Comparison of pimozide and chlorpromazine in acute schizophrenia. Lithium and chlorpromazine in psychotic inpatients. Comparison of SCH-12679 and thioridazine in aggressive mental retardates. A controlled evaluation of haloperidol, chlorpromazine, and sodium amobarbital: intramuscular short-term use in acute psychotic patients. Pimozide versus chlorpromazine in chronic schizophrenia: a 52 week double-blind study of maintenance therapy. The immediate effects of chlorpromazine in newly admitted schizophrenic patients. Clinical trial of pimozide. The efficacy and safety of clozapine versus chlorpromazine in geriatric schizophrenia. Olanzapine compared with chlorpromazine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia.
A four week double-blind study comparing pimozide and chlorpromazine was designed to test the hypothesis that pimozide, a powerful dopamine receptor blocker, is more effective in the treatment of acute schizophrenia than chlorpromazine. Twenty patients, 13 males and 7 females ranging in age from 21 to 53 years (mean age 33 years) admitted to ST. Mary's Hospital with acute schizophrenia were placed on the study. They were treated on an individual titrated dosage of either chlorpromazine 300 mg to 2100 mg, or pimozide 10 to 70 mg. The results revealed that on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, the chlorpromazine group significantly improved after one week, whereas the pimozide group showed no statistical improvement until the third week. By the end of the study no significant differences were apparent between the two groups. In the Clinical Global Impression Scale, a significant difference between the two groups was found at week 4 showing a greater improvement in the chlorpromazine group. In terms of adverse reactions, the chlorpromazine group had significantly fewer extrapyramidal symptoms than the pimozide group (Simpson and Angus Scale) and in addition 15 adverse reactions were noted for the pimozide group as compared with 8 for the chlorpromazine group. This study shows that chlorpromazine has an earlier onset of action than pimozide in the acute schizophrenic patient despite the fact that it has a weaker effect on the dopamine receptor than has pimozide. In view of this finding, the dopamine theory of schizophrenia should be critically re-examined. A sample of recently hospitalized psychotic patients was assigned to treatment with lithium or chlorpromazine in a double-blind drug trial. Several diagnostic systems were used to characterize the patients. No relationship was found, regardless of criterion system used, between diagnosis and differences in drug effectiveness; specifically, the presence of "schizophrenic" symptoms did not predict a poor response to lithium. Among patients with physical overactivity, those treated with lithium terminated earlier and had poorer outcome than those treated with chlorpromazine. In patients who were not overactive, the two drugs were equally effective, and chronically psychotic patients had poorer outcomes regardless of drug. Lithium may be an effective treatment for acutely psychotic patients who are not overactive. The use of a lithium trial as a diagnostic tool may be unwarranted. SCH-12679, a benzazepine derivative, was compared to thioridazine and to placebo on the aggressive behaviour of mentally retarded patients. After a three-week chlorpromazine (100 mg t.i.d.) standardizaton period, no significant differences between the three treatment groups were observed in their abnormal behaviour. During the comparative phase, patients treated with SCH-12679 became less hyperative and less agitated while those treated with thioridazine became more violent, more choleric and more provocative. The clinical investigator and the nursing staff found significant differences between the active drugs. As compared to the placebo, SCH-12679 improved the behaviour of the patients while thioridazine aggravated their condition. No important adverse reaction was found and the drugs did not interact with the sex of the patients and the presence of epilepsy. The results suggest that, in mental retardation, physical restraint of hyperactivity might induce aggressivity and that one should be cautious in using neuroleptics in nonpsychotic patients. nan This study compared the effectiveness and safety of pimozide and chlorpromazine in the maintenance therapy of chronic schizophrenic outpatients. Forty-three patients were assigned in double-blind fashion to one of the drugs for the 52 week study. Both medication groups showed a general pattern of improvement over the course of the study, but there was no significant difference between the two groups. The results demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of pimozide in once daily administration. Previous research results showing the special utility of pimozide for the improvement of emotional withdrawal and social competence in schizophrenia were not replicated. To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of chlorpromazine in comparison with placebo over a brief period of hospitalization, the authors conducted a double-blind study of the drug in 44 acutely ill schizophrenic patients. These patients had been newly admitted to a brief treatment unit where the average length of stay was 7 to 10 days. The results of this study indicate that chlorpromazine had no more calming or antipsychotic effect than placebo during the first 5 days of treatment. The authors suggest that 5 days is too short a time for a clinical trial to gauge patient response to chlorpromazine. Pimozide and Chlorpromazine were compared in chronic schizophrenics for their therapeutic effectiveness and tolerance, for four-weeks in both cases and for twelve months for pimozide. The minimum and maximum doses were 1 mg to 4 mg single dose for pimozide and 100 to 200 mg thrice daily for chlorpromazine. No significant global differences between the range of therapeutic activity of the two regimens were observed. Slightly more improvement was observed in mood and motor activity with pimozide. Drowsiness and dizziness, and extrapyramidal effects were more prominent with clorpromazine. Other side effects were infrequent. A prolonged improvement in 8 pimozide patients was maintained with mainly weight gain. The advantages of pimozide in chronic unsocialized schizophrenics appear to rest on its single oral daily dose regime, minimal undersirable effects, its specific enhancement of social integration and absence of undersirable effect on mental and physical performance. There has been an absence of controlled studies focusing specifically on neuroleptic treatment in the elderly schizophrenic population. Therefore, we conducted a 12-week double-blind comparison study to assess the efficacy and tolerability of clozapine and chlorpromazine in a group of elderly inpatients with chronic schizophrenia.
                Forty-two elderly DSM-IV schizophrenic veterans were randomly assigned to clozapine or chlorpromazine and assessed for efficacy at baseline and at termination with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI). Side effects were also monitored. Medications were titrated, on the basis of clinical response and side effects, to a maximum dose of 300 mg/day of clozapine or 600 mg/day of chlorpromazine.
                The results suggest that both the chlorpromazine and clozapine groups improved their PANSS scores at termination compared with baseline, but the difference between the 2 groups was not statistically significant. The mean CGI scores reflecting severity of illness also demonstrated improvement in both groups over time. Both groups had similar incidences of side effects. One patient in each group had a life-threatening side effect. More patients taking clozapine had tachycardia and weight gain, while more chlorpromazine patients noted sedation.
                We concluded that both clozapine and chlorpromazine are effective treatments for psychosis and behavioral disturbances in geriatric schizophrenia. Both agents had similar incidences of side effects. With careful monitoring and titration of dosage, both clozapine and chlorpromazine were fairly well tolerated in this population. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of olanzapine with that of chlorpromazine plus benztropine in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia.
                One hundred three previously treatment-resistant patients with schizophrenia diagnosed according to the DSM-III-R criteria were given a prospective 6-week trial of 10-40 mg/day of haloperidol. Eighty-four of them failed to respond to that trial and agreed to be randomly assigned to an 8-week fixed-dose trial of either 25 mg/day of olanzapine alone or 1200 mg/day of chlorpromazine plus 4 mg/day of benztropine mesylate.
                Fifty-nine (70%) of the 84 subjects completed the trial. The primary outcome measures were Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total score and positive symptom score, Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms global score, and Clinical Global Impression score. An analysis of variance for the subjects who completed the study showed no difference in efficacy between the two drugs. Seven percent of the olanzapine-treated patients responded according to a priori criteria; no chlorpromazine-treated patients responded. The olanzapine-treated patients had fewer motor and cardiovascular side effects than the chlorpromazine-treated patients. Extrapyramidal symptoms and akathisia were similar in the two groups, although no antiparkinsonian drugs were used in the olanzapine group.
                Olanzapine and chlorpromazine showed similar efficacy, and the total amount of improvement with either drug was modest. Olanzapine-treated patients had fewer side effects than chlorpromazine-treated patients.
Overall the quality of evidence is limited, poor and dated. Where drugs that have been better evaluated are available, it may be best to avoid use of chlorpromazine. Where chlorpromazine is used for acute aggression or where choices are limited, relevant trials are possible and urgently needed.