Quetiapine Add-On Therapy May Improve Persistent Sleep Disturbances in Patients with PTSD on Stabile Combined SSRI and Benzodiazepine Combination: A One-Group Pretest-Posttest Study.

BACKGROUND: To assess potential benefits of quetiapine for persistent sleep disturbances in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on stable combined SSRI and benzodiazepine therapy, who previously failed to respond to various benzodiazepine and non-benzodiazepine hypnotic adjuvant treatment as well as to first-generation antipsychotic add-on treatment. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fifty-two male PTSD outpatients on stable combination treatment with SSRI and benzodiazepines, with persistent sleep disturbances not responding to prescription of zolpidem, flurazepam, nitrazepam, promazine, and levopromazine, were assessed for sleep disturbances improvements after prescription of quetiapine in the evening. Each patient met both ICD-10 and DSM-IV criteria for PTSD. Psychiatric comorbidity and premorbidity were excluded using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). Improvement on the CAPS recurrent distressing dream item, reduction in the amount of time needed to fall asleep, prolongation of sleep duration, and reduction in average number of arousals per night in the last 7 days before the assessment period were used as efficacy measures. RESULTS: All sleep-related parameters improved significantly at the end of a five-week follow-up: sleep duration increased by one hour (p<0.001), sleep latency decreased by 52.5 minutes (p<0.001), median number of arousals per night decreased from two to one (p<0.001), CAPS recurrent distressing dream item median decreased from five to four (p<0.001), and the number of patients dissatisfied with their sleep quality and quantity decreased from 45 to two (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Quetiapine prescribed in the evening may be successful therapy for persistent sleep disturbances in patients with PTSD and generally good response to an SSRI and benzodiazepine combination, who previously failed to respond to some of the usual hypnotic medication or addition of first-generation antipsychotics: zolpidem, flurazepam, nitrazepam, promazine, and levopromazine.

The combination of levomepromazine (methotrimeprazine) and rotigotine enables the safe and effective management of refractory nausea and vomiting in a patient with idiopathic Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND:: This case report describes a patient with known idiopathic Parkinson's disease, being managed with transdermal rotigotine, whose refractory nausea and vomiting was successfully controlled with subcutaneous levomepromazine. No drug-induced extrapyramidal side effects emerged. CASE PRESENTATION:: A patient was found to have a locally advanced serous carcinoma, causing secondary bowel obstruction. Furthermore, due to compromised oral access, the patient's oral antiparkinsonian medications for motor control were converted to transdermal rotigotine. Unfortunately, the patient's nausea and vomiting was refractory to a number of recommended antiemetic options. CASE MANAGEMENT:: Low dose levomepromazine was administered on a, 'when required' basis, via subcutaneous injection. CASE OUTCOME:: After the first dose of levomepromazine, the patient's nausea and vomiting completely subsided and no extrapyramidal side effects were observed. This was confirmed by daily assessments, revealing no worsening of the motor symptoms associated with idiopathic Parkinson's disease. CONCLUSIONS:: The pharmacology of rotigotine and levomepromazine appear complementary and may allow for the simultaneous use of both drugs, with favourable outcomes. This case report highlights that rotigotine may afford protection against antipsychotic induced extrapyramidal side effects, while preserving antiemetic effects. Such combinations may have a role in the end-of-life management of idiopathic Parkinson's disease.

'Palliative sedation'? A retrospective cohort study on the use and labelling of continuously administered sedatives on a palliative care unit.

BACKGROUND: Sedatives are frequently used towards the end of life. However, there is scarce information when their use is labelled as 'palliative sedation'. AIM: To assess the use and labelling of 'continuous administration of sedatives within the last 7 days of life', based on objective operational criteria, on a palliative care unit. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study, using medical records. Explorative statistical analysis (SPSS 23). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients who died on a palliative care unit from August 2014 to July 2015. Sedatives recorded were benzodiazepines, levomepromazine, haloperidol ⩾5 mg/day and propofol. RESULTS: Of the 192 patients, 149 (78%) patients received continuous sedatives within the last week of life. The prevalence of delirium/agitation was significantly higher in patients with continuous sedatives compared to those without continuous sedatives at admission to the unit (35% vs 16%, p = 0.02) and on the day before death (58% vs 40%, p = 0.04). The term '(palliative) sedation' was used in the records for 22 of 149 (15%) patients with continuous sedatives. These patients had significantly higher total daily midazolam doses 2 days before death (median (range), 15.0 (6.0-185.0) mg vs 11.5 (1.0-70.0) mg, p = 0.04) and on the day of death (median (range), 19.5 (7.5-240.0) mg vs 12.5 (2.0-65.0) mg, p = 0.01). The dose range was large in both groups. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of delirium/agitation was associated with the administration of continuous sedatives. There was no consistent pattern regarding labelling the use of continuous sedatives as '(palliative) sedation'. Multicentre mixed-methods research is needed for a better characterization of sedation practices in palliative care.

[Levomepromazine as adjuvant sedation in a pediatric intensive care unit]. / Levomepromazina como coadyuvante de sedación en la unidad de cuidados intensivos pediátricos.

INTRODUCTION: Sedation of patients in pediatric ICU extubated and in weaning of mechanic ventilation is diffcult under regular sedation, because of the tolerance and/or abstinence generated by its sustained use. The objective of this study is to describe the use of Levomepromazine as sedative coadjuvant in these patients. POPULATION AND METHODS: Observational and longitudinal study in intensive care from Juan P. Garrahan Pediatric Hospital. Patients older than 2 years were included, extubated and in weaning of mechanic ventilation with requirements of additional sedation. The level of basal sedation and post-intervention (levomepromazine 0.5 mg/kg every 8 hours) were evaluated with Ramsay and Khalil scales. Doses of regular sedatives were compared before and after the indication. It was considered positive an increase of 1 in the scales, or a decrease of 20% in the regular sedatives doses. RESULTS: 36 patients, medium age of 8,5 years, average doses of levomepromazine 0.38 mg/kg. 97% showed positive result. The regular sedative doses were reduced more than 20% after the intervention. No adverse effects or deceased were registered.

Levomepromazine for nausea and vomiting in palliative care.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2013, on Levomepromazine for nausea and vomiting in palliative care.Nausea and vomiting are common, distressing symptoms for patients receiving palliative care. There are several drugs which can be used to treat these symptoms, known as antiemetics. Levomepromazine is an antipsychotic drug is commonly used as an antiemetic to alleviate nausea and vomiting in palliative care settings. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of, and adverse events associated with, levomepromazine for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients. SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched electronic databases, including those of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE, up to February 2015. We searched clinical trial registers on 7 October 2015 for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of levomepromazine for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, in adults receiving palliative care. We excluded studies in which symptoms were thought to be due to pregnancy or surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed the potential relevance of studies based on titles and abstracts. We obtained copies of any study reports that appeared to meet the inclusion criteria for further assessment. At least two review authors read each paper to determine suitability for inclusion and discussed discrepancies in order to achieve a consensus. MAIN RESULTS: In the original review, we identified 421 abstracts using the search strategy. We considered eight studies for inclusion but ultimately excluded them all from the review. We updated the search in February 2015 and identified 35 abstracts, but again none met the inclusion criteria. We identified two trials from clinical trial registers, one of which is ongoing and one of which was closed due to poor recruitment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As in the initial review, we identified no published randomised controlled trials examining the use of levomepromazine for the management of nausea and vomiting in adults receiving palliative care, and our conclusion (that further studies of levomepromazine and other antiemetic agents are needed to provide better evidence for their use in this setting) remains unchanged. We did, however, identify one ongoing study that we hope will contribute to the evidence base for this intervention in future updates of this review.

Palliative sedation for cancer patients included in a home care program: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Palliative sedation is a common treatment in palliative care. The home is a difficult environment for research, and there are few studies about sedation at home. Our aim was to analyze this practice in a home setting. METHOD: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional descriptive study in a home cohort during 2011. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 18 years or older and enrolled in the Palliative Home Care Program (PHCP) with advanced cancer. The variables employed were: sex, age, primary tumor location, and place of death. We also registered indication, type, drug and dose, awareness of diagnosis and prognosis, consent, survival, presence or absence of rales, painful mouth, and ulcers in patients sedated at home. We also collected the opinions of family members and professionals about the suffering of sedated patients. RESULTS: A total of 446 patients (56% at home) of the 617 admitted to the PHCP between January and December of 2011 passed away. The typical patient in our population was a 70-year-old man with a lung tumor. Some 35 (14%) home patients required sedation, compared to 93 (49%) at the hospital. The most frequent indication was delirium (70%), with midazolam the most common drug (mean dose, 40 mg). Survival was around three days. Rales were frequent (57%) as well as awareness of diagnosis and prognosis (77 and 71%, respectively). Perception of suffering after sedation was rare among relatives (17%) and professionals (8%). In most cases, the decision was made jointly by professionals and family members. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Our study confirmed the role of palliative sedation as an appropriate therapeutic tool in the home environment.

A naturalistic comparison study of the efficacy and safety of intramuscular olanzapine, intramuscular haloperidol, and intramuscular levomepromazine in acute agitated patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: This study was a comparative investigation of the clinical efficacy and safety of intramuscular (IM) olanzapine, IM haloperidol, and IM levomepromazine in acute agitated patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: The subjects were 122 inpatients. Their clinical symptoms were assessed using Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Excited Component (PANSS-EC), PANSS, and Agitation-Calmness Evaluation Scale, and their safety were assessed using the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale (BARS), and Drug-induced Extrapyramidal Symptoms Scale (DIEPSS). RESULTS: The mean changes from baseline on the PANSS-EC, Agitation-Calmness Evaluation Scale, Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, BARS, and DIEPSS scores were significantly better in both IM olanzapine and IM levomepromazine than in IM haloperidol. Of these, the mean changes from baseline on the BARS and DIEPSS scores were significantly better in IM olanzapine than in IM levomepromazine. The mean change from baseline on the PANSS positive score was significantly better in both IM olanzapine and IM haloperidol than in IM levomepromazine. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest the possibility that the anti-agitation effects of IM olanzapine and IM levomepromazine are more rapid than those of IM haloperidol. No worsening of EPS was observed. Our results also suggest that compared with IM levomepromazine, IM olanzapine is safer and affords greater improvement in symptoms.

Analgesic effects of morphine in combination with adjuvant drugs in rats.

BACKGROUND: Morphine is co-administered with adjuvant drugs to treat pain, nausea, vomiting, dyspnoea and delirium in cancer patients. AIM OF THE STUDY: To investigate analgesic effects of morphine when co-administered with adjuvant drugs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two-month-old male Wistar rats received single morphine doses alone (0.45 and 0.9 mg/kg) or with midazolam (0.3 mg/kg), haloperidol (0.15 and 0.45 mg/kg), levomepromazine (0.35 mg/kg), metoclopramide (1.0 mg/kg), and hyoscine butylbromide (1.7 mg/kg) as single subcutaneous injections. Analgesia was measured by the tail-flick test after 15, 30, 45, 60, and 90 min of drug administration. In the case of significant analgesia enhancement, analgesic and sedative effects were explored in 3-, 5-, 6-, 8-, and 11-month-old rats. RESULTS: Significant morphine (0.9 mg/kg) analgesia enhancement was observed 60 min after haloperidol (0.15 and 0.45 mg/kg) and hyoscine butylbromide co-administration. The addition of haloperidol to morphine significantly increased analgesia in 6-, 8- and 11-month-old rats while in the case of hyoscine butylbromide co-administration this effect was observed only in 11-month-old rats. CONCLUSIONS: Haloperidol and hyoscine butylbromide enhanced morphine analgesia. Future studies may explore the repeated administration of these drug combinations in rats and humans.

Methotrimeprazine is a neuroprotective antiviral in JEV infection via adaptive ER stress and autophagy.

Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) pathogenesis is driven by a combination of neuronal death and neuroinflammation. We tested 42 FDA-approved drugs that were shown to induce autophagy for antiviral effects. Four drugs were tested in the JE mouse model based on in vitro protective effects on neuronal cell death, inhibition of viral replication, and anti-inflammatory effects. The antipsychotic phenothiazines Methotrimeprazine (MTP) & Trifluoperazine showed a significant survival benefit with reduced virus titers in the brain, prevention of BBB breach, and inhibition of neuroinflammation. Both drugs were potent mTOR-independent autophagy flux inducers. MTP inhibited SERCA channel functioning, and induced an adaptive ER stress response in diverse cell types. Pharmacological rescue of ER stress blocked autophagy and antiviral effect. MTP did not alter translation of viral RNA, but exerted autophagy-dependent antiviral effect by inhibiting JEV replication complexes. Drug-induced autophagy resulted in reduced NLRP3 protein levels, and attenuation of inflammatory cytokine/chemokine release from infected microglial cells. Our study suggests that MTP exerts a combined antiviral and anti-inflammatory effect in JEV infection, and has therapeutic potential for JE treatment.

Comparison of Pharmacological Treatments for Agitated Delirium in the Last Days of Life.

CONTEXT: Antipsychotics are often used in managing symptoms of terminal delirium, but evidence is limited. OBJECTIVES: To explore the comparative effectiveness of haloperidol with as-needed benzodiazepines (HPD) vs. chlorpromazine (CPZ) vs. levomepromazine (LPZ) for agitated delirium in the last days. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted in two palliative care units in Japan. Adult cancer patients who developed agitated delirium with a modified Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS-PAL) of one or more were included; palliative care specialist physicians determined that the etiology was irreversible; and estimated survival was 3 weeks or less. Patients treated with HPD, CPZ, or LPZ were analyzed. We measured RASS, NuDESC, Agitation Distress Scale (ADS), and Communication Capacity Scale (CCS) on Days 1 and 3. RESULTS: A total of 277 patients were enrolled, and 214 were analyzed (112 in HPD, 50 in CPZ, and 52 in LPZ). In all groups, the mean RASS-PAL score significantly decreased on Day 3 (1.37 to -1.01, 1.87 to -1.04, 1.79 to -0.62, respectively; P < 0.001); the NuDESC and ADS scores also significantly decreased. The percentages of patients with moderate to severe agitation and those with full communication capacity on Day 3 were not significantly different. The treatments were well-tolerated. While one-fourth of HPD group changed antipsychotics, 88% or more of CPZ and LPZ groups continued the initial antipsychotics. CONCLUSION: Haloperidol with as-needed benzodiazepine, chlorpromazine, or levomepromazine may be effective and safe for terminal agitation. Chlorpromazine and levomepromazine may have an advantage of no need to change medications.

Levomepromazine for nausea and vomiting in palliative care.

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting are common, distressing symptoms for patients receiving palliative care. There are several agents which can be used to treat these symptoms. Levomepromazine is an antipsychotic drug which is commonly used to alleviate nausea and vomiting in palliative care settings. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of and adverse events (both minor and serious) associated with the use of levomepromazine for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE using relevant search terms and synonyms in March 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of levomepromazine for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, for adults receiving palliative care. Studies where symptoms were thought to be due to pregnancy or surgery were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The potential relevance of studies was assessed based on titles and abstracts. Any study reports which appeared to meet the inclusion criteria were obtained for further assessment. All three authors read these papers to determine their suitability for inclusion and discussed discrepancies to achieve a consensus. MAIN RESULTS: The search strategy identified 421 abstracts from which eight studies were considered but all were excluded from the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No randomised controlled trials were identified examining the use of levomepromazine for nausea and vomiting in palliative care. Further studies of levomepromazine and other antiemetic agents are needed to provide better evidence for their use in this setting.

Methotrimeprazine for the management of end-of-life symptoms in infants and children.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective chart review assessed the efficacy, dose, and safety of methotrimeprazine in palliating end-of-life symptoms in children and infants. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of 18 hospitalized pediatric patients who were treated with methotrimeprazine in their last two weeks of life. Data collected included age, diagnosis, symptoms, methotrimeprazine dose, route, efficacy, and any documented adverse effects. RESULTS: Patients' ages ranged from 16 days to 17 years. Underlying conditions included malignancies, trauma, and various neurodegenerative and congenital diseases. All patients (n = 18) were treated for symptoms of agitation, delirium, or restlessness. Most patients also experienced respiratory secretions/congestion (n = 15), pain (n = 13), and/ or dyspnea (n = 9). Less common symptoms included nausea/emesis (n = 5) and spasticity (n = 1). Methotrimeprazine dosages ranged from 0.02 mg/kg/dose to 0.5 mg/kg/dose. Routes of administration included intravenous (n = 13), oral/gastrostomy tube (n = 6), or subcutaneous (n = 4). Sedation (n = 6) was the only documented adverse effect, although when agitation was present, this was potentially an intended and perceived-to-be-beneficial effect. CONCLUSION: Methotrimeprazine, an old drug with diverse receptor activity and multiple routes of administration, appears to be an effective tool in treating complicated end-of-life symptoms in children and infants. This study provides a foundation for analysis with prospective and comparative trials, which may further quantify its benefit.

[Antipsychotic drug combinations in the treatment of schizophrenia. A review of the literature]. / Antipszichotikumok kombinációjának használata szkizofrénia kezelésében. Irodalmi áttekintés.

Main indication for antipsychotic medication is the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. Influential protocols in the treatment of schizophrenia recommend the use of antipsychotics in monotherapy. In case of therapy resistance, combination of antipsychotics is a feasible option. Applying antipsychotics in combination is common in clinical practice, although existing efficacy and safety data concerning antipsychotic combinations are scarce. Authors, after reviewing existing scientific data, make attempt to give recommendations for combined antipsychotic therapy in everyday clinical practice.

Recurrent delusional ideas due to left caudate head infarction, without dementia.

Herein we report the case of a 77-year-old, right-handed man, without dementia, who had a cerebral infarction in the left caudate head that manifested recurrent delusional ideas. He experienced three episodes of delusional ideas; the first two occurred after loss of consciousness and the third after delirium at night. MRI findings of left caudate head infarction were the same for all three episodes. An unstable cerebral perfusion may have caused problems in the cerebral network between the caudate head and cerebral cortex. Decreased cerebral blood flow in the frontal lobe was noted particularly in the second and third episodes, supporting the neurological background of disinhibition of emotional behaviour. Antipsychotic drugs and a small dose of risperidone were effective in controlling the patient's delusional ideas.

Antitumor Effect of Traditional Drugs for Neurological Disorders: Preliminary Studies in Neural Tumor Cell Lines.

Glioblastoma multiforme is the most common malignant primary brain tumor in adults. Despite new treatments developed including immunomodulation using vaccines and cell therapies, mortality remains high due to the resistance mechanisms presented by these tumor cells and the function of the blood-brain barrier that prevents the entry of most drugs. In this context of searching for new glioblastoma therapies, the study of the existing drugs to treat neurological disorder is gaining great relevance. The aim of this study was to determine, through a preliminary in vitro study on human glioblastoma (A172, LN229), anaplastic glioma (SF268) and neuroblastoma (SK-N-SH) cell lines, the possible antitumor activity of the active principles of several drugs (levomepromazine, haloperidol, lacosamide, valproic acid, levetiracetam, glatiramer acetate, fingolimod, biperiden and dextromethorphan) with the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and that are commonly used in neurological disorders. Results showed that levetiracetam, valproic acid, and haloperidol were able to induce a relevant synergistic antitumor effect when associated with the chemotherapy currently used in clinic (temozolomide). Regarding the mechanism of action, haloperidol, valproic acid and levomepromazine caused cell death by apoptosis, while biperiden and dextromethorphan induced autophagy. Fingolimod appeared to have anoikis-related cell death. Thus, the assayed drugs which are able to cross the blood-brain barrier could represent a possibility to improve the treatment of neural tumors, though future in vivo studies and clinical trials will be necessary to validate it.

Levomepromazine for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Levomepromazine is an 'older' typical antipsychotic medication licensed for use in schizophrenia but sparingly prescribed in the United Kingdom. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effects and safety of levomepromazine compared with placebo or antipsychotic medications for schizophrenia and schizophreniform psychoses. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (December 2008) which is based on regular searches of, amongst others, BIOSIS, CENTRAL CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. References of all identified studies were inspected for further trials. We also contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised trials comparing levomepromazine with placebo or other antipsychotics for schizophrenia and schizophreniform psychoses were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted independently. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated relative risk (RR) (random-effects model), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and, where appropriate, number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated. We avoided the use of number needed to harm (NNH), as an alternative we used number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) and number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) to indicate the direction of effect. For continuous outcomes, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD). MAIN RESULTS: The review currently includes 4 RCTs with 192 participants. For our primary outcome of leaving the study early, levomepromazine was not significantly different compared with other antipsychotics. The levomepromazine arm was significantly better on CGI severity compared with chlorpromazine (n=38, 1 RCT, WMD -0.80 CI -1.51 to -0.09). Risperidone was better for CGI endpoint scores (n=42, 1 RCT, RR 2.33 CI 1.11 to 4.89, NNT 3 CI 2 to 10) compared with levomepromazine. Recipients given levomepromazine had a better BPRS endpoint score (n=38, 1 RCT, WMD -9.00, CI -17.46 to -0.54) and PANSS total score (n=38, 1 RCT, WMD -15.90, CI -30.30 to -1.50) than chlorpromazine. Risperidone recipients noticed a significant difference for the outcome 'at least 20% reduction' on BPRS endpoint score (n=42, 1 RCT, RR 3.33 CI 1.07 to 10.42, NNT 3 CI 2 to 14) compared with levomepromazine. Levomepromazine caused less tremor (n=41, 1 RCT RR 0.12 CI 0.02 to 0.87 NNTB 3 CI 2 to 8), less antiparkinsonian medication administration (n=79, 2 RCTs, RR 0.39 CI 0.17 to 0.90, NNTB 5, CI 2 to 21) compared with haloperidol. Levomepromazine caused less akathisia compared with chlorpromazine, but more hypotension compared with risperidone (n=42, 1 RCT, RR 2.50 CI 1.21 to 5.18, NNTH 3, CI 2 to 7). Dizziness was common with levomepromazine compared with other antipsychotic medications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available data does not enable us to confidently comment on the effectiveness of levomepromazine for schizophrenia. Larger, more robust, studies comparing levomepromazine with other antipsychotics including clozapine are much needed.

Methotrimeprazine-induced corneal deposits and cataract revealed by urine drug profiling test.

Two schizophrenic patients who had been taking medication for a long period presented with visual disturbance of 6-month duration. Slit-lamp examination revealed fine, discrete, and brownish deposits on the posterior cornea. In addition, bilateral star-shaped anterior subcapsular lens opacities, which were dense, dust-like granular deposits, were noted. Although we strongly suspected that the patient might have taken one of the drugs of the phenothiazine family, we were unable to obtain a history of medications other than haloperidol and risperidone, which were taken for 3 yr. We performed a drug profiling test using urine samples and detected methotrimeprazine. The patient underwent surgery for anterior subcapsular lens opacities. Visual acuity improved in both eyes, but the corneal deposits remained. We report an unusual case of methotrimeprazine-induced corneal deposits and cataract in a patient with psychosis, identified by using the urine drug profiling test.

An open-label study of levopromazine (methotrimeprazine) as an add-on therapy in fibromyalgia management.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the potential efficacy and tolerability of levopromazine(methotrimeprazine) in the treatment of fibromyalgia. METHODS: Unicentre, open-label study conducted in thirty-five outpatients, aged 18 years or older, who met the ACR criteria for fibromyalgia and had not satisfactorily responded to previous fibromyalgia treatment. Levopromazine, flexibly dosed (12.5-100 mg/d), was added to the outpatients' original treatment regimens for 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the mean change from baseline to endpoint in the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) total score in the intent-to-treat sample. Secondary outcomes included the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) of Severity scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Beck Depression Inventory, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey, and individual items of the FIQ. RESULTS: The mean FIQ total score did not decrease significantly at the study endpoint (63.37 SD 11.32 vs. 61.19 SD 9.32, p=0.73). Pain intensity, as evaluated by the Visual Analogue Scale, remained unchanged at study endpoint (8.5 SD 1.6 vs. 8.2 SD 1.2, p=0.49). A statistically significant reduction was observed in the PSQI score (15.65 SD 3.33 vs. 12.23 SD 3.79, p<0.001, effect size: 1.03) and the CGI-severity score (4.71 SD 0.64 vs. 4.03 SD 1.01, p<0.002, effect size: 1.06). No significant or relevant changes were seen in the remaining fibromyalgia symptoms, psychopathological scales or quality-of-life. The drug was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its efficacy in improving sleep quality, levopromazine does not appear to be a useful alternative treatment for fibromyalgia.