Fluphenazine (oral) versus atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Fluphenazine is a typical antipsychotic drug from the phenothiazine group of antipsychotics. It has been commonly used in the treatment of schizophrenia, however, with the advent of atypical antipsychotic medications, use has declined over the years. OBJECTIVES: To measure the outcomes (both beneficial and harmful) of the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of oral fluphenazine versus atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (25 April 2013). For the economic search, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Health Economic Database (CSzGHED) on 31 January 2014 SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fluphenazine (oral) with any other oral atypical antipsychotics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors worked independently to inspect citations and assess the quality of the studies and to extract data. For homogeneous dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), and calculated the mean differences (MDs) for continuous data. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to rate the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies randomising a total of 202 people with schizophrenia are included. Oral fluphenazine was compared with oral amisulpride, risperidone, quetiapine and olanzapine.Comparing oral fluphenazine with amisulpride, there was no difference between groups for mental state using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) (1 RCT, n = 57, MD 5.10 95% CI -2.35 to 12.55, very low-quality evidence), nor was there any difference in numbers leaving the study early for any reason (2 RCTs, n = 98, RR 1.19 95% CI 0.63 to 2.28, very low-quality evidence). More people required concomitant anticholinergic medication in the fluphenazine group compared to amisulpride (1 RCT, n = 36, RR 7.82 95% CI 1.07 to 57.26, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for important outcomes including relapse, changes in life skills, quality of life or cost-effectiveness.Comparing oral fluphenazine with risperidone, data showed no difference between groups for 'clinically important response' (1 RCT, n = 26, RR 0.67 95% CI 0.13 to 3.35, very low-quality evidence) nor leaving the study early due to inefficacy (1 RCT, n = 25, RR 1.08 95% CI 0.08 to 15.46, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported data for relapse; change in life skills; quality of life; extrapyramidal adverse effects; or cost-effectiveness.Once again there was no difference when oral fluphenazine was compared with quetiapine for clinically important response (1 RCT, n = 25, RR 0.62 95% CI 0.12 to 3.07, very low-quality evidence), nor leaving the study early for any reason (1 RCT, n = 25, RR 0.46 95% CI 0.05 to 4.46, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for relapse; clinically important change in life skills; quality of life; extrapyramidal adverse effects; or cost-effectiveness.Compared to olanzapine, fluphenazine showed no superiority for clinically important response (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 1.33 95% CI 0.86 to 2.07, very low-quality evidence), in incidence of akathisia (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 3.00 95% CI 0.90 to 10.01, very low-quality evidence) or in people leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 3.00 95% CI 0.33 to 27.23, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for relapse; change in life skills; quality of life; or cost-effectiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Measures of clinical response and mental state do not highlight differences between fluphenazine and amisulpride, risperidone, quetiapine or olanzapine. Largely measures of adverse effects are also unconvincing for substantive differences between fluphenazine and the newer drugs. All included trials carry a substantial risk of bias regarding reporting of adverse effects and this bias would have favoured the newer drugs. The four small short included studies do not provide much clear information about the relative merits or disadvantages of oral fluphenazine compared with newer atypical antipsychotics.

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.

Trifluoperazine versus placebo for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Trifluoperazine is a long-established high potency typical antipsychotic drug used in the treatment of schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like illnesses. OBJECTIVES: To determine absolute effects of trifluoperazine for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like illnesses compared with placebo.To critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the resource use, cost and economic evaluation of trifluoperazine compared with placebo for schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: Searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials (July 2012), supplemented with handsearching, reference searching, personal communication and contact with industry. Two review authors undertook a search for economic studies using the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Health Economic Database (CSzGHED) on the 9th April 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: All available clinical randomised trials involving people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like illnesses that compare trifluoperazine with placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies for the effects of interventions were reliably selected by a review team and data were doubly independently extracted to reduce bias. We only used dichotomous data, using intention-to-treat analysis when possible. Data were estimated using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A 'Summary of findings' table was produced, where possible, for each primary outcome using GRADE. Economic studies were searched and reliably selected by review authors (VF and SS) to provide an economic summary of available data. Where no relevant economic studies were eligible for inclusion, the economic review team valued the already-included effectiveness outcome data to provide a rudimentary economic summary. MAIN RESULTS: This review included 10 studies with a total number of 686 participants featuring in 20 different outcomes of interest. Overall, there was significant clinical improvement in clinical global state at medium term amongst people receiving trifluoperazine (3 RCTs, n = 417, RR 4.61, CI 1.54 to 13.84, low quality evidence) and significantly fewer people receiving trifluoperazine left the studies early due to relapse or worsening at medium term (2 RCTs, n = 381, RR 0.34, CI 0.23 to 0.49, low quality evidence). However, results were equivocal for leaving the study early at medium term for any reason (2 RCTs, n = 391, RR 0.80, CI 0.17 to 3.81, very low quality evidence) and due to severe adverse effects (2 RCTs, n = 391, RR 1.54, CI 0.56 to 4.24, very low quality evidence). Equivocal data were also found for intensified symptoms at medium term (2 RCTs, n = 80, RR 1.05, CI 0.54 to 2.05, very low quality evidence) and rates of agitation or distress again at medium term (1 RCT, n = 52, RR 2.00, CI 0.19 to 20.72, very low quality evidence). Comparison between low and high-dose trifluoperazine with placebo from a single study provided equivocal evidence of effects. For economic outcomes, we valued outcomes in GBP terms and presented them in additional tables; there was an estimated saving of £3488.3 in favour of trifluoperazine. However, numerous assumptions were made and these savings need to be interpreted in light of those assumptions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our results agree with existing evidence that compared to placebo, trifluoperazine is an effective antipsychotic for people with schizophrenia. Furthermore, our review provides supportive evidence that trifluoperazine increases the risk of extrapyramidal adverse effects. Although the effect sizes against placebo are similar to those observed with other agents, they are based on data from many small, pre-CONSORT trials with generally either a low or very low GRADE evidence that has limited implication for clinical practice. Large, independent trials are needed that adhere to the CONSORT statement to compare trifluoperazine with placebo used in the treatment of schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like illnesses.

Evidence base for using atypical antipsychotics for psychosis in adolescents.

Atypical antipsychotic medications have been the first line of treatment for adolescents with psychosis in the past couple of decades. Till the late 90s, there were very few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of adolescents with psychosis, although a fifth of schizophrenia starts during adolescence. Most of the treatment guidelines for adolescents with psychosis were derived from data on adults. In the past 10 years, there has been increasing number of studies on adolescents with psychosis. The current paper summarizes the findings of trials on adolescents with psychosis in 4 groups: (a) atypical antipsychotic medications vs placebo, (b) atypical antipsychotic medication vs typical antipsychotic medications, (c) one atypical antipsychotic medication vs another atypical antipsychotic medication, and (d) Low dose vs standard dose of atypical antipsychotic medication. We included 13 RCTs, with a total of 1112 participants. Although our review suggest that atypical antipsychotic medications are as effective as typical antipsychotic medications as regards clinical efficacy, atypical antipsychotic medications have a preferred side effect profile and lesser drop-out rate from trials. Obviously, this is extremely important as treatment adherence is key to successful remission of psychotic symptoms and also in some case prevent relapse of illness. Treatment with olanzapine, risperidone, and clozapine is often associated with weight gain. Aripiprazole is not associated with increased prolactin or with dyslipidemia. Adolescents may respond better to standard-dose as opposed to lower dose risperidone, but for aripiprazole and ziprasidone, lower doses may be equally effective. Future trial should be longer term and have uniform ways of reporting side effects.

Atypical antipsychotics for psychosis in adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia often presents in adolescence, but current treatment guidelines are based largely on studies of adults with psychosis. Over the past decade, the number of studies on treatment of adolescent-onset psychosis has increased. The current systematic review collates and critiques evidence obtained on the use of various atypical antipsychotic medications for adolescents with psychosis. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of atypical antipsychotic medications in adolescents with psychosis. We reviewed in separate analyses various comparisons of atypical antipsychotic medications with placebo or a typical antipsychotic medication or another atypical antipsychotic medication or the same atypical antipsychotic medication but at a lower dose. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (October 2011), which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. We inspected references of all identified studies and contacted study authors and relevant pharmaceutical companies to ask for more information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared atypical antipsychotic medication with placebo or another pharmacological intervention or with psychosocial interventions, standard psychiatric treatment or no intervention in children and young people aged 13 to 18 years with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, acute and transient psychoses or unspecified psychosis. We included studies published in English and in other languages that were available in standardised databases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors AK and SSD selected the studies, rated the quality of the studies and performed data extraction. For dichotomous data, we estimated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a fixed-effect model. When possible, for binary data presented in the 'Summary of findings' table, we calculated illustrative comparative risks. We summated continuous data using the mean difference (MD). Risk of bias was assessed for included studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs, with a total of 1112 participants. We found no data on service utilisation, economic outcomes, behaviour or cognitive response. Trials were classified into the following groups. 1. Atypical antipsychotics versus placebo: Only two studies compared one atypical antipsychotic medication with placebo. In one study, the number of non-responders treated with olanzapine was not different from the number treated with placebo (1 RCT, n = 107, RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.10); however, significantly more (57% vs 32%) people left the study early (1 RCT, n = 107, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87) from the placebo group compared with the olanzapine group. With regard to adverse effects, young people treated with aripiprazole had significantly lower serum cholesterol compared with those given placebo (1 RCT, n = 302, RR 3.77, 95% CI 1.88 to 7.58). 2. Atypical antipsychotics versus typical antipsychotics: When the findings of all five trials comparing atypical antipsychotic medications with a typical antipsychotic medication were collated, no difference in the mean end point Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) score was noted between the two arms (5 RCTs, n = 236, MD -1.08, 95% CI -3.08 to 0.93). With regard to adverse effects, the mean end point serum prolactin concentration was much higher than the reference range for treatment with risperidone, olanzapine and molindone in one of the studies. However, fewer adolescents who were receiving atypical antipsychotic medications left the study because of adverse effects (3 RCTs, n = 187, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.15) or for any reason (3 RCTs, n = 187, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.97).3. One atypical antipsychotic versus another atypical antipsychotic: The mean end point BPRS score was not significantly different for people who received risperidone compared with those who received olanzapine; however, the above data were highly skewed. Overall no difference was noted in the number of people leaving the studies early because of any adverse effects between each study arm in the three studies comparing olanzapine and risperidone (3 RCTs, n = 130, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.04). Specific adverse events were not reported uniformly across the six different studies included in this section of the review; therefore it was difficult to do a head-to-head comparison of adverse events for different atypical antipsychotic medications.4. Lower-dose atypical antipsychotic versus standard/higher-dose atypical antipsychotic: Three studies reported comparisons of lower doses of the atypical antipsychotic medication with standard/higher doses of the same medication. One study reported better symptom reduction with a standard dose of risperidone as compared with a low dose (1 RCT, n = 257, RR -8.00, 95% CI -13.75 to -2.25). In another study, no difference was reported in the number of participants not achieving remission between the group receiving 10 mg/d and those who received 30 mg/d of aripiprazole (1 RCT, n = 196, RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.48). Similarly in the other study, authors reported no statistically significant difference in clinical response between the two groups receiving lower-dose (80 mg/d) and higher-dose (160 mg/d) ziprasidone, as reflected by the mean end point BPRS score (1 RCT, n = 17, MD -4.40, 95% CI -19.20 to 10.40). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No convincing evidence suggests that atypical antipsychotic medications are superior to typical medications for the treatment of adolescents with psychosis. However, atypical antipsychotic medications may be more acceptable to young people because fewer symptomatic adverse effects are seen in the short term. Little evidence is available to support the superiority of one atypical antipsychotic medication over another, but side effect profiles are different for different medications. Treatment with olanzapine, risperidone and clozapine is often associated with weight gain. Aripiprazole is not associated with increased prolactin or with dyslipidaemia. Adolescents may respond better to standard-dose as opposed to lower-dose risperidone, but for aripiprazole and ziprasidone, lower doses may be equally effective. Future trials should ensure uniform ways of reporting.