Chlorpromazine versus piperacetazine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a severe mental disorder with a prevalence of about 1% among the general population. It is listed among the top 10 causes of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) worldwide. Antipsychotics are the mainstay treatment. Piperacetazine has been reported to be as clinically effective as chlorpromazine, a well established 'benchmark' antipsychotic, for people with schizophrenia. However, the side effect profiles of these antipsychotics differ and it is important that an evidence base is available comparing the benefits, and potential harms of these two antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical and side effects of chlorpromazine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses in comparison with piperacetazine.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (6 June 2015 and 8 October 2018) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, CENTRAL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on chlorpromazine versus piperacetazine for people with schizophrenia, reporting useable data.

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 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 12 records referring to six trials. We included five trials, all from the 1970s, randomising 343 participants. We excluded one trial. The overall methodology and data reporting by the trials was poor. Only short-term data were available.Results from the included trials found that, in terms of global state improvement, when rated by a psychiatrist, there was no clear difference between chlorpromazine and piperacetazine (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; participants = 208; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence). One trial reported change scores on the mental state scale Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS); no clear difference was observed (MD -0.40, 95% CI -1.41 to 0.61; participants = 182; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). Chlorpromazine appears no worse or better than piperacetazine regarding adverse effects. In both treatment groups, around 60% of participants experienced some sort of adverse effect (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.33; participants = 74; studies = 3; very low-quality evidence), with approximately 40% of these participants experiencing some parkinsonism-type movement disorder (RR 0.95, CI 0.61 to 1.49; participants = 106; studies = 3; very low-quality evidence). No clear difference in numbers of participants leaving the study early for any reason was observed (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.56; participants = 256; studies = 4; very low-quality evidence). No trial reported data for change in negative symptoms or economic costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review show chlorpromazine and piperacetazine may have similar clinical efficacy, but data are based on very small numbers of participants and the evidence is very low quality. We can not make firm conclusions based on such data. Currently, should clinicians and people with schizophrenia need to choose between chlorpromazine and piperacetazine they should be aware there is no good quality evidence to base decisions. More high quality research is needed.

Chlorpromazine versus clotiapine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a chronic, disabling and severe mental disorder, characterised by disturbance in perception, thought, language, affect and motor behaviour. Chlorpromazine and clotiapine are among antipsychotic drugs used for the treatment of people with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effects, safety and cost-effectiveness of chlorpromazine compared with clotiapine for adults with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's Trials Register (last update search 16/01/2016), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, 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 chlorpromazine versus clotiapine for schizophrenia. We included trials meeting our selection criteria and reporting useable data.

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 a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included four studies, published between 1974 and 2003, randomising 276 people with schizophrenia to receive either chlorpromazine or clotiapine. The studies were poor at concealing allocation of treatment and blinding of outcome assessment. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in global and mental state, specific change in negative symptoms, incidence of movement disorder (dyskinesia), leaving the study early for any reason, and costs. All reported data were short-term (under six months' follow-up).The trials did not report data for the important outcomes of clinically important change in global or mental state, or cost of care. Improvement in mental state was reported using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). When chlorpromazine was compared with clotiapine the average improvement scores for mental state using the PANSS total was higher in the clotiapine group (1 RCT, N = 31, MD 11.50 95% CI 9.42 to 13.58, very low-quality evidence). The average change scores on the PANSS negative sub-scale were similar between treatment groups (1 RCT, N = 21, MD -0.97 95% CI -2.76 to 0.82, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in incidence of dyskinesia (1 RCT, N = 68, RR 3.00 95% CI 0.13 to 71.15, very low-quality evidence). Similar numbers of participants left the study early from each treatment group (3 RCTs, N = 158, RR 0.68 95% CI 0.24 to 1.88, very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Clinically important changes in global and mental state were not reported. Only one trial reported the average change in overall mental state; results favour clotiapine but these limited data are very difficult to trust due to methodological limitations of the study. The comparative effectiveness of chlorpromazine compared to clotiapine on change in global state remains unanswered. Results in this review suggest chlorpromazine and clotiapine cause similar adverse effects, although again, the quality of evidence for this is poor, making firm conclusions difficult.

Chlorpromazine versus metiapine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Chlorpromazine, a widely available and inexpensive antipsychotic drug, is considered the benchmark treatment for schizophrenia worldwide. Metiapine, a dibenzothiazepine derivative, has been reported to have potent antipsychotic characteristics. However, no evidence currently exists on the effectiveness of chlorpromazine in treatment of people with schizophrenia compared to metiapine, a newer antipsychotic.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of chlorpromazine versus metiapine for the treatment of people with schizophrenia SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials in November 2015 and 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on chlorpromazine versus metiapine for adults with schizophrenia. We included trials meeting our selection criteria and reporting useable data.

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 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 three studies randomising 161 people with schizophrenia. Data were available for only two of our seven prestated main outcomes. Clinically important improvement in global state was measured using the Clinical Global Impression (CGI). There was no clear difference between chlorpromazine and metiapine groups (2 RCTs, n = 120, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.47, very low quality evidence) and numbers of participants with parkinsonism at eight weeks were similar (2 RCTs, n = 70, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.03, very low quality evidence). There were no useable data available for the other key outcomes of clinically important improvement in mental state, readmission due to relapse, satisfaction with treatment, aggressive or violent behaviour, or cost of care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Chlorpromazine has been the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia for decades, yet available evidence comparing this drug to metiapine fails to provide high-quality trial based data. However, the need to determine whether metiapine is more or less effective than chlorpromazine seems to be lacking in clinical relevance and future research on this comparison seems unlikely.

Assessing Antidepressants Using Intelligent Data Monitoring and Mining of Online Fora

Depression is a global health concern. Social networks allow the affected population to share their experiences. These experiences, when mined, extracted, and analyzed, can be converted into either warnings to recall drugs (dangerous side effects), or service improvement (interventions, treatment options) based on observations derived from user behavior in depression-related social networks. Our aim was to develop a weighted network model to represent user activity on social health networks. This enabled us to accurately represent user interactions by relying on the data's semantic content. Our three-step method uses the weighted network model to represent user's activity, and network clustering and module analysis to characterize user interactions and extract further knowledge from user's posts. The network's topological properties reflect user activity such as posts' general topic as well as timing, while weighted edges reflect the posts semantic content and similarities among posts. The result, a synthesis from word data frequency, statistical analysis of module content, and the modeled health network's properties, has allowed us to gain insight into consumer sentiment of antidepressants. This approach will allow all parties to participate in improving future health solutions of patients suffering from depression.

Treatment resistant schizophrenia: a comprehensive survey of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a common serious mental health condition which has significant morbidity and financial consequences. The mainstay of treatment has been antipsychotic medication but one third of people will have a 'treatment resistant' and most disabling and costly illness. The aim of this survey was to produce a broad overview of available randomised evidence for interventions for people whose schizophrenic illness has been designated 'treatment resistant'.

METHOD

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's comprehensive Trials Register, selected all relevant randomised trials and, taking care not to double count, extracted the number of people randomised within each study. Finally we sought relevant reviews on the Cochrane Library and investigated how data on this subgroup of people had been presented.

RESULTS

We identified 542 relevant papers based on 268 trials (Average size 64.8 SD 61.6, range 7-526, median 56 IQR 47.3, mode 60). The most studied intervention is clozapine with 82 studies (total n = 6299) comparing it against other anti-psychotic medications. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) supplementing a standard care and risperidone supplementation of clozapine has also been extensively evaluated within trials. Many approaches, however, were clearly under researched. There were only four studies investigating combinations of non-clozapine antipsychotics. Only two psychological approaches (CBT and Family Rehabilitation Training) had more than two studies. Cochrane reviews rarely presented data specific to this important clinical sub-group.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey provides a broad taxonomy of how much evaluative research has been carried out investigating interventions for people with treatment resistant schizophrenia. Over 280 trials have been undertaken but, with a few exceptions, most treatment approaches--and some in common use--have only one or two relevant but small trials. Too infrequently the leading reviews fail to highlight the paucity of evidence in this area--as these reviews are maintained this shortcoming should be addressed.