Miscellaneous treatments for antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic (neuroleptic) medication is used extensively to treat people with chronic mental illnesses. Its use, however, is associated with adverse effects, including movement disorders such as tardive dyskinesia (TD) - a problem often seen as repetitive involuntary movements around the mouth and face. This review, one in a series examining the treatment of TD, covers miscellaneous treatments not covered elsewhere. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether drugs, hormone-, dietary-, or herb-supplements not covered in other Cochrane reviews on TD treatments, surgical interventions, electroconvulsive therapy, and mind-body therapies were effective and safe for people with antipsychotic-induced TD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including trial registers (16 July 2015 and 26 April 2017), inspected references of all identified studies for further trials and contacted authors of trials for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included reports if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) dealing with people with antipsychotic-induced TD and schizophrenia or other chronic mental illnesses who remained on their antipsychotic medication and had been randomly allocated to the interventions listed above versus placebo, no intervention, or any other intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently extracted data from these trials and we estimated risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assumed that people who left early had no improvement. We assessed risk of bias and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 31 RCTs of 24 interventions with 1278 participants; 22 of these trials were newly included in this 2017 update. Five trials are awaiting classification and seven trials are ongoing. All participants were adults with chronic psychiatric disorders, mostly schizophrenia, and antipsychotic-induced TD. Studies were primarily of short (three to six6 weeks) duration with small samples size (10 to 157 participants), and most (61%) were published more than 20 years ago. The overall risk of bias in these studies was unclear, mainly due to poor reporting of allocation concealment, generation of the sequence, and blinding.Nineteen of the 31 included studies reported on the primary outcome 'No clinically important improvement in TD symptoms'. Two studies found moderate-quality evidence of a benefit of the intervention compared with placebo: valbenazine (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.86, 1 RCT, n = 92) and extract of Ginkgo biloba (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96, 1 RCT, n = 157), respectively. However, due to small sample sizes we cannot be certain of these effects.We consider the results for the remaining interventions to be inconclusive: Low- to very low-quality evidence of a benefit was found for buspirone (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.84, 1 RCT, n = 42), dihydrogenated ergot alkaloids (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.97, 1 RCT, n = 28), hypnosis or relaxation, (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.94, 1 study, n = 15), pemoline (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.77, 1 RCT, n = 46), promethazine (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.55, 1 RCT, n = 34), insulin (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96, 1 RCT, n = 20), branched chain amino acids (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.00, 1 RCT, n = 52), and isocarboxazid (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.71, 1 RCT, n = 20). There was low- to very low-certainty evidence of no difference between intervention and placebo or no treatment for the following interventions: melatonin (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.12, 2 RCTs, n = 32), lithium (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.23, 1 RCT, n = 11), ritanserin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.43, 1 RCT, n = 10), selegiline (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.94, 1 RCT, n = 33), oestrogen (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.83, 1 RCT, n = 12), and gamma-linolenic acid (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.45, 1 RCT, n = 16).None of the included studies reported on the other primary outcome, 'no clinically significant extrapyramidal adverse effects'. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review has found that the use of valbenazine or extract of Ginkgo biloba may be effective in relieving the symptoms of tardive dyskinesia. However, since only one RCT has investigated each one of these compounds, we are awaiting results from ongoing trials to confirm these results. Results for the remaining interventions covered in this review must be considered inconclusive and these compounds probably should only be used within the context of a well-designed evaluative study.

Cannabis and schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is a mental illness causing disordered beliefs, ideas and sensations. Many people with schizophrenia smoke cannabis, and it is unclear why a large proportion do so and if the effects are harmful or beneficial. It is also unclear what the best method is to allow people with schizophrenia to alter their cannabis intake. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of specific psychological treatments for cannabis reduction in people with schizophrenia.To assess the effects of antipsychotics for cannabis reduction in people with schizophrenia.To assess the effects of cannabinoids (cannabis related chemical compounds derived from cannabis or manufactured) for symptom reduction in people with schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, 12 August 2013, which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PUBMED and PsycINFO.We searched all references of articles selected for inclusion for further relevant trials. We contacted the first author of included studies for unpublished trials or data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials involving cannabinoids and schizophrenia/schizophrenia-like illnesses, which assessed:1) treatments to reduce cannabis use in people with schizophrenia;2) the effects of cannabinoids on people with schizophrenia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently inspected citations, selected papers and then re-inspected the studies if there were discrepancies, and extracted data. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and for continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis, based on a fixed-effect model. We excluded data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50%. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight randomised trials, involving 530 participants, which met our selection criteria.For the cannabis reduction studies no one treatment showed superiority for reduction in cannabis use. Overall, data were poorly reported for many outcomes of interest. Our main outcomes of interest were medium-term data for cannabis use, global state, mental state, global functioning, adverse events, leaving the study early and satisfaction with treatment. 1. Reduction in cannabis use: adjunct psychological therapies (specifically about cannabis and psychosis) versus treatment as usualResults from one small study showed people receiving adjunct psychological therapies specifically about cannabis and psychosis were no more likely to reduce their intake than those receiving treatment as usual (n = 54, 1 RCT, MD -0.10, 95% CI -2.44 to 2.24, moderate quality evidence). Results for other main outcomes at medium term were also equivocal. No difference in mental state measured on the PANSS positive were observed between groups (n = 62, 1 RCT, MD -0.30 95% CI -2.55 to 1.95, moderate quality evidence). Nor for the outcome of general functioning measured using the World Health Organization Quality of Life BREF (n = 49, 1 RCT, MD 0.90 95% CI -1.15 to 2.95, moderate quality evidence). No data were reported for the other main outcomes of interest 2. Reduction in cannabis use: adjunct psychological therapy (specifically about cannabis and psychosis) versus adjunct non-specific psychoeducation One study compared specific psychological therapy aimed at cannabis reduction with general psychological therapy. At three-month follow-up, the use of cannabis in the previous four weeks was similar between treatment groups (n = 47, 1 RCT, RR 1.04 95% CI 0.62 to 1.74, moderate quality evidence). Again, at a medium-term follow-up, the average mental state scores from the Brief Pscychiatric Rating Scale-Expanded were similar between groups (n = 47, 1 RCT, MD 3.60 95% CI - 5.61 to 12.81, moderate quality evidence). No data were reported for the other main outcomes of interest: global state, general functioning, adverse events, leaving the study early and satisfaction with treatment. 3. Reduction in cannabis use: antipsychotic versus antipsychotic In a small trial comparing effectiveness of olanzapine versus risperidone for cannabis reduction, there was no difference between groups at medium-term follow-up (n = 16, 1 RCT, RR 1.80 95% CI 0.52 to 6.22, moderate quality evidence). The number of participants leaving the study early at medium term was also similar (n = 28, 1 RCT, RR 0.50 95% CI 0.19 to 1.29, moderate quality evidence). Mental state data were reported, however they were reported within the short term and no difference was observed. No data were reported for global state, general functioning, and satisfaction with treatment.With regards to adverse effects data, no study reported medium-term data. Short-term data were presented but overall, no real differences between treatment groups were observed for adverse effects. 4. Cannabinoid as treatment: cannabidiol versus amisulprideAgain, no data were reported for any of the main outcomes of interest at medium term. There were short-term data reported for mental state using the BPRS and PANSS, no overall differences in mental state were observed between treatment groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results are limited and inconclusive due to the small number and size of randomised controlled trials available and quality of data reporting within these trials. More research is needed to a) explore the effects of adjunct psychological therapy that is specifically about cannabis and psychosis as currently there is no evidence for any novel intervention being better than standard treatment,for those that use cannabis and have schizophrenia b) decide the most effective drug treatment in treating those that use cannabis and have schizophrenia, and c) assess the effectiveness of cannabidiol in treating schizophrenia. Currently evidence is insufficient to show cannabidiol has an antipsychotic effect.

Cannabis and schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Many people with schizophrenia use cannabis and its effects on the illness are unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of cannabis use on people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like illnesses. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (April 2007) which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised trials involving cannabinoids and people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses. 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 fixed effects model. We calculated the numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH). For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a fixed effects model. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one randomised trial. No significant differences were found between the Cannabis and Psychosis Therapy (CAP) intervention group and the Psychoeducaton (PE) intervention for use of cannabis at three months assessment (n=47, RR 1.04 CI 0.6 to 1.7). BPRS-extended scale scores at three months assessment (n=47, WMD -3.60 CI -12.8 to 5.6) and nine months assessment (n=47, WMD 0.80 CI -7.5 to 9.1) were non-significant between CAP and PE. We found no significant improvement in social functioning in the CAP group compared with PE (at 3 months, n=47, WMD -0.80 CI -10 to 8.4) and (at 9 months, n=47, WMD -4.70 CI -14.5 to 5.1). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of cannabis/cannabinoid compounds for people suffering with schizophrenia. This review highlights the need for well designed, conducted and reported clinical trials to address the potential effects of cannabis based compounds for people with schizophrenia.

Chinese herbal medicine for schizophrenia: cochrane systematic review of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Chinese herbal medicine has been used to treat millions of people with schizophrenia for thousands of years. AIMS: To evaluate Chinese herbal medicine as a treatment for schizophrenia. METHOD: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). RESULTS: Seven trials were included. Most studies evaluated Chinese herbal medicine in combination with Western antipsychotic drugs; in these trials results tended to favour combination treatment compared with antipsychotic alone (Clinical Global Impression ;not improved/worse' n=123, RR=0.19, 95% CI 0.1-0.6, NNT=6,95% CI 5-11; n=109, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale ;not improved/worse' RR=0.78,95% CI 0.5-1.2; n=109, Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms ;not improved/worse' RR=0.87,95% CI 0.7-1.2; n=109, Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms ;not improved/worse' RR=0.69,95% CI 0.5-1.0, NNT=6 95% CI 4-162). Medium-term study attrition was significantly less for people allocated the herbal/antipsychotic mix (n=897, four RCTs, RR=0.34,95% CI 0.2-0.7, NNT=23,95% CI18-43). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that combining Chinese herbal medicine with antipsychotics is beneficial.