Sulpiride augmentation in people with schizophrenia partially responsive to clozapine. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Clozapine v. conventional antipsychotic drugs for treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a re-examination. Comparison of clozapine-amisulpride and clozapine-quetiapine combinations for patients with schizophrenia who are partially responsive to clozapine: a single-blind randomized study. Effectiveness of clozapine versus olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone in patients with chronic schizophrenia who did not respond to prior atypical antipsychotic treatment. Atypical antipsychotic agents in the treatment of violent patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Clozapine for the treatment-resistant schizophrenic. A double-blind comparison with chlorpromazine. Clozapine versus placebo in Huntington's disease: a double blind randomised comparative study. Some methodological considerations for the clinical evaluation of neuroleptics--comparative effects of clozapine and haloperidol on schizophrenics. Clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone, and haloperidol in the treatment of patients with chronic schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.
We hypothesised that a combined regimen of clozapine, a relatively weak D2-dopaminergic antagonist, and sulpiride, a selective D2 blocker, would demonstrate a greater antipsychotic efficacy by enhancing the D2 blockade of clozapine.
                Twenty-eight people with schizophrenia, previously unresponsive to typical antipsychotics and only partially responsive to current treatment with clozapine, received, double-blind, 600 mg/day sulpiride or placebo, in addition to an ongoing clozapine treatment. The clinical status was evaluated before, during, and at the end of 10 weeks of sulpiride addition using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms (SAPS), Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms, and Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.
                The clozapine-sulpiride group exhibited substantially greater and significant improvements in positive and negative psychotic symptoms. About half of them, characterised by a younger age and lower baseline SAPS scores, had a mean reduction of 42.4 and 50.4% in their BPRS and SAPS scores, respectively.
                A subgroup of patients with chronic schizophrenia may substantially benefit from sulpiride addition to clozapine. 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. Schizophrenia is a devastating psychiatric disorder. Clozapine has long been the gold standard for treatment of patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia; however, some patients are only partially responsive to clozapine treatment. Augmentation of clozapine treatment might enhance its effectiveness in partial responders, but only a few studies have investigated possible augmentation strategies. This study compared the effectiveness and tolerability of the combination of amisulpride and clozapine with the combination of quetiapine and clozapine in patients who were only partially responsive to clozapine monotherapy. Fifty-six treatment-resistant patients who were partially responsive to clozapine were randomly assigned to receive amisulpride or quetiapine along with an ongoing stable dose of clozapine. Fifty patients completed the study. Patients were evaluated at baseline and at the first, third, sixth, and eighth weeks. Efficacy measures consisted of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms (SAPS), and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale. Tolerability and adverse effects were assessed with the Udvalg for Kliniske Undersogelser (UKU) Side Effect Rating Scale and the Simpson Angus Scale (SAS). A substantial improvement occurred in both groups by the end of the eighth week; however, the improvement associated with amisulpride was significantly greater than that seen with quetiapine. This difference was noted as early as the third week of follow-up in terms of CGI scores, and by the sixth week with regard to BPRS, SANS, and SAPS scores. Both drugs were well tolerated, as measured by UKU and SAS. Improvement favoring clozapine+amisulpride could be attributed to the selective D2/D3 binding property of amisulpride, which had an additional effect in improving symptoms of schizophrenia. The authors concluded that amisulpride seems to be effective and well tolerated for augmentation purposes in clozapine-resistant patients. 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. 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. The treatment of schizophrenic patients who fail to respond to adequate trials of neuroleptics is a major challenge. Clozapine, an atypical antipsychotic drug, has long been of scientific interest, but its clinical development has been delayed because of an associated risk of agranulocytosis. This report describes a multicenter clinical trial to assess clozapine's efficacy in the treatment of patients who are refractory to neuroleptics. DSM-III schizophrenics who had failed to respond to at least three different neuroleptics underwent a prospective, single-blind trial of haloperidol (mean dosage, 61 +/- 14 mg/d) for six weeks. Patients whose condition remained unimproved were then randomly assigned, in a double-blind manner, to clozapine (up to 900 mg/d) or chlorpromazine (up to 1800 mg/d) for six weeks. Two hundred sixty-eight patients were entered in the double-blind comparison. When a priori criteria were used, 30% of the clozapine-treated patients were categorized as responders compared with 4% of chlorpromazine-treated patients. Clozapine produced significantly greater improvement on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impression Scale, and Nurses' Observation Scale for Inpatient Evaluation; this improvement included "negative" as well as positive symptom areas. Although no cases of agranulocytosis occurred during this relatively brief study, in our view, the apparently increased comparative risk requires that the use of clozapine be limited to selected treatment-resistant patients. To establish the effect of the atypical neuroleptic clozapine on chorea, voluntary motor performance, and functional disability in patients with Huntington's disease.
                Thirty three patients with Huntington's disease participated in a double blind randomised trial. A maximum of 150 mg/day clozapine or placebo equivalent was given for a period of 31 days. Assessments were performed in the week before and at the last day of the trial. Chorea was scored using the abnormal involuntary movement scale (AIMS), the chorea score of the unified Huntington's disease rating scale (UHDRS), and judgement of video recordings. Voluntary motor performance was assessed using the UHDRS motor scale. Patients and their partners completed a questionnaire regarding functional disability. Twelve patients already used other neuroleptic medication, which was kept unchanged during the trial period. Results of neuroleptic naive and neuroleptic treated patients were analysed separately.
                Clozapine tended to reduce chorea in neuroleptic naive patients only (AIMS); improvement seemed more pronounced in patients receiving higher doses of clozapine. Other measures of chorea (UHDRS chorea score, video ratings) showed no improvement. Clozapine had no beneficial effect on chorea in patients already receiving neuroleptic medication. Voluntary motor performance did not improve with clozapine. Neuroleptic naive patients reported aggravation of functional disability, possibly reflecting the frequent occurrence of side effects. Adverse reactions forced trial termination in six patients and dose reduction in another eight, and consisted mainly of drowsiness, fatigue, anticholinergic symptoms, and walking difficulties.
                Clozapine has little beneficial effect in patients with Huntington's disease, although individual patients may tolerate doses high enough to reduce chorea. Because adverse reactions are often encountered, clozapine should be used with restraint in this patient group. For the purpose of evaluating objectively the characteristics of clinical effects of clozapine and haloperidol, a double-blind comparative trial was conducted on 91 schizophrenic in-patients. The changes of symptoms were assessed by means of several psychiatric and behavioral rating scales. The results were analyzed by means of nonparametric statistical methods. Furthermore, application of multivariate analysis was considered. After 12 weeks of treatment, though no significant difference in general improvement rate was noted between the two groups, a marked different spectrum of clinical effects was observed according to the rating scales. Clozapine is superior in anti-delusional, contact-promoting and sedative anxiolytic effect, while haloperidol is superior in anti-autistic effect. Among the side-effects, extrapyramidal symptoms appeared significatly more severe in the haloperidol group. The frequency of appearance of fever, was significantly greater in the clozapine group than the other. The four dropout cases of the clozapine group were all caused by fever. Through this clinical trial, clinical availability and validity of various statistical analytical methods were reconsidered. The authors compared the efficacy and safety of three atypical antipsychotics (clozapine, olanzapine, and risperidone) with one another and with haloperidol in the treatment of patients with chronic schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
                In a double-blind trial, 157 inpatients with a history of suboptimal treatment response were randomly assigned to treatment with clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone, or haloperidol for 14 weeks (an 8-week escalation and fixed-dose period followed by a 6-week variable-dose period).
                Clozapine, risperidone, and olanzapine (but not haloperidol) resulted in statistically significant improvements in total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. Improvements seen in total and negative symptom scores with clozapine and olanzapine were superior to haloperidol. The atypical drugs, particularly olanzapine and clozapine, were associated with weight gain.
                The effects of atypical antipsychotics in this population were statistically significant but clinically modest. The overall pattern of results suggests that clozapine and olanzapine have similar general antipsychotic efficacy and that risperidone may be somewhat less effective. Clozapine was the most effective treatment for negative symptoms. However, the differences among treatments were small.
Sulpiride plus clozapine is probably more effective than clozapine alone in producing clinical improvement in some people whose illness has been resistant to other antipsychotic drugs including clozapine. However, much more robust data are needed.