Zuclopenthixol and haloperidol in patients with acute psychotic states. A double-blind, multi-centre study. A controlled Nordic multicentre study of zuclopenthixol acetate in oil solution, haloperidol and zuclopenthixol in the treatment of acute psychosis. A double-blind controlled study of intramuscular zuclopenthixol acetate and liquid oral haloperidol in the treatment of schizophrenic patients with acute exacerbation. Comparative study of the effectiveness of zuclopenthixol acetate and haloperidol in acutely disturbed psychotic patients. Zuclopenthixol decanoate and haloperidol decanoate in chronic schizophrenia: a double-blind multicentre study. A double blind comparison of zuclopenthixol acetate with haloperidol in the management of acutely disturbed schizophrenics. Risperidone versus zuclopenthixol in the treatment of acute schizophrenic episodes: a double-blind parallel-group trial. A double-blind clinical investigation of cis(Z)-clopenthixol and clopenthixol in chronic schizophrenic patients. Clozapine versus placebo in Huntington's disease: a double blind randomised comparative study.
A double-blind, multi-centre study was carried out in 49 hospitalized patients with an acute psychosis or an exacerbation of a chronic psychosis to compare the wanted and unwanted effects of the neuroleptics, zuclopenthixol and haloperidol. Patients were allocated at random to receive treatment with one or other of the trial drugs for 8 weeks or until discharge. Five patients on zuclopenthixol and 6 on haloperidol were excluded from the efficacy analyses because they did not complete a minimum of 4-weeks' treatment. Dosage was chosen and adjusted to the individual patient's condition and response. The average daily doses in Week 4 were 33.5 mg and 10.3 mg, respectively. Clinical assessments, including CGI, BPRS and the UKU side-effect scale, were done at baseline, and after 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 weeks of treatment or at discharge if the patient was discharged earlier than Week 8. Both treatments caused a significant reduction in scores with no between-group differences. More patients in the zuclopenthixol group were discharged early indicating slightly more rapid onset of action. Zuclopenthixol caused a significantly greater improvement in 'anxious-depression' factor score than haloperidol. The most frequent unwanted effects were extrapyramidal symptoms and there were no significant differences between the groups. The extrapyramidal symptoms tended to be transient in the zuclopenthixol group, but not in the haloperidol group. The study confirmed that both zuclopenthixol and haloperidol were effective drugs in the treatment of acute, psychotic patients. There was a trend towards a slightly more rapid onset of effect and a somewhat stronger anxiolytic-antidepressant effect by zuclopenthixol compared to haloperidol. Zuclopenthixol acetate--a new injectable formulation with a duration of action of 2-3 days--was compared with conventional intramuscular and oral formulations of haloperidol and zuclopenthixol in the initial treatment of acutely disturbed, psychotic patients. The patients were stratified into 3 diagnostic categories: acute psychoses (48 patients), mania (22 patients), and exacerbation of chronic psychoses (73 patients). The patients were rated on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Bech-Rafaelsen Mania Rating Scale (BRMAS) (only manic patients) and globally on the Clinical Global Impression (CGI). The study was an open, randomized multicentre trial with a 6-day treatment period. The zuclopenthixol acetate patients received 1-4 doses, the haloperidol patients 1-26 and the zuclopenthixol patients 1-22 doses. The assessments on the CGI showed that all 3 treatments caused a clear reduction of the severity of illness scores in all 3 diagnostic categories, with no differences between treatments. The ratings of the acute and chronic psychotic patients on the BPRS also showed significant reductions in scores with no differences between treatments. All 3 treatments caused a rapid remission of symptoms on the BRMAS. Haloperidol induced hypokinesia in significantly more patients than zuclopenthixol acetate after 24 h. Later there were no significant differences between treatments. Zuclopenthixol acetate fulfils many desires for an amended neuroleptic formulation for the initial treatment of acutely disturbed psychotic patients. We carried out a 9-day double-blind clinical trial comparing intramuscular zuclopenthixol acetate with liquid oral haloperidol in the treatment of 40 newly admitted schizophrenic patients with acute exacerbation. A parallel-group design was used with stratification by sex. Zuclopenthixol acetate (50 to 150 mg) was given intramuscularly every 3 days, whereas liquid haloperidol (10 to 30 mg daily) was given orally three times a day, with supplementary doses of each medication given under double-blind conditions when needed for agitation. No other sedative drugs, including benzodiazepines, were administered. The mean daily dose was 18.9 mg for haloperidol as compared with a mean dose per 3 days of 117.6 mg for zuclopenthixol. The two treatments were found to be equally efficacious on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and Clinical Global Impression Scale. Both drugs induced similar extrapyramidal side effects. However, more tremors were associated with zuclopenthixol as was a tendency for tardive dyskinesia to be unmasked at the end of the injection interval. Sedation was higher with zuclopenthixol acetate than with haloperidol. Serum creatinine phosphokinase levels were not significantly increased after zuclopenthixol injections. The results of this trial suggest that zuclopenthixol acetate given intramuscularly every second to third day offers an alternative to conventional liquid oral haloperidol in the management of acute schizophrenia. To study the effectiveness, frequency of administration and side effects of zuclopenthixol acetate (ZPTA) and haloperidol (HAL) in the treatment of acute psychotic disturbance with aggression.
                Purposive sampling method was employed in a group of psychotic patients with aggression admitted to Songkla Neuropsychiatric Hospital, they were randomly divided into 2 groups: ZPTA group and HAL group. All of the patients were evaluated daily for 7 consecutive days using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI). Statistical analysis was performed by using the Student t-test and Linear regression.
                There were 70 patients with diagnosis of schizophrenia, mania and acute psychosis. Thirty-eight patients were randomly assigned to the ZPTA group and were given 50-100 mg of the drug, while 32 patients received HAL 5-10 mg. The result showed a significant reduction in BPRS or CGI scores in both groups. Patients treated with ZPTA required less frequent administration than did those on HAL (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the reduction in scores between the two groups. Nor was there a statistical difference in reduction of aggression based on BPRS rating. Each group of patients showed a few side effects of mild degree.
                Both ZPTA and HAL were effective in the treatment of acute psychosis with aggression, but frequency of administration was lower in the ZPTA group Zuclopenthixol decanoate (ZPT-D) and haloperidol decanoate (HAL-D) were compared in the maintenance treatment of chronic schizophrenic patients. All patients were treated with either ZPT-D or HAL-D for at least 3 months and were then randomly allocated to treatment with either ZPT-D (100-600 mg every 4 weeks) or HAL-D (38-200 mg every 4 weeks) for 9 months. Sixty-four patients entered the study. Three patients were only assessed at baseline. Four patients in the HAL-D group were withdrawn because of deterioration. One patient in the ZPT-D group committed suicide. Fifty-six patients completed the trial. The assessment programme comprised Clinical Global Impressions by psychiatrists and nurses, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), UKU Side Effect Scale and Simpson-Angus Scale, Ratings were made at baseline and after 12, 24 and 36 weeks of treatment. The severity of illness scores remained almost constant. The only between-group difference was recorded at month 6 in favour of ZPT-D. The BPRS total scores were reduced significantly in both groups with no between-group differences. The depression scores on the MADRS were very low. Both treatments caused few and mild side effects according to the UKU Side Effect Scale and the Simpson-Angus scale, and there were no significant differences between the groups. Both ZPT-D and HAL-D seem to be effective in the maintenance treatment of chronic schizophrenic patients and cause few side effects. The injections of ZPT-D and HAL-D can be given at 4-week intervals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and side effects of zuclopenthixol acetate compared with haloperidol in the management of the acutely disturbed schizophrenic patient. Suitable subjects diagnosed as having schizophreniform disorder or acute exacerbation of schizophrenia admitted to the psychiatric wards Hospital Kuala Lumpur were randomised to receive either zuclopenthixol acetate or haloperidol. They were rated blind for three consecutive days using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Clinical Global Impression (CGI) and UKU Side Effects Scale. Apart from repeat injections of the same medication, no other anti-psychotic was given for the duration of the study. 50 subjects entered the study of which 44 completed. 23 were given zuclopenthixol acetate and 21 haloperidol. Both groups significantly reduced BPRS and CGI scores on all 3 days compared to the initial rating (p < 0.001). There was however no difference between the zuclopenthixol acetate and haloperidol group scores on all days (p > 0.05). More subjects on haloperidol than zuclopenthixol required more than 1 injection during the study. Both groups had minimal side effects. Zuclopenthixol acetate was effective in the management of the acutely disturbed schizophrenic. A double-blind, randomized, multi-center, parallel-group study was conducted in Finland to compare the efficacy and safety of risperidone with zuclopenthixol in patients with acute exacerbations of schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder. Ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned to treatment with risperidone (n = 48) or zuclopenthixol (n = 50), in variable doses, for 6 weeks. The mean daily doses of risperidone and zuclopenthixol at the end of the trial were 8 mg and 38 mg respectively. Efficacy was assessed throughout by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale for schizophrenia and Clinical Global Impression. Safety assessments included the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale, UKU Side-Effect Rating Scale, vital signs, body weight and laboratory screening. The results indicate that risperidone is at least as effective as zuclopenthixol for the treatment of acute schizophrenic episodes, with a trend towards greater improvement in the overall severity of symptoms. The onset of action was significantly shorter with risperidone than with zuclopenthixol. Although the general tolerability of the two drugs was comparable, fewer patients experienced extrapyramidal symptoms with risperidone, so that significantly fewer risperidone-treated patients required antiparkinsonian medication. The therapeutic effect of the neuroleptic cis(Z)-clopenthixol has been compared with that of clopenthixol in mainly chronic schizophrenic patients in a double-blind 8-week trial. Forty-nine of the 54 patients in the trial received clopenthixol in the pre-trial period. Ratings with CGI and a single side effects form were done at weeks 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8. The registration of therapeutic effect at week 8 indicated a symptomatological status quo in both groups of patients while there was a tendency of slightly less interference by cis(Z)-clopenthixol with patient's functioning than by clopenthixol. The ratio of therapeutically equipotent cis(Z)-clopenthixol/clopenthixol doses was found to be 1:2. It is suggested that long-term treatment with clopenthixol advantageously may be replaced by cis(Z)-clopenthixol. 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.
There is an indication that zuclopenthixol causes movement disorders, perhaps more so than the newer generation of drugs, though no more frequently than the older generation of antipsychotics. There is some suggestion from this review that oral zuclopenthixol may have some clinical advantage, at least in the short term, over other older drugs in terms of global state. If an older drug is going to be prescribed, zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride is a viable option but may be best taken with additional medication to offset movement disorders that occur in about half the people taking this drug. There is no information on service, functional, behavioural outcomes and important outcomes such as relapse, for such a widely used drug this would indicate the need for further studies. We feel that it should remain a choice in the treatment of those for whom older generation drugs are indicated.
Note: the 8 citations in the awaiting classification section of the review may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.