Olanzapine compared with chlorpromazine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. The efficacy and safety of clozapine versus chlorpromazine in geriatric schizophrenia. Pimozide versus chlorpromazine in chronic schizophrenia: a 52 week double-blind study of maintenance therapy. Comparison of pimozide and chlorpromazine in acute schizophrenia. The risks and benefits of clozapine versus chlorpromazine. A double-blind comparative study of clozapine versus chlorpromazine on Chinese patients with treatment-refractory schizophrenia. Comparison of SCH-12679 and thioridazine in aggressive mental retardates. Loxapine succinate: a controlled double-blind study in chronic schizophrenia. Comparison of sulpiride and chlorpromazine in psychoses. A double-blind multicentre study.
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. 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. 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. 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. Clozapine is an atypical antipsychotic drug with reduced risk of unwanted neurological effects in comparison with other drugs. In this multicenter study, 151 hospitalized schizophrenic patients were randomly assigned to treatment under double-blind conditions to assess the antipsychotic efficacy and safety of clozapine versus chlorpromazine. All patients exhibited tardive dyskinesia or other extrapyramidal side effects associated with at least two prior neuroleptics. Eleven patients were dropped from treatment due to extrapyramidal symptoms while being treated with chlorpromazine; only one clozapine patient's treatment was terminated for this reason. Clozapine patients exhibited clinical improvement superior to that of chlorpromazine patients as assessed by the Brief Psychiatric Rating and Clinical Global Impression scales. These results suggest that clozapine is well tolerated and may be therapeutically superior to chlorpromazine in treating psychotic behavior. Agranulocytosis potential can be minimized by frequent white blood cell counts and removing nonresponding patients from treatment prior to the peak risk period (months 2 through 6). Clozapine has been shown to have superior effectiveness compared with classic neuroleptics in treating refractory schizophrenia in Caucasians, but its efficacy and safety in Chinese have not been adequately studied. Forty Chinese schizophrenic patients were recruited in a 12-week, double-blind, comparative trial. Twenty-one patients were randomly assigned to clozapine treatment and 19 to chlorpromazine treatment. The average dose was 543 +/- 157 and 1163 +/- 228 mg/day for clozapine and chlorpromazine, respectively. The results showed that six clozapine-treated patients (28.6%) had more than 20% improvement in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale score and were classified as responders, whereas none of the chlorpromazine-treated patients was classified as a responder. The degree of improvement in positive symptoms, negative symptoms and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores in the clozapine group was inversely correlated with the severity of negative symptoms at entry into the trial. Two clozapine-treated patients were withdrawn from the study, one because of leukopenia and nausea, and the other because of vomiting and hypotension. Chlorpromazine treatment was prematurely discontinued in two patients, because of jaundice and over sedation in one, and because of severe weight loss in the other (9 kg). The rate of moderate-to-severe sialorrhea was high in clozapine-treated patients (28.6%). Two clozapine-treated patients and two chlorpromazine-treated patients showed significant improvement in previously existing tardive dyskinesia and one chlorpromazine-treated patient exhibited aggravation of tardive dyskinesia. The results of this study indicate that clozapine treatment might have advantages over chlorpromazine for Chinese schizophrenic patients who are refractory to typical neuroleptic treatment. 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. Loxapine succinate was compared to chlorpromazine in a 12-week double-blind study of 50 hospitalized chronic schizophrenic patients. Statistical analyses of BPRS scores showed significant improvemement for several items and factors in both groups of patients. Both drugs significantly decreased severity of illness on the CGI scale. On the NOSIE scale, "manifest psychosis" was improved significantly with chlorpromazine and "global severity" with loxapine succinate. There were no significant treatment differences in BPRS, CGI, or Nosie items or factors or in the reduction of overall psychopathology. The side effects associated with the study drugs differed little with respect to incidence, number, severity, and type. The most frequently reported symptoms in both groups were behavioral, extrapyramidal, and sedative. Analyses of vital signs and clinical laboratory data revealed no evidence of serious untoward effects. In a material of 71 patients admitted because of acute or chronic psychoses, 32 were treated with sulpiride (up to 1,800 mg per day) and 39 with chlorpromazine (up to 675 mg). Duration of treatment was from 4 to 8 weeks. The effect of the two preparations was very similar as were the type and frequency of side effects, except that sulpiride did not cause sunrash.
The results of this review confirm much that clinicians and recipients of care already know but aim to provide quantification to support clinical impression. Chlorpromazine's global position as a 'benchmark' treatment for psychoses is not threatened by the findings of this review. Chlorpromazine, in common use for half a century, is a well established but imperfect treatment. Judicious use of this best available evidence should lead to improved evidence-based decision making by clinicians, carers and patients.
Please note the addition of 26 studies to awaiting classification section of the review may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.