In vitro anticancer activity of fluphenazine, perphenazine and prochlorperazine. A review.

Drug repositioning is an approach that could accelerate the clinical use of compounds in different diseases. The goal is to take advantage of the fact that approved drugs have been tested on humans and detailed information is available on their pharmacology, toxicity and formulation. It can significantly reduce the costs and time needed to implement necessary therapies on the market. In recent years, phenothiazines are being tested for cancer, viral, bacterial, fungal and other diseases. Most research focuses on chlorpromazine as a model drug in this class, but other drugs such as fluphenazine, perphenazine and prochlorperazine have been proven to inhibit the viability of different cancer cell lines. In this study, we performed an extensive literature search to find and summarize all papers on the chosen phenothiazines and their potential in treating different types of cancerin vitro for further animal/clinical trials. Fluphenazine, perphenazine and prochlorperazine possess anticancer activity towards different types of human cancer. The antitumor activity is mainly mediated by an effect of the drugs on the cell cycle, proliferation or apoptosis. Possible molecular targets of phenothiazine derivatives are the drug's efflux pumps (ABCB1 and P-glycoprotein) and two parallel pathways (AKT and Wnt) regulated by the D2 receptor antagonists. The drugs have the potential to reduce the viability of human cancer cell lines, fragment the DNA, stimulate apoptosis, inhibit cell migration and invasiveness as well as impair the production of reactive oxygen species. In addition, due to the sedative and antiemetic properties antipsychotics can be used as an adjuvant for the treatment of chemotherapy side effects.

Perphenazine Attenuates the Pro-Inflammatory Responses in Mouse Models of Th2-Type Allergic Dermatitis.

Developing dermatitis therapeutics has been faced with challenges including adverse effects of topical steroid and high cost of new developing drugs. Here, we found the expression levels of dopamine receptor D2 is higher in skin biopsies of dermatitis patients and an oxazolone-induced animal model of dermatitis. We used perphenazine, an FDA-approved dopamine receptor antagonist to determine the therapeutic effect. Two different animal models including 12-o-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate (TPA) and oxazolone (OXA)-induced dermatitis were employed. TPA and OXA-mediated ear swelling was attenuated by perphenazine. Moreover, perphenazine inhibited infiltrated mast cells into lesion area. We found levels of serum IgE, histamine and cytokines are decreased in mice cotreated with perphenazine and OXA compared to OXA-treated mice. Overall, this is a first study showing that the FDA-approved, anti-psychotic drug, perphenazine, alleviates animal models of dermatitis.

Risperidone versus other antipsychotics for people with severe mental illness and co-occurring substance misuse.

BACKGROUND: Up to 75% of people with serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have co-occurring substance use disorders (dual diagnosis). Dual diagnosis can have an adverse effect on treatment and prognosis of SMI. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of risperidone compared to treatment with other antipsychotics (first-generation and other second-generation antipsychotics) used in people with serious mental illness and co-occurring substance misuse. SEARCH METHODS: On 6 January 2016 and 9 October 2017, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (including trial registers). SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised trials of risperidone versus any other antipsychotic in people with SMI and substance abuse (dual diagnosis). We included trials meeting our inclusion criteria and reporting useable data. We excluded trials that either did not meet our inclusion criteria or met our inclusion criteria but did not report any useable data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently inspected citations and selected studies. For included studies, we independently extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals. For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals. We pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the quality of evidence, creating a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight randomised trials containing a total of 1073 participants with SMI and co-occurring substance misuse. Seven of these contributed useable data to the review. There was heterogeneity in trial design and measurement. Risperidone was compared to clozapine, olanzapine, perphenazine, quetiapine and ziprasidone. Few trials compared risperidone with first-generation agents. Few trials examined participants with a dual diagnosis from the outset and most trials only contained separate analyses of subgroups with a dual diagnosis or were secondary data analyses of subgroups of people with a dual diagnosis from existing larger trials.For risperidone versus clozapine we found no clear differences between these two antipsychotics in the reduction of positive psychotic symptoms (1 randomised controlled trial (RCT), n = 36, mean difference (MD) 0.90, 95% CI -2.21 to 4.01, very low quality evidence), or reduction in cannabis use (1 RCT, n = 14, risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.35, very low quality evidence), improvement in subjective well-being (1 RCT, n = 36, MD -6.00, 95% CI -14.82 to 2.82, very low quality evidence), numbers discontinuing medication (1 RCT, n = 36, RR 4.05, 95% CI 0.21 to 78.76, very low quality evidence), extrapyramidal side-effects (2 RCTs, n = 50, RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.30 to 24.08; I² = 0%, very low quality evidence), or leaving the study early (2 RCTs, n = 45, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.51; I² = 34%, very low quality evidence). Clozapine was associated with lower levels of craving for cannabis (1 RCT, n = 28, MD 7.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 11.63, very low quality evidence).For risperidone versus olanzapine we found no clear differences in the reduction of positive psychotic symptoms (1 RCT, n = 37, MD -1.50, 95% CI -3.82 to 0.82, very low quality evidence), reduction in cannabis use (1 RCT, n = 41, MD 0.40, 95% CI -4.72 to 5.52, very low quality evidence), craving for cannabis (1 RCT, n = 41, MD 5.00, 95% CI -4.86 to 14.86, very low quality evidence), parkinsonism (1 RCT, n = 16, MD -0.08, 95% CI -1.21 to 1.05, very low quality evidence), or leaving the study early (2 RCT, n = 77, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.35; I² = 0%, very low quality evidence).For risperidone versus perphenazine, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 281, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20, low-quality evidence).For risperidone versus quetiapine, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 294, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07, low-quality evidence).For risperidone versus ziprasidone, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 240, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.10, low-quality evidence).For many comparisons, important outcomes were missing; and no data were reported in any study for metabolic disturbances, global impression of illness severity, quality of life or mortality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is not sufficient good-quality evidence available to determine the effects of risperidone compared with other antipsychotics in people with a dual diagnosis. Few trials compared risperidone with first-generation agents, leading to limited applicability to settings where access to second-generation agents is limited, such as in low- and middle-income countries. Moreover, heterogeneity in trial design and measurement of outcomes precluded the use of many trials in our analyses. Future trials in this area need to be sufficiently powered but also need to conform to consistent methods in study population selection, use of measurement scales, definition of outcomes, and measures to counter risk of bias. Investigators should adhere to CONSORT guidelines in the reporting of results.

Once-monthly paliperidone palmitate compared with conventional and atypical daily oral antipsychotic treatment in patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: This analysis of the Paliperidone Palmitate Research in Demonstrating Effectiveness (PRIDE) study (NCT01157351) compared outcomes after administration of once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP) vs conventional oral antipsychotics (COAs) or atypical oral antipsychotics (AOAs). METHODS: PRIDE was a 15-month study of 444 individuals with schizophrenia and a history of incarceration. They were randomly assigned to PP or to 1 of 7 commonly prescribed OAs. Primary endpoint was time to first treatment failure (TF). Event-free probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method; treatment group differences (PP vs COAs, PP vs AOAs, and PP vs oral paliperidone/risperidone) were assessed using a log-rank test. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. No adjustment was made for multiplicity. RESULTS: Compared with PP, risk for first TF was 34% higher with COAs (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 0.80-2.25), 41% higher with AOAs (HR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.06-1.88), and 39% higher with paliperidone/risperidone (HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 0.97-1.99). Incidences of extrapyramidal symptom-related adverse events (AEs) were 45.7%, 13.7%, and 10.6% in the COA, AOA, and oral paliperidone/risperidone groups vs 23.9% in the PP group. Incidences of prolactin-related AEs were 5.7%, 3.8%, and 3.5% vs 23.5%, and incidences of ≥7% weight increase were 11.4%, 14.9%, and 16.0% vs 32.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest a lower risk of TF but a higher rate of some AEs after treatment with PP vs COAs, AOAs, and paliperidone/risperidone. Deselection of specific OAs and low patient-compliance rates with OAs likely biased the safety results.

Perphenazine for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Perphenazine is an old phenothiazine antipsychotic with a potency similar to haloperidol. It has been used for many years and is popular in the northern European countries and Japan. OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical effects and safety of perphenazine for those with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our original search using the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (September 2013), references of all included studies and contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of included studies in order to identify further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials that compared perphenazine with other treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses. We excluded trials of depot formulations of perphenazine. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently inspected citations and, where possible, abstracts. We ordered papers, inspected and quality assessed them. We extracted data, again working independently. If loss to follow-up was greater than 50% we considered results as 'prone to bias'. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and for continuous data we calculated mean differences (MD), both with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed quality of data using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluationtool) and assessed risk of bias for included studies. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-one studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with a total of 4662 participants (of which 4522 were receiving the drugs relevant to our comparison) and presented data that could be used for at least one comparison. The trial centres were located in Europe (especially Scandinavia), Japan and Northern America.When comparing perphenazine with placebo, for our primary outcome of clinical response, results favoured perphenazine with significantly more people receiving placebo rated as either 'no better or deterioration' for global state than people receiving perphenazine (1 RCT, n = 61 RR 0.32 CI 0.13 to 0.78, very low quality evidence). More people receiving placebo relapsed, although not a statistically significant number (1 RCT, n = 48, RR 0.14 CI 0.02 to 1.07, very low quality evidence). Death was not reported in the perphenazine versus placebo comparison. Experiences of dystonia were equivocal between groups (1 RCT, n = 48, RR 1.00 CI 0.07 to 15.08, very low quality evidence); other outcomes not reported in this comparison include serious adverse events, economic outcomes, and service use and hospitalisation.For the comparison of perphenazine versus any other antipsychotic drugs, no real differences in effect between the drugs were found. There was no significant difference between groups for those considered 'no better or deterioration' (17 RCTs, n = 1879, RR 1.04 CI 0.91 to 1.17, very low quality evidence). For mental state outcome of 'no effect' of the study drug, there was again no significant difference between groups (4 RCTs, n = 383, RR 1.24 CI 0.61 to 2.52, very low quality evidence). Death was not reported in any of the included studies. There was no significant difference in rates of dystonia with perphenazine versus any other antipsychotic drugs (4 RCTs, n = 416, RR 1.36 CI 0.23 to 8.16, very low quality evidence), nor was there a significant difference between groups for serious adverse events (2 RCTs, n = 1760, RR 0.98 CI 0.68 to 1.41, very low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although perphenazine has been used in randomised trials for more than 50 years, incomplete reporting and the variety of comparators used make it impossible to draw clear conclusions. All data for the main outcomes in this review were of very low quality evidence. At best we can say that perphenazine showed similar effects and adverse events as several of the other antipsychotic drugs. Since perphenazine is a relatively inexpensive and frequently used compound, further trials are justified to clarify the properties of this classical antipsychotic drug.

Randomized Trial of the Effect of Four Second-Generation Antipsychotics and One First-Generation Antipsychotic on Cigarette Smoking, Alcohol, and Drug Use in Chronic Schizophrenia.

No large-scale randomized trial has compared the effect of different second-generation antipsychotic drugs and any first-generation drug on alcohol, drug and nicotine use in patients with schizophrenia. The Clinical Antipsychotic Trial of Intervention Effectiveness study randomly assigned 1432 patients formally diagnosed with schizophrenia to four second-generation antipsychotic drugs (olanzapine, risperidone quetiapine, and ziprasidone) and one first-generation antipsychotic (perphenazine) and followed them for up to 18 months. Secondary outcome data documented cigarettes smoked in the past week and alcohol and drug use severity ratings. At baseline, 61% of patients smoked, 35% used alcohol, and 23% used illicit drugs. Although there were significant effects of time showing reduction in substance use over the 18 months (all p < 0.0001), this study found no evidence that any antipsychotic was robustly superior to any other in a secondary analysis of data on substance use outcomes from a large 18-month randomized schizophrenia trial.

Higher serum concentrations of tyrosine and glutamate in schizophrenia patients treated with clozapine, compared to in those treated with conventional antipsychotics.

RATIONALE: The effect of long-term treatment with the atypical antipsychotic clozapine on the serum amino acid profile in schizophrenia patients has not previously been studied. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare serum amino acid patterns in patients on long-term clozapine treatment with long-term conventional antipsychotic treatment, and their relationships to insulin resistance and antipsychotic serum concentrations. METHODS: Thirty-three patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder on long-term treatment (mean 8.3 years) with clozapine (n=20) or conventional antipsychotics (n=13) were studied. Amino acids were quantified in fasting serum samples by ion exchange chromatography and markers of insulin resistance and antipsychotic drug concentrations were determined by standard methods. RESULTS: Several amino acids, most notably tyrosine and glutamic acid, were elevated above the reference range in several patients receiving clozapine. Additionally, significantly higher mean values of tyrosine (1.5-fold, p=0.001), glutamic acid (2-fold, p=0.0005) and six other amino acids were observed in the clozapine group than in the conventional antipsychotic group. Several amino acids were related to insulin resistance in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we show that serum tyrosine and glutamic acid concentrations are markedly elevated in patients on long-term clozapine treatment, compared to patients on long-term conventional antipsychotic treatment. These findings are of importance since these two amino acids have been implicated in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia.

Glioblastoma treatment using perphenazine to block the subventricular zone's tumor trophic functions.

We present here a potential new treatment adjunct for glioblastoma. Building on murine studies, a series of papers appeared recently showing that therapeutic irradiation of the ipsilateral subventricular zone (SVZ) retards growth of more peripherally growing cortical glioblastomas in humans, suggesting a tumor trophic function for the SVZ. Further studies showed that SVZ cells migrate out towards a peripheral glioblastoma. Dopamine signaling through D3 subtype receptor indirectly drives this centrifugal migration in humans. Since psychiatry has several drugs with good D3 blocking attributes, such as fluphenazine, or perphenazine, we suggest that adding one of these D3 blocking drugs to current standard treatment of resection followed by temozolomide and irradiation might prolong survival by depriving glioblastoma of the trophic functions previously subserved by dopaminergic signaling on SVZ cells.

Effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs against hostility in patients with schizophrenia in the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) study.

INTRODUCTION: Aggressive behavior can be a dangerous complication of schizophrenia. Hostility is related to aggression. This study aimed to compare the effects of olanzapine, perphenazine, risperidone, quetiapine, and ziprasidone on hostility in schizophrenia. METHODS: We used the data that were acquired in the 18-month Phase 1 of the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) study. We analyzed the scores of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) hostility item in a subset of 614 patients who showed at least minimal hostility (a score ≥ 2) at baseline. RESULTS: The primary analysis of hostility indicated an effect of difference between treatments (F(4,1487) = 7.78, P < 0.0001). Olanzapine was significantly superior to perphenazine and quetiapine at months 1, 3, 6, and 9. It was also significantly superior to ziprasidone at months 1, 3, and 6, and to risperidone at months 3 and 6. DISCUSSION: Our results are consistent with those of a similar post-hoc analysis of hostility in first-episode subjects with schizophrenia enrolled in the European First-Episode Schizophrenia Trial (EUFEST) trial, where olanzapine demonstrated advantages compared with haloperidol, quetiapine, and amisulpride. CONCLUSION: Olanzapine demonstrated advantages in terms of a specific antihostility effect over the other antipsychotics tested in Phase 1 of the CATIE trial.

Effects of antipsychotics on bone mineral density and prolactin levels in patients with schizophrenia: a 12-month prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Effects of conventional and atypical antipsychotics on bone mineral density (BMD) and serum prolactin levels (PRL) were examined in patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-three first-episode inpatients with schizophrenia were recruited, to whom one of three conventional antipsychotics (perphenazine, sulpiride, and chlorpromazine) or one of three atypical antipsychotics (clozapine, quetiapine, and aripiprazole) was prescribed for 12 months as appropriate. BMD and PRL were tested before and after treatment. Same measures were conducted in 90 matched healthy controls. RESULTS: Baseline BMD of postero-anterior L1-L4 range from 1.04 ± 0.17 to 1.42 ± 1.23, and there was no significant difference between the patients group and healthy control group. However, post-treatment BMD values in patients (ranging from 1.02 ± 0.15 to 1.23 ± 0.10) were significantly lower than that in healthy controls (ranging from 1.15 ± 0.12 to 1.42 ± 1.36). The BMD values after conventional antipsychotics were significantly lower than that after atypical antipsychotics. The PRL level after conventional antipsychotics (53.05 ± 30.25 ng/ml) was significantly higher than that after atypical antipsychotics (32.81 ± 17.42 ng/ml). Conditioned relevance analysis revealed significant negative correlations between the PRL level and the BMD values after conventional antipsychotics. CONCLUSION: The increase of PRL might be an important risk factor leading to a high prevalence of osteoporosis in patients with schizophrenia on long-term conventional antipsychotic medication.

Perphenazine versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between the various first-generation antipsychotics, however, low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs are sometimes perceived as less efficacious than high-potency first-generation compounds by clinicians, and they also seem to differ in their side effects. OBJECTIVES: To review the effects of high-potency, first-generation perphenazine compared with low-potency, first-generation antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (October 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing perphenazine with first-generation, low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis and using a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: The review currently includes four relevant randomised trials with 365 participants. The size of the included studies was between 42 and 158 participants with a study length between one and four months. Overall, the methods of sequence generation and allocation concealment were poorly reported. Most studies were rated as low risk of bias in terms of blinding. Overall, attrition bias in the studies was high.The effects of perphenazine and low-potency antipsychotic drugs seemed to be similar in terms of the primary outcome - response to treatment (perphenazine 58%, low-potency antipsychotics 59%, 2 RCTs, n = 138, RR 0.97 CI 0.74 to 1.26 - moderate quality of evidence). There was also no clear evidence of a difference in acceptability of treatment with the number of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason, however results were imprecise (perphenazine 30%, low-potency antipsychotics 28%, 3 RCTs, n = 323, RR 0.78 CI 0.35 to 1.76, very low quality of evidence).There were low numbers of studies available for the outcomes experiencing at least one adverse effect (perphenazine 33%, low-potency antipsychotics 47%, 2 RCTs, n = 165, RR 0.83 CI 0.36 to 1.95, low quality evidence) and experiencing at least one movement disorder (perphenazine 22%, low-potency first-generation antipsychotics 0%, 1 RCT, n = 69, RR 15.62 CI 0.94 to 260.49, low quality evidence), and the confidence intervals for the estimated effects did not exclude important differences. Akathisia was more frequent in the perphenazine group (perphenazine 25%, low-potency antipsychotics 22%, 2 RCTs, n = 227, RR 9.45 CI 1.69 to 52.88), whereas severe toxicity was less so (perphenazine 42%, low-potency antipsychotics 69%, 1 RCT, n = 96, RR 0.61 CI 0.41 to 0.89).There were three deaths in the low-potency group by four months but the difference between groups was not significant (perphenazine 0%, low-potency antipsychotics 2%, 1 RCT, n = 96, RR 0.14 CI 0.01 to 2.69, moderate quality evidence). No data were available for our prespecified outcomes of interest sedation or quality of life. Data were not available for other outcomes such as relapse, service use, costs and satisfaction with care.The event rates reported quote simple aggregates and are not based on the RRs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results do not show a superiority in efficacy of high-potency perphenazine compared with low-potency first-generation antipsychotics. There is some evidence that perphenazine is more likely to cause akathisia and less likely to cause severe toxicity, but most adverse effect results were equivocal. The number of studies as well as the quality of studies is low, with quality of evidence for the main outcomes ranging from moderate to very low, so more randomised evidence would be needed for conclusions to be made.

Noninferiority of perphenazine vs. three second-generation antipsychotics in chronic schizophrenia.

Noninferiority analysis is a statistical method of growing importance in comparative effectiveness research that has rarely been used in psychopharmacology. This method is used here to evaluate whether first-generation antipsychotics are clinically not inferior to second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) using data from the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE). A conservative noninferiority margin (NIM) on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) was derived from the smallest published value for the minimal clinically important difference, further reduced by 25%. This NIM was used to assess whether perphenazine is noninferior to olanzapine, risperidone, and quetiapine on the basis of the 95% confidence intervals of differences in mean PANSS outcomes (N = 1049). Perphenazine was noninferior to all three SGAs during 18 months of intention-to-treat analysis and in several subanalyses. Noninferiority can be evaluated from studies designed as superiority trials. Power was available in the CATIE to conduct noninferiority analysis.

Extrapyramidal symptoms following administration of oral perphenazine 4 or 8 mg: an 11-year retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Perphenazine is a treatment option in postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis. Chronic administration and high dose are known to cause extrapyramidal system (EPS) dysfunction at a frequency of 8%, but the incidence of acute EPS after a single 4 or 8 mg dose is unknown. OBJECTIVE: A retrospective analysis of patient medication billing data and departmental quality records was performed (January 2001 to 10 July 2012) to identify patients who experienced EPS dysfunction after oral perphenazine. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis. SETTING: Surgical outpatients presenting to any one of 10 hospitals in the area of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. PATIENTS: Overall, 45 766 patients received 4 or 8 mg of perphenazine before same-day surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: EPS dysfunction was defined as acute dystonia, akathisia or pseudoparkinsonism. Records were reviewed to determine the likely number of reactions to perphenazine, the nature of these reactions and impact on patient care. RESULTS: There were four 'likely' cases of EPS dysfunction, and two 'possible' cases. Five reported events were consistent with akathisia, with the sixth being a dystonic reaction. All six patients had resolution of symptoms, with five receiving intravenous diphenhydramine for treatment. The incidence of EPS dysfunction was 1.3 events per 10 000 patients (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4 to 3.0, based on six events). All patients who experienced reactions pre-operatively were able to proceed to surgery without complications or delay. One patient required unplanned admission and 3-h observation owing to sedation from diphenhydramine. The incidence of EPS dysfunction after oral perphenazine is low. Reactions that did occur were mild and easily treated. CONCLUSION: Given the infrequent side effects, this single, low dose of perphenazine should be encouraged as a low-risk adjunct to any multimodal PONV prophylaxis regimen, based on the selection criteria described.

The Role of Total White Blood Cell Count in Antipsychotic Treatment for Patients with Schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Total white blood cell count (TWBCc), an index of chronic and low-grade inflammation, is associated with clinical symptoms and metabolic alterations in patients with schizophrenia. The effect of antipsychotics on TWBCc, predictive values of TWBCc for drug response, and role of metabolic alterations require further study. METHODS: Patients with schizophrenia were randomized to monotherapy with risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, aripiprazole, ziprasidone, perphenazine or haloperidol in a 6-week pharmacological trial. We repeatedly measured clinical symptoms, TWBCc, and metabolic measures (body mass index, blood pressure, waist circumference, fasting blood lipids and glucose). We used mixed-effect linear regression models to test whether TWBCc can predict drug response. Mediation analysis to investigate metabolic alteration effects on drug response. RESULTS: At baseline, TWBCc was higher among patients previously medicated. After treatment with risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, perphenazine, and haloperidol, TWBCc decreased significantly (p < 0.05). Lower baseline TWBCc predicted greater reductions in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total and negative scores over time (p < 0.05). We found significant mediation of TWBCc for effects of waist circumference, fasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and glucose on reductions in PANSS total scores and PANSS negative subscale scores (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: TWBCc is affected by certain antipsychotics among patients with schizophrenia, with decreases observed following short-term, but increases following long-term treatment. TWBCc is predictive of drug response, with lower TWBCc predicting better responses to antipsychotics. It also mediates the effects of certain metabolic measures on improvement of negative symptoms. This indicates that the metabolic state may affect clinical manifestations through inflammation.

Pharmacological treatments for psychotic depression: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are no recommendations based on the efficacy of specific drugs for the treatment of psychotic depression. To address this evidence gap, we did a network meta-analysis to assess and compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for psychotic depression. METHODS: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to Nov 23, 2023 for randomised controlled trials published in any language that assessed pharmacological treatments for individuals of any age with a diagnosis of a major depressive episode with psychotic features, in the context of major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder in any setting. We excluded continuation or maintenance trials. We screened the study titles and abstracts identified, and we extracted data from relevant studies after full-text review. If full data were not available, we requested data from study authors twice. We analysed treatments for individual drugs (or drug combinations) and by grouping them on the basis of mechanisms of action. The primary outcomes were response rate (ie, the proportion of participants who responded to treatment) and acceptability (ie, the proportion who discontinued treatment for any reason). We calculated risk ratios and did separate frequentist network meta-analyses by using random-effects models. The risk of bias of individual studies was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the confidence in the evidence with the Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023392926. FINDINGS: Of 6313 reports identified, 16 randomised controlled trials were included in the systematic review, and 14 were included in the network meta-analyses. The 16 trials included 1161 people with psychotic depression (mean age 50·5 years [SD 11·4]). 516 (44·4%) participants were female and 422 (36·3%) were male; sex data were not available for the other 223 (19·2%). 489 (42·1%) participants were White, 47 (4·0%) were African American, and 12 (1·0%) were Asian; race or ethnicity data were not available for the other 613 (52·8%). Only the combination of fluoxetine plus olanzapine was associated with a higher proportion of participants with a treatment response compared with placebo (risk ratio 1·91 [95% CI 1·27-2·85]), with no differences in terms of safety outcomes compared with placebo. When treatments were grouped by mechanism of action, the combination of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor with a second-generation antipsychotic was associated with a higher proportion of treatment responses than was placebo (1·89 [1·17-3·04]), with no differences in terms of safety outcomes. In head-to-head comparisons of active treatments, a significantly higher proportion of participants had a response to amitriptyline plus perphenazine (3·61 [1·23-10·56]) and amoxapine (3·14 [1·01-9·80]) than to perphenazine, and to fluoxetine plus olanzapine compared with olanzapine alone (1·60 [1·09-2·34]). Venlafaxine, venlafaxine plus quetiapine (2·25 [1·09-4·63]), and imipramine (1·95 [1·01-3·79]) were also associated with a higher proportion of treatment responses overall. In head-to-head comparisons grouped by mechanism of action, antipsychotic plus antidepressant combinations consistently outperformed monotherapies from either drug class in terms of the proportion of participants with treatment responses. Heterogeneity was low. No high-risk instances were identified in the bias assessment for our primary outcomes. INTERPRETATION: According to the available evidence, the combination of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and a second-generation antipsychotic-and particularly of fluoxetine and olanzapine-could be the optimal treatment choice for psychotic depression. These findings should be taken into account in the development of clinical practice guidelines. However, these conclusions should be interpreted cautiously in view of the low number of included studies and the limitations of these studies. FUNDING: None.

Genome-wide pharmacogenomic analysis of response to treatment with antipsychotics.

Schizophrenia is an often devastating neuropsychiatric illness. Understanding the genetic variation affecting response to antipsychotics is important to develop novel diagnostic tests to match individual schizophrenia patients to the most effective and safe medication. In this study, we use a genome-wide approach to detect genetic variation underlying individual differences in response to treatment with the antipsychotics olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, ziprasidone and perphenazine. Our sample consisted of 738 subjects with DSM-IV schizophrenia who took part in the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness. Subjects were genotyped using the Affymetrix 500 K genotyping platform plus a custom 164 K chip to improve genome-wide coverage. Treatment outcome was measured using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. Our criterion for genome-wide significance was a prespecified threshold that ensures that, on an average, only 10% of the significant findings are false discoveries. The top statistical result reached significance at our prespecified threshold and involved a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in an intergenic region on chromosome 4p15. In addition, SNPs in Ankyrin Repeat and Sterile Alpha Motif Domain-Containing Protein 1B (ANKS1B) and in the Contactin-Associated Protein-Like 5 gene (CNTNAP5), which mediated the effects of olanzapine and risperidone on Negative symptoms, were very close to our threshold for declaring significance. The most significant SNP in CNTNAP5 is nonsynonymous, giving rise to an amino-acid substitution. In addition to highlighting our top results, we provide all P-values for download as a resource for investigators with the requisite samples to carry out replication. This study demonstrates the potential of genome-wide association studies to discover novel genes that mediate the effects of antipsychotics, which could eventually help to tailor drug treatment to schizophrenic patients.

Alternative methods for testing treatment effects on the basis of multiple outcomes: simulation and case study.

In clinical trials multiple outcomes are often used to assess treatment interventions. This paper presents an evaluation of likelihood-based methods for jointly testing treatment effects in clinical trials with multiple continuous outcomes. Specifically, we compare the power of joint tests of treatment effects obtained from joint models for the multiple outcomes with univariate tests based on modeling the outcomes separately. We also consider the power and bias of tests when data are missing, a common feature of many trials, especially in psychiatry. Our results suggest that joint tests capitalize on the correlation of multiple outcomes and are more powerful than standard univariate methods, especially when outcomes are missing completely at random. When outcomes are missing at random, test procedures based on correctly specified joint models are unbiased, while standard univariate procedures are not. Results of a simulation study are reported, and the methods are illustrated in an example from the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness for schizophrenia.

Onset of action of atypical and typical antipsychotics in the treatment of adolescent schizophrenic psychoses.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to assess the time to 'first improvement' associated with specific atypical (AAP) and typical (TAP) antipsychotic drugs in patients with early-onset schizophrenia and other related psychotic disorders. METHODS: This study involved a systematic chart review of all patients receiving routine clinical care in our department, with selected AAPs and TAPs, for schizophrenic psychoses, between 1997 and 2007. During this period, our review identified 296 teenage patients (141 males, 155 females; mean age 16.0 ± 1.5 years). The time to first improvement could be estimated in 258 patients; of these, 195 patients (76%) had been treated with AAPs and 63 patients (24%) with TAPs. We found that most patients were taking risperidone (N = 96), followed by olanzapine (64 patients). Other patient numbers were as follows: ziprasidone (16 patients), quetiapine (12 patients), clozapine (7 patients), haloperidol (15 patients), perphenazine (28 patients), and sulpiride (20 patients). RESULTS: The mean time to first improvement was 6.9 (± 4.2) days in the AAP group and 5.8 (± 3.5) days in the TAP group; the difference was significant at the trend level (p=0.063). With respect to individual drugs, the mean time to first improvement was 7.1 (± 4.1) days for risperidone, 6.7 (± 4.2) days for olanzapine, 6.5 (± 5.2) days for ziprasidone, 6.1 (± 4.4) days for quetiapine, 7.4 (± 3.0) days for clozapine, 5.2 (± 2.4) days for haloperidol, 5.9 (± 3.8) days for perphenazine, and 6.0 (± 3.9) days for sulpiride. Differences among drugs were not significant (p=0.680). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis revealed a significant group level trend indicating that typical antipsychotic drugs have faster onsets of action than atypical antipsychotic drugs.

The number needed to treat for all-cause medication discontinuation in the treatment of schizophrenia: consistency across world geographies and study designs.

INTRODUCTION: The number needed to treat (NNT) for all-cause medication discontinuation in large, industry-sponsored, non-randomized, observational studies conducted across world geographies was compared with NNTs from CATIE, an 18-month, NIMH-sponsored, randomized study. METHODS: NNTs (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated using data from 3 large Lilly-sponsored, non-randomized, observational studies (EU-SOHO, IC-SOHO, and US-SCAP, n=20 957). Group differences at medication initiation were adjusted by Cox regression modeling. These NNTs were compared with published NNTs for CATIE (phase 1). RESULTS: NNTs for olanzapine vs. risperidone and for olanzapine vs. quetiapine were similar across the observational studies and similar to those of CATIE. The NNTs for olanzapine vs. oral typical antipsychotics were similar across the observational studies but demonstrated a somewhat stronger effect size than the NNT reported for olanzapine vs. perphenazine in CATIE. DISCUSSION: NNTs for all-cause treatment discontinuation (a proxy measure of a medication's effectiveness from patients' and clinicians' perspectives) appear to be consistent across study designs (non-interventional, observational vs. RCT), study sponsorship (industry vs. independent), and across world geographies, suggesting that antipsychotics differ in this measure.