Search

Background: Side-effects of psychiatric medication impair quality of life and functioning. Furthermore, they contribute to morbidity, mortality, stigma, and poor treatment concordance resulting in relapse of psychiatric illness. Guidelines recommend discussing side-effects with patients when making treatment decisions, but a synthesis of antidepressant and antipsychotic side-effects to guide this process is missing, and considering all side-effects is a complex, multidimensional process. We aimed to create comprehensive databases of antipsychotic and antidepressant side-effects, and a digital tool to support database navigation., Methods: To create the databases, we did an umbrella review of Embase, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE from database inception to June 26, 2023. We included meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials examining antipsychotic monotherapy in the treatment of schizophrenia or antidepressant monotherapy in the treatment of major depressive disorder. We included meta-analyses in adults (aged ≥18 years) that assessed drugs with a common comparator. The search was complemented by a review of national and international guidelines and consensus statements for the treatment of major depressive disorder and schizophrenia in adults. Effect sizes for antipsychotic and antidepressant side-effects were extracted from meta-analyses examining the largest number of drugs. In cases of incomplete meta-analytic coverage, data were imputed on the basis of guideline-derived ordinal rankings or, if imputation was not possible, ordinal scores were extracted. Both meta-analytic and ordinal outcomes were normalised to provide values between 0 and 1. We then constructed a digital tool, the Psymatik Treatment Optimizer, to combine the side-effect databases with side-effect concerns of an individual user, to enable users to select side-effects of concern and the relative degree of concern for each side-effect. Concern weightings and the side-effect databases are synthesised via a multicriteria decision analysis method (technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal situation, or TOPSIS)., Findings: Of 3724 citations, 14 articles containing 68 meta-analyses of individual side-effects met inclusion criteria. After review of 19 guidelines, seven provided ordinal data. Antipsychotic data were extracted from five studies (11 meta-analyses, n=65 594 patients) and four guidelines, and antidepressant data were extracted from three guidelines. The resultant databases included data on 32 antipsychotics (14 side-effects) and 37 antidepressants (nine side-effects). The databases highlighted the clinical dilemma associated with balancing side-effects, with avoidance of one side-effect (eg, weight gain for antipsychotics) increasing the risk of others (eg, akathisia). To aid with this dilemma, the Psymatik Treatment Optimizer synthesises the side-effect databases with individual user-defined concern weights. After computing up to 5851 pairwise comparisons for antidepressants and 5142 pairwise comparisons for antipsychotics, Psymatik ranks treatments in order of preference for the individual user, with the output presented in a heatmap., Interpretation: By facilitating collaborative, personalised, and evidence-based prescribing decisions, the side-effect databases and digital application supports care delivery that is consistent with international regulatory guidance for the treatment of schizophrenia and depression, and it therefore has promise for informing psychiatric practice and improving outcomes., Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research, Maudsley Charity, Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests TP has participated in educational speaker meetings organised by Lundbeck, Otsuka, Sunovion, Janssen, Schwabe Pharma, ROVI Biotech, and Recordati. RAMcC has participated in advisory or speaker meetings organised by Otsuka, Karuna, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Janssen. TP and RAMcC are directors of Pharmatik that funds website hosting for Psymatik. Neither TP nor RAMcC have holdings or financial stakes in any pharmaceutical company. MH has received honoraria for advisory boards and lectures from Recordati. SJ has participated in educational speaker meetings organised by Lundbeck, Otsuka, Sunovion, Janssen, and Boehringer Ingelheim. FG has received honoraria from Lundbeck, Otsuka, Sunovion, and Boehringer Ingelheim. ODH has received investigator-initiated research funding from or participated in advisory or speaker meetings organised by Angellini, Autifony, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Heptares, Global Medical Education, Invicro, Janssen, Lundbeck, Neurocrine, Otsuka, Sunovion, Rand, Recordati, Roche, Viatris (formerly Mylan), and ROVI Biotech. AHY has delivered paid lectures and advisory boards for the following companies: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, LivaNova, Lundbeck, Sunovion, Servier, Livanova, Janssen, Allegan, Bionomics, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, COMPASS Pathways, Sage, Novartis, and Neurocentrx. CUC has been a consultant or advisor to or has received honoraria from AbbVie, Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Aristo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardio Diagnostics, Cerevel, CNX Therapeutics, COMPASS Pathways, Darnitsa, Gedeon Richter, Hikma, Holmusk, IntraCellular Therapies, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Karuna, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, MedInCell, Merck, Mindpax, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mylan, Neurocrine, Newron, Noven, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Pharmabrain, PPD Biotech, Recordati, Relmada, Reviva, Rovi, Seqirus, SK Life Science, Sunovion, Sun Pharma, Supernus, Takeda, Teva, and Viatris; has provided expert testimony for Janssen and Otsuka; has served on a data safety monitoring board for COMPASS Pathways, Lundbeck, Relmada, Reviva, Rovi, Supernus, and Teva; has received grant support from Janssen and Takeda; has received royalties from UpToDate; and is a stock option holder of Cardio Diagnostics, MindPax, LB Pharma, and Quantic. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: As comparatively few trials in subgroups of patients with schizophrenia have been done, clinicians need to know whether they can rely on the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the general population of patients with schizophrenia. We aimed to compare the efficacy and side-effects of antipsychotic drugs in different subgroups., Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register (from database inception to April 27, 2020), and PubMed (from April 1, 2020 to June 14, 2021). We excluded studies in patients with stable schizophrenia (ie, relapse prevention studies), studies with a high risk of bias, and studies from mainland China due to quality concerns concerning allocation and masking methods. We included single-blind RCTs or better that assessed one or more of 16 second-generation and 18 first-generation antipsychotics in the general population of patients with schizophrenia or in one or more of the subgroups: children and adolescents (age range as defined in the original studies), patients with a first episode, patients with predominant or prominent negative symptoms, patients with comorbid substance use, patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, or older patients (age range as defined in the original studies). Two authors independently screened the results of the search, retrieved full-text articles, and checked the inclusion criteria. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline, all parameters were extracted in duplicate. The primary outcome was change in overall symptoms. We compared drug efficacy between subgroups, by sex, schizoaffective disorder versus schizophrenia, and study origin using random-effects, inverse variance meta-analyses and random-effects subgroup tests, and meta-regression., Findings: We included 537 RCTs with 76 382 participants, 26 627 (34·9%) women, 49 755 (65·1%) men, mean age 37·3 years (range of means 7·9-80·2; ethnicity data not available). 412 RCTs included patients in the general population of patients with schizophrenia, 42 included patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, 25 included children and adolescents, 20 included patients with their first episode, 20 included patients with predominant or prominent negative symptoms, 13 included patients with comorbid substance use, and 11 included older patients. Of 507 random-effects subgroup tests done, 46 (9%) showed a significant difference (p<0·05) between subgroups, but there was no clear indication as to which drug should be used in which subgroup., Interpretation: The effects of antipsychotics in various patient subgroups were usually similar to those in the general population of patients with schizophrenia, but comparably few studies contributed to the subgroups, in particular in terms of side-effects. If the evidence for treatment in a given subgroup is small, guideline makers and clinicians should consider using the results in the much better studied group of the general population of patients with schizophrenia., Funding: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung; FKZ 01KG1508)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests In the past 3 years, SL has received honoraria as a consultant, adviser, or lecturer from Alkermes, Angelini, Eisai, Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Lundbeck, Lundbeck Institute, Merck Sharpp and Dome, Otsuka, Recordati, Rovi, Sanofi Aventis, TEVA, Medichem, and Mitsubishi. JP has a leadership role at the German Association of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (DGPPN), is a board member of SIAPPS2, and holds patent WO/2006/120030. MH has received honoraria as an adviser and lecturer from Recordati. The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Schizophrenia is a common, severe, and usually chronic disorder. Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs can prevent relapse but also causes side-effects. We aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of antipsychotics as maintenance treatment for non-treatment resistant patients with schizophrenia., Methods: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched, without language restrictions, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's specialised register between database inception and April 27, 2020, PubMed from April 1, 2020, to Jan 15, 2021, and the lists of included studies from related systematic reviews. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs; ≥12 weeks of follow-up) that recruited adult participants with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder with stable symptoms who were treated with antipsychotics (monotherapy; oral or long-acting injectable) or placebo. We excluded RCTs of participants with specific comorbidities or treatment resistance. In duplicate, two authors independently selected eligible RCTs and extracted aggregate data. The primary outcome was the number of participants who relapsed and was analysed by random-effects, Bayesian network meta-analyses. The study was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42016049022., Findings: We identified 4157 references through our search, from which 501 references on 127 RCTs of 32 antipsychotics (comprising 18 152 participants) were included. 100 studies including 16 812 participants and 30 antipsychotics contributed to our network meta-analysis of the primary outcome. All antipsychotics had risk ratios (RRs) less than 1·00 when compared with placebo for relapse prevention and almost all had 95% credible intervals (CrIs) excluding no effect. RRs ranged from 0·20 (95% CrI 0·05-0·41) for paliperidone oral to 0·65 (0·16-1·14) for cariprazine oral (moderate-to-low confidence in estimates). Generally, we interpret that there was no clear evidence for the superiority of specific antipsychotics in terms of relapse prevention because most comparisons between antipsychotics included a probability of no difference., Interpretation: As we found no clear differences between antipsychotics for relapse prevention, we conclude that the choice of antipsychotic for maintenance treatment should be guided mainly by their tolerability., Funding: The German Ministry of Education and Research and Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests In the past 3 years, SL has received honoraria as a consultant, adviser, or both, or for lectures, from Alkermes, Angelini, Eisai, Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Lundbeck, Lundbeck Institute, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Otsuka, Recordati, Rovi, Sanofi Aventis, TEVA, Medichem, and Mitsubishi. TAF reports grants from Mitsubishi-Tanabe and Shionogi, outside the submitted work; personal fees from Mitsubishi-Tanabe, MSD, SONY, and Shionogi, outside the submitted work; a patent (2018–177688) concerning smartphone cognitive behavioural therapy apps pending; and intellectual properties for the Kokoro app licensed to Mitsubishi-Tanabe. ACi has received research and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Paediatric Trials, the CARIPLO Foundation, and Angelini Pharma, outside the submitted work. MH has received honoraria as an adviser from Recordati. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In many studies, clozapine has been reported to have superior effectiveness compared to other antipsychotics. So far there is little systematic data on the practice of clozapine prescription and characteristics of patients treated., Method: Retrospective evaluation of all 392 treatment courses of inpatients with schizophrenic psychoses during one year. Detailed analysis of the patients treated with clozapine including the dosages and additional psychotropic medication., Result: Patients treated with clozapine showed a higher disease severity than patients without clozapine. They received more frequently pharmacological combination therapies, which in some cases significantly contradicted the current guideline recommendations., Conclusion: The results underline the pronounced disease severity of patients receiving clozapine treatment and substantiate evidence from the literature on the limited implementation of guidelines in prescribing practice. The study carried out serves as a pilot survey of a multicenter research project on the practice of prescribing clozapine in psychiatric hospitals in different German regions., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Side effects of antipsychotic drugs play a key role in nonadherence of treatment in schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD). While clinical observations suggest that side effect variability between patients may be considerable, statistical evidence is required to confirm this. Here, we hypothesized to find larger side effect variability under treatment compared with control. We included double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with a diagnosis of SSD treated with 1 out of 14 antipsychotics. Standard deviations of the pre-post treatment differences of weight gain, prolactin levels, and corrected QT (QTc) times were extracted. The outcome measure was the variability ratio of treatment to control for individual antipsychotic drugs and the overall variability ratio of treatment to control across RCTs. Individual variability ratios were weighted by the inverse-variance method and entered into a random-effects model. We included N = 16 578 patients for weight gain, N = 16 633 patients for prolactin levels, and N = 10 384 patients for QTc time. Variability ratios (VR) were significantly increased for weight gain (VR = 1.08; 95% CI: 1.02-1.14; P = .004) and prolactin levels (VR = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.17-1.62; P < .001) but did not reach significance for QTc time (VR = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.98-1.12; P = 0.135). We found marked differences between individual antipsychotics and increased variability in side effects in patients under treatment with antipsychotics suggesting that subgroups of patients or individual patients may benefit from treatment allocation through stratified or personalized medicine., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

As the course of schizophrenic disorders is often chronic, treatment guidelines recommend continuous maintenance treatment to prevent relapses, but antipsychotic drugs can cause many side effects. It, therefore, seems reasonable to try to reduce doses in stable phases of the illness or even try to stop medication. We conducted a 26 weeks, randomized, rater blind, feasibility study to examine individualized antipsychotic dose reduction versus continuous maintenance treatment (Register Number: NCT02307396). We included chronic, adult patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, who were treated with any antipsychotic drug except clozapine, who had not been hospitalized in the last 3 years and who were in symptomatic remission at baseline. The primary outcome was relapse of positive symptoms. Symptom severity, social functioning and side effects were also examined as secondary outcomes. 20 patients were randomized. Relapse rates in the two groups were not significantly different. No patient had to be hospitalized. One patient in the control group dropped out. The mean reduction of antipsychotic dose in the individualized dose-reduction group was 42%, however only one patient discontinued drug completely. There were no significant differences in efficacy or safety outcomes. This randomized trial provides evidence, that reduction of antipsychotic medication in chronic stable schizophrenic patients may be feasible. The results need to be confirmed in a larger trial with a longer follow-up period.

Background: We examined patient and study characteristics of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy trials to establish whether the effects of these 2 treatment strategies can be compared meaningfully., Methods: We inspected all randomized controlled trials included in 2 recent meta-analyses on antipsychotics and psychotherapy in patients with positive symptoms of schizophrenia, searching EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Differences between psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy trials were analyzed with Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney and chi-square tests., Results: Eighty studies with 18 271 participants on antipsychotic drugs and 53 studies with 4068 participants on psychotherapy were included. Psychotherapy studies included less severely ill patients (P < .0001), with a shorter duration of illness (P = .021), lasted for a longer period (P < .0001), administered the intervention as add-on to antipsychotics (P < .0001), had higher risk of bias in some domains including blinding of outcome assessment (P < .0001), and were funded publicly more frequently (P < .0001). Antipsychotic trials had larger sample sizes (P < .0001) and more study centers (P < .0001), included more males (P = .0001), inpatients (P < .0001), and slightly older patients (P = .031), more often used diagnostic operationalized criteria (P = .006), and were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. They did not differ in conflict of interest (P = .24)., Conclusions: We found key differences between the 2 groups of studies that encompass higher risk of bias in psychotherapy studies and the inclusion of more severe patients in drug trials. These differences imply that study and patient characteristics should be carefully taken into account before considering a network meta-analysis. In the interest of patients, psychopharmacologists and psychotherapists should optimize their treatments rather than seeing them in competition., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Differences in efficacy between antipsychotics and placebo in schizophrenia trials have decreased over the past decades. Previous studies have tried to identify potential explanatory factors focusing on response to placebo; however, it is still not clear which factors, if any, specifically moderate drug-response, as they may be different from those moderating placebo-response. Therefore, in this meta-regression analysis we explore whether there is an interaction between drug-response and placebo-response in terms of effect size. We systematically searched multiple electronic databases, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the US Food and Drug Administration website for randomized, placebo-controlled trials investigating the efficacy of antipsychotics in patients with acute schizophrenia (last update: October 2016). The main outcome was the change on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale or the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale score from baseline to endpoint after at least 3 weeks of treatment. Multiple patient-, design-, and drug-related potential predictors of response were analyzed by meta-regressions, as predefined in the study protocol. Overall, 167 trials with 28,102 participants were included. Publication year, the number of participants and sites, mean dose, minimum severity threshold as an inclusion criterion, chronicity, industry sponsorship, type of rating scale, diagnostic criteria, and number of medications had a different impact on drug and placebo response. By contrast, baseline severity, duration of wash-out, study duration, and study region affected drug and placebo response in a similar way without a net effect on effect sizes. No other factors had a significant effect on either drug-response or placebo-response. In conclusion, as individual moderators may have different impact on placebo-response and drug-response, it is important to consider also the specific factors influencing drug-response in order to fully understand the difference between antipsychotics and placebo. These results shed further light on the phenomenon of decreasing effect size of antipsychotics for schizophrenia over time and should help design future randomized controlled trials in the field (Prospero registration number CRD42013003342).

Background: Schizophrenia is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders in adults worldwide. Antipsychotic drugs are its treatment of choice, but there is controversy about which agent should be used. We aimed to compare and rank antipsychotics by quantifying information from randomised controlled trials., Methods: We did a network meta-analysis of placebo-controlled and head-to-head randomised controlled trials and compared 32 antipsychotics. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, BIOSIS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to Jan 8, 2019. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We included randomised controlled trials in adults with acute symptoms of schizophrenia or related disorders. We excluded studies in patients with treatment resistance, first episode, predominant negative or depressive symptoms, concomitant medical illnesses, and relapse-prevention studies. Our primary outcome was change in overall symptoms measured with standardised rating scales. We also extracted data for eight efficacy and eight safety outcomes. Differences in the findings of the studies were explored in metaregressions and sensitivity analyses. Effect size measures were standardised mean differences, mean differences, or risk ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014014919., Findings: We identified 54 417 citations and included 402 studies with data for 53 463 participants. Effect size estimates suggested all antipsychotics reduced overall symptoms more than placebo (although not statistically significant for six drugs), with standardised mean differences ranging from -0·89 (95% CrI -1·08 to -0·71) for clozapine to -0·03 (-0·59 to 0·52) for levomepromazine (40 815 participants). Standardised mean differences compared with placebo for reduction of positive symptoms (31 179 participants) varied from -0·69 (95% CrI -0·86 to -0·52) for amisulpride to -0·17 (-0·31 to -0·04) for brexpiprazole, for negative symptoms (32 015 participants) from -0·62 (-0·84 to -0·39; clozapine) to -0·10 (-0·45 to 0·25; flupentixol), for depressive symptoms (19 683 participants) from -0·90 (-1·36 to -0·44; sulpiride) to 0·04 (-0·39 to 0·47; flupentixol). Risk ratios compared with placebo for all-cause discontinuation (42 672 participants) ranged from 0·52 (0·12 to 0·95; clopenthixol) to 1·15 (0·36 to 1·47; pimozide), for sedation (30 770 participants) from 0·92 (0·17 to 2·03; pimozide) to 10·20 (4·72 to 29·41; zuclopenthixol), for use of antiparkinson medication (24 911 participants) from 0·46 (0·19 to 0·88; clozapine) to 6·14 (4·81 to 6·55; pimozide). Mean differences compared to placebo for weight gain (28 317 participants) ranged from -0·16 kg (-0·73 to 0·40; ziprasidone) to 3·21 kg (2·10 to 4·31; zotepine), for prolactin elevation (21 569 participants) from -77·05 ng/mL (-120·23 to -33·54; clozapine) to 48·51 ng/mL (43·52 to 53·51; paliperidone) and for QTc prolongation (15 467 participants) from -2·21 ms (-4·54 to 0·15; lurasidone) to 23·90 ms (20·56 to 27·33; sertindole). Conclusions for the primary outcome did not substantially change after adjusting for possible effect moderators or in sensitivity analyses (eg, when excluding placebo-controlled studies). The confidence in evidence was often low or very low., Interpretation: There are some efficacy differences between antipsychotics, but most of them are gradual rather than discrete. Differences in side-effects are more marked. These findings will aid clinicians in balancing risks versus benefits of those drugs available in their countries. They should consider the importance of each outcome, the patients' medical problems, and preferences., Funding: German Ministry of Education and Research and National Institute for Health Research., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Antipsychotic drugs might cause acutely occurring, serious side-effects and thus contribute to the increased physical morbidity and mortality observed in patients with severe mental health disorders. We examined this hypothesis by doing a meta-analysis of International Conference on Harmonisation-Good Clinical Practice-defined serious adverse events occurring in placebo-controlled trials of antipsychotics., Methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing second-generation antipsychotics with placebo. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for trials published in any language from database inception up until Jan 27, 2017. Trials were included without limitations in population (diagnostic category, age, sex, ethnicity), dosing regimen, blinding status, duration, or publication year. Only psychological studies lasting less than 1 day and trials done in mainland China were excluded. We contacted pharmaceutical companies, drug regulatory authorities, and study investigators for additional data. The primary outcome was the number of patients with at least one somatic serious adverse event. We estimated minimum and maximum numbers of patients with the outcome in each study group and synthesised the results with odds ratios (ORs) in a common-effects meta-analysis. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016033930., Findings: We identified 597 RCTs, comprising 108 664 participants, that met the inclusion criteria. 314 trials (67 642 participants) with details on individual serious adverse events available constituted the main dataset for meta-analysis. 88% of these were 13 weeks (approximately 3 months) or shorter in duration (median 6 weeks, IQR 4-9). At least one somatic serious adverse event occurred in 698 (1·63%) to 862 (2·02%) of 42 600 patients on antipsychotics, and in 343 (1·37%) to 419 (1·67%) of 25 042 patients on placebo. The odds ratios (ORs) were 1·24 (95% CI 1·08-1·42) and 1·24 (1·10-1·41) based on the minimum and maximum estimate, respectively. In predefined subgroup analyses we found evidence suggesting a larger effect in older patients (>65 years; OR 1·56, 95% CI 1·22-1·98; 1·58, 1·25-1·99) as compared with adults (18-65 years; 1·09, 0·91-1·29; 1·10, 0·95-1·28); likewise in children or adolescents (<18 years) although the evidence was more uncertain (1·49, 0·81-2·75; 1·54, 0·85-2·77). Of 597 included RCTs, 30 (5%), 358 (60%), and 209 (35%) were rated at high, moderate, or low risk of bias, respectively. τ 2 was zero for both analyses of the primary outcome (minimum estimate, maximum estimate). A Bayesian sensitivity analysis using external information on heterogeneity gave similar results., Interpretation: We found evidence that antipsychotics cause short-term somatic serious adverse events on top of somatic serious adverse events occurring independent of treatment. This effect appears to be mainly driven by results in older patients. Hence, clinicians should be aware that antipsychotics are potentially toxic, particularly when treating patients sharing risk factors with the older population., Funding: German Ministry of Education and Research., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Patients with schizophrenia and substance related comorbidity or substance induced psychotic disorder are difficult to treat. Although the prevalence of a comorbid substance use is approximately 40% in schizophrenia, such patients are usually excluded from clinical trials. We therefore performed a random-effects meta-analysis of all randomized controlled antipsychotic drug trials in this patient subgroup. We searched multiple databases up to May, 2018. The primary outcome was the reduction of substance user; secondary outcomes were craving, mean reduction of substance use, overall change in schizophrenia symptoms, positive and negative symptoms, response, dropouts, quality of life, social functioning, weight gain, sedation, prolactin, extrapyramidal side effects and use of antiparkinsonian medication. We identified 27 references from 19 RCTs published from 1999 to March 2017 including 1742 participants. The most frequent types of substance abuse were cannabis (8 studies) and cocaine (6 studies) use/dependence. Clozapine was superior to other antipsychotics for reduction of substance use and risperidone to olanzapine for craving. Olanzapine, clozapine and risperidone showed superiority for symptom reduction compared to some other drugs. When reported, results of side-effects followed known patterns. The evidence-base is considerable (19 RCTs), however, firm conclusions cannot be drawn due to small sample sizes of individual studies and insufficient reporting., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Elderly patients with schizophrenia are a particularly vulnerable group often excluded from clinical trials. Currently there is no evidence-synthesis about the efficacy and safety of antipsychotics in this subgroup. We reviewed all randomized-controlled-trials, about antipsychotics in elderly schizophrenics (last search Dec 12, 2017). Pairwise meta-analyses were conducted. The primary outcome was overall symptoms. Secondary outcomes included positive symptoms, negative symptoms, response, dropouts, quality of life, social functioning and side-effects. We included 29 references from 18 unique randomized-controlled-trials with 1225 participants published from 1958 to 2009. The definition of "elderly" was very heterogeneous across the studies (minimum age 46-65, mean age 57-73). There were evidence gaps for most drugs in many outcomes. In terms of efficacy paliperidone was associated with fewer dropouts due to inefficacy than placebo in the only placebo-controlled-trial. Olanzapine was superior to haloperidol in overall symptoms, negative symptoms and response, and it was associated with fewer dropouts than risperidone. Risperidone and haloperidol produced more prolactin increase than olanzapine, and olanzapine was associated with less use of antiparkinson medication than haloperidol. Although we found no marked differences of the effects of these drugs in the elderly, the evidence presented was based on very few usually small studies. To examine specifically whether there are differences in efficacy and side-effects in elderly, which differs in meaningful ways from the general population, studies in patients who are defined by critiera as truly geriatric, which incorporates older age together with multimorbidity and fraility dimensions, may be more informative., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. and ECNP. All rights reserved.)

Objective: A recent meta-regression had shown that the degree of placebo response, which has increased over the decades, is the major predictor of drug-placebo differences in antipsychotic drug trials in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia. Drug response, however, had remained stable. In the current meta-regression we explored the factors that are associated with placebo-response., Method: We searched multiple electronic databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and the FDA website for randomized, placebo-controlled, antipsychotic drug trials in patients with acute exacerbations of schizophrenia. The outcome was the degree of placebo response measured by the BPRS or PANSS change from baseline to endpoint. 26 patient-, design-, and drug-related potential predictors of placebo response were analyzed by univariable and multivariable meta-regressions., Results: 167 double-blind randomized controlled trials with 28,102 participants were included. The mean PANSS change from baseline was 6.25 (95% CI 4.64,7.85). More recent publication year, larger study sample size, more study sites, use of the PANSS rather than the BPRS scale to measure response, shorter wash-out phases, shorter study duration, lower mean age and shorter duration of illness were associated with larger placebo response in univariable analyses. In a multivariable analysis only the number of study participants and mean participant age had an impact on placebo response., Conclusions: The degree of placebo response is moderated by a number of design and patient-related factors. These explanatory variables of placebo response are only in part identical with those that moderated drug-placebo differences., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Negative symptoms are the core of schizophrenia, but whether antipsychotics are efficacious for their treatment is unclear. Moreover, there is debate whether patients in relevant trials should have predominant negative symptoms or whether prominent negative symptoms are also acceptable., Methods: We systematically reviewed randomised, blinded antipsychotic drug trials in patients with schizophrenia and either predominant or prominent negative symptoms (last search Dec 12, 2017). Separate pairwise meta-analyses were conducted in these two populations. The primary outcome was negative symptoms. Depressive, symptoms, positive symptoms, and extrapyramidal side-effects were analysed as causes of secondary negative symptoms., Findings: We included 21 randomized-controlled trials with 3451 participants which revealed the following significant differences in the primary outcome: in patients with predominant negative symptoms amisulpride was superior to placebo (N = 4; n = 590, SMD 0.47, CI 0.23, 0.71), olanzapine was superior to haloperidol in a small trial (n = 35) and cariprazine outperformed risperidone (N = 1, n = 456, SMD - 0.29, CI - 0.48, - 0.11). In patients with prominent negative symptoms, olanzapine and quetiapine were superior to risperidone in single trials. Overall, studies in prominent negative symptoms were potentially more confounded by improvements of secondary negative symptoms., Interpretation: Amisulpride is the only antipsychotic that outperformed placebo in the treatment of predominant negative symptoms, but there was a parallel reduction of depression. Cariprazine was better than risperidone in a large trial that was well-controlled for secondary negative symptoms, but the trial was sponsored by its manufacturer. Future trials should apply scientifically developed definitions such as the deficit syndrome and the persistent negative symptoms concept.

Background: Acutely occurring, life-threatening side-effects of antipsychotic drugs might contribute to the reduced life expectancy observed in patients with severe mental disorders. We aimed to assess this hypothesis by doing a systematic review and meta-analysis of deaths occurring in placebo-controlled trials of antipsychotic drugs., Methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we included randomised controlled trials comparing second-generation antipsychotics with placebo across several diagnostic categories. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP from inception (the last search was done on Jan 21, 2017), and contacted pharmaceutical companies and regulatory authorities for further eligible trials. We examined mortality from any cause (the primary outcome) and mortality from natural causes, suicide, and other non-natural causes. We synthesised the results with odds ratios (ORs) in a common-effects meta-analysis. We investigated the effects of age, diagnostic category, sex, study duration, antipsychotic drug used, drug dose, and polypharmacy in subgroup and meta-regression analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016033930., Findings: We identified 596 randomised controlled trials published between 1978 and 2017, comprising 108 747 participants. 352 studies (comprising 84 988 participants) with mortality data available constituted the main dataset for our meta-analysis. 207 (0·4%) deaths were reported in 53 804 patients on an antipsychotic drug and 99 (0·3%) deaths in 31 184 patients on placebo. 300 (85%) of 352 trials were 13 weeks (3 months) or shorter in duration (median 6 weeks; IQR 4-10). We found no evidence of a difference between antipsychotic drugs and placebo in mortality by any cause (OR 1·19; 95% CI 0·93-1·53), from natural causes (1·29; 0·85-1·94), from suicide (1·15; 0·47-2·81), and from other non-natural causes (1·55; 0·66-3·63). Most subgroup and meta-regression analyses did not indicate any important effect moderators. The exceptions were increased mortality in patients with dementia (OR 1·56; 95% CI 1·10-2·21), in elderly patients (1·38; 1·01-1·89), in aripiprazole-treated patients (2·20; 1·00-4·86), and in studies with a higher proportion of women (regression coefficient 0·025; 95% credible interval 0·010-0·040). However, the effects in elderly patients, aripiprazole-treated patients, and women were mainly based on the included dementia trials. For patients with schizophrenia there was no evidence of an increased mortality risk (OR 0·69; 95% CI 0·35-1·35)., Interpretation: Overall, and for the main indication of schizophrenia, there is no evidence from randomised trials that antipsychotic drugs increase mortality. However, vulnerable populations (particularly patients with dementia) might be at increased risk. This meta-analysis could only address acute treatment effects leading to death in the short-term, and not long-term effects of antipsychotic drugs on mortality., Funding: German Ministry of Education and Research., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Children and adolescents with schizophrenia are a particularly vulnerable group. Thus, we integrated all the randomized evidence from the available antipsychotics used for this subgroup by performing a network-meta-analysis and pairwise meta-analysis using a random-effects model. We searched multiple databases up to Nov 17, 2016 (final update search in PubMed: Dec 12, 2017). The primary outcome was efficacy as measured by overall change/endpoint in symptoms of schizophrenia. Secondary outcomes included positive and negative symptoms, response, dropouts, quality of life, social functioning, weight gain, sedation, prolactin, extrapyramidal side effects (EPS) and antiparkinsonian medication. Twenty-eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 3003 unique participants (58% males; mean age 14.41 years) published from 1967 to 2017 were identified. Clozapine was significantly more effective than all other analyzed antipsychotics. Nearly all antipsychotics were more efficacious compared to placebo, but ziprasidone showed no efficacy. In terms of preventing weight gain, molindone, lurasidone and ziprasidone were benign. The highest weight gain was found for clozapine, quetiapine and olanzapine. Most antipsychotics had some sedating effects. Risperidone, haloperidol, paliperidone and olanzapine were associated with prolactin increase. There were evidence gaps for some drugs and many outcomes, especially safety outcomes. Most of the comparisons are based only on one study or just on indirect evidence. Nevertheless, the available direct and indirect evidence showed that the treatment effects were similar compared to findings in adult patients with schizophrenia., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. and ECNP. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Antipsychotic drug efficacy may have decreased over recent decades. The authors present a meta-analysis of all placebo-controlled trials in patients with acute exacerbations of schizophrenia, and they investigate which trial characteristics have changed over the years and which are moderators of drug-placebo efficacy differences., Method: The search included multiple electronic databases. The outcomes were overall efficacy (primary outcome); responder and dropout rates; positive, negative, and depressive symptoms; quality of life; functioning; and major side effects. Potential moderators of efficacy were analyzed by meta-regression., Results: The analysis included 167 double-blind randomized controlled trials with 28,102 mainly chronic participants. The standardized mean difference (SMD) for overall efficacy was 0.47 (95% credible interval 0.42, 0.51), but accounting for small-trial effects and publication bias reduced the SMD to 0.38. At least a "minimal" response occurred in 51% of the antipsychotic group versus 30% in the placebo group, and 23% versus 14% had a "good" response. Positive symptoms (SMD 0.45) improved more than negative symptoms (SMD 0.35) and depression (SMD 0.27). Quality of life (SMD 0.35) and functioning (SMD 0.34) improved even in the short term. Antipsychotics differed substantially in side effects. Of the response predictors analyzed, 16 trial characteristics changed over the decades. However, in a multivariable meta-regression, only industry sponsorship and increasing placebo response were significant moderators of effect sizes. Drug response remained stable over time., Conclusions: Approximately twice as many patients improved with antipsychotics as with placebo, but only a minority experienced a good response. Effect sizes were reduced by industry sponsorship and increasing placebo response, not decreasing drug response. Drug development may benefit from smaller samples but better-selected patients.

Background: The first episode of schizophrenia is a pivotal phase of this debilitating illness. Which drug to use remains controversial without a summary of all direct or indirect comparisons of drugs. We did a systematic review with pairwise and network meta-analyses of efficacy and tolerability., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Biosis, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomised controlled trials of antipsychotics for the acute treatment of first-episode schizophrenia, published up to Nov 17, 2016. Our primary outcome was overall change in symptoms. Secondary outcomes were change in positive and negative symptoms, categorical response to treatment, study dropout for any reason and for inefficacy of treatment, use of drugs to treat parkinsonian symptoms, weight gain, sedation, increase in prolactin release, overall functioning, and quality of life. We did the meta-analyses with a random-effects model to calculate standardised mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs., Findings: We identified 19 relevant randomised controlled trials of 12 antipsychotic drugs that involved 2669 participants. 13 of the studies presented data on the primary outcome. For overall reduction of symptoms, amisulpride (SMD -0·37, 95% CI -0·61 to -0·14), olanzapine (-0·25, -0·39 to -0·12), ziprasidone (-0·25, -0·48 to -0·01), and risperidone (-0·14, -0·27 to -0·01) were significantly more efficacious than haloperidol, but the evidence was very low to moderate quality. Amisulpride was superior for reduction of symptoms to quetiapine (SMD -0·25, 95% CI -0·50 to -0·01). Olanzapine was superior to haloperidol and risperidone for reduction of negative symptoms. Several second-generation antipsychotics were superior to haloperidol in terms of all-cause discontinuation. Olanzapine was associated with at least one use of drugs to treat parkinsonian symptoms and quetiapine with less akathisia than haloperidol, aripiprazole, risperidone, and olanzapine, but, again, evidence was very low to low quality. Molindone was superior to risperidone, haloperidol, and olanzapine in terms of weight gain, and superior to risperidone in terms of increase in prolactin release., Interpreation: Haloperidol seems to be a suboptimum treatment option for acute treatment of first-episode schizophrenia, but we found little difference between second-generation antipsychotics. The evidence was generally of low quality and the numbers of patients for each drug were small. Thus, the choice of treatment should be guided primarily by side-effects., Funding: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

It is often stated that first-episode patients tend to respond better to antipsychotics than chronic patients, but the exact numbers and moderators of response in this population are unclear. We, therefore, present the first systematic review on response rates of first episode patients with schizophrenia in randomized trials. We searched multiple databases for randomized-controlled trials of antipsychotics in acutely ill patients with a first episode of schizophrenia (last search: November 17, 2016). The outcomes were response rate based on two criteria, at least 50% PANSS or BPRS total score reduction from baseline and at least 20% reduction. Data were pooled in a single-group summary meta-analysis using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Moreover, several potential moderators of response to antipsychotics were examined by meta-regression. We included 17 studies with a total of 3156 participants. On the average, 81.3%/51.9% of the first-episode patients reached an at least 20%/50% PANSS or BPRS reduction from baseline, respectively. Meta-regressions revealed a better treatment response in female patients, in more severely ill patients at baseline, in antipsychotic naïve patients, in patients with a shorter illness duration and in open studies. Study duration and dosage were no significant moderators of response. Our finding suggest that more than 80% of first-episode patients achieved 20% PANSS/BPRS reduction from baseline and around 50% achieved a 50% PANSS/BPRS reduction. Several patient characteristics moderated response rates., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. and ECNP. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The authors examined the safety and efficacy of antidepressants added to antipsychotic drugs in the treatment of schizophrenia., Method: Multiple databases and previous publications were searched through June 2015 to identify all randomized controlled trials of any add-on antidepressants compared with placebo or no-treatment in schizophrenia. Depressive and negative symptoms (primary outcomes), overall symptoms, positive symptoms, side effects, exacerbation of psychosis, and responder rates were examined. Subgroup, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were performed, as well as investigations of publication bias and risk of bias., Results: Eighty-two randomized controlled trials with a total of 3,608 participants were included. Add-on antidepressants appeared more efficacious than controls for depressive symptoms (standardized mean difference: -0.25, 95% CI=-0.38 to -0.12), negative symptoms (standardized mean difference: -0.30, 95% CI=-0.44 to -0.16), overall symptoms (standardized mean difference: -0.24, 95% CI=-0.39 to -0.09), positive symptoms (standardized mean difference: -0.17, 95% CI=-0.33 to -0.01), quality of life (standardized mean difference: -0.32, 95% CI=-0.57 to -0.06), and responder rate (risk ratio: 1.52, 95% CI=1.29 to 1.78; number-needed-to-treat-to-benefit: 5, 95% CI=4 to 7). The effects on depressive and negative symptoms appeared more pronounced when minimum thresholds of these symptoms were inclusion criteria (standardized mean difference: -0.34, 95% CI=-0.58 to -0.09 and standardized mean difference: -0.58, 95% CI=-0.94 to -0.21, respectively). There were no significant differences between antidepressants and controls in terms of exacerbation of psychosis, premature discontinuation, and the number of participants with at least one adverse event. More patients taking add-on antidepressants suffered from abdominal pain, constipation, dizziness, and dry mouth., Conclusions: Analysis of primary outcomes (depressive and negative symptoms) suggests small, beneficial effects of adjunctive antidepressants. It would appear that this augmentation can be accomplished with a low risk of exacerbation of psychosis and adverse effects. However, secondary and subgroup analyses should be interpreted cautiously and considered exploratory.

Background: Antipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between the various first-generation antipsychotics, however, low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs are sometimes perceived as less efficacious than high-potency first-generation compounds by clinicians, and they also seem to differ in their side effects., Objectives: To review the effects of high-potency, first-generation perphenazine compared with low-potency, first-generation antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (October 2010)., Selection Criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing perphenazine with first-generation, low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses., Data Collection and Analysis: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis and using a random-effects model., Main Results: The review currently includes four relevant randomised trials with 365 participants. The size of the included studies was between 42 and 158 participants with a study length between one and four months. Overall, the methods of sequence generation and allocation concealment were poorly reported. Most studies were rated as low risk of bias in terms of blinding. Overall, attrition bias in the studies was high.The effects of perphenazine and low-potency antipsychotic drugs seemed to be similar in terms of the primary outcome - response to treatment (perphenazine 58%, low-potency antipsychotics 59%, 2 RCTs, n = 138, RR 0.97 CI 0.74 to 1.26 - moderate quality of evidence). There was also no clear evidence of a difference in acceptability of treatment with the number of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason, however results were imprecise (perphenazine 30%, low-potency antipsychotics 28%, 3 RCTs, n = 323, RR 0.78 CI 0.35 to 1.76, very low quality of evidence).There were low numbers of studies available for the outcomes experiencing at least one adverse effect (perphenazine 33%, low-potency antipsychotics 47%, 2 RCTs, n = 165, RR 0.83 CI 0.36 to 1.95, low quality evidence) and experiencing at least one movement disorder (perphenazine 22%, low-potency first-generation antipsychotics 0%, 1 RCT, n = 69, RR 15.62 CI 0.94 to 260.49, low quality evidence), and the confidence intervals for the estimated effects did not exclude important differences. Akathisia was more frequent in the perphenazine group (perphenazine 25%, low-potency antipsychotics 22%, 2 RCTs, n = 227, RR 9.45 CI 1.69 to 52.88), whereas severe toxicity was less so (perphenazine 42%, low-potency antipsychotics 69%, 1 RCT, n = 96, RR 0.61 CI 0.41 to 0.89).There were three deaths in the low-potency group by four months but the difference between groups was not significant (perphenazine 0%, low-potency antipsychotics 2%, 1 RCT, n = 96, RR 0.14 CI 0.01 to 2.69, moderate quality evidence). No data were available for our prespecified outcomes of interest sedation or quality of life. Data were not available for other outcomes such as relapse, service use, costs and satisfaction with care.The event rates reported quote simple aggregates and are not based on the RRs., Authors' Conclusions: The results do not show a superiority in efficacy of high-potency perphenazine compared with low-potency first-generation antipsychotics. There is some evidence that perphenazine is more likely to cause akathisia and less likely to cause severe toxicity, but most adverse effect results were equivocal. The number of studies as well as the quality of studies is low, with quality of evidence for the main outcomes ranging from moderate to very low, so more randomised evidence would be needed for conclusions to be made.

Background: Antipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between any other antipsychotic compounds, however, low-potency antipsychotic drugs are often perceived as less efficacious than high-potency compounds by clinicians, and they also seem to differ in their side effects. This review examined the effects of the high-potency antipsychotic fluphenazine compared to those of low-potency antipsychotics., Objectives: To review the effects of fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (November 2010)., Selection Criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fluphenazine with first-generation low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis., Data Collection and Analysis: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model., Main Results: The review currently includes seven randomised trials and 1567 participants that compared fluphenazine with low-potency antipsychotic drugs. The size of the included studies was between 40 and 438 participants. Overall, sequence generation, allocation procedures and blinding were poorly reported. Fluphenazine was not significantly different from low-potency antipsychotic drugs in terms of response to treatment (fluphenazine 55%, low-potency drug 55%, 2 RCTs, n = 105, RR 1.06 CI 0.75 to 1.50, moderate quality evidence). There was also no significant difference in acceptability of treatment with equivocal numbers of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason (fluphenazine 36%, low-potency antipsychotics 36%, 6 RCTs, n = 1532, RR 1.00 CI 0.88 to 1.14, moderate quality evidence). There was no significant difference between fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics for numbers experiencing at least one adverse effect (fluphenazine 70%, low-potency antipsychotics 88%, 1 RCT, n = 65, RR 0.79 CI 0.58 to 1.07, moderate quality evidence). However, at least one movement disorder occurred significantly more frequently in the fluphenazine group (fluphenazine 15%, low-potency antipsychotics 10%, 3 RCTs, n = 971, RR 2.11 CI 1.41 to 3.15, low quality of evidence). In contrast, low-potency antipsychotics produced significantly more sedation (fluphenazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 64%, 1 RCT, n = 65, RR 0.31 CI 0.13 to 0.77, high quality evidence). No data were available for the outcomes of death and quality of life. The results of the primary outcome were robust in a number of subgroup and sensitivity analyses.Adverse effects such as akathisia (fluphenazine 15%, low-potency antipsychotics 6%, 5 RCTs, n = 1209, RR 2.28 CI 1.58 to 3.28); dystonia (fluphenazine 5%, low-potency antipsychotics 2%, 4 RCTs, n = 1309, RR 2.66 CI 1.25 to 5.64); loss of associated movement (fluphenazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 2%, 1 RCT, n = 338, RR 11.15 CI 3.95 to 31.47); rigor (fluphenazine 27%, low-potency antipsychotics 12%, 2 RCTs, n = 403, RR 2.18 CI 1.20 to 3.97); and tremor (fluphenazine 15%, low-potency antipsychotics 6%, 2 RCTs, n = 403, RR 2.53 CI 1.37 to 4.68) occurred significantly more frequently in the fluphenazine group.For other adverse effects such as dizziness (fluphenazine 8%, low-potency antipsychotics 17%, 4 RCTs, n = 1051, RR 0.49 CI 0.32 to 0.73); drowsiness (fluphenazine 18%, low-potency antipsychotics 25%, 3 RCTs, n = 986, RR 0.67 CI 0.53 to 0.86); dry mouth (fluphenazine 11%, low-potency antipsychotics 18%, 4 RCTs, n = 1051, RR 0.63 CI 0.45 to 0.89); nausea (fluphenazine 4%, low-potency antipsychotics 15%, 3 RCTs, n = 986, RR 0.25 CI 0.14 to 0.45); and vomiting (fluphenazine 3%, low-potency antipsychotics 8%, 3 RCTs, n = 986, RR 0.36 CI 0.18 to 0.72) results favoured fluphenazine with significantly more events occurring in the low-potency antipsychotic group for these outcomes., Authors' Conclusions: The results do not show a clear difference in efficacy between fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics. The number of included studies was low and their quality moderate. Therefore, further studies would be needed to draw firm conclusions about the relative effects of fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics.

Background: Antipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between antipsychotic compounds, however, low-potency antipsychotic drugs are often clinically perceived as less efficacious than high-potency compounds, and they also seem to differ in their side-effects., Objectives: To review the effects in clinical response of haloperidol and low-potency antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2010)., Selection Criteria: We included all randomised trials comparing haloperidol with first-generation low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis., Data Collection and Analysis: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), again based on a random-effects model., Main Results: The review currently includes 17 randomised trials and 877 participants. The size of the included studies was between 16 and 109 participants. All studies were short-term with a study length between two and 12 weeks. Overall, sequence generation, allocation procedures and blinding were poorly reported. We found no clear evidence that haloperidol was superior to low-potency antipsychotic drugs in terms of clinical response (haloperidol 40%, low-potency drug 36%, 14 RCTs, n = 574, RR 1.11, CI 0.86 to 1.44 lowquality evidence). There was also no clear evidence of benefit for either group in acceptability of treatment with equivocal difference in the number of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason (haloperidol 13%, low-potency antipsychotics 17%, 11 RCTs, n = 408, RR 0.82, CI 0.38 to 1.77, low quality evidence). Similar equivocal results were found between groups for experiencing at least one adverse effect (haloperidol 70%, low-potency antipsychotics 35%, 5 RCTs n = 158, RR 1.97, CI 0.69 to 5.66, very low quality evidence ). More participants from the low-potency drug group experienced sedation (haloperidol 14%, low-potency antipsychotics 41%, 2 RCTs, n = 44, RR 0.30, CI 0.11 to 0.82, moderate quality evidence), orthostasis problems (haloperidol 25%, low-potency antipsychotics 71%, 1 RCT, n = 41, RR 0.35, CI 0.16 to 0.78) and weight gain (haloperidol 5%, low-potency antipsychotics 29%, 3 RCTs, n = 88, RR 0.22, CI 0.06 to 0.81). In contrast, the outcome 'at least one movement disorder' was more frequent in the haloperidol group (haloperidol 72%, low-potency antipsychotics 41%, 5 RCTs, n = 170, RR 1.64, CI 1.22 to 2.21, low quality evidence). No data were available for death or quality of life. The results of the primary outcome were robust in several subgroup and sensitivity analyses., Authors' Conclusions: The results do not clearly show a superiority in efficacy of haloperidol compared with low-potency antipsychotics. Differences in adverse events were found for movement disorders, which were more frequent in the haloperidol group, and orthostatic problems, sedation and weight gain, which were more frequent in the low-potency antipsychotic group. The quality of studies was low, and the quality of evidence for the main outcomes of interest varied from moderate to very low, so more newer studies would be needed in order to draw a definite conclusion about whether or not haloperidol is superior or inferior to low-potency antipsychotics.