Antipsychotic efficacy of the antidepressant trimipramine: a randomized, double-blind comparison with the phenothiazine perazine. Issues that may determine the outcome of antipsychotic trials: industry sponsorship and extrapyramidal side effect. [Zotepine versus perazine in patients with paranoid schizophrenia: a double-blind controlled trial of its effectiveness]. Pharmacotherapy of impaired affect in recovering schizophrenic patients. Ethyl-eicosapentaenoic acid in first-episode psychosis: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. The risks and benefits of clozapine versus chlorpromazine. The dementia antipsychotic withdrawal trial (DART-AD): long-term follow-up of a randomised placebo-controlled trial. International multisite double-blind trial of the atypical antipsychotics risperidone and olanzapine in 175 elderly patients with chronic schizophrenia. Amisulpride versus flupentixol in schizophrenia with predominantly positive symptomatology -- a double-blind controlled study comparing a selective D2-like antagonist to a mixed D1-/D2-like antagonist. The Amisulpride Study Group.
The tricyclic antidepressant trimipramine exhibits several features (e. g., dopaminergic effect, molecular structure similar to a neuroleptic, receptor-binding profile similar to clozapine) that suggest its potential as an antipsychotic medication. The aim of the study was to investigate the antipsychotic potential of trimipramine in a controlled clinical trial comparing its antipsychotic efficacy with that of a neuroleptic.
                In a German multi-center, randomized, double-blind trial, the antipsychotic efficacy of trimipramine was compared with that of the phenothiazine neuroleptic perazine, using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), and Clinical Global Impressions (CGI). Antidepressant efficacy of both agents was measured by use of the Bech-Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale (BRMES). Ninety-five patients with acute schizophrenia (DSM-III-R) and a BPRS total score > 40 at baseline were treated with either 300-400 mg trimipramine or 450-600 mg perazine for 5 weeks.
                Therapeutic equivalence of both treatments (in the dosages used) could not be demonstrated (change in BPRS total score, per-protocol [PP] analysis, one-sided equivalence testing). However, intention-to-treat (ITT) as well as PP analysis showed a statistically significant decrease in the BPRS total scores in both treatment groups (PP: trimipramine, 56.5 +/- 9.8 to 44.1 +/- 17.9; perazine, 56.4 +/- 10.8 to 37.9 +/- 12.9). Significant decreases in all BPRS and PANSS subscores as well as CGI results and response rate support the antipsychotic efficacy of trimipramine. The BRMES total scores significantly decreased in both treatment groups without showing a significant difference between the two agents. Trimipramine was better tolerated than perazine and did not elicit extrapyramidal symptoms.
                Trimipramine failed to exhibit therapeutic equivalence to perazine in the dosages used. However, there was evidence of a substantial antipsychotic effect of trimipramine. It may be a useful medication if depressive symptoms in psychotic patients require antidepressant treatment or if other antipsychotics cannot be administered. This study presents a meta-analysis of the influence of several potentially biasing factors (eg industry support, extrapyramidal side effects) on efficacy of studies comparing second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) with first-generation antipsychotic (FGA) medications. We used the dataset from our previously published meta-analysis of 124 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SGAs with FGAs, to evaluate whether certain possible biases could influence the actual outcome on the total score of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), and Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scores. Industry sponsorship was determined by contact with authors or publication statement. We calculated whether (1) industry sponsorship, (2) study quality, (3) extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) properties, or (4) prophylactic antiparkinsonian medications influenced SGA vs FGA efficacy for each drug and averaged overall by two Hedges and Olkin-based meta-analyses. The analysis found that none of the factors was significantly associated with a particular outcome. While industry-sponsored articles may conclude their medication to be more favorable than that of a competitor in an RCT, we found that the observed efficacy was not influenced by sponsorship. Many attribute the finding that SGAs appears to be more efficacious than FGAs to be a result of EPS-decreasing efficacy (or its measurement). We were unable to confirm that the drug's EPS properties or antiparkinsonian management altered actual efficacy. 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. Prominent and persistent anxiety, depression, and/or negative features characterize a substantial minority of recovered or residually psychotic schizophrenic outpatients and contribute to poor outcome. Because extrapyramidal side effects of typical neuroleptic medications often resemble such features, we first systematically studied the contribution of extrapyramidal side effects to these problems and their treatment. For patients who remained distressed, controlled trials of supplemental thymoleptics were undertaken.
                In trial 1, 92 distressed (depressed and/or anxious) patients and 36 patients in a defect state (patients with negative symptoms) participated in a double-blind, intramuscular challenge that compared centrally acting benztropine mesylate with peripherally acting glycopyrrolate. In trial 2, 57 distressed patients and 22 patients in a defect state were randomly assigned to a double-blind, neuroleptic medication dose-reduction group. In trial 3, 57 chronically distressed patients who were maintained on a low dose of fluphenazine decanoate were randomly assigned to a supplemental desipramine hydrochloride, lithium carbonate, or placebo group under double-blind conditions for 12 weeks.
                For patients who were already maintained on antiparkinsonian medication, impaired affect was not resolved by additional benztropine. Only distressed patients with a family history of severe mental disorder (often affective) showed improvement with neuroleptic medication dose reduction. Patients in the defect-state group reported less dysphoria on a reduced neuroleptic medication dose, but negative symptoms persisted. Desipramine improved diverse aspects of mood and residual psychoticism, possibly as a prophylaxis against minor affective exacerbations. Depression improved in women only. Lithium positively affected multiple indexes of anxiety and anxious depression.
                Most often, persistent affective impairments are neither resistant extrapyramidal side effects nor characterological traits. Thymoleptics improve the nonphasic, chronic types of anxiety and depression in contrast to the acute, episodic forms, for which little support can be found in the literature. To investigate if ethyl-eicosapentaenoic acid (E-EPA) augmentation improves antipsychotic efficacy and tolerability in first-episode psychosis (FEP).
                We performed a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 2-g E-EPA augmentation in 80 FEP patients. Sixty-nine patients were eligible for analysis; a post hoc analysis was computed for a subgroup of nonaffective FEP patients (N = 53). The first participant was included in November 2000 and the last participant completed the trial in August 2003. Primary outcome measures were symptom change scores and time to first response, while tolerability measures and cumulative antipsychotic dose were secondary outcome measures.
                Analysis of covariance controlling for baseline symptoms found no significant mean difference between E-EPA and placebo at week 12 for symptom change scores. Cox regression analysis revealed a significant treatment by diagnosis interaction (p = .024) for time to first response favoring E-EPA in nonaffective psychosis. Post hoc analysis for cumulative response rates further confirmed a higher response rate at week 6 (42.9% [15/35] vs. 17.6% [6/34] for all participants, p = .036; 54.2% [13/24] vs. 17.2% [5/29] for the nonaffective psychosis subset, p = .008); however, the difference at week 12 was no longer significant. Analysis of secondary outcome measures revealed that E-EPA-augmented participants needed 20% less antipsychotic medication between weeks 4 through 6 (p = .03), had less extrapyramidal side effects in the initial 9 weeks (p < .05 for all participants and for all timepoints), and reported less constipation (p = .011) and fewer sexual side effects (p = .016) than those treated with antipsychotic medication alone.
                The findings suggest that E-EPA may accelerate treatment response and improve the tolerability of antipsychotic medications. However, it was not possible to demonstrate a sustained symptomatic benefit of E-EPA in early psychosis, possibly due to a ceiling effect, since a high proportion of first-episode patients already achieve symptomatic remission with antipsychotic medication alone. Further controlled trials in nonaffective early psychosis seem warranted.
                Australian Clinical Trials Registry identifier 12605000267651 (http://actr.org.au). 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). Data from 12-week placebo-controlled trials have led to mounting concerns about increased mortality in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) who are prescribed antipsychotics; however, there are no mortality data from long-term placebo-controlled trials. We aimed to assess whether continued treatment with antipsychotics in people with AD is associated with an increased risk of mortality.
                Between October, 2001, and December, 2004, patients with AD who resided in care facilities in the UK were enrolled into a randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel, two-group treatment discontinuation trial. Participants were randomly assigned to continue with their antipsychotic treatment (thioridazine, chlorpromazine, haloperidol, trifluoperazine, or risperidone) for 12 months or to switch their medication to an oral placebo. The primary outcome was mortality at 12 months. An additional follow-up telephone assessment was done to establish whether each participant was still alive 24 months after the enrollment of the last participant (range 24-54 months). Causes of death were obtained from death certificates. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT) and modified intention to treat (mITT). This trial is registered with the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials/National Research Register, number ISRCTN33368770.
                165 patients were randomised (83 to continue antipsychotic treatment and 82 to placebo), of whom 128 (78%) started treatment (64 continued with their treatment and 64 received placebo). There was a reduction in survival in the patients who continued to receive antipsychotics compared with those who received placebo. Cumulative probability of survival during the 12 months was 70% (95% CI 58-80%) in the continue treatment group versus 77% (64-85%) in the placebo group for the mITT population. Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality for the whole study period showed a significantly increased risk of mortality for patients who were allocated to continue antipsychotic treatment compared with those allocated to placebo (mITT log rank p=0.03; ITT p=0.02). The hazard ratio for the mITT group was 0.58 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.95) and 0.58 (0.36 to 0.92) for the ITT population. The more pronounced differences between groups during periods of follow up longer than 12 months were evident at specific timepoints (24-month survival 46%vs 71%; 36-month survival 30%vs 59%).
                There is an increased long-term risk of mortality in patients with AD who are prescribed antipsychotic medication; these results further highlight the need to seek less harmful alternatives for the long-term treatment of neuropsychiatric symptoms in these patients.
                UK Alzheimer's Research Trust. The authors compared the effects of the two most commonly used atypical antipsychotics, risperidone and olanzapine, in elderly patients with schizophrenia.
                In an 8-week, international, double-blind study, patients (outpatients, hospital inpatients, and residents of nursing or boarding homes) were randomly assigned to receive risperidone (1 mg to 3 mg/day) or olanzapine (5 mg to 20 mg/day). The main outcome measures were changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores and rates of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS).
                Subjects were 175 patients age 60 years or over with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The mean duration of illness was 36.5 years. Median doses were 2 mg/day of risperidone and 10 mg/day of olanzapine. PANSS total scores and four of the five PANSS factor scores (positive symptoms, negative symptoms, disorganized thoughts, and anxiety/depression) improved significantly at all time-points and at endpoint in both groups; between-treatment differences were not significant. EPS-related adverse events were reported by 9.2% of patients in the risperidone group and 15.9% in the olanzapine group; the between-treatment difference was not significant. Total scores on the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale were reduced in both groups at endpoint; between-treatment differences were not significant. Clinically relevant weight gain was seen in both groups, but was significantly less frequent in risperidone patients than in olanzapine patients.
                Stable elderly patients with chronic schizophrenia receiving appropriate doses of risperidone or olanzapine over an 8-week period experienced significant reductions in the severity of psychotic and extrapyramidal symptoms, with a relatively low risk of side effects. The benzamide amisulpride (ASP) is a selective D2-like dopamine antagonist, while flupentixol (FPX), a thioxanthene, blocks D2-like, D1-like and 5-HT2 receptors. To evaluate efficacy and safety of ASP and to investigate the importance of an additional D1-like antagonism for antipsychotic effects and extrapyramidal tolerability, a randomized double-blind multi- center study versus FPX as reference drug was performed for 6 weeks in 132 patients suffering from acute schizophrenia (DSM-III-R) with predominant positive symptomatology. Doses were initially fixed (ASP: 1000 mg/day; FPX: 25 mg/day) but could be reduced by 40% in case of side effects (mean daily doses: ASP: 956 mg; FPX: 22.6 mg). Intention-to-treat evaluation demonstrated significant improvement under both medications. The difference between the mean BPRS decreases of both treatment groups was 5.6 points (95% CI: 0.55; 10.65) in favour of ASP. According to CGI, 62% of patients in either drug group were treatment responders. ANCOVA analysis showed that reductions of BPRS (ASP: -42%; FPX: -32%) and SAPS (ASP: -78%; FPX: -65%) were more pronounced under ASP. Due to adverse events, significantly fewer ASP patients (6%) were withdrawn from the study (FPX: 18%). Extrapyramidal tolerability was better in the ASP group, as demonstrated by smaller increases in the Simpson-Angus Scale, the AIMS, and the Barnes Akathisia Scale in ANCOVA analyses with dosage as covariate. ASP appears to be as effective as FPX with regard to antipsychotic effects on positive schizophrenic symptomatology, while extrapyramidal tolerability is better. These conclusions have to be drawn cautiously, as dosage effects on outcome parameters cannot be entirely ruled out. The present results question the notion that additional blockade of D1-like receptors may be necessary to achieve sufficient antipsychotic effects or to improve extrapyramidal tolerability.
The number, size and reporting of randomised controlled perazine trials is insufficient to present firm conclusions about the properties of this antipsychotic. It is possible that perazine is associated with a similar risk of extrapyramidal side-effects as some atypical antipsychotics, and this should be clarified in larger, well-designed trials.
[Note: the four citations in the awaiting classification section of the review may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.]