Shift from first generation antipsychotics to olanzapine may improve health-related quality of life of stable but residually symptomatic schizophrenic outpatients: a prospective, randomized study

Chlorpromazine versus atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Chlorpromazine is an aliphatic phenothiazine, which is one of the widely-used typical antipsychotic drugs. Chlorpromazine is reliable for its efficacy and one of the most tested first generation antipsychotic drugs. It has been used as a 'gold standard' to compare the efficacy of older and newer antipsychotic drugs. Expensive new generation drugs are heavily marketed worldwide as a better treatment for schizophrenia, but this may not be the case and an unnecessary drain on very limited resources.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of chlorpromazine with atypical or second generation antipsychotic drugs, for the treatment of people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register up to 23 September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared chlorpromazine with any other atypical antipsychotic drugs for treating people with schizophrenia. Adults (as defined in each trial) diagnosed with schizophrenia, including schizophreniform, schizoaffective and delusional disorders were included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently screened the articles identified in the literature search against the inclusion criteria and extracted data from included trials. For homogeneous dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, we determined the mean difference (MD) values and 95% CIs. We assessed the risk of bias in included studies and rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 71 studies comparing chlorpromazine to olanzapine, risperidone or quetiapine. None of the included trials reported any data on economic costs. 1. Chlorpromazine versus olanzapineIn the short term, there appeared to be a significantly greater clinical response (as defined in each study) in people receiving olanzapine (3 RCTs, N = 204; RR 2.34, 95% CI 1.37 to 3.99, low quality evidence). There was no difference between drugs for relapse (1 RCT, N = 70; RR 1.5, 95% CI 0.46 to 4.86, very low quality evidence), nor in average endpoint score using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) for mental state (4 RCTs, N = 245; MD 3.21, 95% CI -0.62 to 7.05,very low quality evidence). There were significantly more extrapyramidal symptoms experienced amongst people receiving chlorpromazine (2 RCTs, N = 298; RR 34.47, 95% CI 4.79 to 248.30,very low quality evidence). Quality of life ratings using the general quality of life interview (GQOLI) - physical health subscale were more favourable with people receiving olanzapine (1 RCT, N = 61; MD -10.10, 95% CI -13.93 to -6.27, very low quality evidence). There was no difference between groups for people leaving the studies early (3 RCTs, N = 139; RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.45 to 6.40, very low quality evidence). 2. Chlorpromazine versus risperidoneIn the short term, there appeared to be no difference in clinical response (as defined in each study) between chlorpromazine or risperidone (7 RCTs, N = 475; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.34, low quality of evidence), nor in average endpoint score using the BPRS for mental state 4 RCTs, N = 247; MD 0.90, 95% CI -3.49 to 5.28, very low quality evidence), or any observed extrapyramidal adverse effects (3 RCTs, N = 235; RR 1.7, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.40,very low quality evidence). Quality of life ratings using the QOL scale were significantly more favourable with people receiving risperidone (1 RCT, N = 100; MD -14.2, 95% CI -20.50 to -7.90, very low quality evidence). There was no difference between groups for people leaving the studies early (one RCT, N = 41; RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.11, very low quality evidence). 3. Chlorpromazine versus quetiapineIn the short term, there appeared to be no difference in clinical response (as defined in each study) between chlorpromazine or quetiapine (28 RCTs, N = 3241; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06, moderate quality evidence) nor in average endpoint score using the BPRS for mental state (6 RCTs, N = 548; MD -0.18, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.88, very low quality evidence). Quality of life ratings using the GQOL1-74 scale were significantly more favourable with people receiving quetiapine (1 RCT, N = 59; MD -6.49, 95% CI -11.30 to -1.68, very low quality evidence). Significantly more people receiving chlorpromazine experienced extrapyramidal adverse effects (8 RCTs, N = 644; RR 8.03, 95% CI 4.78 to 13.51, low quality of evidence). There was no difference between groups for people leaving the studies early in the short term (12 RCTs, N = 1223; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.41,moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most included trials included inpatients from hospitals in China. Therefore the results of this Cochrane review are more applicable to the Chinese population. Mostincluded trials were short term studies, therefore we cannot comment on the medium and long term use of chlorpromazine compared to atypical antipsychotics. Low qualityy evidence suggests chlorpromazine causes more extrapyramidal adverse effects. However, all studiesused varying dose ranges, and higher doses would be expected to be associated with more adverse events.

Quality of life in patients with schizophrenia: the impact of socio-economic factors and adverse effects of atypical antipsychotics drugs

This cross-sectional study compared the effects of treatment with atypical antipsychotic drugs on quality of life (QoL) and side effects in 218 patients with schizophrenia attending the ambulatory services of psychiatric in Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil. Socio-economic variables were compared. The five-dimension EuroQoL (EQ-5D) was used to evaluate QoL, and side effects were assessed using the Udvalg for Kliniske Undersøgelser (UKU) Side Effect Rating Scale and the Simpson-Angus Scale. Data were analysed using the χ (2) test and Student's t test, with a significance level of 5 %. Average monthly household incomes in the medication groups were 1.1-2.1 minimum wages ($339-$678). UKU Scale scores showed significant differences in side effects, mainly, clozapine, quetiapine and ziprasidone (p < 0.05). EQ-5D scores showed that all drugs except olanzapine significantly impacted mobility (p < 0.05), and proportions of individuals reporting problems in other dimensions were high: 63.6 % of clozapine users reported mobility problems, 63.7 and 56.3 % of clozapine and ziprasidone users, respectively, had difficulties with usual activities, 68.8 and 54.5 % of ziprasidone and clozapine users, respectively, experienced pain and/or discomfort, and 72.8 % of clozapine users reported anxiety and/or depression. Psychiatric, neurological, and autonomous adverse effects, as well as other side effects, were prevalent in users of atypical antipsychotic drugs, especially clozapine and ziprasidone. Olanzapine had the least side effects. QoL was impacted by side effects and economic conditions in all groups. Thus, the effects of these antipsychotic agents appear to have been masked by aggravating social and economic situations.

Health-related quality of life among adolescents: a comparison between subjects at risk for psychosis and other help seekers

AIM

Schizophrenia is a severe illness associated with poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and there is some evidence that a risk state for psychosis is associated with decreased HRQoL. The aim of the present study was to investigate group differences in HRQoL in help seekers at risk for psychosis and not at risk for psychosis.

METHODS

The data were collected by a Finnish early detection and intervention team at Helsinki University Central Hospital. A total of 202 help-seeking adolescents (110 girls, 92 boys; 11-22 years of age) were assessed with a PROD screen and HRQoL scale of 16D.

RESULTS

As the main result, subjects at risk for psychosis had a poorer HRQoL index than other help seekers (P < 0.001). An additional analysis of sub-items for the HRQoL at-risk group had poorer mean scores at a statistically significant level after Bonferroni correction for multiple tests in the following sub-items: vitality (P = 0.016), distress (P = 0.016), physical appearance (P < 0.001), school and hobbies (P = 0.016), friends (P = 0.048), mental function (P < 0.001) and depression (P < 0.001). In a logistic regression analysis of sub-items of the HRQoL scale, lower scores in the sub-item of mental function independently explained the at-risk status for psychosis (P = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Adolescents at risk for psychosis have a poorer HRQoL index than other help seekers and they also differ in several sub-items, particularly in the lower scores in mental function. In the future, these findings should be considered in the care of adolescents at risk for psychosis.