Improvement of cognitive function in schizophrenic patients receiving clozapine or zotepine: results from a double-blind study. Zotepine in the prevention of recurrence: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study for chronic schizophrenia. Zotepine versus placebo in the treatment of schizophrenic patients with stable primary negative symptoms: a randomized double-blind multicenter trial. [Zotepine versus perazine in patients with paranoid schizophrenia: a double-blind controlled trial of its effectiveness]. A comparison of an atypical and typical antipsychotic, zotepine versus haloperidol in patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia: a parallel-group double-blind trial. Atypical antipsychotic agents in the treatment of violent patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Clozapine v. conventional antipsychotic drugs for treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a re-examination. Effectiveness of clozapine versus olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone in patients with chronic schizophrenia who did not respond to prior atypical antipsychotic treatment. [Effectiveness and tolerance of zotepine in a double-blind comparison with perazine in schizophrenic patients].
Clinical interest in the so-called atypical antipsychotics currently focuses on the possibility of improving the negative symptoms of schizophrenia and the cognitive dysfunction associated with the disease. While clozapine has been shown to be effective in this respect, no data are available on zotepine. We report on a double-blind randomized study designed to evaluate the impact of zotepine and clozapine on cognitive dysfunction in schizophrenia. Cognitive function was operationalized by a maze test in which patients traversed computer-displayed mazes of increasing complexity. Passage time, route, and motor errors were evaluated. 25 schizophrenic (DSM-IIIR) patients were included in each group. After washout, they were randomized on zotepine or clozapine and given up to 450 mg of substance each. Patients were followed for six weeks and evaluated weekly. We report on a subsample of 26 patients matched for baseline BPRS, SANS, and age. 13 matched healthy persons were recruited as controls. ANOVA with group and course over time as factors was used for analysis. Both clozapine and zotepine achieved a highly significant decrease in overall symptoms (BPRS) and negative symptoms (SANS). Zotepine and clozapine were equally effective. In the maze tests, motor errors in simple mazes were stable over time and differentiated schizophrenics from controls as a "trait" marker. In passage time and maze route, schizophrenics performed worse than controls. An improvement by medication was evident in both medication groups, but was more pronounced in the zotepine-treated group. The study confirms previous results on the efficacy of clozapine and zotepine in treating negative symptoms of schizophrenia. The data presented show for the first time that zotepine is efficacious in improving cognitive dysfunction, confirming this substance's value as an atypical antipsychotic. Zotepine is an antipsychotic drug with proven efficacy for treatment of acute episodes of schizophrenia. Antipsychotic drugs also require to be effective in prevention of recurrence.
                This trial was designed to compare the effects of zotepine and placebo in the prevention of recurrence of acute episodes in a population of patients with chronic schizophrenia.
                The study was a double-blind, parallel group, 26-week comparison of zotepine (300 mg daily, with fall back to 150 mg if necessary) versus placebo in 121 patients with chronic schizophrenia and a history of recurrence in the previous 18 months. The primary outcome measure was the time to recurrence. Other evaluations included the brief psychiatric rating scale (BPRS), the scale for the assessment of negative symptoms (SANS), the clinical global impression (CGI) severity and improvement scales, and the Simpson and Angus scale for extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS).
                Fewer zotepine patients experienced recurrence over 26 weeks than placebo patients (4 versus 21, respectively). The estimated 26-week risk of recurrence was six times lower for zotepine than placebo (8.7% versus 52.8%; hazard ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.053, 0.484; P<0.001). Scores on the BPRS and CGI supported the efficacy of zotepine. There was no difference between the treatments with respect to EPS.
                Zotepine is effective in preventing recurrence in patients with chronic schizophrenia. The level of EPS was not different between zotepine and placebo. In contrast to traditional antipsychotic medication, newer, the so called atypical antipsychotic drugs promise to reduce primary negative symptoms in both, acute and chronic schizophrenia and improve quality of life. Zotepine, a D (2)5HT (2A) antagonist, was compared to placebo in this clinical trial to address these issues.
                In an adaptive, 8-week multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel group study, efficacy and tolerability as well as influence on quality of life of zotepine and placebo were compared in 80 schizophrenic patients (53 % males, age 41 +/- 11 years) who experienced stable primary negative symptoms. Efficacy was assessed using the PANSS (primary outcome criterion: PANSS negative score), CGI, and MADRS; safety was controlled by EPS (Simpson-Angus Scale), TDRS and adverse events. Quality of life was evaluated with the SF-36 health questionnaire.
                After eight weeks of treatment with an average dose of 131 +/- 49 mg/day of zotepine, no superior efficacy of zotepine compared to placebo with respect to the PANSS subscale "negative symptoms could be demonstrated. Although patients receiving zotepine showed a pronounced reduction (per protocol set: -7.8 +/- 5.8) during treatment, it was not statistically different from a marked placebo response (-6.5 +/- 5.8). Similar small but not significant differences between zotepine and placebo were found in other subscales of the PANSS, the CGI and the MADRS. With regards to the quality of life assessment, patients under zotepine showed better results in the physical component scale and psychological well-being scale. In general, zotepine was well tolerated and there was no excess of extrapyramidal symptoms compared to placebo.
                Zotepine was not superior to placebo in reducing the severity of stable primary negative symptoms in schizophrenic patients in this trial. The main reasons for this finding were a high placebo response in a selected population, a probably too low dose of zotepine, and a short study period. However, several findings show clinical benefit of zotepine therapy in efficacy and quality of life. The dibenzothiepine zotepine is a new potential "atypical" neuroleptic exhibiting powerful antiserotonergic and antidopaminergic properties. The efficacy of zotepine was evaluated in a double-blind controlled trial versus the tricyclic neuroleptic perazine in 41 patients suffering mainly from the paranoid-hallucinatory type of schizophrenia. The key outcome variable was the extent of mental disturbance as defined by the total score of the BPRS. Additional outcome variables were GAS and CGI. In addition, adverse reactions and extrapyramidal side effects were assessed according to the FSUCL scale and the Gerlach and AIMS rating scale, respectively. Additional variables recorded were blood pressure, heart rate and routine laboratory parameters as well as electrocardiogram and electroencephalogram. In the first two days, standard equivalent doses of both drugs were administered. Thereafter, doses were administered as required. The efficacy of both substances was compared after 7, 14 and 28 days of treatment. Both drugs showed a similar antipsychotic efficacy. Under zotepine treatment a 55% improvement of the BPRS total score was observed while perazine led to a 41% BPRS score reduction. After 7 days the zotepine group was significantly more improved than the perazine group, possibly due to a dosing effect in the perazine group. In the zotepine group, fewer adverse reactions and a better benefit/risk index were observed although the differences between the two treatment groups did not reach levels of statistical significance. There were no drug-specific abnormal laboratory findings. Thus, in the present study there was no significant difference between zotepine and perazine with respect to antipsychotic efficacy and side-effect rates. However, zotepine showed a trend to a better benefit/risk index at the end of treatment. The atypical antipsychotic zotepine was compared to haloperidol in 126 patients suffering from acute exacerbation of schizophrenia (DSM-III-R) in a randomized, double-blind study. After 8-weeks, 150 to 300 mg zotepine improved scores on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) more than 10 to 20 mg haloperidol (-17.03 versus -13.45; 95%CI for zotepine-haloperidol -9.34/2.04). BPRS subscores and Clinical Global impressions (CGI) Severity and improvement subscales showed comparable gains, but scores on the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) improved significantly more with zotepine (-23.82) than haloperidol (-15.15; P < .05; 95%CI for zotepine haloperidol -18.03/-0.18). Adverse events were reported by 71 percent of zotepine and 78 percent of haloperidol patients. Extrapyramidal side effect (EPMS) scores decreased with zotepine (-0.34) but increased with haloperidol (+2.32; P < .05). Seven haloperidol patients reported akathisia but no zotepine patients did (p < .05). Uric acid reductions (which appear to have no clinical consequence) and transient raised liver enzymes were recorded with zotepine. Weight increased on zotepine (2.32 kg; P < .001) and a small increase in pulse rate occurred (P < .05). Both drugs were effective in reducing positive symptoms of schizophrenia; zotepine was significantly more effective against negative symptoms and reduced EPMS. Violent behavior of patients with schizophrenia prolongs hospital stay and interferes with their integration into the community. Finding appropriate treatment of violent behaviors is of primary importance.
                To compare the efficacy of 2 atypical antipsychotic agents, clozapine and olanzapine, with one another and with haloperidol in the treatment of physical assaults and other aggressive behaviors in physically assaultive patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.
                Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 12-week trial. Physically assaultive subjects with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who were inpatients in state psychiatric facilities were randomly assigned to treatment with clozapine (n = 37), olanzapine (n = 37), or haloperidol (n = 36).
                Number and severity of physical assaults as measured by the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) physical aggression score and the number and severity of all aggressive events as measured by the MOAS overall score. Psychiatric symptoms were assessed through the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS).
                Clozapine was superior to both olanzapine and haloperidol in reducing the number and severity of physical assaults as assessed by the MOAS physical aggression score and in reducing overall aggression as measured by the MOAS total score. Olanzapine was superior to haloperidol in reducing the number and severity of aggressive incidents on these 2 MOAS measures. There were no significant differences among the 3 medication groups in improvement of psychiatric symptoms as measured by the PANSS total score and the 3 PANSS subscales.
                Clozapine shows greater efficacy than olanzapine and olanzapine greater efficacy than haloperidol in reducing aggressive behavior. This antiaggressive effect appears to be separate from the antipsychotic and sedative action of these medications. Although there is a consensus that clozapine is more effective than conventional antipsychotic drugs for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, there is great heterogeneity among results of relevant trials.
                To re-evaluate the evidence comparing clozapine with conventional antipsychotics and to investigate sources of heterogeneity.
                Individual studies were inspected with assessment of clinical relevance of results. Meta-regression analysis was performed to investigate sources of heterogeneity.
                Ten trials were examined. Recent large-scale studies have not found a substantial advantage for clozapine, especially in terms of a clinically relevant effect. Meta-regression showed that shorter study duration, financial support from a drug company and higher baseline symptom score consistently predicted greater advantage of clozapine.
                It may be inappropriate to combine studies in meta-analysis, given the degree of heterogeneity between their findings. The benefits of clozapine compared with conventional treatment may not be substantial. When a schizophrenia patient has an inadequate response to treatment with an antipsychotic drug, it is unclear what other antipsychotic to switch to and when to use clozapine. In this study, the authors compared switching to clozapine with switching to another atypical antipsychotic in patients who had discontinued treatment with a newer atypical antipsychotic in the context of the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials for Interventions Effectiveness (CATIE) investigation.
                Ninety-nine patients who discontinued treatment with olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone in phase 1 or 1B of the trials, primarily because of inadequate efficacy, were randomly assigned to open-label treatment with clozapine (N=49) or blinded treatment with another newer atypical antipsychotic not previously received in the trial (olanzapine [N=19], quetiapine [N=15], or risperidone [N=16]).
                Time until treatment discontinuation for any reason was significantly longer for clozapine (median=10.5 months) than for quetiapine (median=3.3), or risperidone (median=2.8), but not for olanzapine (median=2.7). Time to discontinuation because of inadequate therapeutic effect was significantly longer for clozapine than for olanzapine, quetiapine, or risperidone. At 3-month assessments, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total scores had decreased more in patients treated with clozapine than in patients treated with quetiapine or risperidone but not olanzapine. One patient treated with clozapine developed agranulocytosis, and another developed eosinophilia; both required treatment discontinuation.
                For these patients with schizophrenia who prospectively failed to improve with an atypical antipsychotic, clozapine was more effective than switching to another newer atypical antipsychotic. Safety monitoring is necessary to detect and manage clozapine's serious side effects. 40 inpatients suffering from a schizophrenia (ICD-9) were treated with either zotepine or perazin. The study was continued for a period of 28 days. Assessment of clinical efficacy was effected via BPRS, AMDP, CGI and SANS; tolerance was assessed by means of Simpson's scale. In addition, EEG, ECG and laboratory controls were conducted. The overall therapeutic efficacy was good, and it was not possible to distinguish one group from the other, i.e. both substances were equally effective, judged by means of the psychopathometric tools that were at our disposal. In 11 patients of the zotepine group and in 9 patients of the perazin group, slight extrapyramidal symptoms were observed. No clinically relevant changes were seen in EEG, ECG and laboratory controls in both groups.
Zotepine may be a valuable addition to the class of atypical antipsychotic drugs. However, more data from existing studies is urgently needed to increase confidence in the findings of this review. In addition to this, new data from well planned, conducted and reported long term pragmatic randomised trials are needed. Otherwise clinical use of zotepine will be based upon speculation of short explanatory trials for everyday practice.