Schizophrenia Group's Register Research Articles

Perphenazine for schizophrenia.

Perphenazine is an old phenothiazine antipsychotic with a potency similar to haloperidol. It has been used for many years and is popular in the northern European countries and Japan. To examine the clinical effects and safety of perphenazine for those with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses. We updated our original search using the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (September 2013), references of all included studies and contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of included studies in order to identify further trials. We included all randomised controlled trials that compared perphenazine with other treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses. We excluded trials of depot formulations of perphenazine. Two review authors independently inspected citations and, where possible, abstracts. We ordered papers, inspected and quality assessed them. We extracted data, again working independently. If loss to follow-up was greater than 50% we considered results as 'prone to bias'. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and for continuous data we calculated mean differences (MD), both with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed quality of data using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluationtool) and assessed risk of bias for included studies. Thirty-one studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with a total of 4662 participants (of which 4522 were receiving the drugs relevant to our comparison) and presented data that could be used for at least one comparison. The trial centres were located in Europe (especially Scandinavia), Japan and Northern America.When comparing perphenazine with placebo, for our primary outcome of clinical response, results favoured perphenazine with significantly more people receiving placebo rated as either 'no better or deterioration' for global state than people receiving perphenazine (1 RCT, n = 61 RR 0.32 CI 0.13 to 0.78, very low quality evidence). More people receiving placebo relapsed, although not a statistically significant number (1 RCT, n = 48, RR 0.14 CI 0.02 to 1.07, very low quality evidence). Death was not reported in the perphenazine versus placebo comparison. Experiences of dystonia were equivocal between groups (1 RCT, n = 48, RR 1.00 CI 0.07 to 15.08, very low quality evidence); other outcomes not reported in this comparison include serious adverse events, economic outcomes, and service use and hospitalisation.For the comparison of perphenazine versus any other antipsychotic drugs, no real differences in effect between the drugs were found. There was no significant difference between groups for those considered 'no better or deterioration' (17 RCTs, n = 1879, RR 1.04 CI 0.91 to 1.17, very low quality evidence). For mental state outcome of 'no effect' of the study drug, there was again no significant difference between groups (4 RCTs, n = 383, RR 1.24 CI 0.61 to 2.52, very low quality evidence). Death was not reported in any of the included studies. There was no significant difference in rates of dystonia with perphenazine versus any other antipsychotic drugs (4 RCTs, n = 416, RR 1.36 CI 0.23 to 8.16, very low quality evidence), nor was there a significant difference between groups for serious adverse events (2 RCTs, n = 1760, RR 0.98 CI 0.68 to 1.41, very low quality evidence). Although perphenazine has been used in randomised trials for more than 50 years, incomplete reporting and the variety of comparators used make it impossible to draw clear conclusions. All data for the main outcomes in this review were of very low quality evidence. At best we can say that perphenazine showed similar effects and adverse events as several of the other antipsychotic drugs. Since perphenazine is a relatively inexpensive and frequently used compound, further trials are justified to clarify the properties of this classical antipsychotic drug.

Fluphenazine decanoate (depot) and enanthate for schizophrenia.

Intramuscular injections (depot preparations) offer an advantage over oral medication for treating schizophrenia by reducing poor compliance. The benefits gained by long-acting preparations, however, may be offset by a higher incidence of adverse effects. To assess the effects of fluphenazine decanoate and enanthate versus oral anti-psychotics and other depot neuroleptic preparations for individuals with schizophrenia in terms of clinical, social and economic outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (February 2011 and October 16, 2013), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We considered all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on people with schizophrenia comparing fluphenazine decanoate or enanthate with placebo or oral anti-psychotics or other depot preparations. We reliably selected, assessed the quality, and extracted data of the included studies. For dichotomous data, we estimated risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. We used the mean difference (MD) for normal continuous data. We excluded continuous data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50%. Tests of heterogeneity and for publication bias were undertaken. We used a fixed-effect model for all analyses unless there was high heterogeneity. For this update. we assessed risk of bias of included studies and used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to create a 'Summary of findings' table. This review now includes 73 randomised studies, with 4870 participants. Overall, the quality of the evidence is low to very low.Compared with placebo, use of fluphenazine decanoate does not result in any significant differences in death, nor does it reduce relapse over six months to one year, but one longer-term study found that relapse was significantly reduced in the fluphenazine arm (n = 54, 1 RCT, RR 0.35, CI 0.19 to 0.64, very low quality evidence). A very similar number of people left the medium-term studies (six months to one year) early in the fluphenazine decanoate (24%) and placebo (19%) groups, however, a two-year study significantly favoured fluphenazine decanoate (n = 54, 1 RCT, RR 0.47, CI 0.23 to 0.96, very low quality evidence). No significant differences were found in mental state measured on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) or in extrapyramidal adverse effects, although these outcomes were only reported in one small study each. No study comparing fluphenazine decanoate with placebo reported clinically significant changes in global state or hospital admissions.Fluphenazine decanoate does not reduce relapse more than oral neuroleptics in the medium term (n = 419, 6 RCTs, RR 1.46 CI 0.75 to 2.83, very low quality evidence). A small study found no difference in clinically significant changes in global state. No difference in the number of participants leaving the study early was found between fluphenazine decanoate (17%) and oral neuroleptics (18%), and no significant differences were found in mental state measured on the BPRS. Extrapyramidal adverse effects were significantly less for people receiving fluphenazine decanoate compared with oral neuroleptics (n = 259, 3 RCTs, RR 0.47 CI 0.24 to 0.91, very low quality evidence). No study comparing fluphenazine decanoate with oral neuroleptics reported death or hospital admissions.No significant difference in relapse rates in the medium term between fluphenazine decanoate and fluphenazine enanthate was found (n = 49, 1 RCT, RR 2.43, CI 0.71 to 8.32, very low quality evidence), immediate- and short-term studies were also equivocal. One small study reported the number of participants leaving the study early (29% versus 12%) and mental state measured on the BPRS and found no significant difference for either outcome. No significant difference was found in extrapyramidal adverse effects between fluphenazine decanoate and fluphenazine enanthate. No study comparing fluphenazine decanoate with fluphenazine enanthate reported death, clinically significant changes in global state or hospital admissions. There are more data for fluphenazine decanoate than for the enanthate ester. Both are effective antipsychotic preparations. Fluphenazine decanoate produced fewer movement disorder effects than other oral antipsychotics but data were of low quality, and overall, adverse effect data were equivocal. In the context of trials, there is little advantage of these depots over oral medications in terms of compliance but this is unlikely to be applicable to everyday clinical practice.

Haloperidol versus first-generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

Haloperidol is worldwide one of the most frequently used antipsychotic drugs with a very high market share. Previous narrative, unsystematic reviews found no differences in terms of efficacy between the various first-generation ("conventional", "typical") antipsychotic agents. This established the unproven psychopharmacological assumption of a comparable efficacy between the first-generation antipsychotic compounds codified in textbooks and treatment guidelines. Because this assumption contrasts with the clinical impression, a high-quality systematic review appeared highly necessary. To compare the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of haloperidol with other first-generation antipsychotics in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis. In October 2011 and July 2012, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. To identify further relevant publications, we screened the references of all included studies and contacted the manufacturers of haloperidol for further relevant trials and missing information on identified studies. Furthermore, we contacted the corresponding authors of all included trials for missing data. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral haloperidol with another oral first-generation antipsychotic drug (with the exception of the low-potency antipsychotics chlorpromazine, chlorprothixene, levopromazine, mesoridazine, perazine, prochlorpromazine, and thioridazine) in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis. Clinically important response to treatment was defined as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were global state, mental state, behaviour, overall acceptability (measured by the number of participants leaving the study early due to any reason), overall efficacy (attrition due to inefficacy of treatment), overall tolerability (attrition due to adverse events), and specific adverse effects. At least two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using The Cochrane Collaboration`s 'Risk of bias' tool.We analysed dichotomous outcomes with risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes with mean differences (MD), both with the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). All analyses were based on a random-effects model and we preferably used data on an intention-to-treat basis where possible. The systematic review currently includes 63 randomised trials with 3675 participants. Bromperidol (n = 9), loxapine (n = 7), and trifluoperazine (n = 6) were the most frequently administered antipsychotics comparator to haloperidol. The included studies were published between 1962 and 1993, were characterised by small sample sizes (mean: 58 participants, range from 18 to 206) and the predefined outcomes were often incompletely reported. All results for the main outcomes were based on very low or low quality data. In many trials the mechanism of randomisation, allocation, and blinding was frequently not reported. In short-term studies (up to 12 weeks), there was no clear evidence of a difference between haloperidol and the pooled group of the other first-generation antipsychotic agents in terms of the primary outcome "clinically important response to treatment" (40 RCTs, n = 2132, RR 0.93 CI 0.87 to 1.00). In the medium-term trials, haloperidol may be less effective than the other first-generation antipsychotic group but this evidence is based on only one trial (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.51 CI 0.37 to 0.69).Based on limited evidence, haloperidol alleviated more positive symptoms of schizophrenia than the other antipsychotic drugs. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in global state, other mental state outcomes, behaviour, leaving the study early due to any reason, due to inefficacy, as well as due to adverse effects. The only statistically significant difference in specific side effects was that haloperidol produced less akathisia in the medium term. The findings of the meta-analytic calculations support the statements of previous narrative, unsystematic reviews suggesting comparable efficacy of first-generation antipsychotics. In efficacy-related outcomes, there was no clear evidence of a difference between the prototypal drug haloperidol and other, mainly high-potency first-generation antipsychotics. Additionally, we demonstrated that haloperidol is characterised by a similar risk profile compared to the other first-generation antipsychotic compounds. The only statistically significant difference in specific side effects was that haloperidol produced less akathisia in the medium term. The results were limited by the low methodological quality in many of the included original studies. Data for the main results were low or very low quality. Therefore, future clinical trials with high methodological quality are required.

HIV prevention advice for people with serious mental illness.

People with serious mental illness have rates of Human Immuno-deficiency Virus (HIV) infection higher than expected in the general population for the same demographic area. Despite this elevated prevalence, UK national strategies around sexual health and HIV prevention do not state that people with serious mental illness are a high risk group. However, a significant proportion in this group are sexually active and engage in HIV-risk behaviours including having multiple sexual partners, infrequent use of condoms and trading sex for money or drugs. Therefore we propose the provision of HIV prevention advice could enhance the physical and social well being of this population. To assess the effects of HIV prevention advice in reducing morbidity, mortality and preserving the quality of life in people with serious mental illness. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (24 January, 2012), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. There is no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. We planned to include all randomised controlled trials focusing on HIV prevention advice versus standard care or comparing HIV prevention advice with other more focused methods of delivering care or information for people with serious mental illness. Review authors (NW, AC, AA, GT) independently screened search results and did not identify any studies that fulfilled the review's criteria. We did not identify any randomised studies that evaluated advice regarding HIV for people with serious mental illness. The excluded studies illustrate that randomisation of packages of care relevant to both people with serious mental illness and HIV risk are possible. Policy makers, clinicians, researchers and service users need to collaborate to produce guidance on how best to provide advice for people with serious mental illness in preventing the spread of HIV infection. It is entirely feasible that this could be within the context of a well-designed simple large randomised study.

Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders.

There is controversy as to whether compulsory community treatment (CCT) for people with severe mental illness (SMI) reduces health service use, or improves clinical outcome and social functioning. To examine the effectiveness of CCT for people with SMI. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register and Science Citation Index (2003, 2008, and 2012). We obtained all references of identified studies and contacted authors where necessary. We further updated this search on the 8 November 2013. All relevant randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of CCT compared with standard care for people with SMI (mainly schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like disorders, bipolar disorder, or depression with psychotic features). Standard care could be voluntary treatment in the community or another pre-existing form of compulsory community treatment such as supervised discharge. Review authors independently selected studies, assessed their quality and extracted data. We used The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. For binary outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect risk ratio (RR), its 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where possible, the weighted number needed to treat statistic (NNT). For continuous outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect mean difference (MD) and its 95% CI. We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to create a 'Summary of findings' table for outcomes we rated as important and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. All studies (n=3) involved patients in community settings who were followed up over 12 months (n = 752 participants).Two RCTs from the USA (total n = 416) compared court-ordered 'Outpatient Commitment' (OPC) with voluntary community treatment. OPC did not result in significant differences compared to voluntary treatment in any of the main outcome indices: health service use (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for readmission to hospital by 11-12 months 0.98 CI 0.79 to 1.21, low grade evidence); social functioning (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for arrested at least once by 11-12 months 0.97 CI 0.62 to 1.52, low grade evidence); mental state; quality of life (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for homelessness 0.67 CI 0.39 to 1.15, low grade evidence) or satisfaction with care (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for perceived coercion 1.36 CI 0.97 to 1.89, low grade evidence). However, risk of victimisation decreased with OPC (1 RCT, n = 264, RR 0.50 CI 0.31 to 0.80). Other than perceived coercion, no adverse outcomes were reported. In terms of numbers needed to treat (NNT), it would take 85 OPC orders to prevent one readmission, 27 to prevent one episode of homelessness and 238 to prevent one arrest. The NNT for the reduction of victimisation was lower at six (CI 6 to 6.5).One further RCT compared community treatment orders (CTOs) with less intensive supervised discharge in England and found no difference between the two for either the main outcome of readmission (1 RCT, n = 333, RR for readmission to hospital by 12 months 0.99 CI 0.74 to 1.32, medium grade evidence), or any of the secondary outcomes including social functioning and mental state. It was not possible to calculate the NNT. The English study met three out of the seven criteria of The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias, the others only one, the majority being rated unclear. CCT results in no significant difference in service use, social functioning or quality of life compared with standard voluntary care. People receiving CCT were, however, less likely to be victims of violent or non-violent crime. It is unclear whether this benefit is due to the intensity of treatment or its compulsory nature. Short periods of conditional leave may be as effective (or non-effective) as formal compulsory treatment in the community. Evaluation of a wide range of outcomes should be considered when this legislation is introduced. However, conclusions are based on three relatively small trials, with high or unclear risk of blinding bias, and evidence we rated as low to medium quality.

Acupuncture for schizophrenia.

Acupuncture, with many categories such as traditional acupuncture, electroacupuncture, laser acupuncture, and acupoint injection, has been shown to be relatively safe with few adverse effects. It is accessible and inexpensive, at least in China, and is likely to be widely used there for psychotic symptoms. To review the effects of acupuncture, alone or in combination treatments compared with placebo (or no treatment) or any other treatments for people with schizophrenia or related psychoses. We searched Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (February 2012), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and clinical trials registries. We also inspected references of identified studies and contacted relevant authors for additional information. We included all relevant randomised controlled trials involving people with schizophrenia-like illnesses, comparing acupuncture added to standard dose antipsychotics with standard dose antipsychotics alone, acupuncture added to low dose antipsychotics with standard dose antipsychotics, acupuncture with antipsychotics, acupuncture added to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) drug with TCM drug, acupuncture with TCM drug, electric acupuncture convulsive therapy with electroconvulsive therapy. We reliably extracted data from all included studies, discussed any disagreement, documented decisions and contacted authors of studies when necessary. We analysed binary outcomes using a standard estimation of risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences with 95% CI. For homogeneous data we used fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. After an update search in 2012 the review now includes 30 studies testing different forms of acupuncture across six different comparisons. All studies were at moderate risk of bias.When acupuncture plus standard antipsychotic treatment was compared with standard antipsychotic treatment alone, people were at less risk of being 'not improved' (n = 244, 3 RCTs, medium-term RR 0.40 CI 0.28 to 0.57, very low quality evidence). Mental state findings were mostly consistent with this finding as was time in hospital (n = 120, 1 RCT, days MD -16.00 CI -19.54 to -12.46, moderate quality evidence). If anything, adverse effects were less for the acupuncture group (e.g. central nervous system, insomnia, short-term, n = 202, 3 RCTs, RR 0.30 CI 0.11 to 0.83, low quality evidence).When acupuncture was added to low dose antipsychotics and this was compared with standard dose antipsychotic drugs, relapse was less in the experimental group (n = 170, 1 RCT, long-term RR 0.57 CI 0.37 to 0.89, very low quality evidence) but there was no difference for the outcome of 'not improved'. Again, mental state findings were mostly consistent with the latter. Incidences of extrapyramidal symptoms - akathisia, were less for those in the acupuncture added to low dose antipsychotics group (n = 180, 1 RCT, short-term RR 0.03 CI 0.00 to 0.49, low quality evidence) - as dry mouth, blurred vision and tachycardia.When acupuncture was compared with antipsychotic drugs of known efficacy in standard doses, there were equivocal data for outcomes such as 'not improved' using different global state criteria. Traditional acupuncture added to TCM drug had benefit over use of TCM drug alone (n = 360, 2 RCTs, RR no clinically important change 0.11 CI 0.02 to 0.59, low quality evidence), but when traditional acupuncture was compared with TCM drug directly there was no significant difference in the short-term. However, we found that participants given electroacupuncture were significantly less likely to experience a worsening in global state (n = 88, 1 RCT, short-term RR 0.52 CI 0.34 to 0.80, low quality evidence).In the one study that compared electric acupuncture convulsive therapy with electroconvulsive therapy there were significantly different rates of spinal fracture between the groups (n = 68, 1 RCT, short-term RR 0.33 CI 0.14 to 0.81, low quality evidence). Attrition in all studies was minimal. No studies reported death, engagement with services, satisfaction with treatment, quality of life, or economic outcomes. Limited evidence suggests that acupuncture may have some antipsychotic effects as measured on global and mental state with few adverse effects. Better designed large studies are needed to fully and fairly test the effects of acupuncture for people with schizophrenia.

Treatments for primary delusional infestation

Background Primary delusional infestation (DI) is a primary psychiatric disorder characterised by delusions and abnormal tactile sensations. The pathophysiology is undecided and treatment includes both pharmacological and non-pharmacological options. There is currently no Cochrane Review of the treatments used. Primary DI is a diagnosis often encountered by both dermatologists and psychiatrists, with a large associated disease burden. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of different treatments in primary delusional infestation (DI). Search methods On 24 December 2014 and 19 March 2019, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including registries of clinical trials. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials involving the treatment of adults with primary DI. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened and assessed studies for inclusion using pre-specified inclusion criteria. Main results We did not identify any studies for inclusion. Authors' conclusions Currently there is no evidence from RCTs available to compare treatment of primary DI with placebo. We cannot, therefore, make any conclusions regarding the effects of treatments (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) for primary DI. This lack of evidence for treatment of primary DI has implications for research and practice. Robust randomised trials are indicated.

Treatment resistant schizophrenia: a comprehensive survey of randomised controlled trials.

BackgroundSchizophrenia is a common serious mental health condition which has significant morbidity and financial consequences. The mainstay of treatment has been antipsychotic medication but one third of people will have a ‘treatment resistant’ and most disabling and costly illness. The aim of this survey was to produce a broad overview of available randomised evidence for interventions for people whose schizophrenic illness has been designated ‘treatment resistant’.MethodWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s comprehensive Trials Register, selected all relevant randomised trials and, taking care not to double count, extracted the number of people randomised within each study. Finally we sought relevant reviews on the Cochrane Library and investigated how data on this subgroup of people had been presented.ResultsWe identified 542 relevant papers based on 268 trials (Average size 64.8 SD 61.6, range 7–526, median 56 IQR 47.3, mode 60). The most studied intervention is clozapine with 82 studies (total n = 6299) comparing it against other anti-psychotic medications. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) supplementing a standard care and risperidone supplementation of clozapine has also been extensively evaluated within trials. Many approaches, however, were clearly under researched. There were only four studies investigating combinations of non-clozapine antipsychotics. Only two psychological approaches (CBT and Family Rehabilitation Training) had more than two studies. Cochrane reviews rarely presented data specific to this important clinical sub-group.ConclusionsThis survey provides a broad taxonomy of how much evaluative research has been carried out investigating interventions for people with treatment resistant schizophrenia. Over 280 trials have been undertaken but, with a few exceptions, most treatment approaches - and some in common use - have only one or two relevant but small trials. Too infrequently the leading reviews fail to highlight the paucity of evidence in this area – as these reviews are maintained this shortcoming should be addressed.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12888-014-0253-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (brief vs standard duration) for schizophrenia.

There is some evidence from research that suggests that cognitive behavioral therapy for psychosis (CBTp) might offer some advantage if offered in combination with pharmacological treatments for people with schizophrenia. There are, however, limitations in its provision due to available resource and training issues. Brief forms of CBTp might be an alternative in settings with limited resources. Brief therapies have shown to be as effective as standard therapies for some nonpsychotic disorders. There is some evidence in favor of brief CBTp. We wanted to review the effects of brief CBTp for people with schizophrenia compared with standard CBTp. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with schizophrenia or related disorders, comparing brief cognitive behavioral therapy for people with psychosis vs standard CBTp. We found only 7 studies which used a brief version of CBTp, but no study compared brief CBTp with CBTp of standard duration. There is a need for RCTs which compare brief with standard CBTp. This review also highlighted the need for setting standard criteria for CBTp dose. For this review, we considered brief CBTp to be delivered within 4 months and using 6-10 sessions.

Trifluoperazine versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia.

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. To review the effects in response to treatment of trifluoperazine and low-potency antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (November 2010). We included all randomised trials comparing trifluoperazine with first-generation low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis. 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. The review currently includes seven randomised trials involving 422 participants that compared trifluoperazine with low-potency antipsychotic drugs. The size of the included studies was between 20 and 157 participants with a study length between four and 52 weeks. Overall, sequence generation, allocation procedures and blinding were poorly reported. Trifluoperazine was not significantly different from low-potency antipsychotic drugs in terms of response to treatment (trifluoperazine 26%, low-potency drug 27%, 3 RCTs, n = 120, RR 0.96 CI 0.59 to 1.56, moderate quality evidence). There was also no significant difference in acceptability of treatment with equivocal number of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason (trifluoperazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 16%, 3 RCTs, n = 239, RR 1.25, CI 0.72 to 2.17,low quality evidence). There was no significant difference in numbers with at least one adverse effect (trifluoperazine 60%, low-potency antipsychotics 38%, 1 RCT, n = 60, RR 1.60, CI 0.94 to 2.74, moderate quality evidence). However, at least one movement disorder was significantly more frequent in the trifluoperazine group (trifluoperazine 23%, low-potency antipsychotics 13%, 2 RCTs, n = 123, RR 2.08 CI 0.78 to 5.55, very low quality evidence) as well as incoordination (trifluoperazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 5%, 1 RCT, n = 60, RR 7.00, CI 1.60 to 30.66) and rigor (trifluoperazine 45%, low-potency antipsychotics 10%, 1 RCT, n = 60, RR 4.50, CI 1.58 to 12.84). No data were available for other outcomes of interest death, sedation and quality of life. The results did not show a difference in efficacy between trifluoperazine and low-potency antipsychotics. Trifluoperazine produced more movement disorders. The number of randomised studies as well as their quality is low, the quality of evidence for outcomes of interest ranged from moderate to very low quality, so more, newer studies would be needed for conclusions about the relative effects of trifluoperazine and low-potency antipsychotics.

Information and communication technology based prompting for treatment compliance for people with serious mental illness.

Non-compliance is a significant problem among people with serious mental disorders, presenting a challenge for mental health professionals. Prompts such as telephone calls, visits, and a posted referral letter to patients are currently used to encourage patient attendance at clinics and/or compliance with medication. More recently, the use of information and communication technology (ICT)-based prompting methods have increased. Methods include mobile text message (SMS - short message service), e-mail or use of any other electronic device with the stated purpose of encouraging compliance. To investigate the effects of ICT-based prompting to support treatment compliance in people with serious mental illness compared with standard care. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (31(st) May 2011 and 9(th) July 2012) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. Also, we inspected references of all identified studies for further trials and contacted authors of trials for additional information. Relevant randomised controlled trials involving adults with serious mental illness, comparing any ICT-based prompt or combination of prompts by automatic or semi-automatic system compared with standard care. Review authors reliably assessed trial quality and extracted data. We calculated risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For continuous outcomes, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups, again with 95% confidence intervals. A 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE was created, and we assessed included studies for risk of bias. The search identified 35 references, with 25 studies, but we could only include two studies with a total of 358 participants. The studies had a moderate risk of bias, and therefore risk overestimating any positive effects of ICT-based prompting. Both included studies compared semi-automatised ICT-based prompting intervention with standard care groups in mental health outpatient care. The interventions were SMS-message and an electronic assistant device. One included study reported our primary outcome, compliance.There was not any clear evidence that ICT-based prompts increase improvement in compliance (stop taking medication within six months n = 320, RR 1.11 CI 0.96 to 1.29, moderate quality evidence). There was some low quality evidence that ICT-based prompts have small effects for: mental state (average change in specific symptom scores within three months n = 251, MD -0.30 CI -0.53 to -0.07; severity of illness within three months n = 251, MD -0.10 CI -0.13 to -0.07 and six months n = 251, MD -0.10 CI -0.13 to -0.07; average change in depressive scores within six months n = 251, RR 0.00 CI -0.28 to 0.28; global symptoms within three months n = 251, MD -0.10 CI -0.38 to -0.07; negative symptoms within three months n = 251, MD -0.10 CI -0.38 to 0.18 and six months n = 251, MD -0.30 CI -0.58 to 0.02, low quality evidence). Level of insight improved more among people receiving ICT-based prompt compared with those in the control group at six months (n = 251, MD -0.10 CI -0.13 to -0.07). ICT-based prompts also increased quality of life (average change in quality of life within six months n = 251, RR 0.50 CI 0.19 to 0.81, moderate quality evidence).Based on the existing data, there is no evidence that either intervention is less acceptable than the other (n = 347, 2 RCTs, RR 1.46 CI 0.70 to 3.05, low quality evidence). Included studies did not report outcomes of service utilisation, behaviour, costs or adverse events. The evidence base on the effects of ICT-based prompts is still inconclusive. Data to clarify ICT-based prompting effects are awaited from an ongoing trial, but further well-conducted trials considering the different ICT-based prompts are warranted.

Carbamazepine for schizophrenia.

Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with just antipsychotic drug treatment and various adjunct medications are used to promote additional response. The antiepileptic carbamazepine is one such drug. To examine whether carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine alone is an effective treatment for schizophrenia and schizoaffective psychoses and whether carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine augmentation of neuroleptic medication is an effective treatment for the same illnesses. For the original version we searched The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials (December 2001), The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2001), MEDLINE (1966-2001), EMBASE (1980-2001), Biological Abstracts (1980-2001), PsycLIT (1886-2001) and PSYNDEX (1974-2001). For the most recent update we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials in July 2012. We also inspected references of all identified studies for further trials and contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies and authors for additional data. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing carbamazepine or compounds of the carbamazepine family with placebo or no intervention, whether as sole treatment or as an adjunct to antipsychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia and/or schizoaffective psychoses. We extracted data independently. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated fixed-effect, risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD). We assessed the risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE. The updated search did not reveal any further studies that met our inclusion criteria. The number of included studies therefore remains at 10 with the number of participants randomised still 283.One study comparing carbamazepine with placebo as the sole treatment for schizophrenia was abandoned early due to high relapse rate with 26 out of 31 participants relapsing by three months. No effect of carbamazepine was evident with no difference in relapse between the two groups (1 RCT n = 31, RR 1.07 CI 0.78 to 1.45). Another study compared carbamazepine with antipsychotics as the sole treatment for schizophrenia. No differences in terms of mental state were found when comparing 50% reduction in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) scores (1 RCT n = 38, RR 1.23 CI 0.78 to 1.92). A favourable effect for carbamazepine was found when more people who received the antipsychotic (perphenazine) had parkinsonism (1 RCT n = 38, RR 0.03 CI 0.00 to 0.043). Eight studies compared adjunctive carbamazepine versus adjunctive placebo, we were able use GRADE for quality of evidence for these results. Adding carbamazepine to antipsychotic treatment was as acceptable as adding placebo with no difference between the numbers leaving the study early from each group (8 RCTs n = 182, RR 0.47 CI 0.16 to 1.35, very low quality evidence). Carbamazepine augmentation was superior compared with antipsychotics alone in terms of overall global improvement, but participant numbers were low (2 RCTs n = 38, RR 0.57 CI 0.37 to 0.88). There were no differences for the mental state outcome of 50% reduction in BPRS scores (6 RCTs n = 147, RR 0.86 CI 0.67 to 1.12, low quality evidence). Less people in the carbamazepine augmentation group had movement disorders than those taking haloperidol alone (1 RCT n = 20, RR 0.38 CI 0.14 to 1.02). No data were available for the effects of carbamazepine on subgroups of people with schizophrenia and aggressive behaviour, negative symptoms or EEG abnormalities or with schizoaffective disorder. Based on currently available randomised trial-derived evidence, carbamazepine cannot be recommended for routine clinical use for treatment or augmentation of antipsychotic treatment of schizophrenia. At present large, simple well-designed and reported trials are justified - especially if focusing on people with violent episodes and people with schizoaffective disorders or those with both schizophrenia and EEG abnormalities.

Cognitive behavioural therapy (brief versus standard duration) for schizophrenia.

Cognitive behavioural therapy for people with schizophrenia is a psychotherapeutic approach that establishes links between thoughts, emotions and behaviours and challenges dysfunctional thoughts. There is some evidence to suggest that cognitive behavioural therapy for people with psychosis (CBTp) might be an effective treatment for people with schizophrenia. There are however, limitations in its provision due to available resource and training issues. One way to tackle this issue might be to offer a brief version of CBTp. To review the effects of brief CBTp (6 to 10 regular sessions given in less than 4 months and using a manual) for people with schizophrenia compared with standard CBTp (12 to 20 regular sessions given in 4 to 6 months and using a manual). We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (August 21, 2013) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and registries of Clinical Trials. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. We inspected all references of the selected articles for further relevant trials. We also contacted experts in the field regarding brief CBTp studies. Randomised controlled trials involving adults with schizophrenia or related disorders, comparing brief cognitive behavioural therapy for people with psychosis versus standard CBTp. Two review authors independently screened and assessed studies for inclusion using pre-specified inclusion criteria. We found only seven studies which used a brief version of CBTp, but no study compared brief CBTp with CBTp of standard duration. No studies could be included. Currently there is no literature available to compare brief with standard CBTp for people with schizophrenia. We cannot, therefore, conclude whether brief CBTp is as effective, less effective or even more effective than standard courses of the same therapy. This lack of evidence for brief CBTp has serious implications for research and practice. Well planned, conducted and reported randomised trials are indicated.

General physical health advice for people with serious mental illness.

There is currently much focus on provision of general physical health advice to people with serious mental illness and there has been increasing pressure for services to take responsibility for providing this. To review the effects of general physical healthcare advice for people with serious mental illness. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (last update search October 2012) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and registries of Clinical Trials. There is no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. All randomised clinical trials focusing on general physical health advice for people with serious mental illness.. We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. Seven studies are now included in this review. For the comparison of physical healthcare advice versus standard care we identified six studies (total n = 964) of limited quality. For measures of quality of life one trial found no difference (n = 54, 1 RCT, MD Lehman scale 0.20, CI -0.47 to 0.87, very low quality of evidence) but another two did for the Quality of Life Medical Outcomes Scale - mental component (n = 487, 2 RCTs, MD 3.70, CI 1.76 to 5.64). There was no difference between groups for the outcome of death (n = 487, 2 RCTs, RR 0.98, CI 0.27 to 3.56, low quality of evidence). For service use two studies presented favourable results for health advice, uptake of ill-health prevention services was significantly greater in the advice group (n = 363, 1 RCT, MD 36.90, CI 33.07 to 40.73) and service use: one or more primary care visit was significantly higher in the advice group (n = 80, 1 RCT, RR 1.77, CI 1.09 to 2.85). Economic data were equivocal. Attrition was large (> 30%) but similar for both groups (n = 964, 6 RCTs, RR 1.11, CI 0.92 to 1.35). Comparisons of one type of physical healthcare advice with another were grossly underpowered and equivocal. General physical health could lead to people with serious mental illness accessing more health services which, in turn, could mean they see longer-term benefits such as reduced mortality or morbidity. On the other hand, it is possible clinicians are expending much effort, time and financial resources on giving ineffective advice. The main results in this review are based on low or very low quality data. There is some limited and poor quality evidence that the provision of general physical healthcare advice can improve health-related quality of life in the mental component but not the physical component, but this evidence is based on data from one study only. This is an important area for good research reporting outcome of interest to carers and people with serious illnesses as well as researchers and fundholders.

Length of hospitalisation for people with severe mental illness.

In high-income countries, over the last three decades, the length of hospital stays for people with serious mental illness has reduced drastically although considerable variation remains. In lower-income countries this variation may be greater. Some argue that reduction in hospital stay leads to 'revolving door admissions' and worsening mental health outcomes despite apparent cost savings, whilst others suggest longer stays may be more harmful by institutionalising people to hospital care. To evaluate the effect of short stay/brief admission hospital care with long stay/standard in-patient care in people with serious mental illness. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials, July 2007 and updated this search in May 2012. We included all randomised controlled trials comparing planned short/brief with long/standard hospital stays for people with serious mental illnesses. 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 using a fixed-effect model. For continuous data, had we identified such data, we planned to calculate fixed-effect mean differences (MD). We assessed risk of bias for included studies and rated quality of evidence using GRADE. We included six relevant trials undertaken between 1969 and 1980. We found no significant difference in death (n = 175, 1 RCT, RR in the longer term 0.42, CI 0.10 to 1.83, very low quality evidence). In the long term, there was no difference in improvement of mental state (n = 61, 1 RCT, RR 3.39, CI 0.76 to 15.02, very low quality evidence). There was no difference in readmission to hospital (n = 651, 4 RCTs, RR by the long term 1.26, CI 1.00 to 1.57, low quality evidence). Data for leaving the study prematurely by the longer term showed no difference (n = 229, 2 RCTs, (RR 0.77, CI 0.34 to 1.77, low quality evidence). There was a significant difference favouring short stay (P = 0.01) in numbers of participants with delayed discharge from hospital exceeding the time planned in study (n = 404, 3 RCTs, RR in the longer term 0.54, CI 0.33 to 0.88, low quality evidence). There was no difference in numbers of participants lost to follow-up (n = 404, 3 RCTs, RR by the longer term 1.07, CI 0.70 to 1.62, low quality evidence). Finally, there was a significant difference favouring short-stay hospitalisation for social functioning, including unemployment, unable to housekeep, or unknown employment status (n = 330, 2 RCTs, RR by longer term 0.61, CI 0.50 to 0.76, very low quality evidence). The effects of hospital care and the length of stay is important for mental health policy. We found limited low and very low quality data which were all over 30 years old. Outcomes from these studies do suggest that a planned short-stay policy does not encourage a 'revolving door' pattern of admission and disjointed care for people with serious mental illness. More large, well-designed and reported trials are justified especially where a short-stay policy is not routine care.

Trifluoperazine versus placebo for schizophrenia.

Trifluoperazine is a long-established high potency typical antipsychotic drug used in the treatment of schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like illnesses. To determine absolute effects of trifluoperazine for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like illnesses compared with placebo.To critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the resource use, cost and economic evaluation of trifluoperazine compared with placebo for schizophrenia. Searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials (July 2012), supplemented with handsearching, reference searching, personal communication and contact with industry. Two review authors undertook a search for economic studies using the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Health Economic Database (CSzGHED) on the 9th April 2013. All available clinical randomised trials involving people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like illnesses that compare trifluoperazine with placebo. Studies for the effects of interventions were reliably selected by a review team and data were doubly independently extracted to reduce bias. We only used dichotomous data, using intention-to-treat analysis when possible. Data were estimated using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A 'Summary of findings' table was produced, where possible, for each primary outcome using GRADE. Economic studies were searched and reliably selected by review authors (VF and SS) to provide an economic summary of available data. Where no relevant economic studies were eligible for inclusion, the economic review team valued the already-included effectiveness outcome data to provide a rudimentary economic summary. This review included 10 studies with a total number of 686 participants featuring in 20 different outcomes of interest. Overall, there was significant clinical improvement in clinical global state at medium term amongst people receiving trifluoperazine (3 RCTs, n = 417, RR 4.61, CI 1.54 to 13.84, low quality evidence) and significantly fewer people receiving trifluoperazine left the studies early due to relapse or worsening at medium term (2 RCTs, n = 381, RR 0.34, CI 0.23 to 0.49, low quality evidence). However, results were equivocal for leaving the study early at medium term for any reason (2 RCTs, n = 391, RR 0.80, CI 0.17 to 3.81, very low quality evidence) and due to severe adverse effects (2 RCTs, n = 391, RR 1.54, CI 0.56 to 4.24, very low quality evidence). Equivocal data were also found for intensified symptoms at medium term (2 RCTs, n = 80, RR 1.05, CI 0.54 to 2.05, very low quality evidence) and rates of agitation or distress again at medium term (1 RCT, n = 52, RR 2.00, CI 0.19 to 20.72, very low quality evidence). Comparison between low and high-dose trifluoperazine with placebo from a single study provided equivocal evidence of effects. For economic outcomes, we valued outcomes in GBP terms and presented them in additional tables; there was an estimated saving of £3488.3 in favour of trifluoperazine. However, numerous assumptions were made and these savings need to be interpreted in light of those assumptions. Our results agree with existing evidence that compared to placebo, trifluoperazine is an effective antipsychotic for people with schizophrenia. Furthermore, our review provides supportive evidence that trifluoperazine increases the risk of extrapyramidal adverse effects. Although the effect sizes against placebo are similar to those observed with other agents, they are based on data from many small, pre-CONSORT trials with generally either a low or very low GRADE evidence that has limited implication for clinical practice. Large, independent trials are needed that adhere to the CONSORT statement to compare trifluoperazine with placebo used in the treatment of schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like illnesses.

Chlorpromazine versus placebo for schizophrenia

Chlorpromazine, formulated in the 1950s, remains a benchmark treatment for people with schizophrenia. To review the effects of chlorpromazine compared with placebo, for the treatment of schizophrenia. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (15 May 2012). We also searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials for additional information. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chlorpromazine with placebo for people with schizophrenia and non-affective serious/chronic mental illness irrespective of mode of diagnosis. Primary outcomes of interest were death, violent behaviours, overall improvement, relapse and satisfaction with care. We independently inspected citations and abstracts, ordered papers, re-inspected and quality assessed these. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and estimated the 95% confidence interval (CI) around this. We excluded continuous data if more than 50% of participants were lost to follow-up. Where continuous data were included, we analysed this data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval. We used a fixed-effect model. We inspected over 1100 electronic records. The review currently includes 315 excluded studies and 55 included studies. The quality of the evidence is very low. We found chlorpromazine reduced the number of participants experiencing a relapse compared with placebo during six months to two years follow-up (n = 512, 3 RCTs, RR 0.65 CI 0.47 to 0.90), but data were heterogeneous. No difference was found in relapse rates in the short, medium or long term over two years, although data were also heterogeneous. We found chlorpromazine provided a global improvement in a person's symptoms and functioning (n = 1164, 14 RCTs, RR 0.71 CI 0.58 to 0.86). Fewer people allocated to chlorpromazine left trials early ( n = 1831, 27 RCTs, RR 0.64 CI 0.53 to 0.78) compared with placebo. There are many adverse effects. Chlorpromazine is clearly sedating (n = 1627, 23 RCTs, RR 2.79 CI 2.25 to 3.45), it increases a person's chances of experiencing acute movement disorders (n = 942, 5 RCTs, RR 3.47 CI 1.50 to 8.03) and parkinsonism (n = 1468, 15 RCTs, RR 2.11 CI 1.59 to 2.80). Akathisia did not occur more often in the chlorpromazine group than placebo. Chlorpromazine clearly causes a lowering of blood pressure with accompanying dizziness (n = 1488, 18 RCTs, RR 2.38 CI 1.74 to 3.25) and considerable weight gain (n = 165, 5 RCTs, RR 4.92 CI 2.32 to 10.43). The results of this review confirm much that clinicians and recipients of care already know but aim to provide quantification to support clinical impression. Chlorpromazine's global position as a 'benchmark' treatment for psychoses is not threatened by the findings of this review. Chlorpromazine, in common use for half a century, is a well-established but imperfect treatment. Judicious use of this best available evidence should lead to improved evidence-based decision making by clinicians, carers and patients.

Haloperidol versus placebo for schizophrenia

Haloperidol was developed in the late 1950s for use in the field of anaesthesia. Research subsequently demonstrated effects on hallucinations, delusions, aggressiveness, impulsiveness and states of excitement and led to the introduction of haloperidol as an antipsychotic. To evaluate the clinical effects of haloperidol for the management of schizophrenia and other similar serious mental illnesses compared with placebo. Initially, we electronically searched the databases of Biological Abstracts (1985-1998), CINAHL (1982-1998), The Cochrane Library (1998, Issue 4), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (December 1998), EMBASE (1980-1998), MEDLINE (1966-1998), PsycLIT (1974-1998), and SCISEARCH. We also checked references of all identified studies for further trial citations and contacted the authors of trials and pharmaceutical companies for further information and archive material.For the 2012 update, on 15 May 2012, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register. We included all relevant randomised controlled trials comparing the use of haloperidol (any oral dose) with placebo for those with schizophrenia or other similar serious, non-affective psychotic illnesses (however diagnosed). Our main outcomes of interest were death, loss to follow-up, clinical and social response, relapse and severity of adverse effects. We evaluated data independently and extracted, re-inspected and quality assessed the data. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and calculated their 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD). We excluded continuous data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50% and inspected data for heterogeneity. We used a fixed-effect model for all analyses. For the 2012 update, we assessed risk of bias of included studies and used the GRADE approach to create a 'Summary of findings' table. Twenty-five trials randomising 4651 people are now included in this review. We chose seven main outcomes of interest for the 'Summary of findings' table. More people allocated haloperidol improved in the first six weeks of treatment than those given placebo (4 RCTs n = 472, RR 0.67 CI 0.56 to 0.80, moderate quality evidence). A further eight trials also found a difference favouring haloperidol across the six weeks to six months period (8 RCTs n = 307 RR 0.67 CI 0.58 to 0.78, moderate quality evidence). Relapse data from two trials favoured haloperidol at < 52 weeks but the evidence was very low quality (2 RCTs n = 70, RR 0.69 CI 0.55 to 0.86). Moderate quality evidence showed about half of those entering studies failed to complete the short trials (six weeks to six months), although, at up to six weeks, 16 studies found a difference that marginally favoured haloperidol (n = 1812, RR 0.87 CI 0.80 to 0.95). Adverse effect data does, nevertheless, support clinical impression that haloperidol is a potent cause of movement disorders, at least in the short term. Moderate quality evidence indicates that haloperidol caused parkinsonism (5 RCTs n = 485, RR 5.48 CI 2.68 to 11.22), akathisia (6 RCTs n = 695, RR 3.66 CI 2.24 to 5.97, and acute dystonia (5 RCTs n = 471, RR 11.49 CI 3.23 to 10.85). Discharge from hospital was equivocal between groups (1 RCT n = 33, RR 0.85 CI 0.47 to 1.52, very low quality evidence). Data were not reported for death and patient satisfaction. Haloperidol is a potent antipsychotic drug but has a high propensity to cause adverse effects. Where there is no treatment option, use of haloperidol to counter the damaging and potentially dangerous consequences of untreated schizophrenia is justified. However, where a choice of drug is available, people with schizophrenia and clinicians may wish to prescribe an alternative antipsychotic with less likelihood of adverse effects such as parkinsonism, akathisia and acute dystonias. Haloperidol should be less favoured as a control drug for randomised trials of new antipsychotics.

Pimozide for schizophrenia or related psychoses

Pimozide, formulated in the 1960s, continues to be marketed for the care of people with schizophrenia or related psychoses such as delusional disorder. It has been associated with cardiotoxicity and sudden unexplained death. Electrocardiogram monitoring is now required before and during use. To review the effects of pimozide for people with schizophrenia or related psychoses in comparison with placebo, no treatment or other antipsychotic medication.A secondary objective was to examine the effects of pimozide for people with delusional disorder. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (28 January 2013). We sought all relevant randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing pimozide with other treatments. Working independently, we inspected citations, ordered papers and then re-inspected and assessed the quality of the studies and of extracted data. For homogeneous dichotomous data, we calculated the relative risk (RR), the 95% confidence interval (CI) and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data. We excluded data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50%. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence. We included 32 studies in total: Among the five studies that compared pimozide versus placebo, only one study provided data for global state relapse, for which no difference between groups was noted at medium term (1 RCT n = 20, RR 0.22 CI 0.03 to 1.78, very low quality of evidence). None of the five studies provided data for no improvement or first-rank symptoms in mental state. Data for extrapyramidal symptoms demonstrate no difference between groups for Parkinsonism (rigidity) at short term (1 RCT, n = 19, RR 5.50 CI 0.30 to 101.28, very low quality of evidence) or at medium term (1 RCT n = 25, RR 1.33 CI 0.14 to 12.82, very low quality of evidence), or for Parkinsonism (tremor) at medium term (1 RCT n = 25, RR 1 CI 0.2 to 4.95, very low quality of evidence). No data were reported for quality of life at medium term.Of the 26 studies comparing pimozide versus any antipsychotic, seven studies provided data for global state relapse at medium term, for which no difference was noted (7 RCTs n = 227, RR 0.82 CI 0.57 to 1.17, moderate quality of evidence). Data from one study demonstrated no difference in mental state (no improvement) at medium term (1 RCT n = 23, RR 1.09 CI 0.08 to 15.41, very low quality evidence); another study demonstrated no difference in the presence of first-rank symptoms at medium term (1 RCT n = 44, RR 0.53 CI 0.25 to 1.11, low quality of evidence). Data for extrapyramidal symptoms demonstrate no difference between groups for Parkinsonism (rigidity) at short term (6 RCTs n = 186, RR 1.21 CI 0.71 to 2.05,low quality of evidence) or medium term (5 RCTs n = 219, RR 1.12 CI 0.24 to 5.25,low quality of evidence), or for Parkinsonism (tremor) at medium term (4 RCTs n = 174, RR 1.46 CI 0.68 to 3.11, very low quality of evidence). No data were reported for quality of life at medium term.In the one study that compared pimozide plus any antipsychotic versus the same antipsychotic, significantly fewer relapses were noted in the augmented pimozide group at medium term (1 RCT n = 69, RR 0.28 CI 0.15 to 0.50, low quality evidence). No data were reported for mental state outcomes or for extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS). Data were skewed for quality of life scores, which were not included in the meta-analysis but were presented separately.Two studies compared pimozide plus any antipsychotics versus antipsychotic plus placebo; neither study reported data for outcomes of interest, apart from Parkinsonism at medium term and quality of life using the Specific Level of Functioning scale (SLOF); however, data were skewed.Only one study compared pimozide plus any antipsychotic versus antipsychotics plus antipsychotic; no data were reported for global state and mental state outcomes of interest. Data were provided for Parkinsonism (rigidity and tremor) using the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale (ESRS); however, these data were skewed. Although shortcomings in the data are evident, enough overall consistency over different outcomes and time scales is present to confirm that pimozide is a drug with efficacy similar to that of other, more commonly used antipsychotic drugs such as chlorpromazine for people with schizophrenia. No data support or refute its use for those with delusional disorder.

Fluphenazine (oral) versus placebo for schizophrenia

Fluphenazine is one of the first drugs to be classed as an 'antipsychotic' and has been widely available for five decades. To compare the effects of oral fluphenazine with placebo for the treatment of schizophrenia. We updated searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's trials register, which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the bibliographic databases Biological Abstracts, CINAHL, The Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycLIT, LILACS, PSYNDEX, Sociological Abstracts and Sociofile, 15 May, 2012. References of all identified studies were searched for further trial citations. We sought all randomised controlled trials comparing oral fluphenazine with placebo relevant to people with schizophrenia. Primary outcomes of interest were global state and adverse effects. We inspected citations and abstracts independently, ordered papers and re-inspected and quality assessed trials. We extracted data independently. Dichotomous data were analysed using fixed-effect risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were excluded if more than 50% of people were lost to follow-up, but, where possible, mean differences (MD) were calculated. From over 1200 electronic records of 415 studies identified by our initial search and this updated search, we excluded 48 potentially relevant studies and included seven trials published between 1964 and 1999 that randomised 439 (mostly adult participants). No new included trials were identified for this review update. Compared with placebo, global state outcomes of 'not improved or worsened' were not significantly different in the medium term in one small study (n = 50, 1 RCT, RR 1.12 CI 0.79 to 1.58, very low quality of evidence). The risk of relapse in the long term was greater in two small studies in people receiving placebo (n = 86, 2 RCTs, RR 0.39 CI 0.05 to 3.31, very low quality of evidence), however with high degree of heterogeneity in the results. Only one person allocated fluphenazine was reported in the same small study to have died on long-term follow-up (n = 50, 1 RCT, RR 2.38 CI 0.10 to 55.72, low quality of evidence). Short-term extrapyramidal adverse effects were significantly more frequent with fluphenazine compared to placebo in two other studies for the outcomes of akathisia (n = 227, 2 RCTs, RR 3.43 CI 1.23 to 9.56, moderate quality of evidence) and rigidity (n = 227, 2 RCTs, RR 3.54 CI 1.76 to 7.14, moderate quality of evidence). The findings in this review confirm much that clinicians and recipients of care already know, but they provide quantification to support clinical impression. Fluphenazine's global position as an effective treatment for psychoses is not threatened by the outcome of this review. However, fluphenazine is an imperfect treatment and if accessible, other inexpensive drugs less associated with adverse effects may be an equally effective choice for people with schizophrenia.