Dissociating medication effects from learning and practice effects in a neurocognitive study of schizophrenia: Olanzapine versus haloperidol

Haloperidol (oral) versus olanzapine (oral) for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is often a severe and disabling psychiatric disorder. Antipsychotics remain the mainstay of psychotropic treatment for people with psychosis. In limited resource and humanitarian contexts, it is key to have several options for beneficial, low-cost antipsychotics, which require minimal monitoring. We wanted to compare oral haloperidol, as one of the most available antipsychotics in these settings, with a second-generation antipsychotic, olanzapine.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical benefits and harms of haloperidol compared to olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia study-based register of trials, which is based on monthly searches of CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and WHO ICTRP. We screened the references of all included studies. We contacted relevant authors of trials for additional information where clarification was required or where data were incomplete. The register was last searched on 14 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing haloperidol with olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in global state, relapse, clinically important change in mental state, extrapyramidal side effects, weight increase, clinically important change in quality of life and leaving the study early due to adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently evaluated and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB or NNTH) with 95% CI. For continuous data, we estimated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. For all included studies, we assessed risk of bias (RoB 1) and we used the GRADE approach to create a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 68 studies randomising 9132 participants. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in clinically important change in global state (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02; 6 studies, 3078 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in relapse (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.02; 7 studies, 1499 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in overall mental state compared to olanzapine (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.81; 13 studies, 1210 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every eight people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this improvement. The evidence suggests that haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects compared to olanzapine (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.28 to 5.02; 14 studies, 3290 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every three people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one additional person would experience extrapyramidal side effects. For weight gain, the evidence suggests that there may be a large reduction in the risk with haloperidol compared to olanzapine (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; 18 studies, 4302 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 10 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience weight increase. A single study suggests that haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in quality of life compared to olanzapine (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 828 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every nine people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience clinically important improvement in quality of life. Haloperidol may result in an increase in the incidence of leaving the study early due to adverse effects compared to olanzapine (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.47; 21 studies, 5047 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 22 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this outcome. Thirty otherwise relevant studies and several endpoints from 14 included studies could not be evaluated due to inconsistencies and poor transparency of several parameters. Furthermore, even within studies that were included, it was often not possible to use data for the same reasons. Risk of bias differed substantially for different outcomes and the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The most common risks of bias leading to downgrading of the evidence were blinding (performance bias) and selective reporting (reporting bias).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low to very low for the main outcomes in this review, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in terms of clinically important global state and relapse. Olanzapine may result in a slightly greater overall clinically important change in mental state and in a clinically important change in quality of life. Different side effect profiles were noted: haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects and olanzapine in a large increase in weight gain. The drug of choice needs to take into account side effect profiles and the preferences of the individual. These findings and the recent inclusion of olanzapine alongside haloperidol in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines should increase the likelihood of it becoming more easily available in low- and middle- income countries, thereby improving choice and providing a greater ability to respond to side effects for people with lived experience of schizophrenia. There is a need for additional research using appropriate and equivalent dosages of these drugs. Some of this research needs to be done in low- and middle-income settings and should actively seek to account for factors relevant to these. Research on antipsychotics needs to be person-centred and prioritise factors that are of interest to people with lived experience of schizophrenia.

The effect of antipsychotics on the cognitive performance of individuals with psychotic disorders: Network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

Cognitive deficits are a core aspect of psychotic disorders; however, it is not clear to which extent different pharmacological treatments could distinctly impact these outcomes. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and ten network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials to compare the effect of antipsychotics on cognitive performance of individuals with psychotic disorders. Fifty-four trials were included in the analyses, enrolling 5866 patients. Compared to other antipsychotics, amisulpride performed better on verbal learning; quetiapine on composite score, attention and verbal learning; lurasidone on composite score; olanzapine on composite score and most cognitive domains; perphenazine on composite score, executive function, working memory, and verbal learning; risperidone on executive function and verbal learning; sertindole on processing speed; and ziprasidone on composite score, working memory, and verbal learning. Oppositely, haloperidol performed poorer on all cognitive domains, occupying the last positions in all rankings; and clozapine performed poorer on composite score, executive function, verbal learning, and visuoconstruction. We hope that these results should be taken into account when assessing and treating individuals with psychosis.

Second-generation antipsychotic effect on cognition in patients with schizophrenia--a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of second-generation antipsychotics on cognitive function in patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

METHOD

Multiple-treatments meta-analysis model.

RESULTS

On cognitive composite score, sertindole was superior to clozapine, effect size (ES) 0.87; 95% CI: 0.12-1.63, quetiapine, ES 0.75; 95% CI: 0.00-1.49, and first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs), ES 0.89; 95% CI: 0.14-1.64. Analyses on each cognitive domain showed clozapine, ES 0.37; 95% CI: 0.00-0.74, olanzapine, ES 0.31; 95%CI: 0.02-0.59, quetiapine, ES 0.34; 95% CI: 0.03-0.64, and FGAs, ES 0.51; 95% CI: 0.18-0.83 performing poorer on verbal working memory than ziprasidone, as well as FGAs performing poorer than risperidone, ES 0.31; 95% CI: 0.04-0.58. On executive function, sertindole performed better than clozapine, ES 0.82; 95% CI: 0.06-1.58, olanzapine, ES 0.81; 95% CI: 0.07-1.55, quetiapine, ES 0.76; 95% CI: 0.02-1.51, ziprasidone, ES 0.90; 95% CI: 0.14-1.67, and FGAs, ES 0.83; 95% CI: 0.08-1.58. On processing speed, FGAs performed poorer than sertindole, ES 0.97; 95% CI: 0.02-1.91, and quetiapine, ES 0.36; 95% CI: 0.01-0.72. On long-term verbal working memory, clozapine performed poorer than olanzapine, ES 0.41; 95% CI: 0.06-0.76. On verbal fluency, FGAs performed poorer than olanzapine, ES 0.26; 95% CI: 0.01-0.50, and clozapine, ES 0.44; 95% CI: 0.06-0.81. Lastly, FGAs, ES 0.41; 95% CI: 0.04-0.78, and clozapine, ES 0.44; 95% CI: 0.05-0.83, performed poorer on visuospatial skill compared to olanzapine.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis was able to detect some trends in the data analyzed, but did not show any drug having a uniform positive cognitive profile.

An event-related FMRI study of phonological verbal working memory in schizophrenia

Background

While much is known about the role of prefrontal cortex (PFC) in working memory (WM) deficits of schizophrenia, the nature of the relationship between cognitive components of WM and brain activation patterns remains unclear. We aimed to elucidate the neural correlates of the maintenance component of verbal WM by examining correct and error trials with event-related fMRI.

Methodology/Findings

Twelve schizophrenia patients (SZ) and thirteen healthy control participants (CO) performed a phonological delayed-matching-to-sample-task in which a memory set of three nonsense words was presented, followed by a 6-seconds delay after which a probe nonsense word appeared. Participants decided whether the probe matched one of the targets, and rated the confidence of their decision. Blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) activity during WM maintenance was analyzed in relation to performance (correct/error) and confidence ratings. Frontal and parietal regions exhibited increased activation on correct trials for both groups. Correct and error trials were further segregated into true memory, false memory, guess, and true error trials. True memory trials were associated with increased bilateral activation of frontal and parietal regions in both groups but only CO showed deactivation in PFC. There was very little maintenance-related cortical activity during guess trials. False memory was associated with increased left frontal and parietal activation in both groups.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that a wider network of frontal and parietal regions support WM maintenance in correct trials compared with error trials in both groups. Furthermore, a more extensive and dynamic pattern of recruitment of the frontal and parietal networks for true memory was observed in healthy controls compared with schizophrenia patients. These results underscore the value of parsing the sources of memory errors in fMRI studies because of the non-linear nature of the brain-behavior relationship, and suggest that group comparisons need to be interpreted in more specific behavioral contexts.

Circumstances under which practice does not make perfect: a review of the practice effect literature in schizophrenia and its relevance to clinical treatment studies

In this article, we review the literature on practice effects in schizophrenia, an underappreciated confound in interpreting cognitive improvement in clinical trials. We first examine claims regarding first- and second-generation antipsychotic medications as cognitive enhancers, and follow it with a discussion of recent studies demonstrating how practice or placebo effects may drive 'positive' findings. Thus, this review suggests that many previous findings can be reinterpreted in this light. Critically, we also make several suggestions about test construction, study design, and statistical analyses that the field might use to overcome this potential confound. Our suggestions may also have implications for drug discovery and regulatory approval of cognitive-enhancing adjunctive agents, in terms of study design and/or test psychometric characteristics, including the development of tests that are relatively insensitive to practice-related changes. Such advances might be important for improving the methodology involved in the assessment of cognitive change in treatment studies.