Antipsychotic drugs: clinical pharmacology and therapeutic use

Hippocampal subfield transcriptome analysis in schizophrenia psychosis

We have previously demonstrated functional and molecular changes in hippocampal subfields in individuals with schizophrenia (SZ) psychosis associated with hippocampal excitability. In this study, we use RNA-seq and assess global transcriptome changes in the hippocampal subfields, DG, CA3, and CA1 from individuals with SZ psychosis and controls to elucidate subfield-relevant molecular changes. We also examine changes in gene expression due to antipsychotic medication in the hippocampal subfields from our SZ ON- and OFF-antipsychotic medication cohort. We identify unique subfield-specific molecular profiles in schizophrenia postmortem samples compared with controls, implicating astrocytes in DG, immune mechanisms in CA3, and synaptic scaling in CA1. We show a unique pattern of subfield-specific effects by antipsychotic medication on gene expression levels with scant overlap of genes differentially expressed by SZ disease effect versus medication effect. These hippocampal subfield changes serve to confirm and extend our previous model of SZ and can explain the lack of full efficacy of conventional antipsychotic medication on SZ symptomatology. With future characterization using single-cell studies, the identified distinct molecular profiles of the DG, CA3, and CA1 in SZ psychosis may serve to identify further potential hippocampal-based therapeutic targets.

Individualizing antipsychotic treatment selection in schizophrenia: characteristics of empirically derived patient subgroups

Treatment of schizophrenia with antipsychotic drugs is frequently sub-optimal. One reason for this may be heterogeneity between patients with schizophrenia. The objectives of this study were to identify patient, disease and treatment attributes that are important for physicians in choosing an antipsychotic drug, and to identify empirically subgroups of patients who may respond differentially to antipsychotic drugs. The survey was conducted by structured interview of 744 randomly-selected psychiatrists in four European countries who recruited 3996 patients with schizophrenia. Information on 39 variables was collected. Multiple component analysis was used to identify dimensions that explained the variance between patients. Three axes, accounting for 99% of the variance, were associated with disease severity (64%), socioeconomic status (27%) and patient autonomy (8%). These dimensions discriminated between six discrete patient subgroups, identified using ascending hierarchical classification analysis. The six subgroups differed regarding educational level, illness severity, autonomy, symptom presentation, addictive behaviors, comorbidities and cardiometabolic risk factors. Subgroup 1 patients had moderately severe physician-rated disease and addictive behaviours (23.2%); Subgroup 2 patients were well-integrated and autonomous with mild to moderate disease (6.7%); Subgroup 3 patients were less well-integrated with mild to moderate disease, living alone (11.2%); Subgroup 4 patients were women with low education levels (5.4%), Subgroup 5 patients were young men with severe disease (36.8%); and Subgroup 6 patients were poorly-integrated with moderately severe disease, needing caregiver support (16.7%). The presence of these subgroups, which require confirmation and extension regarding potentially identifiable biological markers, may help individualizing treatment in patients with schizophrenia.

Placebo controlled studies in acute schizophrenia – an issue of concern

Placebo controlled studies in patients suffering from exacerbation eg acute productive episode of schizophrenia and performed in the period between 1963-1993 are reviewed and analysed with respect to study designs; size of studies; improvement rate under placebo and drop-outs due to inefficacy under placebo. The aim of the analysis was to find out if the reported data permit some realistic estimates for a priori assumptions needed for proper planning of such studies, particularly in view of the numerous ethical and other difficulties which their performance encounters in the practice. Literature research revealed a rather limited number of rigorous, placebo-controlled, monotherapy studies (without intermittent or concomitant additional neuroleptics) in acute schizophrenia. Across comparison of findings from these studies was difficult due to differences in duration of treatment, assessment instruments and criteria of efficacy which illustrated a lack of methodological standards for studies in this indication. The improvement rate under placebo, if measured by Clinical Global Assessment (CGI) appeared, however, not to exceed 25%, whereas BPRS score reduction as efficacy criterion mostly provided higher response rates (up to 40%). Of interest however, is the finding that the response rate to conventional neuroleptics at the end of 4-6 weeks of treatment in some studies hardly exceeded 40%. The most sensitive measure of placebo effect seemed to be the drop-out rate due to inefficacy (up to 100%) and it is suggested to consider this measure and the survival analysis approach in designing future studies. The review demonstrated many unresolved methodological problems in testing antipsychotic drugs in acute schizophrenia and, particularly, the need of scientific evidence of validity and sensitivity of measures of antipsychotic efficacy. The findings reported up to now do not offer cues for rational estimates of the effect size differences between placebo and active drugs after short-term treatment in acute schizophrenia.

Cognitive behavioural therapy plus standard care versus standard care for people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a psychosocial treatment that aims to re-mediate distressing emotional experiences or dysfunctional behaviour by changing the way in which a person interprets and evaluates the experience or cognates on its consequence and meaning. This approach helps to link the person's feelings and patterns of thinking which underpin distress. CBT is now recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as an add-on treatment for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. This review is also part of a family of Cochrane CBT reviews for people with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of cognitive behavioural therapy added to standard care compared with standard care alone for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (up to March 6, 2017). This register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings, with no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) involving people diagnosed with schizophrenia or related disorders, which compared adding CBT to standard care with standard care given alone. Outcomes of interest included relapse, rehospitalisation, mental state, adverse events, social functioning, quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment.We included studies fulfilling the predefined inclusion criteria and reporting useable data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We complied with the Cochrane recommended standard of conduct for data screening and collection. Where possible, we calculated relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary data and mean difference (MD) and its 95% confidence interval for continuous data. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

This review now includes 60 trials with 5,992 participants, all comparing CBT added to standard care with standard care alone. Results for the main outcomes of interest (all long term) showed no clear difference between CBT and standard care for relapse (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.00; participants = 1538; studies = 13, low-quality evidence). Two trials reported global state improvement. More participants in the CBT groups showed clinically important improvement in global state (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; participants = 82; studies = 2 , very low-quality evidence). Five trials reported mental state improvement. No differences in mental state improvement were observed (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.02; participants = 501; studies = 5, very low-quality evidence). In terms of safety, adding CBT to standard care may reduce the risk of having an adverse event (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.72; participants = 146; studies = 2, very low-quality evidence) but appears to have no effect on long-term social functioning (MD 0.56, 95% CI -2.64 to 3.76; participants = 295; studies = 2, very low-quality evidence, nor on long-term quality of life (MD -3.60, 95% CI -11.32 to 4.12; participants = 71; study = 1, very low-quality evidence). It also has no effect on long-term satisfaction with treatment (measured as 'leaving the study early') (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.12; participants = 1945; studies = 19, moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Relative to standard care alone, adding CBT to standard care appears to have no effect on long-term risk of relapse. A very small proportion of the available evidence indicated CBT plus standard care may improve long term global state and may reduce the risk of adverse events. Whether adding CBT to standard care leads to clinically important improvement in patients' long-term mental state, quality of life, and social function remains unclear. Satisfaction with care (measured as number of people leaving the study early) was no higher for participants receiving CBT compared to participants receiving standard care. It should be noted that although much research has been carried out in this area, the quality of evidence available is poor - mostly low or very low quality and we still cannot make firm conclusions until more high quality data are available.

Cognitive behavioural therapy plus standard care versus standard care plus other psychosocial treatments for people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a psychosocial treatment that aims to help individuals re-evaluate their appraisals of their experiences that can affect their level of distress and problematic behaviour. CBT is now recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as an add-on treatment for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Other psychosocial therapies that are often less expensive are also available as an add-on treatment for people with schizophrenia. This review is also part of a family of Cochrane Reviews on CBT for people with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of CBT compared with other psychosocial therapies as add-on treatments for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study Based Register of Trials (latest 6 March, 2017). This register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings, with no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people with schizophrenia who were randomly allocated to receive, in addition to their standard care, either CBT or any other psychosocial therapy. Outcomes of interest included relapse, global state, mental state, adverse events, social functioning, quality of life and satisfaction with treatment. We included trials meeting our inclusion criteria and reporting useable data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably screened references and selected trials. Review authors, working independently, assessed trials for methodological quality and extracted data from included studies. We analysed dichotomous data on an intention-to-treat basis and continuous data with 60% completion rate. Where possible, for binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR), for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), all with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model for analyses unless there was unexplained high heterogeneity. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' table for our main outcomes of interest.

MAIN RESULTS

The review now includes 36 trials with 3542 participants, comparing CBT with a range of other psychosocial therapies that we classified as either active (A) (n = 14) or non active (NA) (n = 14). Trials were often small and at high or unclear risk of bias. When CBT was compared with other psychosocial therapies, no difference in long-term relapse was observed (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.29; participants = 375; studies = 5, low-quality evidence). Clinically important change in global state data were not available but data for rehospitalisation were reported. Results showed no clear difference in long term rehospitalisation (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.14; participants = 943; studies = 8, low-quality evidence) nor in long term mental state (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01; participants = 249; studies = 4, low-quality evidence). No long-term differences were observed for death (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.98; participants = 627; studies = 6, low-quality evidence). Only average endpoint scale scores were available for social functioning and quality of life. Social functioning scores were similar between groups (long term Social Functioning Scale (SFS): MD 8.80, 95% CI -4.07 to 21.67; participants = 65; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence), and quality of life scores were also similar (medium term Modular System for Quality of Life (MSQOL): MD -4.50, 95% CI -15.66 to 6.66; participants = 64; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). There was a modest but clear difference favouring CBT for satisfaction with treatment - measured as leaving the study early (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; participants = 2392; studies = 26, low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence based on data from randomised controlled trials indicates there is no clear and convincing advantage for cognitive behavioural therapy over other - and sometimes much less sophisticated and expensive - psychosocial therapies for people with schizophrenia. It should be noted that although much research has been carried out in this area, the quality of evidence available is mostly low or of very low quality. Good quality research is needed before firm conclusions can be made.

Another triumph of hope over experience?

Schizophrenia continues to challenge services: recent advances in antipsychotic drug treatment and psychosocial interventions are hindered by non-adherence, disengagement and substance misuse. Furthermore, new side-effect concerns attach to atypical drugs, and psychosocial interventions may be underresourced or of unproven benefit. It is important to address all issues with which patients, families and carers need assistance, and to take a well-informed, creative approach to pharmacological treatment, using medication according to individual patient need rather than mechanistic adherence to guidelines. Psychiatrists should be realistic in their expectations of patient outcome, accepting outcomes that fall short of recovery and imply long-term supportive care, and insisting that this care be available to their patients. Psychiatrists should support early diagnosis and intervention as being possibly the only means to alleviate the burden of long-term schizophrenia for patients, families and services.

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.

A Summary of Current Information, Mechanisms and Treatment

Adverse reactions and the possible mechanisms of the reactions caused by antipsychotics are reviewed. The mechanisms of many of these adverse reactions have not been elucidated to date, hence there have been inconsistent approaches to the problem. Complicated symptoms of the reactions, especially exacerbation of the mental state, are often considered to be a part of the psychosis under treatment. Some of the reactions are temporary, or the patient may develop tolerance to them so that an additional drug may not be necessary.

It is suggested that use of the minimum dosage of antipsychotics, avoidance of polypharmacy, and close observation of the patient constitute the best approach to the prevention of unwanted reactions.

Risperidone (depot) for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Risperidone is the first new generation antipsychotic drug made available in a long-acting injection formulation.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of depot risperidone for treatment of schizophrenia or related psychoses in comparison with placebo, no treatment or other antipsychotic medication.To critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the resource use, cost and cost-effectiveness of risperidone (depot) for schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (December 2002, 2012, and October 28, 2015). We also checked the references of all included studies, and contacted industry and authors of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing depot risperidone with other treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD). We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies, with a total of 5723 participants were randomised to the following comparison treatments: Risperidone depot versus placebo Outcomes of relapse and improvement in mental state were neither measured or reported. In terms of other primary outcomes, more people receiving placebo left the study early by 12 weeks (1 RCT, n=400, RR 0.74 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, very low quality evidence), experienced severe adverse events in short term (1 RCT, n=400, RR 0.59 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93, very low quality evidence). There was however, no difference in levels of weight gain between groups (1 RCT, n=400, RR 2.11 95% CI 0.48 to 9.18, very low quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus general oral antipsychotics The outcome of improvement in mental state was not presented due to high levels of attrition, nor were levels of severe adverse events explicitly reported. Most primary outcomes of interest showed no difference between treatment groups. However, more people receiving depot risperidone experienced nervous system disorders (long-term:1 RCT, n=369, RR 1.34 95% CI 1.13 to 1.58, very-low quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus oral risperidoneData for relapse and severe adverse events were not reported. All outcomes of interest were rated as moderate quality evidence. Main results showed no differences between treatment groups with equivocal data for change in mental state, numbers leaving the study early, any extrapyramidal symptoms, weight increase and prolactin-related adverse events. Risperidone depot versus oral quetiapine Relapse rates and improvement in mental state were not reported. Fewer people receiving risperidone depot left the study early (long-term: 1 RCT, n=666, RR 0.84 95% CI 0.74 to 0.95, moderate quality evidence). Experience of serious adverse events was similar between groups (low quality evidence), but more people receiving depot risperidone experienced EPS (1 RCT, n=666, RR 1.83 95% CI 1.07 to 3.15, low quality evidence), had greater weight gain (1 RCT, n=666, RR 1.25 95% CI 0.25 to 2.25, low quality evidence) and more prolactin-related adverse events (1 RCT, n=666, RR 3.07 95% CI 1.13 to 8.36, very low quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus oral aripiprazoleRelapse rates, mental state using PANSS, leaving the study early, serious adverse events and weight increase were similar between groups. However more people receiving depot risperidone experienced prolactin-related adverse events compared to those receiving oral aripiprazole (2 RCTs, n=729, RR 9.91 95% CI 2.78 to 35.29, very low quality of evidence). Risperidone depot versus oral olanzapineRelapse rates were not reported in any of the included studies for this comparison. Improvement in mental state using PANSS and instances of severe adverse events were similar between groups. More people receiving depot risperidone left the study early than those receiving oral olanzapine (1 RCT, n=618, RR 1.32 95% CI 1.10 to 1.58, low quality evidence) with those receiving risperidone depot also experiencing more extrapyramidal symptoms (1 RCT, n=547, RR 1.67 95% CI 1.19 to 2.36, low quality evidence). However, more people receiving oral olanzapine experienced weight increase (1 RCT, n=547, RR 0.56 95% CI 0.42 to 0.75, low quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus atypical depot antipsychotics (specifically paliperidone palmitate)Relapse rates were not reported and rates of response using PANSS, weight increase, prolactin-related adverse events and glucose-related adverse events were similar between groups. Fewer people left the study early due to lack of efficacy from the risperidone depot group (long term: 1 RCT, n=749, RR 0.60 95% CI 0.45 to 0.81, low quality evidence), but more people receiving depot risperidone required use of EPS-medication (2 RCTs, n=1666, RR 1.46 95% CI 1.18 to 1.8, moderate quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus typical depot antipsychoticsOutcomes of relapse, severe adverse events or movement disorders were not reported. Outcomes relating to improvement in mental state demonstrated no difference between groups (low quality evidence). However, more people receiving depot risperidone compared to other typical depots left the study early (long-term:1 RCT, n=62, RR 3.05 95% CI 1.12 to 8.31, low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Depot risperidone may be more acceptable than placebo injection but it is hard to know if it is any more effective in controlling the symptoms of schizophrenia. The active drug, especially higher doses, may be associated with more movement disorders than placebo. People already stabilised on oral risperidone may continue to maintain benefit if treated with depot risperidone and avoid the need to take tablets, at least in the short term. In people who are happy to take oral medication the depot risperidone is approximately equal to oral risperidone. It is possible that the depot formulation, however, can bring a second-generation antipsychotic to people who do not reliably adhere to treatment. People with schizophrenia who have difficulty adhering to treatment, however, are unlikely to volunteer for a clinical trial. Such people may gain benefit from the depot risperidone with no increased risk of extrapyramidal side effects.

Clozapine underutilization in treatment-resistant schizophrenia

It has been shown that up to one third of patients with schizophrenia do not respond to antipsychotic therapy. Thus, treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) remains a major mental health care challenge.

Clozapine has been shown to provide superior therapeutic benefits and is approved as first-line therapy for TRS. These benefits include improvement in both positive and negative symptoms, and reduction of suicidal behavior in patients with schizophrenia. Clozapine, however, remains significantly underused for TRS. A major reason for clozapine's underuse is its substantial adverse effect profile, mainly the risk of life-threatening agranulocytosis which necessitates regular hematologic monitoring. Another factor contributing to reduced clozapine prescribing is the increased use of other second-generation antipsychotics. In TRS patients, there is often a considerable delay in clozapine use, which is prescribed only after other unsuccessful second-generation antipsychotic trials. To combat this trend, there is a push for increased awareness to optimize clozapine prescribing. An important aspect in improving the use of clozapine therapy is physician and patient education. Furthermore, pharmacist involvement can improve clozapine prescription trends in TRS.

Treatment-refractory schizophrenia

Between one-third and one-half of the individuals who meet diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia remain actively ill despite optimal pharmacological treatment. These individuals tend to progressively deteriorate in terms of social and vocational functioning despite major public and private investments in their rehabilitation. For patients who do not respond to the first prescribed antipsychotic drug, current clinical practice is to switch to a second and a third drug, and eventually to clozapine, the only antipsychotic drug proven to be effective in treatment-refractory schizophrenia (TRS). Occasionally, two antipsychotics are given concomitantly or psychotropic drugs are added to antipsychotic drugs; however, very few empirical data exist to support this practice. Although there are many exceptions, patients who do not benefit from the first prescribed drug will not benefit from any pharmacological intervention. Therefore, efforts are under way to determine the reason for lack of response to available treatments and devise novel, more effective treatments. To be successful these efforts must result in a more specific definition of TRS, as well as in a better understanding of the illness pathophysiology and the mechanism of action of the drugs.

Cognitive behaviour therapy versus other psychosocial treatments for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is now a recommended treatment for people with schizophrenia. This approach helps to link the person's distress and problem behaviours to underlying patterns of thinking.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of CBT for people with schizophrenia when compared with other psychological therapies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (March 2010) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. We inspected all references of the selected articles for further relevant trials, and, where appropriate, contacted authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CBT for people with schizophrenia-like illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were reliably selected and assessed for methodological quality. Two review authors, working independently, extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data on an intention-to-treat basis and continuous data with 65% completion rate are presented. Where possible, for dichotomous outcomes, we estimated a risk ratio (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (CI) along with the number needed to treat/harm.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty papers described 20 trials. Trials were often small and of limited quality. When CBT was compared with other psychosocial therapies, no difference was found for outcomes relevant to adverse effect/events (2 RCTs, n = 202, RR death 0.57 CI 0.12 to 2.60). Relapse was not reduced over any time period (5 RCTs, n = 183, RR long-term 0.91 CI 0.63 to 1.32) nor was rehospitalisation (5 RCTs, n = 294, RR in longer term 0.86 CI 0.62 to 1.21). Various global mental state measures failed to show difference (4 RCTs, n = 244, RR no important change in mental state 0.84 CI 0.64 to 1.09). More specific measures of mental state failed to show differential effects on positive or negative symptoms of schizophrenia but there may be some longer term effect for affective symptoms (2 RCTs, n = 105, mean difference (MD) Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) -6.21 CI -10.81 to -1.61). Few trials report on social functioning or quality of life. Findings do not convincingly favour either of the interventions (2 RCTs, n = 103, MD Social Functioning Scale (SFS) 1.32 CI -4.90 to 7.54; n = 37, MD EuroQOL -1.86 CI -19.20 to 15.48). For the outcome of leaving the study early, we found no significant advantage when CBT was compared with either non-active control therapies (4 RCTs, n = 433, RR 0.88 CI 0.63 to 1.23) or active therapies (6 RCTs, n = 339, RR 0.75 CI 0.40 to 1.43)

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Trial-based evidence suggests no clear and convincing advantage for cognitive behavioural therapy over other - and sometime much less sophisticated - therapies for people with schizophrenia.

A single blind comparative clinical study of the effects of chlorpromazine and risperidone on positive and negative symptoms in patients of schizophrenia

OBJECTIVES

The present study was undertaken to test the comparative efficacy of chlorpromazine and risperidone in patients of schizophrenia in a tertiary care hospital of Maharashtra.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

About 100 subjects of either sex between 15 and 75 years of age were randomly assigned either chlorpromazine or risperidone. Only those patients were included who met International Classification of Diseases 10 revision criteria by World Health Organization. To avoid bias, the test drugs were coded as A and B. The study coordinator was unaware of the prescribed drugs; however, the prescribing psychiatrist knew about the drug treatment.

RESULTS

Both chlorpromazine and risperidone significantly decreased the mean score of positive and general symptoms in patients of schizophrenia. Although chlorpromazine decreased the mean score of negative symptoms, it was not statistically significant. Risperidone reduced the mean score of negative symptoms to a significant extent. The cost (Rs. 3000-4000) of risperidone was more than the cost (Rs. 700-1000) of chlorpromazine per patient per annum. The dropouts were less (25%) in the risperidone group than in the chlorpromazine group (75%). The more purchase of risperidone than of chlorpromazine was observed in our study.

CONCLUSION

The response rates for positive and general symptoms were found to be equal for both chlorpromazine and risperidone. However, risperidone was found to be more effective than chlorpromazine in treating negative symptoms. The dropout rate was less in the risperidone group than in the chlorpromazine group. The compliance was also better in the risperidone group, even though the cost of risperidone was more than that of chlorpromazine.

WITHDRAWN: Cognitive behaviour therapy versus other psychosocial treatments for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is now a recommended treatment for people with schizophrenia. This approach helps to link the person's feelings and patterns of thinking which underpin distress.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of CBT for people with schizophrenia when compared to other psychological therapies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (March 2010) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. We inspected all references of the selected articles for further relevant trials, and, where appropriate, contacted authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant clinical randomised trials of cognitive behaviour therapy for people with schizophrenia-like illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were reliably selected and assessed for methodological quality. Two reviewers, working independently, extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data on an intention-to-treat basis and continuous data with 65% completion rate are presented. Where possible, for dichotomous outcomes, we estimated a relative risk (RR) with the 95% confidence interval along with the number needed to treat/harm.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-nine papers described 20 trials. Trials were often small and of limited quality. When CBT was compared with other psychosocial therapies no difference was found for outcomes relevant to adverse effect/events (2 RCTs, n=202, RR death 0.57 CI 0.12 to 2.60). Relapse was not reduced over any time period (5 RCTs, n=183, RR in long term 0.91 CI 0.63 to 1.32) nor was rehospitalisation (5 RCTs, n=294, RR in longer term 0.86 CI 0.62 to 1.21). Various global mental state measures failed to show difference (4 RCTs, n=244, RR no important change in mental state 0.84 CI 0.64 to 1.09). More specific measures of mental state failed to show differential effects on positive or negative symptoms of schizophrenia but there may be some longer term effect for affective symptoms (2 RCTs, n=105, MD BDI -6.21 CI -10.81 to -1.61). Few trials report on social functioning or quality of life. Findings do not convincingly favour either interventions (2 RCT, n=103, MD SFS 1.32 CI -4.90 to 7.54; n=37, MD EuroQOL -1.86 CI -19.20 to 15.48). For the outcome of leaving the study early we found no significant advantage when CBT was compared with either non-active control therapies (4 RCTs, n=433, RR 0.88 CI 0.63 to 1.23) or active therapies (6 RCTs, n=339, RR 0.75 CI 0.40 to 1.43)

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Trail-based evidence suggests no clear and convincing advantage for cognitive behavioural therapy over other and sometime much less sophisticated therapies for people with schizophrenia.

Association of Disrupted in Schizophrenia 1 (DISC1) missense variants with ultra-resistant schizophrenia

Three common missense variants of the Disrupted in Schizophrenia 1 (DISC1) gene, rs3738401 (Q264R), rs6675281 (L607F) and rs821616 (S704C), have been variably associated with the risk of schizophrenia. In a case-control study, we examine whether these gene variants are associated with schizophrenia and ultra-resistant schizophrenia (URS) in a population of French Caucasian patients. The URS phenotype is characterized according to stringent criteria as patients who experience no clinical, social and/or occupational remission in spite of treatment with clozapine and at least two periods of treatment with distinct conventional or atypical antipsychotic drugs. We find a significant association between DISC1 missense variants and URS. The association with rs3738401 remains significant after appropriate correction for multiple testing. These results suggest that the DISC1 rs3738401 missense variant is statistically linked with ultra-resistance to antipsychotic treatment.

Effect of second-generation antipsychotics on cognition: current issues and future challenges

Generalized cognitive impairments are stable deficits linked to schizophrenia and key factors associated with functional disability in the disorder. Preclinical data suggest that second-generation antipsychotics could potentially reduce cognitive impairments; however, recent large clinical trials indicate only modest cognitive benefits relative to first-generation antipsychotics. This might reflect a limited drug effect in humans, a differential drug effect due to brain alterations associated with schizophrenia, or limited sensitivity of the neuropsychological tests for evaluating cognitive outcomes. New adjunctive procognitive drugs may be needed to achieve robust cognitive and functional improvement. Drug discovery may benefit from greater utilization of translational neurocognitive biomarkers to bridge preclinical and clinical proof-of-concept studies, to optimize assay sensitivity, enhance cost efficiency, and speed progress in drug development.

Aripiprazole versus typical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Aripiprazole is a relatively new antipsychotic drug, said to be the prototype of a new third generation of antipsychotics; the so-called dopamine-serotonin system stabilisers. In this review we examine how the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole differs from that of typical antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of aripiprazole compared with other typical antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (November 2007) which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. We inspected references of all identified studies for further trials. We contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies, drug approval agencies and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing aripiprazole with typical antipsychotics in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis, based on a random 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 random effects model. We have contacted representatives of Bristol Myers Squibb pharmaceuticals (UK) for additional data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine randomised trials involving 3122 people comparing aripiprazole with typical antipsychotic drugs. None of the studies reported on relapse - our primary outcome of interest. Attrition from studies was high and data reporting poor. Participants given aripiprazole were comparable to those receiving typical drugs in improving global state and mental state. Aripiprazole provided a significant advantage over typical antipsychotics in terms of fewer occurrences of extra-pyramidal symptom (n=968, 3 RCT, RR 0.46 CI 0.3 to 0.9, NNT 13 CI 17 to 10), and particularly akathisia (n=897, 3 RCT, RR 0.39 CI 0.3 to 0.6, NNT 11 CI 14 to 9). Fewer participants given aripiprazole developed hyperprolactinaemia (n=300, 1 RCT, RR 0.07 CI 0.03 to 0.2, NNT 2 CI 3 to 1). Aripiprazole presented a lesser risk of sinus tachycardia (n=289, 1 RCT, RR 0.09 CI 0.01 to 0.8, NNT 22 CI 63 to 13) and blurred vision (n=308, 1 RCT, RR 0.19 CI 0.1 to 0.7, NNT 14 CI 25 to 10); but enhanced risk of occurrence of dizziness (n=957, 3 RCT, RR 1.88 CI 1.1 to 3.2, NNH 20 CI 33 to 14) and nausea (n=957, 3 RCT, RR 3.03 CI 1.5 to 6.1, NNH 17 CI 25 to 13). Attrition rates were high in both groups, although significantly more participants in the aripiprazole group completed the study in the long term (n=1294, 1 RCT, RR 0.81 CI 0.8 to 0.9 NNT 8 CI 5 to 14).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Aripiprazole differs little from typical antipsychotic drugs with respect to efficacy, however it presents significant advantages in terms of tolerability. Clearly reported pragmatic short, medium and long term randomised controlled trials are required to replicate and validate these findings and determine the position of aripiprazole in everyday clinical practice.

Aripiprazole versus typicals for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Aripiprazole is a relatively new antipsychotic drug, said to be the prototype of a new third generation of antipsychotics; the so-called dopamine-serotonin system stabilisers. In this review we examine how the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole differs from that of typical antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of aripiprazole compared with other typical antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (May 2007) which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing aripiprazole with typical antipsychotics in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis, based on a random 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 random effects model. We have contacted representatives of Bristol Myers Squibb pharmaceuticals (UK) for additional and missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine randomised trials involving 3122 people comparing aripiprazole with typical antipsychotic drugs. None of the studies reported on relapse - our primary outcome of interest. Attrition from studies was high and data reporting poor. Participants given aripiprazole were comparable to those receiving typical drugs in improving global state and mental state. Aripiprazole provided a significant advantage over typical antipsychotics in terms of fewer occurrences of extra-pyramidal symptom (n=968, 3 RCT, RR 0.46 CI 0.3 to 0.9, NNT 13 CI 17 to 10), and particularly akathisia (n=897, 3 RCT, RR 0.39 CI 0.3 to 0.6, NNT 11 CI 14 to 9). Fewer participants given aripiprazole developed hyperprolactinaemia (n=300, 1 RCT, RR 0.07 CI 0.03 to 0.2, NNT 2 CI 3 to 1) and raised fasting blood glucose (n=360, 1 RCT, RR 0.65 CI 0.5 to 0.9, NNT 8 CI 14 to 6). Aripiprazole presented a lesser risk of sinus tachycardia (n=289, 1 RCT, RR 0.09 CI 0.01 to 0.8, NNT 22 CI 63 to 13) and blurred vision (n=308, 1 RCT, RR 0.19 CI 0.1 to 0.7, NNT 14 CI 25 to 10); but enhanced risk of occurrence of dizziness (n=957, 3 RCTs, RR 1.88 CI 1.1 to 3.2, NNH 20 CI 33 to 14) and nausea (n=957, 3 RCTs, RR 3.03 CI 1.5 to 6.1, NNH 17 CI 25 to 13). Attrition rates were high in both groups, although significantly more participants in the aripiprazole group completed the study in the long term (n=1294, 1 RCT, RR 0.81 CI 0.8 to 0.9 NNT 8 CI 5 to 14).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Aripiprazole is not much different from typical antipsychotic drugs with respect to efficacy. However it presents significant advantages in terms of tolerability due to its favourable adverse effects profile. This might enhance its effectiveness in encouraging compliance. Clearly reported pragmatic short, medium and long term randomised controlled trials are required to replicate and validate these findings and determine the position of aripiprazole in everyday clinical practice.

Depot fluspirilene for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs are the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia and similar psychotic disorders. Long-acting depot injections of drugs such as fluspirilene are extensively used as a means of long-term maintenance treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of depot fluspirilene versus placebo, oral anti-psychotics and other depot antipsychotic preparations for people with schizophrenia in terms of clinical, social and economic outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (September 2005), inspected references of all identified studies, and contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all relevant randomised trials focusing on people with schizophrenia where depot fluspirilene, oral anti-psychotics, other depot preparations, or placebo were compared. Outcomes such as death, clinically significant change in global function, mental state, relapse, hospital admission, adverse effects and acceptability of treatment were sought.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were reliably selected, quality rated and data extracted. For dichotomous data, we calculated relative risk (RR) with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, the number needed to treat statistic (NNT) was calculated. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. We summated normal continuous data using the weighted mean difference (WMD). We presented scale data only for those tools that had attained pre-specified levels of quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included twelve randomised studies in this update of which five are additional studies. One trial compared fluspirilene and placebo and did not report important differences in the global improvement (n=60, 1 RCT, RR "no important improvement "0.97 CI 0.9 to 1.1). Though movement disorders (n=60, 1 RCT, RR 31.0 CI 1.9 to 495.6, NNH 4) were found only in the fluspirilene group, there were no convincing data showing the advantage of oral chlorpromazine or other depot antipsychotics over fluspirilene decanoate. We found no difference between depot fluspirilene and other oral antipsychotics with regard to relapses or to the number of people leaving the study early. Global state data (CGI) were not significantly different, in the short term when comparing fluspirilene with other depots (n=90, 2 RCTs, RR "no important improvement" 0.80 CI 0.2 to 2.8). No significant difference were apparent between fluspirilene and other depots with respect to the number of people leaving the trial early (n=83, 2 RCTs, RR 0.55 CI 0.1 to 2.3) or relapse rates (n=109, 3 RCTs, RR 0.55 CI 0.1 to 2.3). Extrapyramidal adverse effects were significantly less prevalent in the fluspirilene groups (n=164, 4 RCTs, RR 0.50 CI 0.3 to 0.8, NNH 5). Other adverse effects were not significantly different. Attrition in the one comparison between fluspirilene in weekly versus biweekly administration (n=34, RR 3.00 CI 0.1 to 68.8) and relapse rates (n=34 RR 3.18 CI 0.1 to 83.8) were not significantly different. There were no significant difference for movement disorders in one short term study. No study reported on hospital and service outcomes or commented on participants' overall satisfaction with care. Economic outcomes were not recorded by any of the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Participant numbers in each comparison were small and we found no clear differences between fluspirilene and oral medication or other depots. The choice of whether to use fluspirilene as a depot medication and whether it has advantages over other depots cannot, at present, be informed by trial-derived data. Well-conducted and reported randomised trials are still needed to inform practice.

Depot fluspirilene for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs are the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia and similar psychotic disorders. Long-acting depot injections of drugs such as fluspirilene are extensively used as a means of long-term maintenance treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of depot fluspirilene versus placebo, oral anti-psychotics and other depot antipsychotic preparations for people with schizophrenia in terms of clinical, social and economic outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (September 2005), inspected references of all identified studies, and contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all relevant randomised trials focusing on people with schizophrenia where depot fluspirilene, oral anti-psychotics, other depot preparations, or placebo were compared. Outcomes such as death, clinically significant change in global function, mental state, relapse, hospital admission, adverse effects and acceptability of treatment were sought.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were reliably selected, quality rated and data extracted. For dichotomous data, we calculated relative risk (RR) with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, the number needed to treat statistic (NNT) was calculated. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. We summated normal continuous data using the weighted mean difference (WMD). We presented scale data only for those tools that had attained pre-specified levels of quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included twelve randomised studies in this update of which five are additional studies. One trial compared fluspirilene and placebo and did not report important differences in the global improvement (n=60, 1 RCT, RR "no important improvement "0.97 CI 0.9 to 1.1). Though movement disorders (n=60, 1 RCT, RR 31.0 CI 1.9 to 495.6, NNH 4) were found only in the fluspirilene group, there were no convincing data showing the advantage of oral chlorpromazine or other depot antipsychotics over fluspirilene decanoate. We found no difference between depot fluspirilene and other oral antipsychotics with regard to relapses or to the number of people leaving the study early. Global state data (CGI) were not significantly different, in the short term when comparing fluspirilene with other depots (n=90, 2 RCTs, RR "no important improvement" 0.80 CI 0.2 to 2.8). No significant difference were apparent between fluspirilene and other depots with respect to the number of people leaving the trial early (n=83, 2 RCTs, RR 0.55 CI 0.1 to 2.3) or relapse rates (n=109, 3 RCTs, RR 0.55 CI 0.1 to 2.3). Extrapyramidal adverse effects were significantly less prevalent in the fluspirilene groups (n=164, 4 RCTs, RR 0.50 CI 0.3 to 0.8, NNH 5). Other adverse effects were not significantly different. Attrition in the one comparison between fluspirilene in weekly versus biweekly administration (n=34, RR 3.00 CI 0.1 to 68.8) and relapse rates (n=34 RR 3.18 CI 0.1 to 83.8) were not significantly different. There were no significant difference for movement disorders in one short term study. No study reported on hospital and service outcomes or commented on participants' overall satisfaction with care. Economic outcomes were not recorded by any of the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Participant numbers in each comparison were small and we found no clear differences between fluspirilene and oral medication or other depots. The choice of whether to use fluspirilene as a depot medication and whether it has advantages over other depots cannot, at present, be informed by trial-derived data. Well-conducted and reported randomised trials are still needed to inform practice.

Aripiprazole for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Treatment of people with schizophrenia using older typical antipsychotic drugs such as haloperidol can be problematic. Many fail to respond to these older antipsychotics and more people experience disabling adverse effects. Aripiprazole is said to be one of a new generation of atypical antipsychotics with good antipsychotic properties and minimal adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of aripiprazole for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

All clinical randomised trials comparing aripiprazole with placebo, typical or atypical antipsychotic drugs 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 (NNT) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS

Despite the fact that 7110 people participated in fifteen randomised aripiprazole studies, we were unable to extract any usable data on death, service outcomes, general functioning, behaviour, engagement with services, satisfaction with treatment; economic outcomes or cognitive functioning. Study attrition was very large and data reporting poor. Compared with placebo, aripiprazole significantly decreased relapse in both the short and medium term (n=300, 1 RCT, RR 0.66 CI 0.5 to 0.8, NNT 5 CI 4 to 8). It also produced better compliance with study protocol (n=2271, 8 RCTs, RR 0.72 CI 0.5 to 0.97, NNT 26 CI 16 to 239). Aripiprazole may decrease prolactin levels below that expected from placebo (n=305, 1 RCT, RR 0.32 CI 0.1 to 0.8, NNT 14 CI 11 to 50). Compared with typical antipsychotics there were no significant benefits for aripiprazole with regards to global state, mental state, quality of life or leaving the study early. Both groups reported similar rates of adverse effects, with the exception of akathisia (n= 955 RR 0.31 CI 0.2 to 0.6, NNT 20 CI 17 to 32) and the need for antiparkinson medication (n=1854, 4 RCTs, RR 0.45 CI 0.3 to 0.6, NNT 4 CI 3 to 5) which were lower in those receiving aripiprazole. When compared with olanzapine and risperidone, aripiprazole was no better or worse on outcomes of global state and leaving the study early. The rates of adverse effects were also similar, with the exception of less elevation of prolactin (n=301, 1 RCT, RR 0.04 CI 0.02 to 0.1, NNT 2 CI 1 to 2.5) and less prolongation of the average QTc (30 mg/day) (n=200, 1 RCT, WMD -10.0, CI -16.99 to -3.0) compared with risperidone. When compared with standard care (mixed group receiving typical and atypical antipsychotics) one aripiprazole study did have significantly less people not responding to treatment (n=1599, RR 0.70 CI 0.7 to 0.8, NNT 5 CI 4 to 6 ), not satisfied with care (n=1599, RR 0.62 CI 0.6 to 0.7, NNT 4 CI 4 to 5) and less people leaving the study early (n=1599, 1 RCT, RR 0.81 CI 0.7 to 0.9, NNT 13 CI 8 to 39). Results from the five new papers identified from the updated review search, did not significantly alter the main results or conclusions of the original review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Aripiprazole may be effective for the treatment of schizophrenia, but it does not differ greatly from typical and atypical antipsychotics with respect to treatment response, efficacy or tolerability. In comparison with typical antipsychotics, aripiprazole may have a lower risk of akathisia, and in comparison to atypical antipsychotics, less risk of raised prolactin and prolongation of the QTc interval. Clearly reported pragmatic short, medium and long term randomised controlled trials should be undertaken to determine its position in everyday clinical practice.

Risperidone, Quetiapine, and Fluphenazine in the Treatment of Patients With Therapy-Refractory Schizophrenia

This 12-week, double-blind study evaluated the effectiveness of risperidone (4 mg/day), quetiapine (400 mg/day), or fluphenazine (12.5 mg/day) in a stringently defined treatment-resistant population of people with schizophrenia. No differences were noted in total Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) or Clinical Global Impression scores among the drug groups (n = 38). More subjects tended to complete the study on risperidone (69%) or quetiapine (58%) than those treated with fluphenazine (31%; P value not significant). Eighty-nine percent of those who discontinued on fluphenazine (8 of 9) were due to lack of efficacy. Discontinuation due to adverse effects was low, with only 2 subjects (both on quetiapine) stopping due to side effects. Three of 13 risperidone-treated subjects (23%) and 3 of 12 quetiapine-treated subjects (25%) met response criteria (decrease of 20% of total BPRS score), whereas 2 of 13 subjects (15%) responded to fluphenazine. Side effect occurrence was similar among drug groups and EPS ratings on the Simpson Angus Scale improved in all drug groups (quetiapine, 1.64; risperidone, 1.30; fluphenazine, 0.69; P value not significant). Despite the newer class of second-generation antipsychotic medications, this treatment-resistant population remains difficult to treat. Many people have only minimal to modest improvements with antipsychotic treatment and most continue to have residual psychotic symptoms. Treatment with first- and second-generation antipsychotics may demonstrate similar efficacy; however, patients treated with second-generation antipsychotics may be more likely to adhere to treatment.

Cognitive behaviour therapy for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is now a recommended treatment for people with schizophrenia. This approach helps to link the person's feelings and patterns of thinking which underpin distress.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of CBT for people with schizophrenia when compared to standard care, specific medication, other therapies and no intervention.

SEARCH STRATEGY

This 2004 update built on past work by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Groups' Register of Trials (January 2004). We inspected all references of the selected articles for further relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant clinical randomised trials of cognitive behaviour therapy for people with schizophrenia-like illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were reliably selected and assessed for methodological quality. Two reviewers, working independently, extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data on an intention-to-treat basis and continuous data with 65% completion rate are presented. Where possible, for dichotomous outcomes, we estimated a relative risk (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (CI) along with the number needed to treat/harm (NNT/H).

MAIN RESULTS

30 papers described 19 trials. CBT plus standard care did not reduce relapse and readmission compared with standard care (long term 4 RCTs, n=357, RR 0.8 CI 0.5 to 1.5), but did decrease the risk of staying in hospital (1 RCT, n=62, RR 0.5 CI 0.3 to 0.9, NNT 4 CI 3 to 15). CBT helped mental state over the medium term (2 RCTs, n=123, RR No meaningful improvement 0.7 CI 0.6 to 0.9, NNT 4 CI 3 to 9) but after one year the difference was gone (3 RCTs, n=211, RR 0.95 CI 0.6 to 1.5). Continuous measures of mental state (BDI, BPRS, CPRS, MADRS, PAS) do not demonstrate a consistent effect. When compared with supportive psychotherapy, CBT had no effect on relapse (1 RCT, n=59, RR medium term 0.6 CI 0.2 to 2; 2 RCTs, n=83, RR long term 1.1 CI 0.5 to 2.4). This also applies to the outcome of 'No clinically meaningful improvements in mental state' over the same time periods (1 RCT, n=59, RR medium term 0.8 CI 0.6 to 1.1; 2 RCT, n=100, RR long term 0.9 CI 0.8 to 1.1). When CBT was combined with a psychoeducational approach there was no significant reduction of readmission rates relative to standard care alone (1 RCT, n=91, RR 0.9 CI 0.6 to 1.4).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

CBT is a promising but under evaluated intervention. Currently, trial-based data supporting the wide use of CBT for people with schizophrenia or other psychotic illnesses are far from conclusive. More trials are justified, especially in comparison with a lower grade supportive approach. These trials should be designed to be both clinically meaningful and widely applicable.

Aripiprazole for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Treatment of people with schizophrenia using older typical antipsychotic drugs such as haloperidol can be problematic. Many fail to respond and more experience disabling adverse effects. Aripiprazole is said to be one of a new generation of atypical antipsychotics with good antipsychotic properties and minimal adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of aripiprazole for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The reviewers searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (May 2003) which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. References of all identified studies were inspected for further trials. The authors contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies, the FDA and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All clinical randomised trials comparing aripiprazole with placebo, typical or atypical antipsychotic drugs 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 (NNT) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS

Despite the fact that 4125 people participated in ten randomised aripiprazole studies, we were unable to extract any usable data on death, service outcomes, general functioning, behaviour, engagement with services, satisfaction with treatment; economic outcomes or cognitive functioning. Study attrition was very large and data reporting poor. Compared with placebo, aripiprazole significantly decreased relapse in both the short and medium term (n=300, 1 RCT, RR 0.66 CI 0.53 to 0.81, NNT 5 CI 4 to 8). It also produced better compliance with study protocol (n=1348, 5 RCTs, RR 0.66 CI 0.49 to 0.88, NNT 15 CI 10 to 41). Aripiprazole may decrease prolactin levels below that expected from placebo (n=305, 1 RCT, RR 0.32 CI 0.13 to 0.81, NNT 14 CI 11 to 50). Compared with typical antipsychotics there were no significant benefits for aripiprazole with regards to global state, mental state, quality of life or leaving the study early. Both groups reported similar rates of adverse effects, including akathisia (RR 0.44 CI 0.17 to 1.12) and general extrapyramidal effects (RR 0.53 CI 0.18 to 1.53). Aripiprazole did however cause more insomnia than perphenazine (n=300, 1 RCT, RR 2.23 CI 1.57 to 3.18, NNH 4 CI 3 to 9) and less need for antiparkinson drugs than 10-20mg/day haloperidol (n=1854, 4 RCTs, RR 0.45 CI 0.33 to 0.60, NNT 4 CI 3 to 5). When compared with olanzapine and risperidone, aripiprazole was no better or worse on outcomes of global state and leaving the study early. The rates of adverse effects were also similar, with the exception of less elevation of prolactin (n=301, 1 RCT, RR 0.04 CI 0.02 to 0.08, NNT 2) and less prolongation of the average QTc (30mg/day) (n=200, 1 RCT, WMD -10.0, CI -16.99 to -3.01) compared with risperidone.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Aripiprazole may be effective for the treatment of schizophrenia, but it is not much different from typical antipsychotics and atypical antipsychotics with respect to treatment response, efficacy or tolerability. In comparison with typical antipsychotics, aripiprazole may have a higher risk of insomnia, but in comparison to atypical antipsychotics, less risk of raised prolactin and prolongation of the QTc interval. Clearly reported pragmatic short, medium and long term randomised controlled trials should be carried out to determine its position in everyday clinical practice.

Pharmacotherapy for refractory schizophrenia patients

Most schizophrenic patients experience morbidity over the course of their illness, as the illness runs a chronic course and full remissions are infrequent. Therefore, defining treatment resistance among schizophrenia is problematic. Not all patients respond to antipsychotic medication treatment and an estimated 30-50% are considered resistant to treatment. Treatment resistance normally occurs along a continuum and most patients manifest varying degrees of resistance to antipsychotic medications. Essock and colleagues discovered that more than 60% of the patients in state hospitals met the criteria for clozapine therapy and, therefore, they may qualify for treatment resistance.

Depot risperidone for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Risperidone is the first new generation antipsychotic drug made available in a long acting injection.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the clinical effects of depot risperidone for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (December 2002), references of all included studies, and contacted industry and authors of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing depot risperidone with other treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently inspected citations and/or abstracts, ordered papers, re-inspected and quality assessed the results, and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the relative risk (RR), the 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS

One study (n=400) compared depot risperidone with placebo but 56% of people did not complete the three-month study rendering most global and mental state data unusable. Risperidone depot compared with placebo did not affect levels of anxiety (n=400, RR 0.58 CI 0.32 to 1.05) but may decrease agitation (n=400, RR 0.60 CI 0.39 to 0.92). Risperidone depot did not substantially influence hallucinations (n=400, RR 1.23 CI 0.47 to 3.22) but 'psychosis' was reduced (n=400, RR 0.52 CI 0.33 to 0.83, NNT 9 CI 7 to 26). Attrition was higher for the placebo group compared with people allocated risperidone depot (n=400, RR 0.74 CI 0.63 to 0.88, NNT 6 CI 4 to 12). Severe adverse events were common (13% to 23%) but significantly more so in the placebo group (n=400, RR 0.59 CI 0.38 to 0.93, NNT 11 CI 7 to 70). Poor reporting, however, makes these difficult to interpret. Movement disorders were equally common in both groups (n=400, RR 2.38 CI 0.73 to 7.78) although it looks as if there is a trend for the higher depot doses to encourage movement disorders. One study (n=640) compared depot risperidone against oral risperidone for stable people with relatively mild illness. For global outcomes there was no clear difference between the depot group and oral group (n=640, RR 'no global improvement' 1.06 CI 0.92 to 1.22). Mental state measures were also similar across groups. Overall, in this study compliance was good (n=640, RR <4 injections or "major protocol violation" 1.16 CI 0.81 to 1.67). Adverse effects were poorly reported but over half of both groups reported some adverse effect (n=640, RR 1.04 CI 0.91 to 1.18).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There is no reliable data to support the claim that depot risperidone is beneficial for people with schizophrenia. For reasonably well, stable people it may mean that the need for regular oral doses can be avoided, but adverse affects are not well reported. For more severely ill people, few benefits are evident although it may increase compliance with injections in comparison with placebo. Use of depot risperidone, especially at the higher doses, is weakly associated with movement disorders. Well designed and reported, randomised studies, firmly grounded in real world clinical practice are needed to fully assess the effects of this new preparation.

Negative symptom resolution and improvements in specific cognitive deficits after acute treatment in first-episode schizophrenia

Patients with first-episode schizophrenia show significant cognitive impairments even at this early phase of their illness. Antipsychotic medication improves clinical symptomatology, but the effectiveness of this treatment on neuropsychological deficits remains unclear. We investigated clinical symptom and neuropsychological performance change in 34 unmedicated first-episode psychotic patients (17 males, 17 females) from the time prior to treatment until 33.6+/-11.3 days after treatment initiation at which time patients demonstrated meaningful recovery from psychosis. Twenty-four matched healthy subjects were also studied. Performance in most neuropsychological functions (language skills, attention, nonverbal learning and reasoning, motor speed) remained stable for the group as a whole. However, reduction in negative symptoms was significantly correlated with performance increases in verbal fluency and attention. Higher negative symptom recovery was associated with improvement of cognitive performance to levels approaching those of healthy subjects, whereas low or no negative symptom improvement was associated with stable or decreased cognitive performance. Reduction in positive symptoms was not associated with change in cognitive abilities. These findings suggest a linkage between early, treatment-induced improvements in negative symptoms and reductions in distinct cognitive deficits.

Cognitive behaviour therapy for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Medication is the mainstay of treatment for schizophrenia. Many people with schizophrenia, however, continue to experience symptoms in spite of medication and may experience side effects that are unwanted and unpleasant. In addition to medication additional forms of treatment include talking therapies such as cognitive behavioural therapy. This approach helps to link the person's feelings and patterns of thinking which underpin distress.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy for people with schizophrenia, when compared to standard care, specific medication, other therapies and non-intervention.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1980-1998), CINAHL (1982-1998), The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 1998), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Groups' Register of Trials, which encompasses up to date searches of all listed databases (January 2001), EMBASE (1980-1998), MEDLINE (1966-1998), PsychLIT (1887-1997), SIGLE (1990-1998), Sociofile (1980-1998) were undertaken. All references of the articles selected were searched for further relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

This review includes relevant randomised trials of cognitive behaviour therapy for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia-like illnesses. Outcomes such as death, mental state, relapse, psychological well-being and acceptability of treatment were sought.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were reliably selected and assessed for methodological quality. Data were extracted by two reviewers working independently. Dichotomous data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis and continuous data with 65% completion rate are presented. Where possible, for dichotomous outcomes, a relative risk (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated along with the number needed to treat statistic (NNT).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two relevant papers describing thirteen trials were identified. Cognitive behavioural therapy in addition to standard care did not significantly reduce the rate of relapse and readmission to hospital when compared with standard care alone (medium term 1 RCT, N=61, RR 0.1 CI 0.01 to 1.7; long term 2 RCTs, N=123, RR 1.1 CI 0.8 to 1.5). A significant difference was observed, however, favouring cognitive behavioural therapy over standard care alone, in terms of being able to be discharged from hospital (1 RCT, N=62, RR 0.5 CI 0.3 to 0.9, NNT 3 CI 2 to 12). For 'no important improvement in mental state' data showed a significant difference favouring the cognitive behavioural therapy group over standard care alone when measured at 13 to 26 weeks (2 RCTs, N=123, RR 0.7 CI 0.6 to 0.9, NNT 4 CI 2 to 8). After one year the difference was no longer significant (3 RCTs, N=211, RR 0.95 CI 0.6 to 1.5). On continuous measures (BPRS, CPRS, Psychiatric Assessment Scale) data are not convincing of an effect. A cognitive behavioural therapy approach focusing on compliance may have some effects on insight and attitudes to medication, but the clinical meaning of these data is unclear. When compared with supportive psychotherapy, cognitive behavioural therapy had no effects on relapse rate and clinically meaningful improvements in mental state. Cognitive behavioural therapy combined with other psycho-social/educational interventions may decrease the numbers of people able to tolerate the intervention, at least under study conditions.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Cognitive behavioural therapy is a promising but under evaluated intervention. Currently, trial-based data supporting the wide use of cognitive behavioural therapy for people with schizophrenia or other psychotic illnesses are far from conclusive. More trials are justified, especially in comparison with a lower grade supportive approach. These trials should be designed to be both clinically meaningful and widely applicable.

Management of treatment resistance in schizophrenia

A systematic approach to the evaluation and characterization of treatment resistance in schizophrenia has become increasingly important since the introduction of the second-generation antipsychotics. The need for accurate evaluation will increase further as other new antipsychotic medications are developed. Patients with schizophrenia may manifest poor response to therapy because of intolerance to medication, poor adherence, inappropriate dosing, as well as true resistance of their illness to antipsychotic drug therapy. Criteria for treatment-resistance are presented to help in standardizing treatment and clinical trials. As clinicians face the decision of when to change or augment antipsychotic medications, a clear understanding of the appropriate length of a treatment trial and which target symptoms respond to antipsychotic therapy is critical for maximizing response in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

Treatment of the special patient with schizophrenia

Special patient populations with schizophrenia have received little attention. These populations include adolescents, the elderly, substance abusers, and patients who are considered treatment-resistant. Interest in these populations is rapidly growing, especially with regard to their treatment with second-generation antipsychotics. This article describes the treatment of special patient populations and summarizes the research that has been done in this field.

Two-year outcome in first-episode psychosis treated according to an integrated model. Is immediate neuroleptisation always needed?

In this multicentre study the two-year outcome of two groups of consecutive patients (total N = 106) with first-episode functional non-affective psychosis, both treated according to the 'need-specific Finnish model', which stresses teamwork, patient and family participation and basic psychotherapeutic attitudes, was compared. No alternative treatment facilities were available in the study sites. The two study groups differed in the use of neuroleptics: three of the sites (the experimental group) used a minimal neuroleptic regime whilst the other three (the control group) used neuroleptics according to the usual practice. Total time spent in hospital, occurrence of psychotic symptoms during the last follow-up year, employment, GAS score and the Grip on Life assessment were used as outcome measures. In the experimental group 42.9% of the patients did not receive neuroleptics at all during the whole two-year period, while the corresponding proportion in the control group was 5.9%. The overall outcome of the whole group could be seen as rather favourable. The main result was that the outcome of the experimental group was equal or even somewhat better than that of the control group, also after controlling for age, gender and diagnosis. This indicates that an integrated approach, stressing intensive psychosocial measures, is recommended in the treatment of acute first-episode psychosis.

Beliefs about voices and their effects on coping strategies

Cognitive behavioural techniques are increasingly used as adjuncts to medication in the treatment of auditory hallucinations for people with schizophrenia. There are now literally hundreds of nurses trained in the use of cognitive behavioural interventions for psychosis. However, there is still disagreement about the nature of the cognitive processes that lead to deficits or biases in patients' processing of information about their psychotic experiences. Using Chadwick & Birchwood's Beliefs About Voices Questionnaire (BAVQ), the investigator collected data regarding voices from a sample of men and women being treated for schizophrenia by secondary mental health services. The investigator then carried out a cross-lagged panel analysis of the data. The investigator found, as predicted, positive relationships between a resistive coping style and an attribution of malevolence to voices, and between an engaging coping style and an attribution of benevolence to voices. Coping and attributional styles were not necessarily stable over time. There was a non-significant difference between women's and men's attributions and coping styles. There was less fluctuation over time in the women's scores on the BAVQ. This research shows that one cannot assume that either coping or attributional style becomes more stable over time. However, while there are strong relationships between attributions and coping styles, and particularly between malevolence and resistance and benevolence and engagement, these relationships are not necessarily mutually exclusive and some people in the study believe their voices to be both malevolent and benevolent. These findings suggest that clinicians need to make a very careful assessment of attribution and coping with regard to hallucinations and that systematic reassessment is very important. Further research is necessary in both the phenomenology of attribution and coping, but also to relate these variables to other aspects of schizophrenic illnesses.

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.

Risperidone versus typical antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

The 'conventional' neuroleptic drugs, such as haloperidol and chlorpromazine, are frequently used as the first line treatment for people with schizophrenia. However, about 5-25% of these people show poor response to these treatments and side effects often makes compliance with the 'older generation' of drug treatment problematic. Although the efficacy of these medications with respect to 'positive' symptoms is well described, little evidence exists that 'conventional' antipsychotic treatment has any effect on the 'negative' symptoms of schizophrenia. Risperidone is one of the 'new generation' neuroleptic compounds. As well as its reputed tendency to cause fewer movement disorders it is claimed that risperidone may improve negative symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of risperidone for schizophrenia in comparison to 'conventional' neuroleptic drugs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1980-1997), Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (1997), The Cochrane Library (1997, Issue1), EMBASE (1980-1997), MEDLINE (1966-1997), PsycLIT (1974-1997), and SCISEARCH (1997) were undertaken. References of all identified studies were searched for further trial citations. Pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials comparing risperidone to any 'conventional' neuroleptic treatment for those with schizophrenia or other serious mental illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Citations and, where possible, abstracts were independently inspected by reviewers, papers ordered, re-inspected and quality assessed. Data were also independently extracted. Sensitivity analyses on dose of risperidone, haloperidol and duration of illness were undertaken for the primary outcomes of clinical improvement, side effects (movement disorders) and acceptability of treatment. For homogeneous dichotomous data the odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve short-term studies and two long term studies provided data on 3401 people. This review provides no evidence relating to the effect of risperidone on cognitive or social functioning, quality of life, employment status, discharge from hospital and relapse rates. Risperidone increases the odds of moderate clinical improvement (OR 0.65, CI 0.55-0.77, NNT 10, CI 7-16). It appears to have little or no additional effect on the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia but did have less tendency to cause movement disorders, largely in comparison with haloperidol (OR 0.43, CI 0.34-0.55, NNT 7, CI 5-10) for use of antiparkinsonian medication. Risperidone seems to be more acceptable to those with schizophrenia (OR 0.69 CI 0.57-0.83, NNT 15, CI 10-30, 30% baseline risk of dropping out). Those taking risperidone are also marginally less likely to experience somnolence (OR 0.78, CI 0. 61-0.99, NNT 22). Weight gain, however, is more likely with risperidone (OR 1.51 CI 1.14-2.00, NNT 13). Funnel plots show that smaller studies generally show greater benefit for risperidone than larger studies. A publication bias in favour of risperidone amongst the included studies may explain this effect. Sensitivity analyses on dose of risperidone (excluding those receiving 1 or 2 mg) did not materially change the results for the principal outcomes. Excluding data from those on higher doses of haloperidol (>10mg/day) does marginally change the results. Risperidone is less effective in achieving clinical improvement and preventing dropout but outcomes relating to movement disorders change little.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Little can be concluded about the long term effects of risperidone and generalising results beyond a comparison with haloperidol would be imprudent. Risperidone may be more acceptable to those with schizophrenia and have marginal benefits in terms of limited clinical improvement and side

Treatment-resistant schizophrenia--the role of clozapine

Treatment-resistant schizophrenia is the object of intense interest because of recent developments in its treatment and aetiology. The actual definition of treatment-resistant schizophrenia is, however, still controversial. It should reflect the legitimate and varied needs and perspectives of people with schizophrenia, their family members, mental health care givers, mental health administrators, public health officials, and those who fund the direct and indirect costs of treating schizophrenia. The most common definition of treatment-resistant schizophrenia denotes patients with schizophrenia who, despite at least two adequate trials of classical neuroleptic drugs, have persistent moderate to severe positive, or disorganisation, or negative symptoms together with poor social and work function over a prolonged period of time. This definition reflects the viewpoint of people with this illness, their family members, and mental health care givers. Approximately 30% (range 10-45%) of schizophrenic patients meet these criteria. While this definition is adequate for many purposes, it should be realised that the remaining 70% of schizophrenic patients, whose positive symptoms respond adequately to neuroleptic treatment, may also have clinically significant negative symptoms, poor social and work function, clinically significant cognitive dysfunction, poor quality of life relative to the normal population, and constitute a significant burden to family and society. The lifetime suicide rate in both treatment-resistant and responsive schizophrenic patients is 9-13%, indicating that conventional definitions of neuroleptic response do not convey lower risk of suicide. However, before defining a patient as treatment resistant, it is important to consider whether the patient has received an inadequate duration of treatment, and/or too low, or possibly too high, doses of neuroleptic drugs. Using these stringent criteria, treatment resistance may be present at the time of initial diagnosis and treatment, but if not present initially, it will usually develop subsequently-sometimes not until after multiple acute exacerbations over a period of years. During the first months and years after the diagnosis of schizophrenia has been made, clinicians should be especially alert in identifying a patient as treatment resistant in order to diminish the severe social disability and suicidality which may ensue if it is not recognised and correctly treated. Once present, treatment resistance is usually permanent. However, some treatment-resistant patients may again become responsive to treatment or undergo spontaneous remission of positive symptoms in later life. The treatment of patients with schizophrenia who are treatment resistant is generally much more expensive that that of neuroleptic-responsive patients because their symptomatology and disturbed behaviour leads to more frequent and longer duration hospitalisations. Patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia may manifest one or more of the classical subtypes of schizophrenia which may differ biologically in terms of neurochemistry and structural brain abnormalities, e.g. ventricular enlargement. They usually have poorer premorbid function, an earlier age at onset of positive symptoms, are more likely to be male than female, and may have various quantitative types of cortical or ventricular abnormalities evident with computer tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scans. There are no established qualitative differences in cognitive dysfunction between the two groups of patients with schizophrenia, but cognitive impairment is more severe in treatment-resistant patients. Treatment-resistant schizophrenia does not usually respond to increased dosages of neuroleptic drugs, switching to other types of neuroleptics, or adding adjunctive agents such as benzodiazepines, antidepressants, anticonvulsants or lithium carbonate. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Risperidone in the treatment of schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

This study evaluates the relative effectiveness and side-effects of risperidone as compared with conventional neuroleptics in the treatment of schizophrenia, by meta-analysis of 11 double-blind, randomized controlled trials. The proportion of patients showing clinical improvement; use of medications for extrapyramidal side-effects (EPS); the treatment drop-out rates; and the changes in negative PANSS scores were measured. Compared with conventional neuroleptics, slightly more patients in the risperidone group showed clinical improvement [57 vs 52%; odds ratio 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04, 1.56]. The use of concomitant medications for EPS was significantly less in the risperidone group than in the conventional neuroleptic group (22.8 vs 38.4%; odds ratio 0.51, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.63). The overall drop-out rate was lower in the risperidone group than in other neuroleptic group (29.1 vs 33.9%; odds ratio 0.75, 95% CI: 0.61, 0.94). The difference in changes in negative PANSS score between the risperidone and the haloperidol group was -0.74 (95% CI: -1.50, 0.02). Weight gain and tachycardia are more common in patients treated with risperidone. Sensitivity analysis of different analytic approaches did not materially change the main estimates. It was concluded that the short-term efficacy of risperidone is comparable to other neuroleptics in the treatment of schizophrenia. It is associated with significantly fewer EPS than conventional neuroleptics (mainly haloperidol).

Clozapine: current status and role in the pharmacotherapy of schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates clozapine and its present role in the pharmacotherapy of schizophrenia.

METHOD

Clozapine's current clinical status is reviewed, as is its position with respect to other treatment options.

RESULTS

Clozapine represents the prototype of "atypical" neuroleptics, with evidence of clinical efficacy in both positive and negative symptoms, as well as a diminished risk of extrapyramidal side effects. It is the only neuroleptic to date that has established itself as having little, if any, risk of tardive dyskinesia. More recent research has focused on its potential for overall savings in health care costs, as well as possible benefits in the area of neuropsychological functioning.

CONCLUSION

Evidence suggesting that the course of schizophrenia can be altered by effective treatment favours a systematic approach that optimizes treatment options. While clozapine does not represent a 1st-line agent because of its risk of agranulocytosis, it has an integral role to play in treatment-resistant schizophrenia or in individuals experiencing intolerable side effects with conventional neuroleptics.

Drug strategies and treatment-resistant schizophrenia

OBJECTIVES

The aims of the paper are to review the notion of treatment resistance in schizophrenia and consider the factors important in determining non-responsiveness to standard neuroleptic treatment, and to review the strategies currently available in the treatment of such patients, including an evaluation of recently-introduced, novel drug treatments.

METHOD

A selective review of the literature relating to treatment resistance was undertaken using medline searches, followed by cross-checking for further articles identified in these references.

RESULTS

The various treatment approaches available are considered, including adjunctive treatment with lithium or carbamazepine. The risks and benefits of high dose antipsychotic treatment are discussed. The possible benefits and side-effects of new treatments, particularly the atypical neuroleptics, are also reviewed.

CONCLUSIONS

The reasons why a proportion of patients with schizophrenia fail to respond to standard neuroleptic treatment are ill-understood. Nevertheless, initial assessment should include identification of any factors that may be related to a patient's poor response, such as poor compliance, substance use or epilepsy. This may help to determine an appropriate treatment strategy. There is a need to be systematic and to ensure that patients be given an adequate trial of each treatment tested in terms of duration and dosage. The available evidence does not support the use of high doses of neuroleptics for the majority of patients. Adjunctive treatments, such as lithium, carbamazepine or benzodiazepines may be beneficial in non-responsive patients, particularly if certain target symptoms are present. Atypical neuroleptics, particularly clozapine, have proved particularly effective in non-responsive patients as well as those sensitive to the motor side-effects of standard drugs. However, the high risk of agranulocytosis with clozapine is a problem; also the drug and the necessary haematological monitoring are expensive. There are hints that some of the other, new, atypical neuroleptics have some benefit in non-responsive patients, but controlled studies are required.