Pharmacological Treatment of Early-Onset Schizophrenia: A Critical Review, Evidence-Based Clinical Guidance and Unmet Needs.

Early-onset schizophrenia (EOS) - onset before age 18 - is linked with great disease burden and disability. Decision-making for EOS pharmacological treatment may be challenging due to conflicting information from evidence and guidelines and unidentified care needs may remain unmet.We searched for systematic reviews, meta-analyses and umbrella reviews of EOS pharmacological treatment published in PubMed over the past 10 years and selected five clinical guidelines from Europe, North-America and Australia. Based on predefined outcomes, we critically compared the evidence supporting EOS-approved drugs in Europe and/or North-America with guidelines recommendations. We also evaluated the coverage of these outcomes to identify unmet needs.One systematic review, nine meta-analyses and two umbrella reviews (k=203 trials, N=81,289 participants, including duplicated samples across selected articles) were retrieved. Evidence supported the efficacy of aripiprazole, clozapine, haloperidol, lurasidone, molindone, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone and paliperidone in EOS, all of which obtained approval for EOS either in Europe and/or in North-America. Cognition, functioning and quality of life, suicidal behaviour and mortality and services utilisation and cost-effectiveness were poorly covered/uncovered.Among the antipsychotics approved for EOS, aripiprazole, lurasidone, molindone, risperidone, paliperidone and quetiapine emerged as efficacious and comparably safe options. Olanzapine is known for a high risk of weight gain and haloperidol for extrapyramidal side-effects. Treatment-resistant patients should be offered clozapine. Future long-term trials looking at cognition, functioning, quality of life, suicidal behaviour, mortality, services utilisation and cost-effectiveness are warranted. Closer multi-agency collaboration may bridge the gap between evidence, guidelines and approved drugs.

A Double-Blind, Randomized Study of Extended-Release Molindone for Impulsive Aggression in ADHD.

Objective: To evaluate efficacy and safety of SPN-810 (extended-release molindone) in a Phase-2b, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study of children (6-12 years) with ADHD and persistent impulsive aggression (IA). Method: After lead-in, children were randomized to (a) placebo (N = 31); (b) low-dose (N = 29, 12/18 mg/day); (c) medium-dose (N = 30, 24/36 mg/day); and (4) high-dose (N = 31, 36/54 mg/day) groups. Treatment included ~2.5-week titration, 3-week maintenance, and 1-week tapering/conversion, alongside existing monotherapy (stimulants/nonstimulants) and behavioral therapy. The primary endpoint was change in Retrospective-Modified Overt Aggression Scale (R-MOAS) score at end of study, with safety monitored. Results: A total of 95 (78.5%) children completed the study. Aggression (R-MOAS) improved with low and medium doses (low dose: p = .031; medium dose: p = .024; high dose: p = .740). The most common adverse events were headache (10.0%), sedation (8.9%), and increased appetite (7.8%). Conclusion: These results suggest SPN-810 may be effective in reducing residual IA behaviors in children with ADHD. Research is still needed to support the benefit-risk profile of SPN-810 in pediatric populations.

Time to Clinical Response in the Treatment of Early Onset Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders Study.

Objectives: We investigated the time course of clinical response in the Treatment of Early Onset Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders Study (TEOSS). Methods: TEOSS randomized 119 predominantly outpatient youth ages 8-19 years with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder to 8 weeks of treatment with molindone, risperidone, or olanzapine. We used proportional hazards regression to determine whether these three antipsychotics differed in the time until clinical response, defined as the time from treatment initiation to the point of achieving a Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) scale score of 1 ("very much improved") or 2 ("much improved") that was maintained until week 8. Results: Of the 116 youth who initiated treatment, 56 (48%) achieved clinical response. Among clinical responders, the median (±interquartile range) time until clinical response was 4.0 (±4.0) weeks for olanzapine, 4.5 (±4.0) weeks for risperidone, and 6.0 (±4.0) weeks for molindone. There were no significant differences in time course for clinical response between medications (p = 0.84). Youth without symptom improvement (CGI-I ≥ 4) after 3 weeks were more likely to be clinical nonresponders at week 8 (relative risk ratio = 1.98, 95% confidence interval 1.29-3.05), compared with youth with at-least-minimal symptom improvement after 3 weeks when looking at all antipsychotics combined. Conclusion: To our knowledge, our study is the first to investigate medication differences in treatment response timing in early onset schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Clinical response times for molindone, risperidone, and olanzapine were not significantly different. Furthermore, while lack of early improvement predicted clinical nonresponse, whether or not to continue antipsychotic treatment after 3 or more weeks without symptom improvement should be based on clinical judgment after weighing potential risks, benefits, and alternatives. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00053703.

A proposed anti-maladaptive aggression agent classification: improving our approach to treating impulsive aggression.

Proper drug categorization enables clinicians to readily identify the agents most appropriate for patients in need. Currently, patients with maladaptive aggression do not all always fall into a single existing diagnostic or treatment category. Such is the case for those with impulsive aggression (IA). IA is an associated feature of numerous neuropsychiatric disorders, and can be described as eruptive, aggressive behavior or a 'short fuse'. Although agents from a broad spectrum of drug classes have been used to treat maladaptive aggression, few have been tested distinctly in patients with IA, and there is no drug specifically indicated by the US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) for IA. Further, current treatments often fail to sufficiently treat IA symptomatology. These issues create an unclear and inadequate treatment path for patients. Here we will propose the establishment of a class of anti-maladaptive aggression agents to begin addressing this clinical issue. The development of such a class would unify the various drugs currently used to treat maladaptive aggression and streamline the treatment approach towards IA. As an important case example of the range of candidate drugs that could fit into a new anti-maladaptive aggression agent category, we will review an investigational IA pharmacotherapy. SPN-810 (extended-release molindone) is currently being investigated as a novel treatment for children with IA and ADHD. Based on these studies we will review how SPN-810 may be well suited for a new, anti-maladaptive aggression drug class and more precisely, a proposed subgroup of IA modulators. The goal of this review is to begin improving the identification of and therapeutic approach for maladaptive aggression as well as IA through more precise anti-maladaptive aggression agent categorization.

Reproductive toxicology studies supporting the safety of molindone, a dopamine receptor antagonist.

BACKGROUND: An extended-release molindone (a dopamine D2 and serotonin antagonist) is currently being developed as a novel treatment for impulsive aggression (IA) in patients optimally treated for ADHD. Oral Good Laboratory Practice reproductive toxicology studies (fertility and early embryonic [FEE], prenatal/postnatal [PPN], embryo-fetal development [EFD]) were conducted with molindone HCl using International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) S5(R2)-compliant protocols. METHODS: In the FEE study, 0, 5, 15, or 30 mg kg-1 day-1 was administered to female (2 weeks premating through implantation) and male (4 weeks premating for 57 days) rats, and fertility parameters were evaluated. In the EFD studies, rats received 0, 5, 20, or 40 mg kg-1 day-1 on gestational days (GDs) 6-17; rabbits received 0, 5, 10, or 15 mg kg-1 day-1 on GDs 6-18. Ovarian/uterine and fetal parameters were evaluated at term. In the PPN study, F0 rats received 0, 5, 20, or 40 mg kg-1 day-1 (GD6-LD21); behavior and reproduction were evaluated in F1 offspring. RESULTS: Parental hypoactivity and reduced body weight gain occurred in all studies. In the FEE, prolonged estrous cycles and delayed mating occurred at ≥15 mg kg-1 day-1 , without effects on fertility or embryonic development. No developmental toxicity occurred in F1 fetuses. In F1 pups, reduced preweaning growth was observed at 40 mg kg-1 day-1 , but there were no effects on postweaning growth, behavior, or reproduction. CONCLUSIONS: Molindone was not developmentally toxic in rats or rabbits at 69X and 6X clinical exposures, confirming the reproductive safety of molindone. Changes in estrous cyclicity were related to species-specific pharmacological effects of molindone in rodents and are not considered relevant to human risk.

Atypical antipsychotics for psychosis in adolescents.

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

Neurocognitive outcomes in the Treatment of Early-Onset Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess neurocognitive outcomes following antipsychotic intervention in youth enrolled in the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded Treatment of Early-Onset Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders (TEOSS). METHOD: Neurocognitive functioning of youth (ages 8 to 19 years) with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder was evaluated in a four-site, randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing molindone, olanzapine, and risperidone. The primary outcomes were overall group change from baseline in neurocognitive composite and six domain scores after 8 weeks and continued treatment up to 52 weeks. Age and sex were included as covariates in all analyses. RESULTS: Of 116 TEOSS participants, 77 (66%) had post-baseline neurocognitive data. No significant differences emerged in the neurocognitive outcomes of the three medication groups. Therefore, the three treatment groups were combined into one group to assess overall neurocognitive outcomes. Significant modest improvements were observed in the composite score and in three of six domain scores in the acute phase, and in four of six domain scores in the combined acute and maintenance phases. Partial correlation analyses revealed very few relationships among Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) baseline or change scores and neurocognition change scores. CONCLUSIONS: Antipsychotic intervention in youth with early-onset schizophrenia spectrum disorders (EOSS) led to modest improvement in measures of neurocognitive function. The changes in cognition were largely unrelated to baseline symptoms or symptom change. Small treatment effect sizes, easily accounted for by practice effects, highlight the critical need for the development of more efficacious interventions for the enduring neurocognitive deficits seen in EOSS. Clinical trial registry information-Treatment of Early-Onset Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders (TEOSS); http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00053703.

A phase 2a randomized, parallel group, dose-ranging study of molindone in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and persistent, serious conduct problems.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate safety and tolerability of four doses of immediate-release molindone hydrochloride in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and serious conduct problems. METHODS: This open-label, parallel-group, dose-ranging, multicenter trial randomized children, aged 6-12 years, with ADHD and persistent, serious conduct problems to receive oral molindone thrice daily for 9-12 weeks in four treatment groups: Group 1-10 mg (5 mg if weight <30 kg), group 2-20 mg (10 mg if <30 kg), group 3-30 mg (15 mg if <30 kg), and group 4-40 mg (20 mg if <30 kg). The primary outcome measure was to evaluate safety and tolerability of molindone in children with ADHD and serious conduct problems. Secondary outcome measures included change in Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form-Typical Intelligence Quotient (NCBRF-TIQ) Conduct Problem subscale scores, change in Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) and -Improvement (CGI-I) subscale scores from baseline to end point, and Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham rating scale-revised (SNAP-IV) ADHD-related subscale scores. RESULTS: The study randomized 78 children; 55 completed the study. Treatment with molindone was generally well tolerated, with no clinically meaningful changes in laboratory or physical examination findings. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) included somnolence (n=9), weight increase (n=8), akathisia (n=4), sedation (n=4), and abdominal pain (n=4). Mean weight increased by 0.54 kg, and mean body mass index by 0.24 kg/m(2). The incidence of AEs and treatment-related AEs increased with increasing dose. NCBRF-TIQ subscale scores improved in all four treatment groups, with 34%, 34%, 32%, and 55% decreases from baseline in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. CGI-S and SNAP-IV scores improved over time in all treatment groups, and CGI-I scores improved to the greatest degree in group 4. CONCLUSIONS: Molindone at doses of 5-20 mg/day (children weighing <30 kg) and 20-40 mg (≥ 30 kg) was well tolerated, and preliminary efficacy results suggest that molindone produces dose-related behavioral improvements over 9-12 weeks. Additional double-blind, placebo-controlled trials are needed to further investigate molindone in this pediatric population.

Double-blind maintenance safety and effectiveness findings from the Treatment of Early-Onset Schizophrenia Spectrum (TEOSS) study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the long-term safety and efficacy of three antipsychotics in early-onset schizophrenia spectrum disorders. METHOD: Patients (8 to 19 years old) who had improved during an 8-week, randomized, double-blind acute trial of olanzapine, risperidone, or molindone (plus benztropine) were eligible to continue on the same medication for up to 44 additional weeks under double-blind conditions. Adjunctive medications were allowed according to defined algorithms. Standardized symptom, safety, and functional assessments were conducted every 4 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 116 youths randomized in the acute trial, 54 entered maintenance treatment (molindone, n = 20; olanzapine, n = 13; risperidone, n = 21). Fourteen (26%) completed 44 weeks of treatment. Adverse effects (n = 15), inadequate efficacy (n = 14), or study nonadherence (n = 8) were the most common reasons for discontinuation. The three treatment arms did not significantly differ in symptom decrease or time to discontinuation. Akathisia was more common with molindone and elevated prolactin concentrations more common with risperidone. Although weight gain and metabolic adverse events had occurred more often with olanzapine and risperidone during the acute trial, no significant between-drug differences emerged in most of these parameters during maintenance treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Only 12% of youths with early-onset schizophrenia spectrum disorders continued on their originally randomized treatment at 52 weeks. No agent demonstrated superior efficacy, and all were associated with side effects, including weight gain. Improved treatments are needed for early-onset schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Clinical trial registry information-Treatment of Schizophrenia and Related Disorders in Children and Adolescents; URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, unique identifier: NCT00053703.

Double-blind comparison of first- and second-generation antipsychotics in early-onset schizophrenia and schizo-affective disorder: findings from the treatment of early-onset schizophrenia spectrum disorders (TEOSS) study.

OBJECTIVE: Atypical (second-generation) antipsychotics are considered standard treatment for children and adolescents with early-onset schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. However, the superiority of second-generation antipsychotics over first-generation antipsychotics has not been demonstrated. This study compared the efficacy and safety of two second-generation antipsychotics (olanzapine and risperidone) with a first-generation antipsychotic (molindone) in the treatment of early-onset schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. METHOD: This double-blind multisite trial randomly assigned pediatric patients with early-onset schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder to treatment with either olanzapine (2.5-20 mg/day), risperidone (0.5-6 mg/day), or molindone (10-140 mg/day, plus 1 mg/day of benztropine) for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was response to treatment, defined as a Clinical Global Impression (CGI) improvement score of 1 or 2 and >or=20% reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score after 8 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: In total, 119 youth were randomly assigned to treatment. Of these subjects, 116 received at least one dose of treatment and thus were available for analysis. No significant differences were found among treatment groups in response rates (molindone: 50%; olanzapine: 34%; risperidone: 46%) or magnitude of symptom reduction. Olanzapine and risperidone were associated with significantly greater weight gain. Olanzapine showed the greatest risk of weight gain and significant increases in fasting cholesterol, low density lipoprotein, insulin, and liver transaminase levels. Molindone led to more self-reports of akathisia. CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone and olanzapine did not demonstrate superior efficacy over molindone for treating early-onset schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Adverse effects were frequent but differed among medications. The results question the nearly exclusive use of second-generation antipsychotics to treat early-onset schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. The safety findings related to weight gain and metabolic problems raise important public health concerns, given the widespread use of second-generation antipsychotics in youth for nonpsychotic disorders.

Treatment of early-onset schizophrenia spectrum disorders (TEOSS): rationale, design, and methods.

OBJECTIVE: The Treatment of Early Onset Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders Study is a publicly funded clinical trial designed to compare the therapeutic benefits, safety, and tolerability of risperidone, olanzapine, and molindone in youths with early-onset schizophrenia spectrum disorders. The rationale, design, and methods of the Treatment of Early Onset Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders Study are described. METHOD: Using a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group design at four sites, youths with EOSS (ages 8-19 years) were assigned to an 8-week acute trial of risperidone (0.5-6.0 mg/day), olanzapine (2.5-20 mg/day), or molindone (10-140 mg/day). Responders continued double-blind treatment for 44 weeks. The primary outcome measure was responder status at 8 weeks, defined by a 20% reduction in baseline Positive and Negative Symptom Scale scores plus ratings of significant improvement on the Clinical Global Impressions. Secondary outcome measures included assessments of psychopathology, functional impairment, quality of life, and medication safety. An intent-to-treat analytic plan was used. RESULTS: From February 2002 to May 2006, 476 youths were screened, 173 were further evaluated, and 119 were randomized. Several significant study modifications were required to address safety, the use of adjunctive medications, and the termination of the olanzapine treatment arm due to weight gain. CONCLUSIONS: The Treatment of Early Onset Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders Study will inform clinical practice regarding the use of antipsychotic medications for youths with early-onset schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Important safety concerns emerged during the study, including higher than anticipated rates of suicidality and problems tapering thymoleptic agents before randomization.

Molindone for schizophrenia and severe mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic therapy is the mainstay of treatment for people with schizophrenia. In recent years new or atypical antipsychotics have been introduced. These are less likely to produce movement disorders and raise serum prolactin. Researchers have suggested that molindone should be classified as an atypical antipsychotic. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of molindone compared with placebo, typical and other atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia and related psychoses. SEARCH STRATEGY: For the original search we searched the following databases: Biological Abstracts (1980-1999), The Cochrane Library CENTRAL (Issue 1, 1999), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (January 1999), CINAHL (1982-1999), EMBASE (1980-1999), MEDLINE (1966-1999), LILACS (1982-1999), PSYNDEX (1977-1999), and PsycLIT (1974-1999). We also searched pharmaceutical databases on the Dialog Corporation Datastar and Dialog and the references of all identified studies for further trials. Finally, we contacted the manufacturer of molindone and the authors of any relevant trials. For the update of this review, we searched The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (August 2005). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials that compared molindone to other treatments for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently and analysed on an intention to treat basis calculating, for binary data, the fixed effect relative risk (RR), their 95% confidence intervals (CI), and the number needed to treat or harm (NNT or NNH). We excluded data if loss to follow up was greater than 50%. MAIN RESULTS: We included fourteen studies. Duration ranged from very short (10 days) studies of the intramuscular preparation, to trials lasting over three months. For measures of global assessment, available data do not justify any conclusions on the comparative efficacy of molindone and placebo. When compared to other typical antipsychotics we found no evidence of a difference in effectiveness (doctors' 4 RCTs n=150, RR 1.13, CI 0.69 to 1.86; nurses 4RCTs n=146, RR 1.23, CI 0.82 to 1.86). Molindone is no more or less likely than typical drugs to cause movement disorders, but it does cause significantly more weight loss (2RCTs n=60 RR 2.78, CI 1.10 to 6.99, NNH 5 CI 2 to 77). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The strength of the evidence relating to this compound is limited, owing to small sample size, poor study design, limited outcomes and incomplete reporting. Molindone may be an effective antipsychotic but its adverse effect profile does not differ significantly from that of typical antipsychotics (apart from the event of weight loss). Data from this review suggest, at present, there is no evidence to suggest that it may have an atypical profile.

Glutamatergic drugs for schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of glutamatergic drugs, acting agonistically on the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) or the non-NMDA receptors, in schizophrenia. METHOD: All relevant randomized controlled trials of glutamatergic drugs for schizophrenia were obtained from the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials without any language or year limitations. Trials were classified according to their methodological quality. For binary and continuous data, relative risks and weighted (WMD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated, respectively. RESULTS: Eighteen short-term trials with 343 randomized patients were included in the meta-analysis. In all of these trials, glycine, D-serine, D-cycloserine or ampakine CX516 was used to augment antipsychotics. NMDA receptor co-agonists glycine and D-serine are effective in reducing negative symptoms (N = 132, fixed effect model SMD = -0.66, 95% CI -1.02 to -0.29, p = 0.0004) of schizophrenia, the magnitude of the effect is moderate. D-Cycloserine, a partial agonist of NMDA receptors, is less effective towards negative symptoms (N = 119, fixed effect model SMD = -0.11, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.25, p = 0.6). Positive symptoms fail to respond to glutamatergic medication. Available derived data on cognitive functioning do not indicate a significant effect of glycine or D-serine (N = 80, random effect model WMD = -2.79, 95% CI -6.17 to 0.60, p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: In the current limited data set, a moderate amelioration of negative symptoms of schizophrenia was found, but no other statistically significant beneficial effects on symptoms of schizophrenia.