Relationship between serum concentration and clinical response of quetiapine in adolescents and adults with bipolar disorders in acute stage: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: It is found that there are great differences in the efficacy of quetiapine at the same dose in many patients with bipolar disorders. Therefore, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is a valuable tool for guiding treatment with quetiapine. The aims of this study were to assess the relationship between serum concentration and clinical response of quetiapine in adolescents and adults with bipolar disorders in acute stage. METHODS: The study design was prospective and observational. Within the naturalistic setting of a routine TDM service at the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine. Psychiatric symptoms were assessed using the HAMD (Hamilton Depression Scale), YRMS (Young manic rating scale) and CUDOS-M (Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale-Mixed Subscale). The decline of HAMD and YMRS scores was were used to assess clinical outcome of bipolar disorders respectively. RESULTS: 169 inpatients (23.7 % male, 76.3 % female) were enrolled in the study. We found that there was a strong correlation between quetiapine serum concentrations and clinical outcomes (rs = 0.702, p < 0.001). While, quetiapine daily dose was not correlated with clinical outcome. We found that when the quetiapine serum level is >146.85 ng/ml in depression episodes patients could obtain a satisfactory treatment effect after 2 weeks of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant positive relationship between serum concentration and clinical outcome, and also determined the serum concentration of quetiapine for the treatment of bipolar depression.

Effect of quetiapine on inflammation and immunity: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Knowledge about the neurobiology of psychiatric disorders is increasing in the last decades and evidence from literature suggests a central role for immuno-inflammatory mechanisms in these illnesses. The antipsychotic quetiapine acts on dopamine and serotonin signalling and well-established evidence demonstrates that these neurotransmitters can modulate immune functions in healthy and diseased conditions. Starting from this perspective, in the last few decades, a number of studies attempted to identify quetiapine effects on immune functions in order to highlight a possible additional effect of this drug in psychotic diseases, although no conclusive results were obtained. METHODS: We critically reviewed preclinical and clinical studies evaluating quetiapine effects on immune systems, suggesting strategies for future work in this field. RESULTS: Computerised search, in PubMed and Embase databases, was performed in March 2020: 120 studies were identified but only 29 relevant papers were selected for detailed review. CONCLUSION: Despite some interesting preliminary findings about anti-inflammatory effects of quetiapine, mainly supported by preclinical studies, it is possible to conclude further studies are needed to investigate the immunomodulatory effects of this drug and achieve a better understanding of its relevance on clinical outcomes to finally identify new therapeutic approaches in psychiatric treatment. KeypointsMounting evidence points to a role for immuno-inflammatory mechanisms in psychiatric disorders.Quetiapine (QUE) acts on catecholamine (dopamine and norepinephrine) and serotonin signalling.The immunomodulatory effects of catecholamines are well established.Treatment with QUE in psychiatric disorders could leverage immunomodulatory effects.QUE unclear role in immune function modulation suggests future work.

Dose-Dependent Biphasic Action of Quetiapine on AMPK Signalling via 5-HT7 Receptor: Exploring Pathophysiology of Clinical and Adverse Effects of Quetiapine.

Recent pharmacological studies indicated that the modulation of tripartite-synaptic transmission plays important roles in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia, mood disorders and adverse reactions. Therefore, to explore the mechanisms underlying the clinical and adverse reactions to atypical antipsychotics, the present study determined the effects of the sub-chronic administration of quetiapine (QTP: 3~30 µM) on the protein expression of 5-HT7 receptor (5-HT7R), connexin43 (Cx43), cAMP level and intracellular signalling, Akt, Erk and adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase (AMPK) in cultured astrocytes and the rat hypothalamus, using ultra-high-pressure liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry and capillary immunoblotting systems. QTP biphasically increased physiological ripple-burst evoked astroglial D-serine release in a concentration-dependent manner, peaking at 10 µM. QTP enhanced the astroglial signalling of Erk concentration-dependently, whereas both Akt and AMPK signalling's were biphasically enhanced by QTP, peaking at 10 µM and 3 µM, respectively. QTP downregulated astroglial 5-HT7R in the plasma membrane concentration-dependently. Protein expression of Cx43 in astroglial cytosol and intracellular cAMP levels were decreased and increased by QTP also biphasically, peaking at 3 µM. The dose-dependent effects of QTP on the protein expression of 5-HT7R and Cx43, AMPK signalling and intracellular cAMP levels in the hypothalamus were similar to those in astrocytes. These results suggest several complicated pharmacological features of QTP. A therapeutically relevant concentration/dose of QTP activates Akt, Erk and AMPK signalling, whereas a higher concentration/dose of QTP suppresses AMPK signalling via its low-affinity 5-HT7R inverse agonistic action. Therefore, 5-HT7R inverse agonistic action probably plays important roles in the prevention of a part of adverse reactions of QTP, such as weight gain and metabolic complications.

Integrative Analyses of Transcriptomes to Explore Common Molecular Effects of Antipsychotic Drugs.

There is little understanding of the underlying molecular mechanism(s) involved in the clinical efficacy of antipsychotics for schizophrenia. This study integrated schizophrenia-associated transcriptional perturbations with antipsychotic-induced gene expression profiles to detect potentially relevant therapeutic targets shared by multiple antipsychotics. Human neuronal-like cells (NT2-N) were treated for 24 h with one of the following antipsychotic drugs: amisulpride, aripiprazole, clozapine, risperidone, or vehicle controls. Drug-induced gene expression patterns were compared to schizophrenia-associated transcriptional data in post-mortem brain tissues. Genes regulated by each of four antipsychotic drugs in the reverse direction to schizophrenia were identified as potential therapeutic-relevant genes. A total of 886 genes were reversely expressed between at least one drug treatment (versus vehicle) and schizophrenia (versus healthy control), in which 218 genes were commonly regulated by all four antipsychotic drugs. The most enriched biological pathways include Wnt signaling and action potential regulation. The protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks found two main clusters having schizophrenia expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) genes such as PDCD10, ANK2, and AKT3, suggesting further investigation on these genes as potential novel treatment targets.

Quetiapine Combined with Sodium Valproate in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease with Mental and Behavioral Symptoms Efficacy Observation.

Quetiapine combined with sodium valproate is an effective and more suitable drug treatment for Alzheimer's disease. At present, there are relatively few studies on the combined action mechanism of these two drugs. This study has certain practical value. Alzheimer's disease is a multifaceted, highly genetically heterogeneous neurodegenerative disease. The main clinical manifestations are memory loss, abnormal mental behavior, and loss of various cognitive functions. In order to improve the symptoms of patients with Alzheimer's disease, especially those with mental symptoms, this article combines quetiapine and sodium valproate, two commonly used drugs for the treatment of mental illnesses, and applies them to different levels of Alzheimer's and observes the results of the combination's curative effect. This article introduces Alzheimer's disease and its potential mental behaviors in the method section, and it also introduces the mechanism of action of quetiapine and sodium valproate. For the algorithm, this paper introduces a data mining algorithm to understand the effect of drug efficacy. In the experimental part, firstly, it introduces the experimental objects, the proportion of medicines, and the statistical methods. Secondly, this article covers adverse reactions, inflammatory factors and vascular endothelial indicators, Alzheimer's disease performance, MOAS score, treatment effect evaluation, and satisfaction surveys. It can be seen from the experiment that, in mental behavior, the experimental group decreased from 8.2 before treatment to 0.5, and the control group decreased from 7.1 before treatment to 2.6. It can be seen that the scores of the experimental group changed after receiving the treatment of quetiapine combined with sodium valproate.

Weight and body mass index increase in children and adolescents exposed to antipsychotic drugs in non-interventional settings: a meta-analysis and meta-regression.

Antipsychotics increase weight, BMI and waist size, particularly in pediatric patients. Switching antipsychotics is common practice, thus defining the risk for each antipsychotic in real-life settings can be important for clinical guidance. We conducted a meta-analysis on antipsychotic-related changes in body measures in pediatric observational studies. Of 934 publications found on PubMed, we analyzed 38, including nine treatment arms: no treatment, mixed antipsychotic treatment, first-generation antipsychotics, aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone and ziprasidone. Changes in weight, BMI, BMI-Z and waist size were meta-analyzed according to the duration of clinical observations: 6, 12, > 12 months. Meta-regressions probed influencing factors. Weight in Kg was increased at 6, 12, > 12 months by olanzapine [+ 10.91, + 10.7, data not available (n/a)], mixed antipsychotic treatment (n/a, + 9.42, + 12.59), quetiapine (+ 5.84, n/a, n/a) and risperidone (+ 4.47, + 6.01, + 9.51) and without treatment (n/a, + 2.3, n/a). BMI was increased at 6, 12, > 12 months by olanzapine (+ 3.47, + 3.42, n/a), clozapine (n/a, + 3, n/a) mixed antipsychotic treatment (+ 3.37, + 2.95, + 3.32), risperidone (+ 2, + 2.13, + 2.16), quetiapine (+ 1.5, + 1.82, n/a), aripiprazole (n/a, + 1.7, + 2.1) and without treatment (n/a, + 0.75, n/a). BMI-Z was increased at 6, 12, > 12 months by olanzapine (+ 0.94, + 0.98, + 0.89), clozapine (n/a, + 0.8, n/a), risperidone (+ 0.62, + 0.61, + 0.48), quetiapine (+ 0.57, + 0.54, n/a), mixed antipsychotic treatment (+ 0.51, + 0.94, + 0.44), without treatment (n/a, + 0.37, n/a) and aripiprazole (no gain, + 0.31, n/a). Waist size in cm was increased at 6, 12 months by risperidone (+ 8.8, + 11.5), mixed antipsychotics treatment (+ 9.1, + 10.2) and quetiapine (+ 6.9, + 9.1). Overall, olanzapine and clozapine displayed maximum risk, followed by risperidone, quetiapine and aripiprazole (more risky at longer terms); ziprasidone was associated with no gains. No time-based trends emerged, suggesting a drug-specific risk magnitude. Meta-regressions evidenced variable roles for persistence in therapy and follow-up length, increased risk for drug-naïve patients, and a ceiling effect determined by higher baseline BMI/BMI-Z values.

Melancholic depression and response to quetiapine: A pooled analysis of four randomized placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Melancholic depression may preferentially respond to certain treatments. This study examined the efficacy of extended-release quetiapine monotherapy in patients with melancholic and nonmelancholic major depressive disorder. METHODS: Data from four randomized placebo-controlled trials was pooled. Melancholic features were assessed with baseline depression scale items according to DSM criteria. The outcome measure was response on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale. Cox regression models predicting response over time with interactions between treatment condition and melancholic status were used to test for treatment effect heterogeneity. RESULTS: The 6-week response rate difference between quetiapine and placebo was roughly 10% greater in the melancholic subgroup, primarily due to a lower placebo response, although the subgroup-treatment interactions did not reach statistical significance. The main effect of quetiapine was significant in every model. LIMITATIONS: The main limitations were the retrospective analysis and the post-hoc designation of melancholic depression based on scale items not designed for that purpose. Results should be considered preliminary and exploratory until replicated. CONCLUSIONS: The lower placebo response rate in the melancholic subgroup is consistent with past research and reinforces the benefit of pharmacotherapy for these patients.

Quetiapine abuse - myth or reality? / Kvetiapinmisbruk ­ myte eller realitet?

Quetiapine is increasingly being used as a sedative and hypnotic drug, especially in the treatment of addiction disorders. Some have warned against this practice. However, a review of the research literature lends little support to these warnings.

Quetiapine Poisoning and Factors Influencing Severity.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: Quetiapine is a relatively new atypical antipsychotic with fewer adverse effects. It is increasingly prescribed to patients. The purpose of this study was to describe the cases of poisoning observed at the western France Poison Control Centre and identify potential risk factors that increase the severity of the cases. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of self-poisoning with quetiapine as reported by the western France Poison Control Centre between 2007 and 2017. RESULTS: There were 372 cases of quetiapine poisoning. Circumstances are known in 367 of 372 cases. There were 75 cases of null severity (grade 0), 133 cases of mild severity (grade 1), 85 cases of moderate severity (grade 2), and 79 cases of high severity (grade 3). Five deaths were listed in this series. The most commonly observed symptoms were neurological and cardiovascular in nature (drowsiness, coma, tachycardia, hypotension). Of these cases, 79.8% included voluntary ingestions. Among 302 cases with coagents, the most common coagents were benzodiazepines (56%), other psychotropic drugs (41%), and antidepressants (37%). An evaluated ingested dose 1500 mg or greater and 2 or more coagents increase the risk of severe poisoning. In particular, concomitant ingestion of benzodiazepines and antidepressants with quetiapine was associated with high severity (odds ratio, 2.478 [confidence interval, 1.3-4.723]; odds ratio, 1.820 [confidence interval, 1.010-3.316]). CONCLUSIONS: Quetiapine may lead to severe poisoning for which there is currently no specific treatment. Patients and practitioners should be aware of this when quetiapine is prescribed, particularly when used in combination with other medications, and in order to deal with cases of poisoning.

Long-term metabolic effects of aripiprazole, ziprasidone and quetiapine: a pragmatic clinical trial in drug-naïve patients with a first-episode of non-affective psychosis.

INTRODUCTION: The use of second-generation antipsychotics (SGA) has been associated with metabolic changes. However, there are differences in the metabolic profile between SGAs. We have previously observed that ziprasidone had a more benign early metabolic profile compared to aripiprazole and quetiapine. However, a long-term follow-up is preferred to detect clinically relevant impairment in metabolic parameters. We aimed to compare the effect of aripiprazole, ziprasidone, and quetiapine on metabolic measures in first-episode non-affective psychosis patients after 1 year of treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and sixty-five drug-naïve patients, suffering from a first episode of non-affective psychosis, were randomly assigned to receive quetiapine, ziprasidone, or aripiprazole. Weight and glycemic/lipid parameters were recorded at baseline and after 1 year of treatment. RESULTS: After 1 year of antipsychotic treatment, we found significant increments in weight, BMI, total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, and the triglyceride/HDL index in the sample as a whole. These changes produced a significant rise in the percentage of patients with obesity, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertriglyceridemia. However, when comparing the differential effect of each antipsychotic medication, we found no significant differences in any of the metabolic parameters between antipsychotics groups after 1 year of treatment. CONCLUSION: We concluded that the antipsychotics studied present similar metabolic profiles. However, the primary exposure to SGAs during the first year of psychosis was associated with significant increases in weight and metabolic parameters, leading to increments in obesity, hypertriglyceridemia, and hypercholesterolemia.

Atypical antipsychotics for disruptive behaviour disorders in children and youths.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of the original Cochrane Review, last published in 2012 (Loy 2012). Children and youths with disruptive behaviour disorders may present to health services, where they may be treated with atypical antipsychotics. There is increasing usage of atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of disruptive behaviour disorders. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect and safety of atypical antipsychotics, compared to placebo, for treating disruptive behaviour disorders in children and youths. The aim was to evaluate each drug separately rather than the class effect, on the grounds that each atypical antipsychotic has different pharmacologic binding profile (Stahl 2013) and that this is clinically more useful. SEARCH METHODS: In January 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of atypical antipsychotics versus placebo in children and youths aged up to and including 18 years, with a diagnosis of disruptive behaviour disorders, including comorbid ADHD. The primary outcomes were aggression, conduct problems and adverse events (i.e. weight gain/changes and metabolic parameters). The secondary outcomes were general functioning, noncompliance, other adverse events, social functioning, family functioning, parent satisfaction and school functioning. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors (JL and KS) independently collected, evaluated and extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. We performed meta-analyses for each of our primary outcomes, except for metabolic parameters, due to inadequate outcome data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 trials (spanning 2000 to 2014), involving a total of 896 children and youths aged five to 18 years. Bar two trials, all came from an outpatient setting. Eight trials assessed risperidone, one assessed quetiapine and one assessed ziprasidone. Nine trials assessed acute efficacy (over four to 10 weeks); one of which combined treatment with stimulant medication and parent training. One trial was a six-month maintenance trial assessing symptom recurrence.The quality of the evidence ranged from low to moderate. Nine studies had some degree of pharmaceutical support/funding. Primary outcomesUsing the mean difference (MD), we combined data from three studies (238 participants) in a meta-analysis of aggression, as assessed using the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist (ABC) ‒ Irritability subscale. We found that youths treated with risperidone show reduced aggression compared to youths treated with placebo (MD -6.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.79 to -4.19; low-quality evidence). Using the standardised mean difference (SMD), we pooled data from two risperidone trials (190 participants), which used different scales: the Overt Aggression Scale ‒ Modified (OAS-M) Scale and the Antisocial Behaviour Scale (ABS); as the ABS had two subscales that could not be combined (reactive and proactive aggression), we performed two separate analyses. When we combined the ABS Reactive subscale and the OAS-M, the SMD was -1.30 in favour of risperidone (95% CI -2.21 to -0.40, moderate-quality evidence). When we combined the ABS Proactive subscale and OAS-M, the SMD was -1.12 (95% CI -2.30 to 0.06, moderate-quality evidence), suggesting uncertainty about the estimate of effect, as the confidence intervals overlapped the null value. In summary, there was some evidence that aggression could be reduced by risperidone. Data were lacking on other atypical antipsychotics, like quetiapine and ziprasidone, with regard to their effects on aggression.We pooled data from two risperidone trials (225 participants) in a meta-analysis of conduct problems, as assessed using the Nisonger Child Behaviour Rating Form ‒ Conduct Problem subscale (NCBRF-CP). This yielded a final mean score that was 8.61 points lower in the risperidone group compared to the placebo group (95% CI -11.49 to -5.74; moderate-quality evidence).We investigated the effect on weight by performing two meta-analyses. We wanted to distinguish between the effects of antipsychotic medication only and the combined effect with stimulants, since the latter can have a counteracting effect on weight gain due to appetite suppression. Pooling two trials with risperidone only (138 participants), we found that participants on risperidone gained 2.37 kilograms (kg) more (95% CI 0.26 to 4.49; moderate-quality evidence) than those on placebo. When we added a trial where all participants received a combination of risperidone and stimulants, we found that those on the combined treatment gained 2.14 kg more (95% CI 1.04 to 3.23; 3 studies; 305 participants; low-quality evidence) than those on placebo. Secondary outcomesOut of the 10 included trials, three examined general functioning, social functioning and parent satisfaction. No trials examined family or school functioning. Data on non-compliance/attrition rate and other adverse events were available from all 10 trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that in the short term risperidone may reduce aggression and conduct problems in children and youths with disruptive behaviour disorders There is also evidence that this intervention is associated with significant weight gain.For aggression, the difference in scores of 6.49 points on the ABC ‒ Irritability subscale (range 0 to 45) may be clinically significant. It is challenging to interpret the clinical significance of the differential findings on two different ABS subscales as it may be difficult to distinguish between reactive and proactive aggression in clinical practice. For conduct problems, the difference in scores of 8.61 points on the NCBRF-CP (range 0 to 48) is likely to be clinically significant. Weight gain remains a concern.Caution is required in interpreting the results due to the limitations of current evidence and the small number of high-quality trials. There is a lack of evidence to support the use of quetiapine, ziprasidone or any other atypical antipsychotic for disruptive behaviour disorders in children and youths and no evidence for children under five years of age. It is uncertain to what degree the efficacy found in clinical trials will translate into real-life clinical practice. Given the effectiveness of parent-training interventions in the management of these disorders, and the somewhat equivocal evidence on the efficacy of medication, it is important not to use medication alone. This is consistent with current clinical guidelines.

Chlorpromazine versus clotiapine for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is a chronic, disabling and severe mental disorder, characterised by disturbance in perception, thought, language, affect and motor behaviour. Chlorpromazine and clotiapine are among antipsychotic drugs used for the treatment of people with schizophrenia. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effects, safety and cost-effectiveness of chlorpromazine compared with clotiapine for adults with schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's Trials Register (last update search 16/01/2016), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and clinical trials registries. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the Register. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised clinical trials focusing on chlorpromazine versus clotiapine for schizophrenia. We included trials meeting our selection criteria and reporting useable data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We have included four studies, published between 1974 and 2003, randomising 276 people with schizophrenia to receive either chlorpromazine or clotiapine. The studies were poor at concealing allocation of treatment and blinding of outcome assessment. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in global and mental state, specific change in negative symptoms, incidence of movement disorder (dyskinesia), leaving the study early for any reason, and costs. All reported data were short-term (under six months' follow-up).The trials did not report data for the important outcomes of clinically important change in global or mental state, or cost of care. Improvement in mental state was reported using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). When chlorpromazine was compared with clotiapine the average improvement scores for mental state using the PANSS total was higher in the clotiapine group (1 RCT, N = 31, MD 11.50 95% CI 9.42 to 13.58, very low-quality evidence). The average change scores on the PANSS negative sub-scale were similar between treatment groups (1 RCT, N = 21, MD -0.97 95% CI -2.76 to 0.82, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in incidence of dyskinesia (1 RCT, N = 68, RR 3.00 95% CI 0.13 to 71.15, very low-quality evidence). Similar numbers of participants left the study early from each treatment group (3 RCTs, N = 158, RR 0.68 95% CI 0.24 to 1.88, very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Clinically important changes in global and mental state were not reported. Only one trial reported the average change in overall mental state; results favour clotiapine but these limited data are very difficult to trust due to methodological limitations of the study. The comparative effectiveness of chlorpromazine compared to clotiapine on change in global state remains unanswered. Results in this review suggest chlorpromazine and clotiapine cause similar adverse effects, although again, the quality of evidence for this is poor, making firm conclusions difficult.

Clozapine combined with different antipsychotic drugs for treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Between 40% and 70% of people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia do not respond to clozapine, despite adequate blood levels. For these people, a number of treatment strategies have emerged, including the prescription of a second anti-psychotic drug in combination with clozapine. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effects of various clozapine combination strategies with antipsychotic drugs in people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia both in terms of efficacy and tolerability. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (to 28 August 2015) and MEDLINE (November 2008). We checked the reference lists of all identified randomised controlled trials (RCT). For the first version of the review, we also contacted pharmaceutical companies to identify further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only RCTs recruiting people of both sexes, aged 18 years or more, with a diagnosis of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (or related disorders) and comparing clozapine plus another antipsychotic drug with clozapine plus a different antipsychotic drug. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis using a random-effects meta-analysis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% CIs. We used GRADE to create 'Summary of findings' tables and assessed risk of bias for included studies. MAIN RESULTS: We identified two further studies with 169 participants that met our inclusion criteria. This review now includes five studies with 309 participants. The quality of evidence was low, and, due to the high degree of heterogeneity between studies, we were unable to undertake a formal meta-analysis to increase the statistical power.For this update, we specified seven main outcomes of interest: clinical response in mental state (clinically significant response, mean score/change in mental state), clinical response in global state (mean score/change in global state), weight gain, leaving the study early (acceptability of treatment), service utilisation outcomes (hospital days or admissions to hospital) and quality of life.We found some significant differences between clozapine combination strategies for global and mental state (clinically significant response and change), and there were data for leaving the study early and weight gain. We found no data for service utilisation and quality of life. Clozapine plus aripiprazole versus clozapine plus haloperidolThere was no long-term significant difference between aripiprazole and haloperidol combination strategies in change of mental state (1 RCT, n = 105, MD 0.90, 95% CI -4.38 to 6.18, low quality evidence). There were no adverse effect data for weight gain but there was a benefit of aripiprazole for adverse effects measured by the LUNSERS at 12 weeks (1 RCT, n = 105, MD -4.90, 95% CI -8.48 to -1.32) and 24 weeks (1 RCT, n = 105, MD -4.90, 95% CI -8.25 to -1.55), but not 52 weeks (1 RCT, n = 105, MD -4.80, 95% CI -9.79 to 0.19). Similar numbers of participants from each group left the study early (1 RCT, n = 106, RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.22, very low quality evidence). Clozapine plus amisulpride versus clozapine plus quetiapine One study showed a significant benefit of amisulpride over quetiapine in the short term, for both change in global state (Clinical Global Impression (CGI): 1 RCT, n = 50, MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.42, very low quality evidence) and mental state (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS): 1 RCT, n = 50, MD -4.00, 95% CI -5.86 to -2.14, low quality evidence). Similar numbers of participants from each group left the study early (1 RCT, n = 56, RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.60, very low quality evidence) Clozapine plus risperidone versus clozapine plus sulpirideThere was no difference between risperidone and sulpiride for clinically significant response, defined by the study as 20% to 50% reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.68, very low quality evidence). There were similar equivocal results for weight gain (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.90, very low quality evidence) and mental state (PANSS total: 1 RCT, n = 60, MD -2.28, 95% CI -7.41 to 2.85, very low quality evidence). No-one left the study early. Clozapine plus risperidone versus clozapine plus ziprasidoneThere was no difference between risperidone and ziprasidone for clinically significant response (1 RCT, n = 24, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.27, very low quality evidence), change in global state CGI-II score (1 RCT, n = 22, MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.82 to 0.22, very low quality evidence), change in PANSS total score (1 RCT, n = 16, MD 1.00, 95% CI -7.91 to 9.91, very low quality evidence) or leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 24, RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.49, very low quality evidence). Clozapine plus ziprasidone versus clozapine plus quetiapineOne study found, in the medium term, a superior effect for ziprasidone combination compared with quetiapine combination for clinically significant response in mental state (> 50% reduction PANSS: 1 RCT, n = 63, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.81, low quality evidence), global state (CGI - Severity score: 1 RCT, n = 60, MD -0.70, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.22, low quality evidence) and mental state (PANSS total score: 1 RCT, n = 60, MD -12.30, 95% CI -22.43 to -2.17, low quality evidence). There was no effect for leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 63, RR 0.52, CI 0.05 to 5.41, very low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of results from this review is limited, evidence is of low or very low quality. Furthermore, due to the limited number of included studies, we were unable to undertake formal meta-analyses. As a consequence, any conclusions drawn from these findings are based on single, small-sized RCTs with high risk of type II error. Properly conducted and adequately powered RCTs are required. Future trialists should seek to measure patient-important outcomes such as quality of life, as well as clinical response and adverse effects.

Chlorpromazine versus metiapine for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Chlorpromazine, a widely available and inexpensive antipsychotic drug, is considered the benchmark treatment for schizophrenia worldwide. Metiapine, a dibenzothiazepine derivative, has been reported to have potent antipsychotic characteristics. However, no evidence currently exists on the effectiveness of chlorpromazine in treatment of people with schizophrenia compared to metiapine, a newer antipsychotic. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of chlorpromazine versus metiapine for the treatment of people with schizophrenia SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials in November 2015 and 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on chlorpromazine versus metiapine for adults with schizophrenia. We included trials meeting our selection criteria and reporting useable data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies randomising 161 people with schizophrenia. Data were available for only two of our seven prestated main outcomes. Clinically important improvement in global state was measured using the Clinical Global Impression (CGI). There was no clear difference between chlorpromazine and metiapine groups (2 RCTs, n = 120, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.47, very low quality evidence) and numbers of participants with parkinsonism at eight weeks were similar (2 RCTs, n = 70, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.03, very low quality evidence). There were no useable data available for the other key outcomes of clinically important improvement in mental state, readmission due to relapse, satisfaction with treatment, aggressive or violent behaviour, or cost of care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Chlorpromazine has been the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia for decades, yet available evidence comparing this drug to metiapine fails to provide high-quality trial based data. However, the need to determine whether metiapine is more or less effective than chlorpromazine seems to be lacking in clinical relevance and future research on this comparison seems unlikely.

[Clotiapine in the treatment of acutely agitated patients: hardly any evidence]. / Clotiapine als acute ingrijpmedicatie: nauwelijks wetenschappelijke onderbouwing.

BACKGROUND: In Flemish emergency psychiatry, clotiapine is still one of the options available for the treatment of agitation. However, there is a lack of evidence concerning the efficacy of this practice.
AIM: To find out whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the continued use of clotiapine in the treatment of agitation.
METHOD: On searching the literature systematically, we identified controlled trials of clotiapine.
RESULTS: The efficacy and safety of clotiapine were studied in two randomised controlled trials. Clotiapine (administered intramuscularly) was compared with zuclopenthixol acetate and lorazepam. Clotiapine was found to be just as efficient as the control treatments, causing fewer anticholinergic side-effects than zuclopenthixol but more extrapyramidal side-effects than lorazepam. The study population comprised only 102 patients, 51 of whom were treated with clotiapine. Because the quality of the reported data was low, straightforward conclusions were difficult to draw.
CONCLUSION: Scientific evidence to support the use of clotiapine in the treatment of agitation ranges from meagre to practically non-existent. Since alternative treatment options are available, the contained use of clotiapine should be questioned.

Quetiapine for Psychosis in Parkinson Disease and Neurodegenerative Parkinsonian Disorders: A Systematic Review.

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to assess the high-level evidence regarding the role of quetiapine in the treatment of psychosis in patients with neurodegenerative parkinsonian disorders. Studies were included in the qualitative review if they (1) enrolled participants with diagnosis of Parkinson disease, Lewy body dementia, or any other neurodegenerative parkinsonian disorders; (2) assessed the efficacy of quetiapine; and (3) evaluated psychotic and motor outcomes using validated tools. Of the 341 manuscripts identified, 7 studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The studies' risk of bias was considered low. A total of 241 participants enrolled in these trials. Heterogeneity was high due to inclusion criteria, user definitions, assessment tools, and study design. Although not causing any motor deterioration, quetiapine failed to significantly reduce psychotic symptoms compared to placebo when objectively assessed on the Brief Psychotic Rating Scale, the most frequently reported scale in these studies. High loss to follow-up and dropout rates as well as significant improvement in psychotic symptoms in the placebo groups may have affected measurements of possible positive medication effects.

A single-blind, randomised controlled trial on the effects of lithium and quetiapine monotherapy on the trajectory of cognitive functioning in first episode mania: A 12-month follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive deficits have been reported during the early stages of bipolar disorder; however, the role of medication on such deficits remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of lithium and quetiapine monotherapy on cognitive performance in people following first episode mania. METHODS: The design was a single-blind, randomised controlled trial on a cohort of 61 participants following first episode mania. Participants received either lithium or quetiapine monotherapy as maintenance treatment over a 12-month follow-up period. The groups were compared on performance outcomes using an extensive cognitive assessment battery conducted at baseline, month 3 and month 12 follow-up time-points. RESULTS: There was a significant interaction between group and time in phonemic fluency at the 3-month and 12-month endpoints, reflecting greater improvements in performance in lithium-treated participants relative to quetiapine-treated participants. After controlling for multiple comparisons, there were no other significant interactions between group and time for other measures of cognition. CONCLUSION: Although the effects of lithium and quetiapine treatment were similar for most cognitive domains, the findings imply that early initiation of lithium treatment may benefit the trajectory of cognition, specifically verbal fluency in young people with bipolar disorder. Given that cognition is a major symptomatic domain of bipolar disorder and has substantive effects on general functioning, the ability to influence the trajectory of cognitive change is of considerable clinical importance.