The schizophrenia drug-treatment paradox: pharmacological treatment based on best possible evidence may be hardest to practise in high-income countries

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.

Simulated Effects of Policies to Reduce Diabetes Risk Among Adults With Schizophrenia Receiving Antipsychotics

OBJECTIVE

Second-generation antipsychotics increase the risk of diabetes and other metabolic conditions among individuals with schizophrenia. Although metabolic testing is recommended to reduce this risk, low testing rates have prompted concerns about negative health consequences and downstream medical costs. This study simulated the effect of increasing metabolic testing rates on ten-year prevalence rates of prediabetes and diabetes (diabetes conditions) and their associated health care costs.

METHODS

A microsimulation model (N=21,491 beneficiaries) with a ten-year time horizon was used to quantify the impacts of policies that increased annual testing rates in a Medicaid population with schizophrenia. Data sources included California Medicaid data, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, and the literature. In the model, metabolic testing increased diagnosis of diabetes conditions and diagnosis prompted prescribers to switch patients to lower-risk antipsychotics. Key inputs included observed diagnoses, prescribing rates, annual testing rates, imputed rates of undiagnosed diabetes conditions, and literature-based estimates of policy effectiveness.

RESULTS

Compared with 2009 annual testing rates, ten-year outcomes for policies that achieved universal testing reduced exposure to higher-risk antipsychotics by 14%, time to diabetes diagnosis by 57%, and diabetes prevalence by .6%. These policies were associated with higher spending because of testing and earlier treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The model showed that policies promoting metabolic testing provided an effective approach to improve the safety of second-generation antipsychotic prescribing in a Medicaid population with schizophrenia; however, the policies led to additional costs at ten years. Simulation studies are a useful source of information on the potential impacts of these policies.

Mental Health Service Provision in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

This article discusses the provision of mental health services in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with a view to understanding the cultural dynamics-how the challenges they pose can be addressed and the opportunities harnessed in specific cultural contexts. The article highlights the need for prioritisation of mental health services by incorporating local population and cultural needs. This can be achieved only through political will and strengthened legislation, improved resource allocation and strategic organisation, integrated packages of care underpinned by professional communication and training, and involvement of patients, informal carers, and the wider community in a therapeutic capacity.

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.

Forty-five years of schizophrenia trials in Italy: a survey

Background

Well-designed and properly executed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence on the efficacy of healthcare interventions. Mental health has a strong tradition of using trial to evaluate treatments, but the translation of research to clinical practice is not always easy. Even well-conducted trials do not necessarily address the needs of every day care and trials can reflect local needs and the specific culture in which they are undertaken. Generalizing results to other contexts can become problematic but these trials may, nevertheless, be very helpful within their own context. Moreover, pathways for drug approval can be different depending on local regulatory agencies. Local trials are helpful for decision-making in the region from which they come, but should not be viewed in isolation. National quantity and quality of trials may vary across nations.

The aim of this study is to quantify trialing activity in Italy from 1948 until 2009 and to describe characteristics of these trials. In addition, we evaluated change over time in three keys aspects: sample size, follow-up duration, and number of outcomes.

Methods

We used the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register that contains 16,000 citations to 13,000 studies relating only to people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illness. Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials undertaken in Italy and involving pharmacological interventions were included.

Results

The original search identified 155 records of potentially eligible studies, 74 of which were excluded because do not meet inclusion criteria. A total of 81 studies were included in the analysis. The majority of trials were conducted in north Italy, and published in international journals between 1981 and 1995. The majority of studies (52 out of 81) used standardized diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia disorder. They were defined as randomized and used blind methods to administer treatment. However, most failed to report detail regarding methodological procedures and it is difficult to ascertain which studies are associated with a low risk of bias.

Conclusions

Trials should be designed to address the needs of everyday care with the aim of following large samples of typical patients in the long term. The Italian tradition in the area of trialing treatments for people with schizophrenia is not as strong as in many other similar countries and Italy should be producing more, better, independent, and clinically relevant trials.

Schizophrenia trials conducted in African countries: a drop of evidence in the ocean of morbidity?

Objective

To quantify schizophrenia trialling activity in African countries and to describe the main features of these trials.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register, which contains 16,000 citations to 13,000 studies relating only to people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illness, to identify schizophrenia trials conducted in Africa without time limitation.

Results

A total of 38 trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in our analysis. Of the 54 countries of Africa, only 8 produced at least one trial: South Africa produced the majority of trials (20 out of 38 trials, 53%), followed by Nigeria (7 out of 38 trials, 18%) and Egypt (4 out of 38 trials, 11%). The majority of studies investigated the efficacy of pharmacological interventions, were short in duration, and employed a double-blind design. The quality of reporting was generally poor. We found six trials comparing antipsychotics from the WHO Essential List of Medicine versus new generation antipsychotics. In terms of efficacy and acceptability, these studies failed to show any advantage of newer antipsychotics over first-generation agents.

Conclusions

We observed an impressive mismatch between the number of individuals with schizophrenia living in African countries, estimated to be around 10 million, and the overall number of patients included in African trials, which is less than 2,000. These few trials were of low quality and appeared not to reflect the real needs of the population. We argue that the concept of pragmatism should be introduced into the design of randomized trials in African countries. Pragmatic trials should investigate whether treatments, given in real-world circumstances, really have clinically meaningful effects.

Do findings from new trials for schizophrenia fit with existing evidence: not duped … just beguiled?

No treatment has caused a greater revolution in the treatment of people with schizophrenia than chlorpromazine. The new generation of drugs has been embraced by psychiatry with an enthusiasm fostered by the unmet needs of both patients and industry. Recent, independently funded trials have highlighted already existing data illustrating how the new antipsychotics drugs are an additional advance but not a revolution. In this story there are lessons for psychiatry to opt for science rather than seduction.

Research, empiricism and clinical practice in low-income countries

Mental health problems are relevant for every country. They are particularly important for low-income countries which face a high burden of illness due to infectious disease, greater socio-economic disparities, and have limited resources for mental health care. There is a great mismatch in the areas of mental health research, practice, policy and services in comparison to developed countries. There have been a few studies that have investigated major mental health problems prevailing in these countries but missed out significant health problems. Studies have tended to be more donor driven and conducted in tertiary centres. The low priority accorded to mental health by the policy makers, scarcity of human resources, lack of culture-specific study instruments, lack of support from scientific journals have been some of the impediments to mental health research in these countries. In addition, lack of community participation and absence of sound mental health policies have deprived the vast majority of the benefit of modern psychiatric treatments. Recently, with increase in collaboration in research, availability of treatment including low-priced psychotropics, and a growing emphasis on the need for mental health policy in some low-income countries, the bleak scenario is expected to change.

What is the best approach to treating schizophrenia in developing countries?

Schizophrenia affects an estimated 25 million people in low- and middle-income countries, with an average lifetime risk of about 1%. The illness is associated with excess mortality from a variety of causes. A 2001 Institute of Medicine report on mental illness in developing countries found that in 1990, over two-thirds of people with schizophrenia in these countries were not receiving any treatment (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10111.html). The report found no evidence that the proportion of treated people in the developing world had increased since 1990. There is now a debate among mental health professionals in low-income countries over how best to improve patient care. In this article, three psychiatrists give their different viewpoints on the current status of treatment efforts for schizophrenia in the developing world and the measures that can be taken to increase the proportion of patients receiving treatment.