide suppressed the intracranially implanted U-87MG tumor growth by 45% in athymic nude mice. The chronic administration of pimozide showed no general signs of toxicity, and the behavioral activity of the mice remained unchanged. Taken together, these results indicate that pimozide inhibits the growth of brain cancer by autophagy-mediated apoptosis.

Nafion-Radical Hybrid Films on Carbon Nanotube Transistors for Monitoring Antipsychotic Drug Effects on Stimulated Dopamine Release

We developed floating electrode-based carbon nanotube biosensors for the monitoring of antipsychotic drug effects on the dopamine release from PC12 cells under potassium stimulation. Here, carbon nanotube field-effect transistors with floating electrodes were functionalized with 2,2'-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS^•) radicals by Nafion films. This method allows us to build selective biosensors for dopamine detection with a detection limit down to 10 nM even in the presence of other neurotransmitters such as glutamate and acetylcholine, resulting from the selective interaction between ABTS^• radicals and dopamine. The sensors were also utilized to monitor the real-time release of dopamine from PC12 cells upon the stimulation of high-concentrated potassium solutions. Significantly, the antipsychotic effects of pimozide on the dopamine release from potassium-stimulated PC12 cells could also be evaluated in a concentration-dependent manner by using the sensors. The quantitative and real-time evaluation capability of our strategy should provide a versatile tool for many biomedical studies and applications.

Autophagy stimulation as a promising approach in treatment of neurodegenerative diseases

Autophagy is a process of degradation of macromolecules in the cytoplasm, particularly proteins of a long half-life, as well as whole organelles, in eukaryotic cells. Lysosomes play crucial roles during this degradation. Autophagy is a phylogenetically old, and evolutionarily conserved phenomenon which occurs in all eukaryotic cells. It can be found in yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, insect Drosophila melanogaster, and mammals, including humans. Its high importance for cell physiology has been recognized, and in fact, dysfunctions causing impaired autophagy are associated with many severe disorders, including cancer and metabolic brain diseases. The types and molecular mechanisms of autophagy have been reviewed recently by others, and in this paper they will be summarized only briefly. Regulatory networks controlling the autophagy process are usually described as negative regulations. In contrast, here, we focus on different ways by which autophagy can be stimulated. In fact, activation of this process by different factors or processes can be considered as a therapeutic strategy in metabolic neurodegenerative diseases. These aspects are reviewed and discussed in this article.

Chronic Administration of Pimozide Fails to Attenuate Motor and Pathological Deficits in Two Mouse Models of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal neurodegenerative disease which presently does not have any efficient therapeutic approach. Pimozide, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved neuroepileptic drug, has been recently proposed as a promising treatment for ALS patients based on apparent stabilization of right hand muscles after a short-time administration. A new clinical trial started at the end of 2017 to recruit patients with a prolonged drug delivery schedule. Here, our aim was to investigate the effects of chronic administration of pimozide on disease progression and pathological events in two mouse models of ALS. Pimozide was administered every 2 days to transgenic mice bearing the ALS-linked A315T mutation on the human TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) gene and to mice carrying the human superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD1) gene with the ALS-linked G93A mutation. Chronic administration of pimozide exacerbated motor performances in both animal models and reduced survival in SOD1G93A mice. In TDP-43A315T, it decreased the percentage of innervated neuromuscular junctions (NMJs) and increased the accumulation of insoluble TDP-43. In SOD1G93A mice, pimozide had no effects on NMJ innervation or motoneuron loss, but it increased the levels of misfolded SOD1. We conclude that a chronic administration of pimozide did not confer beneficial effects on disease progression in two mouse models of ALS. In light of a new clinical trial on ALS patients with a chronic regime of pimozide, these results with mouse models suggest prudence and careful monitoring of ALS patients subjected to pimozide treatment.

Haloperidol plus promethazine for psychosis-induced aggression

BACKGROUND

Health services often manage agitated or violent people, and such behaviour is particularly prevalent in emergency psychiatric services (10%). The drugs used in such situations should ensure that the person becomes calm swiftly and safely.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether haloperidol plus promethazine is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression.

SEARCH METHODS

On 6 May 2015 we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials, which is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, BIOSIS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised clinical trials with useable data focusing on haloperidol plus promethazine for psychosis-induced aggression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We found two new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the 2015 update searching. The review now includes six studies, randomising 1367 participants and presenting data relevant to six comparisons.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with haloperidol alone for psychosis-induced aggression for the outcome not tranquil or asleep at 30 minutes, the combination treatment was clearly more effective (n=316, 1 RCT, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.87, high-quality evidence). There were 10 occurrences of acute dystonia in the haloperidol alone arm and none in the combination group. The trial was stopped early as haloperidol alone was considered to be too toxic.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with olanzapine, high-quality data showed both approaches to be tranquillising. It was suggested that the combination of haloperidol plus promethazine was more effective, but the difference between the two approaches did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance (n=300, 1 RCT, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.61, high-quality evidence). Lower-quality data suggested that the risk of unwanted excessive sedation was less with the combination approach (n=116, 2 RCTs, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.84).When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with ziprasidone all data were of lesser quality. We identified no binary data for the outcome tranquil or asleep. The average sedation score (Ramsay Sedation Scale) was lower for the combination approach but not to conventional levels of statistical significance (n=60, 1 RCT, MD -0.1, 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.38). These data were of low quality and it is unclear what they mean in clinical terms. The haloperidol plus promethazine combination appeared to cause less excessive sedation but again the difference did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance (n=111, 2 RCTs, RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.43).We found few data for the comparison of haloperidol plus promethazine versus haloperidol plus midazolam. Average Ramsay Sedation Scale scores suggest the combination of haloperidol plus midazolam to be the most sedating (n=60, 1 RCT, MD - 0.6, 95% CI -1.13 to -0.07, low-quality evidence). The risk of excessive sedation was considerably less with haloperidol plus promethazine (n=117, 2 RCTs, RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.49, low-quality evidence). Haloperidol plus promethazine seemed to decrease the risk of needing restraints by around 12 hours (n=60, 1 RCT, RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.55, low-quality evidence). It may be that use of midazolam with haloperidol sedates swiftly, but this effect does not last long.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with lorazepam, haloperidol plus promethazine seemed to more effectively cause sedation or tranquillisation by 30 minutes (n=200, 1 RCT, RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.68, high-quality evidence). The secondary outcome of needing restraints or seclusion by 12 hours was not clearly different between groups, with about 10% in each group needing this intrusive intervention (moderate-quality evidence). Sedation data were not reported, however, the combination group did have less 'any serious adverse event' in 24-hour follow-up, but there were not clear differences between the groups and we are unsure exactly what the adverse effect was. There were no deaths.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with midazolam, there was clear evidence that midazolam is more swiftly tranquillising of an aggressive situation than haloperidol plus promethazine (n=301, 1 RCT, RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.75 to 4.8, high-quality evidence). On its own, midazolam seems to be swift and effective in tranquillising people who are aggressive due to psychosis. There was no difference in risk of serious adverse event overall (n=301, 1 RCT, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.95, high-quality evidence). However, 1 in 150 participants allocated haloperidol plus promethazine had a swiftly reversed seizure, and 1 in 151 given midazolam had swiftly reversed respiratory arrest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Haloperidol plus promethazine is effective and safe, and its use is based on good evidence. Benzodiazepines work, with midazolam being particularly swift, but both midazolam and lorazepam cause respiratory depression. Olanzapine intramuscular and ziprasidone intramuscular do seem to be viable options and their action is swift, but resumption of aggression with subsequent need to re-inject was more likely than with haloperidol plus promethazine. Haloperidol used on its own without something to offset its frequent and serious adverse effects does seem difficult to justify.

USP1 targeting impedes GBM growth by inhibiting stem cell maintenance and radioresistance

BACKGROUND

Clinical benefits from standard therapies against glioblastoma (GBM) are limited in part due to intrinsic radio- and chemoresistance of GBM and inefficient targeting of GBM stem-like cells (GSCs). Novel therapeutic approaches that overcome treatment resistance and diminish stem-like properties of GBM are needed.

METHODS

We determined the expression levels of ubiquitination-specific proteases (USPs) by transcriptome analysis and found that USP1 is highly expressed in GBM. Using the patient GBM-derived primary tumor cells, we inhibited USP1 by shRNA-mediated knockdown or its specific inhibitor pimozide and evaluated the effects on stem cell marker expression, proliferation, and clonogenic growth of tumor cells.

RESULTS

USP1 was highly expressed in gliomas relative to normal brain tissues and more preferentially in GSC enrichment marker (CD133 or CD15) positive cells. USP1 positively regulated the protein stability of the ID1 and CHEK1, critical regulators of DNA damage response and stem cell maintenance. Targeting USP1 by RNA interference or treatment with a chemical USP1 inhibitor attenuated clonogenic growth and survival of GSCs and enhanced radiosensitivity of GBM cells. Finally, USP1 inhibition alone or in combination with radiation significantly prolonged the survival of tumor-bearing mice.

CONCLUSION

USP1-mediated protein stabilization promotes GSC maintenance and treatment resistance, thereby providing a rationale for USP1 inhibition as a potential therapeutic approach against GBM.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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