New dimensions in the pharmacologic treatment of schizophrenia and related psychoses

WITHDRAWN: Risperidone versus other atypical antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia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.

Neurobiological background for the development of new drugs in schizophrenia

Psychopharmacology of schizophrenia has remained static for many years because the mechanisms explored have been basically monoaminergics, primarily focused toward the modification of dopaminergic function and, later on, serotonergic. In fact, most of the antipsychotics introduced in clinical practice in the last years have been antagonists or selective agonists of these receptors (D(2)/5-HT(2)). The exploration of other receptor pathways, and in particular those additionally involved in the action of the paradigmatic "atypical" antipsychotic clozapine (ie, cholinergic and noradrenergic), has not been very significant. Besides, research in the antipsychotics field has developed also by exploring pathways that are beyond the spectrum of clozapine. Among the most promising mechanisms are those based on the glutamatergic hypothesis of schizophrenia (agonists at the glycine-binding modulatory site of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor, glycine transporter inhibitors, modulators of the AMPA [α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid] receptor and selective agonists of the metabotropic receptor Glu(2)). Other less classic pathways are also under study and have led to some agents that are found in very early stages of development such as those acting on sigma receptors, cholecystokinin antagonists, neurotensin agonists, neurokinin receptor antagonists, GABAergic (+-aminobutyric acid [GABA]) enhancers, and cannabinoid(gamma-aminobutiric) receptor modulators.

Oral versus depot antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia--a critical systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised long-term trials

OBJECTIVE

Non-adherence is a major problem in the treatment of schizophrenia. Depot antipsychotic drugs are thought to reduce relapse rates by improving adherence, but a systematic review of long-term studies in outpatients is not available.

METHOD

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane reviews on depot medication, and the reference sections of included studies for randomised controlled trials lasting at least 12 months in outpatients that compared depot with oral antipsychotics in schizophrenia. Data on relapse (primary outcome), rehospitalisation, non-adherence, and dropout due to any reason, inefficacy of treatment and adverse events were summarised in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Study quality was assessed with the Cochrane collaboration's risk of bias tool, and publication bias with funnel plots.

RESULTS

Ten studies with 1700 participants met the inclusion criteria. Depot formulations significantly reduced relapses with relative and absolute risk reductions of 30% and 10%, respectively (RR 0.70, CI 0.57-0.87, NNT 10, CI 6-25, P=0.0009), and dropout due to inefficacy (RR 0.71, CI 0.57-0.89). Limited data on non-adherence, rehospitalisation and dropout due to any reason and adverse events revealed no significant differences. There were several potential sources of bias such as limited information on randomisation methods, problems of blinding and different medications in the depot and oral groups. Other studies reduced a potential superiority of depot by excluding non-adherent patients.

DISCUSSION

Depot antipsychotic drugs significantly reduced relapse. Due to a number of methodological problems in the single trials the evidence is, nonetheless, subject to possible bias.

The role of neural stem cells for in vitro models of schizophrenia: neuroprotection via Akt/ERK signal regulation

Recent neuroimaging studies have revealed progressive morphological brain changes during the course of schizophrenia, and the neurotrophic and neurogenetic effects of atypical antipsychotics are believed to prevent or retard these brain volume reductions. In addition to drug-induced neural stem cell (NSC) activation, transplantation of exogenous NSCs has been proposed as a possible approach to repair the damaged brain in psychiatric disease. NSC transplantation embraces not only neuron replacement but also enhanced neuroprotection of existing neurons with the goal of restoring the impaired brain. However, little is known about the cell-cell interactions of exogenous NSCs with existing neurons, or about their neuroprotective actions especially in psychiatric diseases. In the present study, we used cortical neuron cultures to examine the neurotrophism and neuroprotection of exogenous NSCs against the neuronal damage induced by exposure to the NMDA receptor antagonist, MK-801. We also investigated their role in serum/nutrient deprivation stress. The exogenous NSCs exerted neuroprotective effects against both types of apoptotic injuries considered as in vitro schizophrenic disease models. Exogenous NSCs also altered cellular survival signaling in injured neurons by indirect cell-cell contact in an injury-dependent manner. In MK-801 exposure, NSCs increased phosphorylated Akt (p-Akt) and ERK (p-ERK), both of which were reduced by this stress. While, in serum/nutrient deprivation, NSCs increased p-Akt, but decreased p-ERK which was increased by this damage. Our results demonstrate that exogenous NSCs have anti-apoptotic activities and can rescue cortical neurons by directing cellular survival signaling of neurons into the proper direction, without cell contact.

Loxapine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Some authors have suggested that loxapine is more effective than typical antipsychotics in reducing the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, that extrapyramidal adverse effects are not usually seen at clinically effective antipsychotic doses and that it should therefore be classed as atypical.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of loxapine compared with placebo, typical and other atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia and related psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this 2007 update, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (January 2007).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled clinical trials relevant to the care of schizophrenia that compared loxapine to other treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected abstracts ordered papers, re-inspected and quality assessed these. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a fixed effects model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a fixed effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We were able to include 41 studies in this review. Compared with placebo, loxapine has an antipsychotic effect (Global effect - not improved at six weeks: n=78, 2 RCTs, RR 0.30 CI 0.1 to 0.6 NNT 3 CI 3 to 5). It is as effective as typical drugs in the short term (4 -12 weeks) (Global effect: n=580, 13 RCTs, RR 0.86 CI 0.7 to 1.1; mental state: n=915, 6 RCTs, RR 0.89 CI 0.8 to 1.1). Very limited heterogeneous data suggest that, given intramuscularly (IM), loxapine may be at least as sedating as IM haloperidol and thiothixene. Loxapine is also as effective as atypicals (risperidone, quetiapine) (n=468, 6 RCTs, RR mental state not improved 1.07 CI 0.8 to 1.5). Adverse effect profile is similar to typicals but loxapine may cause more extrapyramidal adverse effects when compared with atypicals (n=340, 4 RCTs, RR 2.18 CI 1.6 to 3.1).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Loxapine is an antipsychotic which is not clearly distinct from typical or atypical drugs in terms of its effects on global or mental state. Loxapines profile of adverse effects is similar to that of the older generation of antipsychotic drugs.

Clozapine: Current perspective

The author conducted a review of studies that compared the efficacy, tolerability and indication for the use of clozapine in current perspectives for the treatment of resistant schizophrenia/ partial responders.

Risperidone significantly inhibits interferon-gamma-induced microglial activation in vitro

Microglia has recently been regarded to be a mediator of neuroinflammation via the release of proinflammatory cytokines, nitric oxide (NO) and reactive oxygen species (ROS) in the central nervous system (CNS). Microglia has thus been reported to play an important role in the pathology of neurodegenerative disease, such as Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD). The pathological mechanisms of schizophrenia remain unclear while some recent neuroimaging studies suggest even schizophrenia may be a kind of neurodegenerative disease. Risperidone has been reported to decrease the reduction of MRI volume during the clinical course of schizophrenia. Many recent studies have demonstrated that immunological mechanisms via such as interferon (IFN)-gamma and cytokines might be relevant to the pathophysiology of schizophrenia. In the present study, we thus investigated the effects of risperidone on the generation of nitric oxide, inducible NO synthase (iNOS) expression and inflammatory cytokines: interleukin (IL)-1beta, IL-6 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha by IFN-gamma-activated microglia by using Griess assay, Western blotting and ELISA, respectively. In comparison with haloperidol, risperidone significantly inhibited the production of NO and proinflammatory cytokines by activated microglia. The iNOS levels of risperidone-treated cells were much lower than those of the haloperidol-treated cells. Antipsychotics, especially risperidone may have an anti-inflammatory effect via the inhibition of microglial activation, which is not only directly toxic to neurons but also has an inhibitory effect on neurogenesis and oligodendrogenesis, both of which have been reported to play a crucial role in the pathology of schizophrenia.

Molindone for schizophrenia and severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic therapy is the mainstay of treatment for people with schizophrenia. In recent years new or atypical antipsychotics have been introduced. These are less likely to produce movement disorders and raise serum prolactin. Researchers have suggested that molindone should be classified as an atypical antipsychotic.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of molindone compared with placebo, typical and other atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia and related psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For the original search we searched the following databases: Biological Abstracts (1980-1999), The Cochrane Library CENTRAL (Issue 1, 1999), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (January 1999), CINAHL (1982-1999), EMBASE (1980-1999), MEDLINE (1966-1999), LILACS (1982-1999), PSYNDEX (1977-1999), and PsycLIT (1974-1999). We also searched pharmaceutical databases on the Dialog Corporation Datastar and Dialog and the references of all identified studies for further trials. Finally, we contacted the manufacturer of molindone and the authors of any relevant trials. For the update of this review, we searched The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (August 2005).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials that compared molindone to other treatments for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently and analysed on an intention to treat basis calculating, for binary data, the fixed effect relative risk (RR), their 95% confidence intervals (CI), and the number needed to treat or harm (NNT or NNH). We excluded data if loss to follow up was greater than 50%.

MAIN RESULTS

We included fourteen studies. Duration ranged from very short (10 days) studies of the intramuscular preparation, to trials lasting over three months. For measures of global assessment, available data do not justify any conclusions on the comparative efficacy of molindone and placebo. When compared to other typical antipsychotics we found no evidence of a difference in effectiveness (doctors' 4 RCTs n=150, RR 1.13, CI 0.69 to 1.86; nurses 4RCTs n=146, RR 1.23, CI 0.82 to 1.86). Molindone is no more or less likely than typical drugs to cause movement disorders, but it does cause significantly more weight loss (2RCTs n=60 RR 2.78, CI 1.10 to 6.99, NNH 5 CI 2 to 77).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The strength of the evidence relating to this compound is limited, owing to small sample size, poor study design, limited outcomes and incomplete reporting. Molindone may be an effective antipsychotic but its adverse effect profile does not differ significantly from that of typical antipsychotics (apart from the event of weight loss). Data from this review suggest, at present, there is no evidence to suggest that it may have an atypical profile.

Effects of clozapine, olanzapine and haloperidol on nitric oxide production by lipopolysaccharide-activated N9 cells

Schizophrenia is a devastating illness of unknown etiology and the basis for its treatment rests in the symptomatic response to antipsychotics. It was found that some of the patients with schizophrenia elicited microglia activation. The present study used lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-activated mouse microglial cell line N9 as an in vitro model to mimic microglia activation seen in the patients with schizophrenia. The effects of clozapine, olanzapine and haloperidol on the release of nitric oxide (NO) by LPS-stimulated N9 cells were investigated. The results showed that olanzapine significantly inhibited NO release by LPS-stimulated N9 cells. Clozapine and haloperidol did not show significant effects on this model. The present study suggested that the inhibiting effect of olanzapine on the NO release by LPS-stimulated microglial cells might be a new mechanism through which olanzapine exhibits its therapeutic effect in the treatment of schizophrenia.

Treatment of delusions in Alzheimer's disease--response to pharmacotherapy

Delusions are commonly encountered symptoms in patients with Alzheimer's disease and may lead to significant morbidity. The purpose of this article is to review all clinical trials to date focusing on the management of delusions in patients with Alzheimer's disease to determine the level of evidence for treatment. To achieve this objective, Medline was searched using the key words delusions, dementia, Alzheimer's disease and psychosis. Three main categories of treatment were identified: atypical antipsychotics, cholinesterase inhibitors, and other miscellaneous treatments. It was concluded that all forms of treatment were effective although the greatest burden of evidence existed for risperidone and donepezil. Side effects were noted in all forms of treatment and included somnolence and extrapyramidal effects for antipsychotic medications, whereas gastrointestinal effects were more prevalent in studies involving cholinesterase inhibitors. Further large scale, double-blind, randomized, controlled studies are required before a definitive conclusion can be reached. To our knowledge this is the only systematic review of this area.

Zotepine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Zotepine is a relatively new antipsychotic often used for the treatment of people with schizophrenia. It is claimed to be particularly effective for negative symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of zotepine compared with placebo, typical and other atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia and related psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For the 2006 update we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing zotepine with other treatments for people with schizophrenia or other psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations and abstracts, ordered papers, re-inspected these and assessed their quality. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated the relative risk (RR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and, where appropriate, numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/H) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD). We inspected all data for heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 11 studies with 966 participants. Most outcomes were short term (4-12 weeks). We found no data for outcomes such as relapse, time in hospital, satisfaction with care and day-to-day functioning. Compared with placebo, mental state ratings favoured zotepine (n=106, 1 RCT, RR No 20% decrease in BPRS 0.44 CI 0.3 to 0.7, NNT 3 CI 2 to 6) using the last observation carried forward method. For the comparison with typical drugs, limited data suggest that zotepine may be as effective as these older medications. Mental state measures of 'no clinically important improvement' favour zotepine when compared with other active drugs (n=356, 4 RCTs, RR 0.77 CI 0.7 to 0.9, NNT 7 CI 4 to 22). About one third of people in both the zotepine and control groups left the studies before trial completion. Zotepine may result in less movement disorder adverse effects than typical antipsychotic drugs. Trials have not highlighted clear differences between zotepine and other atypical drugs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Zotepine may be a valuable addition to the class of atypical antipsychotic drugs. However, more data from existing studies is urgently needed to increase confidence in the findings of this review. In addition to this, new data from well planned, conducted and reported long term pragmatic randomised trials are needed. Otherwise clinical use of zotepine will be based upon speculation of short explanatory trials for everyday practice.

Risperidone versus olanzapine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic medication is a mainstay of treatment for schizophrenia. Risperidone and olanzapine are popular choices among the new generation drugs.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (Sept 2005) which is based on regular searches of, amongst others, BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. References of all identified studies were inspected for further trials. We also contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all clinical randomised trials comparing risperidone with olanzapine for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated random effects, relative risk (RR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and, where appropriate, numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/H) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS

We found no difference for the outcome of unchanged or worse in the short term (n=548, 2 RCTs, RR 1.00 CI 0.88 to 1.15). One study favoured olanzapine for the outcome of relapse/rehospitalisation by 12 months (n=279, 1 RCT, RR 2.16 CI 1.31 to 3.54, NNH 7 CI 3 to 25). Most mental state data showed the two drugs to be as effective as each other (n=552, 2 RCTs, RR 'no <20% decrease PANSS by eight weeks' 1.01 CI 0.87 to 1.16). Both drugs commonly cause adverse events: 75% given either drug experience an adverse event; 20% anticholinergic symptoms; both groups experienced insomnia although it was more frequent with risperidone (n=1588, 5 RCTs, RR 1.41 CI 1.15 to 1.72, NNH 15 CI 9 to 41); about 30% experienced sleepiness (n=1713, 6 RCTs, RR 0.92 CI 0.79 to 1.07). People given either drug often experienced some extrapyramidal symptoms (n=893, 3 RCTs, RR 1.18 CI 0.75 to 1.88); 25% of people using risperidone required medication to alleviate these symptoms (n=419, 2 RCTs, RR 1.76 CI 1.25 to 2.48, NNH 8 CI 4 to 25). People allocated to risperidone were less likely to gain weight compared with those given olanzapine and the weight gain was often considerable and of quick onset (n=984, 2 RCTs, RR gain more than 7% of their baseline weight in short term 0.47 CI 0.36 to 0.61, NNH 7 CI 6 to 10). Risperidone participants were less likely to leave the study due to metabolic side effects and weight gain compared with olanzapine (n=667, 1RCT, RR 0.19 CI 0.08 to 0.45). Patients on risperidone were more likely to experience abnormal ejaculation (n=370, 2 RCTs, RR 4.36 CI 1.38 to 13.76, NNH 20 CI 6 to 176). Both drugs are associated with high attrition rates; in the long term consistent findings show that 66% of those allocated risperidone left the study early compared with 56% given olanzapine (n=1440, 5 RCTs, RR 1.17 CI 1.08 to 1.27, NNH 11 CI 7 to 23).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We know very little of the effects of these drugs regarding service outcomes, general functioning and behaviours, engagement with services and treatment satisfaction from evaluative studies. There was generally a high rate of attrition in the trials and there appears to be little to differentiate between risperidone and olanzapine except on issues of adverse effects. Both drugs are associated with a reduction in psychotic symptoms but both commonly cause unpleasant adverse effects.

Sertindole for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Sertindole is an atypical antipsychotic, which is thought to give a lower incidence of extrapyramidal side effects at clinically effective doses than typical antipsychotic drugs. In December 1998, Lundbeck Ltd., the manufacturers of sertindole, voluntarily suspended the availability of the drug due to concerns about cardiac arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death associated with its use. However, based on the advice of an appointed expert group, the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) lifted the suspension of sertindole in October 2001, a decision that was ratified by the European Commission on the 26th of June 2002. Lundbeck have committed to the CPMP to carry out two post-marketing surveillance (PMS) studies (which were initiated in July 2002) to provide additional epidemiological data under conditions of normal drug usage. Initial marketing of the product will be restricted and Lundbeck is currently in discussions with the US health authorities (FDA) to investigate whether, and if so when, it would be possible to launch Serdolect in the US market.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of sertindole compared with placebo, typical and other atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia and related psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Our Initial searches included electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1980-1999), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 1999), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (August 2000), EMBASE (1980-1999), LILACS (1982-1996), MEDLINE (1966-1999), PSYNDEX (1977-1995) and PsycLIT (1974-1999). In addition, we searched pharmaceutical databases on the Dialog Corporation Datastar and Dialog services. We searched references of all identified studies for further trials. We contacted the manufacturer of sertindole and authors of trials. We updated the literature search by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register in April 2003.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials that compared sertindole to placebo or other antipsychotic (atypical or typical) drug treatments for patients with schizophrenia or related psychosis .

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations and, where possible abstracts; ordered papers for re-inspection and quality assessment and independently extracted data. For homogeneous dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm (NNH) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD). We inspected all data for heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Currently the review includes three studies with a total of 1,104 participants. One was a medium term (eight weeks) placebo controlled study that examined three different doses of sertindole (8, 12 and 20mg/day). The remaining two studies compared the use of sertindole with haloperidol (10mg/day). One was a short term study (six weeks) that looked at four different doses of sertindole (8, 16, 20, 24mg/day) and the other was a long term study (one year) that evaluated the use of sertindole 24mg/day in participants attending outpatients. We excluded two large important studies because they did not report any usable data. (Both had greater than 50% loss to follow-up and data on 'leaving the study early' was inadequately reported). SERTINDOLE VERSUS PLACEBO: Sertindole at 20mg/day was found to be more effective than placebo in terms of BPRS total scores (1 study, n=78, MD 6.2, CI -11.8 to -0.6) and CGI total end point scores (1 study, n=78, MD -0.9, CI -1.6 to -0.2). A marginally statistically significantly greater number of participants that were treated with 20 mg of sertindole were reported to have been 'very much improved' as compared to those taking placebo (1 study, n=102, RR 7.6, CI 1.0 to 57.9, NNT 7.9, CI 4.3 to 41.1). There was no statistically significant difference between sertindole at 8 or 12 mg/day and placebo for these three outcome measures. There were no statistically significant differences between sertindole (8, 12 or 20 mg) and placebo for the incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms, extrapyramidal related events or use of medication to avoid extrapyramidal symptoms. There were no statistically significant differences found between sertindole and placebo for the movement disorders akathisia, cogwheel rigidity, hypertonia and tremor or somnolence. At eight weeks a statistically significant difference between placebo and all sertindole groups (8, 12 and 20 mg) for mean change from baseline in the QT and QTc intervals were observed (p values and SD were not reported). There was a statistically significant greater mean weight gain among participants taking sertindole (20 mg, mean weight gain of 3.3 kg) as compared to placebo (mean weight gain of 0.8 kg; p<0.05). SERTINDOLE VERSUS HALOPERIDOL: At one year, a greater number of participants who were treated with haloperidol as compared to sertindole (24mg/day) were leaving the study early due to any reason (1 study, n=282, RR 0.6, CI 0.4 to 1.0, NNH 8.8, CI 4.7 to 74.0) or non-compliance (1 study, n=282, RR 0.2, CI 0.0 to 0.7, NNH 12.8, CI 7.7 to 37.8). However, at six weeks, there was no statistically significant difference between sertindole (at 8, 16, 20, or 24mg) and haloperidol for this latter outcome. The incidence of EPS was higher among those treated with haloperidol than sertindole at 8, 16, 20 or 24mg/day (8mg: 1 study, n=245, RR 0.1, CI 0.0 to 0.7, NNH 11.4, CI 7.1 to 29.8; 16mg: 1 study, n=252, RR 0.3, CI 0.1 to 1.0, NNH 15.5, CI 8.0 to 217.9; and 20mg: 1 study, n=253, RR 0.2, CI 0.1 to 0.8, NNH 13.7, CI 7.7 to 68.3; 24mg: 2 studies, n=524, RR 0.6, CI 0.4 to 0.8, NNH 8.7, CI 5.4 to 23.0). More participants treated with haloperidol experienced akathisia, tremor and hypertonia than those treated with sertindole (Akathisia - 8mg: 1 study, n=245, RR 0.2, CI 0.1 to 0.5, NNH 6.0, CI 4.1 to 11.2; 16mg: 1 study, n=252, RR 0.1, CI 0.0 to 0.3, NNH 5.4, CI 3.9 9.0; 20mg: 1 study, n=253, RR 0.3, CI 0.2 to 0.7, NNH 7.3, CI 4.6 to 17.9; 24mg: 2 studies, n=524, RR 0.5, CI 0.3 to 0.7, NNH 8.6, CI 5.6 to 18.3. Tremor - 8mg: 1 study, n=245, RR 0.3, CI 0.1 to 0.7, NNH 8.5, CI 5.2 to 24.0; 16mg: 1 study, n=252, RR 0.2, CI 0.1 to 0.5, NNH 7.3, 4.8 to 15.6; 20mg: 1 study, n=253, RR 0.2, CI 0.1 to 0.6, NNH 7.8, CI 4.9 to 18.1; 24mg: 2 studies, n=524, RR 0.4, CI 0.2 to 0.6, NNH 8.2, CI 5.6 to 15.3. For Hypertonic - 24mg: 2 studies, n=524, RR 0.5, CI 0.3 to 0.8, NNH 12.4, CI 7.5 to 35.0; for sertindole 8, 16 and 20mg there was no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups). One study reported that at six weeks, there was a statistically significant greater increase from baseline to final value in mean QTc interval in the sertindole 16, 20 and 24mg groups (20, 26, and 24msec, respectively) than in the haloperidol group (0msec; p value was not reported), but no SD or any other measure of variance for the effect sizes were reported. For one long term study only one participant from the sertindole group (24mg) had a QT interval that exceeded 500msec (1 study, n=282, RR 3.0 CI 0.1 to 73.0), but 11participants treated with Sertindole had QTc intervals of at least 500msec, compared to none in the haloperidol treated group (1 study, n=282, RR 23.0, CI 1.4 to 386.6, NNH 12.8, CI 8.2 to 29.6). At six weeks, fewer participants treated with sertindole at 8mg or 24mg were affected by somnolence than those treated with haloperidol (sertindole 8mg: 1 study, n=245, RR 0.1, CI 0.0 to 0.7, NNH 11.4, CI 7.1 to 29.8; 24mg: 2 studies, n=524, RR 0.6, CI 0.4 to 1.0, NNH 14.8, CI 7.7 to 205.2). The incidence of rhinitis was found to be statistically significantly higher among those taking sertindole at 16 or 24mg as compared to haloperidol (16mg: 1 study, n=252, RR 10.8, CI 1.4 to 82.6, NNH 12.7, CI 7.7 to 36.7; 24mg: 2 studies, n= 524, RR 2.1, CI 1.4 to 3.1, NNH 8.7, CI 5.6 to 18.6). At one year, 33 participants treated with sertindole (24mg) had experienced the sexual adverse event of decreased ejaculatory volume, compared with six participants treated with haloperidol. However the number of included male participants was not reported and therefore the RR could not be calculated. At one year, more participants taking sertindole (24mg/day) had put on weight compared to those taking haloperidol (1 study, n=282, RR 6.3, CI 1.9 to 20.9, NNH 8.8, CI 5.7 to 19.1). At six weeks, all of the sertindole groups showed an increase in body weight from baseline to final evaluation ranging from 1.3kg to 1.9kg, all of which represented a statistically significantly different weight change than that recorded for the haloperidol treatment group (-0.1Kg). However, the actual weight gain for each sertindole dosage group was not reported and no SD or any other measure of variance was given.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sertindole at a dose of 20mg/day was found to be more antipsychotic than placebo. When used at 8, 12 or 20mg/day it appears to be as acceptable as placebo (in terms of various adverse events including movement disorders and somnolence), but seems to be associated with more cardiac problems (8, 12 or 20mg/day) and an increase in weight gain (20mg/day) than placebo. Sertindole at a dose of 24mg/day was better tolerated than haloperidol (in terms of participants leaving the study early). It was also found to be was associated with fewer movement disorders (at 8, 16, 20 or 24mg/day) and sedation (8 or 24mg/day) than haloperidol. However, it was shown to cause more cardiac anomalies (16, 20 or 24mg/day), weight gain (all doses combined), rhinitis (16 or 24mg/day), and problems with sexual functioning (24mg/day) than haloperidol. One short term study reported that sertindole 16mg/day was the most optimal dose.

Risperidone versus olanzapine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic medication is a mainstay of treatment for schizophrenia and risperidone and olanzapine are the most popular treatment choice of the new generation drugs.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (June 2004) which is based on regular searches of, amongst others, BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. References of all identified studies were inspected for further trials. We also contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all clinical randomised trials comparing risperidone with olanzapine for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated random effects, relative risk (RR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and, where appropriate, numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/H) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS

We found no difference for the outcome of unchanged or worse in the short term (n=548, 2 RCTs, RR 1.00 CI 0.88 to 1.15). One study, sponsored by the manufactures of olanzapine, favoured this drug for the outcome of relapse/rehospitalisation by 12 months (n=279, RR 2.16 CI 1.31 to 3.54, NNT 7 CI 4 to 25). Most mental state data showed the two drugs to as effective as each other (n=552, 2 RCTs, RR 'no <20% decrease PANSS by eight weeks' 1.01 CI 0.87 to 1.16). At least two thirds of people given risperidone or olanzapine experienced an adverse event (n=300, 2 RCTs, RR 1.16 CI 0.70 to 1.94). About 20% had anticholinergic symptoms (n=719, 3 RCTs, RR 1.12 CI 0.77 to 1.63) and 20% of both groups experienced insomnia (n=594, 3 RCTs, RR 1.33 CI 0.95 to 1.85) and approximately 33% sleepiness (n=719, 4 RCTs, 0.99 CI 0.79 to 1.23). One third of people given either drug experienced some extrapyramidal symptoms (n=893, 3 RCTs, RR 1.18 CI 0.75 to 1.88) but 25% of people using risperidone require medication to alleviate extrapyramidal adverse effects (n=419, 2 RCTs, RR 1.76 CI 1.25 to 2.48, NNH 8 CI 4 to 25). People allocated to risperidone were less likely to gain weight compared with those given olanzapine and the weight gain resulting from olanzapine can be considerable and of rapid onset (n=377, 1 RCT, RR gain more than 7% of their baseline weight 0.40 CI 0.23 to 0.70, NNT 8 CI 6 to 17). Risperidone may cause more sexual dysfunction than olanzapine (n=370, 2 RCTs, RR abnormal ejaculation 4.36 CI 1.38 to 13.76, NNH 20 CI 6 to 176; n=31, 1 RCT, RR impotence 2.43 CI 0.24 to 24.07). Within trials both drugs are associated with equal attrition (n=1217, 7 RCTs, RR leaving the study early 1.17 CI 0.92 to 1.49).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Data regarding quality of life and economic outcomes are difficult to interpret, and for both these highly marketed new drugs we know very little from evaluative studies regarding service outcomes, general functioning and behaviour, engagement with services and treatment satisfaction. There is little to differentiate between risperidone and olanzapine except on the issue of adverse effects and both these drugs have unpleasant adverse effects. Risperidone is particularly associated with movement disorders and sexual dysfunction. Olanzapine can cause considerable rapid weight gain.This review highlights the need for large, independent, well designed, conducted and reported pragmatic randomised studies.

Olanzapine protects PC12 cells from oxidative stress induced by hydrogen peroxide

Neuroanatomical studies suggest that neuronal atrophy and destruction occur over the course of many years in neurodegenerative conditions such as schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease. In schizophrenia, early intervention with atypical neuroleptics such as olanzapine has been shown to prevent development of some of the more serious and debilitating symptoms in many patients. The mechanisms whereby olanzapine slows or prevents symptom progression in schizophrenia remain unclear. A previous study found that olanzapine increased mRNA for the copper/zinc isoform of the superoxide dismutase enzyme (SOD-1). We investigated the effects of olanzapine in PC12 cells exposed to hydrogen peroxide. We measured cell viability, observed evidence of necrosis and apoptosis, checked the SOD-1 mRNA by Northern blot analyses, and determined SOD-1 enzyme activity. We found that: (1) the decrease in cell viability induced by hydrogen peroxide was attenuated in PC12 cells pretreated with olanzapine; (2) olanzapine increased SOD enzyme activity in PC12 cells; (3) inhibiting SOD activity with diethyldithiocarbamic acid prevented the cytoprotective actions of olanzapine; and (4) the decrease in SOD-1 mRNA level induced by hydrogen peroxide was blocked by pretreatment with olanzapine. These data indicate that the neuroprotective action of olanzapine includes the upregulation of SOD.

The psychopathology, medical management and dental implications of schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a psychiatric illness characterized by thought disturbances, bizarre behaviors and cognitive impairments that may diminish a person's abilities in the areas of social relations, school or work and self-care. The onset of the disorder typically occurs between the late teens and mid-30s. Advanced dental disease is seen frequently in patients with schizophrenia for several reasons: the disease impairs these patients' ability to plan and perform oral hygiene procedures; some of the antipsychotic medications they take have adverse orofacial effects such as xerostomia; and these patients sometimes have limited access to treatment because of a paucity of financial resources and adequate number of dentists comfortable in providing care. The recent introduction of more effective medications has permitted the majority of patients to receive their psychiatric care from community-based providers rather than in the hospital. Consequently, dentists in the private sector also are being called on more frequently to care for these people.

CONCLUSIONS

Dentists cognizant of the signs and symptoms of schizophrenia are likely to feel more secure in treating patients with schizophrenia and more confident when obtaining consultative advice from the patients' psychiatrists. Dentists usually can provide a full range of services to such patients, can enhance these patients' self-esteem and can contribute to the psychotherapeutic aspect of management.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

To effectively provide treatment to patients with schizophrenia, dentists must be familiar with the disease process so that they can communicate effectively with the patient, the treating psychiatrist and family members who serve as caregivers. In addition, dental treatment may need to be modified because of the patient's impaired ability to think logically, the local and systemic effects of psychiatric medications, and adverse interactions between these drugs and medications used in dentistry.

5-HT(1A) receptor activation contributes to ziprasidone-induced dopamine release in the rat prefrontal cortex

BACKGROUND

Ziprasidone (Zeldox) is a novel antipsychotic with a unique combination of antagonist activities at monoaminergic receptors and transporters and potent agonist activity at serotonin 5-HT(1A) receptors. 5-HT(1A) receptor agonism may be an important feature in ziprasidone's clinical actions because 5-HT(1A) agonists increase cortical dopamine release, which may underlie efficacy against negative symptoms and reduce dopamine D(2) antagonist-induced extrapyramidal side effects. This study investigated the in vivo 5-HT(1A) agonist activity of ziprasidone by measuring the contribution of 5-HT(1A) receptor activation to the ziprasidone-induced cortical dopamine release in rats.

METHODS

Effects on dopamine release were measured by microdialysis in prefrontal cortex and striatum. The role of 5-HT(1A) receptor activation was estimated by assessing the sensitivity of the response to pretreatment with the 5-HT(1A) antagonist, WAY-100635. For comparison, the D(2)/5-HT(2A) antagonists clozapine and olanzapine, the D(2) antagonist haloperidol, the 5-HT(2A) antagonist MDL 100,907 and the 5-HT(1A) agonist 8-OHDPAT were included.

RESULTS

Low doses (<3.2 mg/kg) of ziprasidone, clozapine, and olanzapine increased dopamine release to approximately the same extent in prefrontal cortex as in striatum, but higher doses (> or =3.2 mg/kg) resulted in an increasingly preferential effect on cortical dopamine release. The 5-HT(1A) agonist 8-OHDPAT produced a robust increase in cortical dopamine (DA) release without affecting striatal DA release. In contrast, the D(2) antagonist haloperidol selectively increased striatal DA release, whereas the 5-HT(2A) antagonist MDL 100,907 had no effect on cortical or striatal DA release. Prior administration of WAY-100635 completely blocked the cortical DA increase produced by 8-OHDPAT and significantly attenuated the ziprasidone- and clozapine-induced cortical DA increase. WAY-100635 pretreatment had no effect on the olanzapine-induced DA increase.

CONCLUSIONS

The preferential increase in DA release in rat prefrontal cortex produced by ziprasidone is mediated by 5-HT(1A) receptor activation. This result extends and confirms other in vitro and in vivo data suggesting that ziprasidone, like clozapine, acts as a 5-HT(1A) receptor agonist in vivo, which may contribute to its activity as an antipsychotic with efficacy against negative symptoms and a low extrapyramidal side effect liability.

Loxapine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Loxapine is a drug with D2/D3 receptor antagonist activity and a higher affinity for D3 than D2. Some authors have suggested that loxapine is more effective than typical antipsychotics in reducing the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, that extrapyramidal side-effects are not usually seen at clinically effective antipsychotic doses and that it should therefore be classed as atypical.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of loxapine compared with placebo, typical and other atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia and related psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1980-1999), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 1999), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (January 1999), EMBASE (1980-1999), MEDLINE (1966-1999), LILACS (1982-1996), PSYNDEX (1977-1995) 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 relevant to the care of schizophrenia that compared loxapine to other treatments.

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 but excluded if loss to follow up was greater than 50%. 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, weighted mean differences were calculated (WMD). All data were inspected for heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Compared to placebo, loxapine is antipsychotic (Global effect - not improved at 6 weeks, n=66, RR 0.6 CI 0.4-0.9 NNT 4 CI 2-62) with similar adverse effect profile to typical drugs. Is as effective as typical drugs in the short term (4-12 weeks) (Global effect - not improved, n=411, RR 0.89 CI 0.7-1.2). Very limited heterogeneous data suggest that, given intramuscularly (IM), loxapine may be at least as sedating as IM haloperidol and thiothixene.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Loxapine is antipsychotic but its effects are under researched. It is not clearly different from typical drugs in either its positive or adverse effects.

Sertindole for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Sertindole is an atypical antipsychotic, which is thought to give a lower incidence of extrapyramidal side effects at clinically effective doses than typical antipsychotic drugs. In December 1998, Lundbeck Ltd., the manufacturers of sertindole, voluntarily suspended the availability of the drug due to concerns about cardiac arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death associated with its use. Sertindole has therefore been withdrawn from the market pending discussion with the European Regulatory Authority over cardiac safety.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of sertindole compared with placebo, typical and other atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia and related psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1980-1999), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 1999), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (January 1999), EMBASE (1980-1999), LILACS (1982-1996), MEDLINE (1966-1999), PSYNDEX (1977-1995) 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. The manufacturer of sertindole and authors of trials were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials that compared sertindole to placebo or other antipsychotic drug treatments 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) or numbers needed to harm (NNH) were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated. All data were inspected for heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Two large important studies were excluded, because they did not report any usable data. The two that were included suggested that sertindole was more antipsychotic than placebo, as acceptable as placebo and better tolerated than haloperidol (NNT=9, RR 0.63 CI 0.41 to 0.96). Sertindole was associated with fewer movement disorders than haloperidol but was shown to cause more weight gain (NNH=9 RR 6.33, CI 1.92 to 20.92), rhinitis (NNH=8, RR 1.74, CI 1,28 to 2.36) and possibly male sexual dysfunction. Cardiac problems (QTc intervals of at least 500msec) were evident even in the randomised trials (NNH=13 RR 23, CI 1.37 to 386.60).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Because of the cardiac problems, even evident within poorly reported studies, at present sertindole should, if possible, be avoided. If sertindole is to be reintroduced, gold-standard evidence of its clinical benefits will need to far outweigh its real risks.

Zotepine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Typical antipsychotic drugs are widely used as first line treatment for people with schizophrenia. The atypical class of antipsychotic drugs, however, is making important inroads into this approach and zotepine is one such compound. It is a dopamine antagonist and claimed to be to be particularly effective for negative symptoms

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of zotepine compared with placebo, typical and other atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia and related psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1980-1999), CINAHL (1982-1999), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 1999), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (January 1999), EMBASE (1980-1999), Dialog Corporation Datastar service (1999), MEDLINE (1966-1999), and PsycLIT (1974-1999) were undertaken. References of all identified studies were searched for further trials. Knoll Pharmaceuticals and authors of trials were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised clinical trials that compared zotepine to other treatments for people with schizophrenia or other psychoses were included.

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. Data were excluded if loss to follow up was greater than 50%. For homogeneous dichotomous data the relative risk (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) and numbers needed to harm (NNH), were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, weighted mean differences were calculated (WMD). All data were inspected for heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

All outcomes were short term (4-12 weeks). Limited data suggest that zotepine is an antipsychotic, at least as effective as typical drugs. Mental state measures of 'no clinically important improvement' favour zotepine when compared to other active drugs (n=356, RR 0.8 CI 0.7-0.9, NNT 7 CI 4-22). About one third of people in both zotepine and control groups left the studies before trial completion. Zotepine may result in less movement disorder adverse effects than typical antipsychotic drugs. Trials have not highlighted clear differences between zotepine and other atypical drugs.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Zotepine may be a valuable addition to the increasing ranks of atypical antipsychotic drugs. More data from already existing studies is urgently needed to increase the confidence in the findings of this review. New data from well planned, conducted and reported long term pragmatic randomised trials are necessary. Otherwise clinical use of zotepine will be based on speculation on the meaning of the findings of short explanatory trials for everyday practice.

Ziprasidone for schizophrenia and severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Typical antipsychotic drugs are widely used as the first line treatment for people with schizophrenia. However, the atypical class of antipsychotic drugs are making important inroads into this approach. Atypical is a widely used term used to describe some antipsychotics which have a low propensity to produce movement disorders, sedation and raised serum prolactin. There is some suggestion that the different adverse effect profiles of the atypical antipsychotic group make them more acceptable to people with schizophrenia. Ziprasidone is one of the newer atypicals with a high serotonin/dopamine receptor affinity.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of ziprasidone compared with placebo, typical and other atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia and related psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1980-1999), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 1999), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (January 1999), EMBASE (1980-1999), MEDLINE (1966-1999), LILACS (1982-1996), PSYNDEX (1977-1995) 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 trials that compared ziprasidone to other 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. Data were excluded if loss to follow up was greater than 50%. 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, weighted mean differences were calculated (WMD). All data were inspected for heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Data for this compound range from very short (1 week) studies of the intramuscular preparation, to trials lasting over six months. For measures of mental state ziprasidone seems more effective than placebo (RR 0.8 CI 0.7-0.9) and as effective as haloperidol (RR 0.8 CI 0.7-1). It is less likely than haloperidol to cause movement disorders (RR 0.4 CI 0.2-0.6), but may cause more nausea and vomiting (RR 2.1 CI 1.2-3.8). The injected form of the drug may cause more pain at the injection site than haloperidol (RR 5.3 CI 1.3-22).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Currently data are limited. Ziprasidone may be an effective antipsychotic with less extrapyramidal effects than haloperidol. It also may, however, cause more nausea and vomiting than the typical drugs, and, at present, there is no data suggesting that it is different to other atypical compounds. Well planned, conducted and reported long term randomised trials are needed if ziprasidone is to be accepted into everyday use.

Molindone for schizophrenia and severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Typical antipsychotic drugs are widely used as the first line treatment for people with schizophrenia. However, the atypical class of antipsychotic drugs is making important inroads into this approach. 'Atypical' is a term widely used to describe some antipsychotics which have a low propensity to produce movement disorders, sedation and raised serum prolactin. There is some suggestion that the different adverse effect profiles of the atypical antipsychotic group make them more acceptable to people with schizophrenia. Molindone has a similar profile to quetiapine (a novel atypical antipsychotic), with very low binding to all receptors. Some authors have suggested that molindone is safer than other 'typical' antipsychotics in that extrapyramidal adverse effects are not usually seen at clinically effective antipsychotic doses and that it should therefore be classed as an atypical antipsychotic.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of molindone compared with placebo, typical and other atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia and related psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1980-1999), The Cochrane Library CENTRAL (Issue 1, 1999), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (January 1999), CINAHL (1982-1999), 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. The manufacturer of molindone and authors of trials were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials that compared molindone to other 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. Data were excluded if loss to follow up was greater than 50%. 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, weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated. All data were inspected for heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included in the review. Data for this compound range from very short (10 day) studies of the intramuscular preparation to trials lasting over three months. For measures of global state available data do not justify any conclusions on the comparative efficacy of molindone and placebo. When compared to other typical antipsychotics no difference in effectiveness was evidenced (doctors' RR 1.13, CI 0.69 to 1.86; nurses' RR 1.23, CI 0.82 to 1.86). It is no more or less likely than typical drugs to cause movement disorders, but causes significantly more weight loss (RR 2.78, CI 1.10 to 6.99).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The strength of the evidence relating to this compound is limited, owing to small sample size, poor study design, limited outcomes and incomplete reporting. Molindone may be an effective antipsychotic; however, its adverse effect profile does not differ significantly from that of typical antipsychotics, apart from the event of weight loss. At present there is no evidence to suggest that it may have an atypical profile.

Risperidone versus other atypical antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

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

Newer atypical antipsychotic medication versus clozapine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

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

Use of BPRS-A percent change scores to identify significant clinical improvement: accuracy of treatment response classification in acute psychiatric inpatients

Use of Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale [Overall J.E., Gorham D.R., 1988. The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS): recent developments in ascertainment and scaling. Psychopharmacology Bulletin 24, 97-99] percent change scores (PCSs) to measure treatment effects may be problematic because two different item-weighting systems (0-6 and 1-7) have been employed to represent the seven rating options and PCSs have demonstrated sensitivity to the item-weighting system used. This study compared the ability of a range of BPRS total scale PCS categories generated by both item-weighting procedures to predict estimates of clinical improvement in a large (N = 1415) heterogeneous acute sample of adult psychiatric inpatients. Results revealed significant differences between the two scaling systems in the proportion of patients classified into categories of PCS symptom improvement. Additional analysis suggested different optimal predictive PCS classifications for each item-weighting system: > 19% for 1-7 and > 39% for 0-6. Guidelines for BPRS publications are presented to facilitate study interpretation and replication. In light of their demonstrated limitations, it is suggested that the use of BPRS PCSs to measure treatment effects be reconsidered.

Efficacy and extrapyramidal side-effects of the new antipsychotics olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and sertindole compared to conventional antipsychotics and placebo. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The objective of this meta-analysis is to summarize the efficacy and tolerability of the new antipsychotics risperidone, olanzapine, sertindole and quetiapine in schizophrenia compared to placebo and conventional antipsychotics. The main results are: (1) All of the 4 new drugs are more effective than placebo, but the magnitude of the effect is only moderate [mean effect size, r, of all antipsychotics vs. placebo = 0.25, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.22-0.28, n = 2477]. (2) According to the studies published to date, sertindole and quetiapine are as effective as haloperidol, and risperidone and olanzapine are slightly more effective than haloperidol in the treatment of global schizophrenic symptomatology. (3) With respect to negative symptoms, all new antipsychotics are more effective than placebo. However, contrary to widespread opinion, so is the 'conventional' antipsychotic haloperidol. Risperidone and olanzapine are slightly superior, sertindole is as effective and--according to the only study fully published to date--quetiapine is even slightly less effective than haloperidol in this regard. (4) All new antipsychotics are associated with less frequent use of antiparkinson medication than haloperidol, with risperidone appearing to have a slightly less favourable EPS-profile than the other new antipsychotics. The methodological limitations of this review, the generalizability of the results and expectations from future research are discussed.

Novel antipsychotics and patient care in state hospitals

OBJECTIVE

To review and highlight the opportunities and challenges of pharmacologic advances in the use of antipsychotics for the state hospital system.

METHODS

A critical review was performed of studies published either as articles or abstracts, on the use of novel antipsychotics, particularly as they relate to the patient population within the state mental hospital system.

FINDINGS

The recent availability of new antipsychotic medications within state facilities has resulted in more progressive treatment, reduced recidivism (and consequently cost savings), and preliminary evidence of preferential and superior treatment response in specific patient subgroups (e.g., those with aggression). At the same time, inpatient pharmacy budget increases and uncertainty in guiding the use of novel antipsychotics have influenced the availability of these agents in state hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

State hospital services have, by and large, embraced the developments in pharmacotherapy of schizophrenia. Optimal use of these new agents in this population requires additional information on their relative efficacy in specific patient subgroups.