-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Up to 75% of people with serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have co-occurring substance use disorders (dual diagnosis). Dual... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Up to 75% of people with serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have co-occurring substance use disorders (dual diagnosis). Dual diagnosis can have an adverse effect on treatment and prognosis of SMI.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of risperidone compared to treatment with other antipsychotics (first-generation and other second-generation antipsychotics) used in people with serious mental illness and co-occurring substance misuse.
SEARCH METHODS
On 6 January 2016 and 9 October 2017, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (including trial registers).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised trials of risperidone versus any other antipsychotic in people with SMI and substance abuse (dual diagnosis). We included trials meeting our inclusion criteria and reporting useable data. We excluded trials that either did not meet our inclusion criteria or met our inclusion criteria but did not report any useable data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently inspected citations and selected studies. For included studies, we independently extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals. For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals. We pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the quality of evidence, creating a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified eight randomised trials containing a total of 1073 participants with SMI and co-occurring substance misuse. Seven of these contributed useable data to the review. There was heterogeneity in trial design and measurement. Risperidone was compared to clozapine, olanzapine, perphenazine, quetiapine and ziprasidone. Few trials compared risperidone with first-generation agents. Few trials examined participants with a dual diagnosis from the outset and most trials only contained separate analyses of subgroups with a dual diagnosis or were secondary data analyses of subgroups of people with a dual diagnosis from existing larger trials.For risperidone versus clozapine we found no clear differences between these two antipsychotics in the reduction of positive psychotic symptoms (1 randomised controlled trial (RCT), n = 36, mean difference (MD) 0.90, 95% CI -2.21 to 4.01, very low quality evidence), or reduction in cannabis use (1 RCT, n = 14, risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.35, very low quality evidence), improvement in subjective well-being (1 RCT, n = 36, MD -6.00, 95% CI -14.82 to 2.82, very low quality evidence), numbers discontinuing medication (1 RCT, n = 36, RR 4.05, 95% CI 0.21 to 78.76, very low quality evidence), extrapyramidal side-effects (2 RCTs, n = 50, RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.30 to 24.08; I² = 0%, very low quality evidence), or leaving the study early (2 RCTs, n = 45, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.51; I² = 34%, very low quality evidence). Clozapine was associated with lower levels of craving for cannabis (1 RCT, n = 28, MD 7.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 11.63, very low quality evidence).For risperidone versus olanzapine we found no clear differences in the reduction of positive psychotic symptoms (1 RCT, n = 37, MD -1.50, 95% CI -3.82 to 0.82, very low quality evidence), reduction in cannabis use (1 RCT, n = 41, MD 0.40, 95% CI -4.72 to 5.52, very low quality evidence), craving for cannabis (1 RCT, n = 41, MD 5.00, 95% CI -4.86 to 14.86, very low quality evidence), parkinsonism (1 RCT, n = 16, MD -0.08, 95% CI -1.21 to 1.05, very low quality evidence), or leaving the study early (2 RCT, n = 77, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.35; I² = 0%, very low quality evidence).For risperidone versus perphenazine, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 281, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20, low-quality evidence).For risperidone versus quetiapine, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 294, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07, low-quality evidence).For risperidone versus ziprasidone, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 240, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.10, low-quality evidence).For many comparisons, important outcomes were missing; and no data were reported in any study for metabolic disturbances, global impression of illness severity, quality of life or mortality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is not sufficient good-quality evidence available to determine the effects of risperidone compared with other antipsychotics in people with a dual diagnosis. Few trials compared risperidone with first-generation agents, leading to limited applicability to settings where access to second-generation agents is limited, such as in low- and middle-income countries. Moreover, heterogeneity in trial design and measurement of outcomes precluded the use of many trials in our analyses. Future trials in this area need to be sufficiently powered but also need to conform to consistent methods in study population selection, use of measurement scales, definition of outcomes, and measures to counter risk of bias. Investigators should adhere to CONSORT guidelines in the reporting of results.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Clozapine; Diagnosis, Dual (Psychiatry); Humans; Mental Disorders; Olanzapine; Patient Dropouts; Perphenazine; Piperazines; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone; Schizophrenia; Substance-Related Disorders; Thiazoles
PubMed: 29355909
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011057.pub2 -
European Review For Medical and... Nov 2017Dry mouth (xerostomia), is a fairly common, well-researched condition, which is an indirect cause of oral malodour. This systematic literature review looked into another... (Review)
Review
Dry mouth (xerostomia), is a fairly common, well-researched condition, which is an indirect cause of oral malodour. This systematic literature review looked into another cause of bad breath: adverse drug reactions in the orofacial region causing halitosis. The study focused on extraoral halitosis, and its subdivisions, particularly blood borne halitosis in which malodourous compounds in the blood stream are carried to the lungs, passively diffused across the pulmonary alveolar membrane to enter the breath. An electronic search was conducted in various databases. Inclusion criteria were: editorials, case control studies, retrospective studies and randomized double-blind studies published in English between 1983 and March 2017. The search identified a total of 23 articles. According to these, drug-related halitosis may be caused by nine medications. Dimethyl sulfoxide, cysteamine and suplatast tosilate are metabolised to dimethyl sulfide, a malodourous compound that is stable in blood and is transported into the breath. Disulfiram is reduced to carbon disulfide, also a stable compound in blood. Nitric oxide reacts with foul-smelling volatile organosulfur compounds. The degradation of penicillamine raises the pH level, favouring the growth of gram-negative bacteria in the oral cavity producing halitosis. Chloral hydrate, phenothiazine, and paraldehyde could not be related to halitosis. The analysis showed that halitosis can be caused by medication but does not correlate to any specific disease or specific form of drug therapy. The pharmacological compounds identified as causes of halitosis are administered to treat a broad spectrum of diseases, or in therapeutic regimes.
Topics: Gram-Negative Bacteria; Halitosis; Humans; Hydrogen Sulfide; Penicillamine; Smell; Sulfhydryl Compounds; Sulfides
PubMed: 29164566
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG), play an important role in the assessment of neurodevelopmental... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG), play an important role in the assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders. The use of an appropriate sedative agent is important to ensure the successful completion of the neurodiagnostic procedures, particularly in children, who are usually unable to remain still throughout the procedure.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of chloral hydrate as a sedative agent for non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We searched MEDLINE (OVID SP) (1950 to July 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2017), Embase (1980 to July 2017), and the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (via CENTRAL) using a combination of keywords and MeSH headings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that assessed chloral hydrate agent against other sedative agent(s), non-drug agent(s), or placebo for children undergoing non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the studies for their eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Results were expressed in terms of risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 studies with a total of 2390 children. The studies were all conducted in hospitals that provided neurodiagnostic services. Most studies assessed the proportion of sedation failure during the neurodiagnostic procedure, time for adequate sedation, and potential adverse effects associated with the sedative agent.The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed, as reflected by a wide variation in their 'Risk of bias' profiles. Blinding of the participants and personnel was not achieved in most of the included studies, and three of the 13 studies had high risk of bias for selective reporting. Evaluation of the efficacy of the sedative agents was also underpowered, with all the comparisons performed in single small studies.Children who received oral chloral hydrate had lower sedation failure when compared with oral promethazine (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a higher risk of sedation failure after one dose compared to those who received intravenous pentobarbital (RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.89; 1 study, low-quality evidence), but after two doses there was no evidence of a significant difference between the two groups (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.46; 1 study, very low-quality evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate appeared to have more sedation failure when compared with music therapy, but the quality of evidence was very low for this outcome (RR 17.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 122.14; 1 study). Sedation failure rates were similar between oral chloral hydrate, oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam.Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a shorter time to achieve adequate sedation when compared with those who received oral dexmedetomidine (MD -3.86, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.6; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence), oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride (MD -7.5, 95% CI -7.85 to -7.15; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence), oral promethazine (MD -12.11, 95% CI -18.48 to -5.74; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence), and rectal midazolam (MD -95.70, 95% CI -114.51 to -76.89; 1 study). However, children with oral chloral hydrate took longer to achieve adequate sedation when compared with intravenous pentobarbital (MD 19, 95% CI 16.61 to 21.39; 1 study, low-quality evidence) and intranasal midazolam (MD 12.83, 95% CI 7.22 to 18.44; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence).No data were available to assess the proportion of children with successful completion of neurodiagnostic procedure without interruption by the child awakening. Most trials did not assess adequate sedation as measured by specific validated scales, except in the comparison of chloral hydrate versus intranasal midazolam and oral promethazine.Compared to dexmedetomidine, chloral hydrate was associated with a higher risk of nausea and vomiting (RR 12.04 95% CI 1.58 to 91.96). No other adverse events were significantly associated with chloral hydrate (including behavioural change, oxygen desaturation) although there was an increased risk of adverse events overall (RR 7.66, 95% CI 1.78 to 32.91; 1 study, low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The quality of evidence for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against several other methods of sedation was very variable. Oral chloral hydrate appears to have a lower sedation failure rate when compared with oral promethazine for children undergoing paediatric neurodiagnostic procedures. The sedation failure was similar for other comparisons such as oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam. When compared with intravenous pentobarbital and music therapy, oral chloral hydrate had a higher sedation failure rate. However, it must be noted that the evidence for the outcomes for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against intravenous pentobarbital and music therapy was of very low to low quality, therefore the corresponding findings should be interpreted with caution.Further research should determine the effects of oral chloral hydrate on major clinical outcomes such as successful completion of procedures, requirements for additional sedative agent, and degree of sedation measured using validated scales, which were rarely assessed in the studies included in this review. The safety profile of chloral hydrate should be studied further, especially the risk of major adverse effects such as bradycardia, hypotension, and oxygen desaturation.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Chloral Hydrate; Dexmedetomidine; Diagnostic Techniques, Neurological; Electroencephalography; Humans; Hydroxyzine; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant; Melatonin; Midazolam; Music Therapy; Neuroimaging; Pentobarbital; Promethazine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 29099542
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011786.pub2 -
The Journal of Emergency Medicine Oct 2017Chlorpromazine is the only drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of hiccups; however, many other pharmacologic treatments have been... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chlorpromazine is the only drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of hiccups; however, many other pharmacologic treatments have been proposed for intractable and persistent hiccups. Currently, there is little evidence to support the use of one agent over another.
OBJECTIVE
This review aims to identify literature concerning the use of pharmacologic treatments for intractable and persistent hiccups with the goal of evaluating therapies in terms of their level of evidence, mechanism of action, efficacy, dosing, onset of action, and adverse effects.
METHODS
A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the New York Academy of Medicine was performed to find articles where a pharmacologic agent was used to treat intractable or persistent hiccups between the years 1966 and 2016. The GRADE method was used to assess the level of evidence for the studies included in this review.
RESULTS
This review identified 26 articles involving 10 pharmacologic treatment options that met our inclusion criteria. Amitriptyline, baclofen, gabapentin, haloperidol, metoclopramide, midazolam, nifedipine, nimodipine, orphenadrine, and valproic acid were found in the literature to be successful in treating hiccups.
CONCLUSION
Baclofen, gabapentin, and metoclopramide were the only agents that were studied in a prospective manner, while only baclofen and metoclopramide were studied in randomized controlled trials. No specific recommendations can be made for treating intractable and persistent hiccups with the evidence currently available in the literature. Therapy selection should be specific to individual patients, their underlying comorbidities, etiology of hiccups, and take into account the individual properties of the drugs.
Topics: Adrenergic Uptake Inhibitors; Chlorpromazine; Dopamine Antagonists; Dopamine D2 Receptor Antagonists; Emergency Service, Hospital; GABA-B Receptor Agonists; Hiccup; Humans
PubMed: 29079070
DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2017.05.033 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017The efficacy of chlorpromazine, a benchmark antipsychotic, has not been fully assessed in direct comparison with different individual antipsychotics. Penfluridol is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of chlorpromazine, a benchmark antipsychotic, has not been fully assessed in direct comparison with different individual antipsychotics. Penfluridol is another old antipsychotic with a long half-life so one oral dose may last up to one week. This could confer advantage.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effects of chlorpromazine compared with penfluridol for adults with schizophrenia.
SEARCH METHODS
On 31 March 2017, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials 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.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised clinical trials focusing on chlorpromazine versus penfluridol for adults with schizophrenia or related disorders. Outcomes of interest were death, service utilisation, global state, mental state, adverse effects and leaving the study early. We included trials meeting our selection criteria and reporting useable data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
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 planned to estimate 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 a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
The review includes three studies with a total of 130 participants. Short-term results for hospital admissions showed no clear difference between chlorpromazine and penfluridol (1 RCT, n = 29, RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.60, low-quality evidence). No clear difference in the incidence of akathisia was found at medium term (2 RCTs, n = 85, RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.06, low-quality evidence), and similar numbers of participants - nearly half - from each treatment group left the study early (3 RCTs, n = 130, RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.77, low-quality evidence). The risk of needing additional antiparkinsonian medication was less in the chlorpromazine group (2 RCTs, n = 74, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.95). No useable data reported clinically important change in global or mental state. No data were reported for relapse. No deaths were reported by the trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Only three small studies provided data and the quality of reporting and evidence is low. Limited data indicate the efficacy and adverse effects profiles of chlorpromazine and penfluridol are generally similar. Penfluridol, however, may confer advantage by needing to be given only once per week. Firm conclusions are not possible without good-quality trials, and where these treatments are used, such trials are justified.
Topics: Adult; Akathisia, Drug-Induced; Antipsychotic Agents; Chlorpromazine; Humans; Length of Stay; Penfluridol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 28940256
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011831.pub2 -
Transfusion Sep 2017We estimated rates for common plasma-associated transfusion reactions and compared reported rates for various plasma types. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
We estimated rates for common plasma-associated transfusion reactions and compared reported rates for various plasma types.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed articles that reported plasma transfusion reaction rates. Random-effects pooled rates were calculated and compared between plasma types. Meta-regression was used to compare various plasma types with regard to their reported plasma transfusion reaction rates.
RESULTS
Forty-eight studies reported transfusion reaction rates for fresh-frozen plasma (FFP; mixed-sex and male-only), amotosalen INTERCEPT FFP, methylene blue-treated FFP, and solvent/detergent-treated pooled plasma. Random-effects pooled average rates for FFP were: allergic reactions, 92/10 units transfused (95% confidence interval [CI], 46-184/10 units transfused); febrile nonhemolytic transfusion reactions (FNHTRs), 12/10 units transfused (95% CI, 7-22/10 units transfused); transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO), 6/10 units transfused (95% CI, 1-30/10 units transfused); transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI), 1.8/10 units transfused (95% CI, 1.2-2.7/10 units transfused); and anaphylactic reactions, 0.8/10 units transfused (95% CI, 0-45.7/10 units transfused). Risk differences between plasma types were not significant for allergic reactions, TACO, or anaphylactic reactions. Methylene blue-treated FFP led to fewer FNHTRs than FFP (risk difference = -15.3 FNHTRs/10 units transfused; 95% CI, -24.7 to -7.1 reactions/10 units transfused); and male-only FFP led to fewer cases of TRALI than mixed-sex FFP (risk difference = -0.74 TRALI/10 units transfused; 95% CI, -2.42 to -0.42 injuries/10 units transfused).
CONCLUSION
Meta-regression demonstrates that the rate of FNHTRs is lower for methylene blue-treated compared with FFP, and the rate of TRALI is lower for male-only than for mixed-sex FFP; whereas no significant differences are observed between plasma types for allergic reactions, TACO, or anaphylactic reactions. Reported transfusion reaction rates suffer from high heterogeneity.
Topics: Detergents; Female; Furocoumarins; Humans; Kinetics; Male; Methylene Blue; Plasma; Sex Factors; Solvents; Transfusion Reaction
PubMed: 28766723
DOI: 10.1111/trf.14245 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Nausea is a common symptom in advanced cancer, with a prevalence of up to 70%. While nausea and vomiting can be related to cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Nausea is a common symptom in advanced cancer, with a prevalence of up to 70%. While nausea and vomiting can be related to cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery, a significant number of people with advanced cancer also suffer from nausea unrelated to such therapies. Nausea and vomiting may also cause psychological distress, and have a negative impact on the quality of life of cancer patients; similarly to pain, nausea is often under-treated. The exact mechanism of action of corticosteroids on nausea is unclear, however, they are used to manage a number of cancer-specific complications, including spinal cord compression, raised intracranial pressure, and lymphangitis carcinomatosis. They are also commonly used in palliative care for a wide variety of non-specific indications, such as pain, nausea, anorexia, fatigue, and low mood. However, there is little objective evidence of their efficacy in symptom control, and corticosteroids have a wide range of adverse effects that are dose and time dependent. In view of their widespread use, it is important to seek evidence of their effects on nausea and vomiting not related to cancer treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of corticosteroids on nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in adult cancer patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL EBSCO, Science Citation Index Web of Science, Latin America and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science Web of Science, and clinical trial registries, from inception to 23rd August 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Any double-blind randomised or prospective controlled trial that included adults aged 18 years and over with advanced cancer with nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery were eligible for the review, when using corticosteroids as antiemetic treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used arithmetic means and standard deviations for each outcome to report the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
Three studies met the inclusion criteria, enrolling 451 participants. The trial size varied from 51 to 280 participants. Two studies compared dexamethasone to placebo, and the third study compared a number of additional interventions in various combinations, including metoclopramide, chlorpromazine, tropisetron, and dexamethasone. The duration of the studies ranged from seven to 14 days. We included two studies (127 participants) with data at eight days in the meta-analysis for nausea intensity; no data were available that incorporated the same outcome measures for the third study. Corticosteroid therapy with dexamethasone resulted in less nausea (measured on a scale of 0 to 10, with a lower score indicating less nausea) compared to placebo at eight days (MD 0.48 lower nausea, 95% CI 1.53 lower to 0.57 higher; very low-quality evidence), although this result was not statistically significant (P = 0.37). Frequency of adverse events was not significantly different between groups, and the interventions were well tolerated. Factors limiting statistical analysis included the lack of standardised measurements of nausea, and the use of different agents, dosages, and comparisons. Subgroup analysis according to type of cancer was not possible due to insufficient data. The quality of this evidence was downgraded by three levels, from high to very low due to imprecision, likely selection bias, attrition bias, and the small number of participants in the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There are few studies assessing the effects of corticosteroids on nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in adult cancer patients. This review found very low-quality evidence which neither supported nor refuted corticosteroid use in this setting. Further high quality studies are needed to determine if corticosteroids are efficacious in this setting.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Chlorpromazine; Dexamethasone; Humans; Indoles; Metoclopramide; Nausea; Neoplasms; Time Factors; Tropisetron; Vomiting
PubMed: 28671265
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012002.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Wendan decoction (WDD) is one of the classical Chinese herb formulas used for psychotic symptoms. It is thought to be safe, accessible and inexpensive. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Wendan decoction (WDD) is one of the classical Chinese herb formulas used for psychotic symptoms. It is thought to be safe, accessible and inexpensive.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the effects of WDD for treatment of people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illness compared with placebo, antipsychotic drugs and other interventions for outcomes of clinical importance.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (February 2016), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, China biomedical databases group (SinoMed, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang) and clinical trials registries. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. We also inspected references of identified studies and contacted relevant authors for additional information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials with useable data comparing WDD with antipsychotics, placebo or other interventions for people with schizophrenia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated mean differences (MD) between groups and their 95% CIs. We employed a random-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 randomised trials (1437 participants) of WDD for schizophrenia. There was a high risk of performance bias within the trials but overall, risk for selection, attrition and reporting bias was low or unclear.Data showed WDD improved the short-term global state of participants compared with placebo or no treatment (1 RCT n = 72, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.73, low-quality evidence).When WDD was compared with antipsychotic drugs, such as chlorpromazine or risperidone, no difference in short-term global state of participants was observed (2 RCTs n = 140, RR 1.18 95% CI 0.98 to 1.43, moderate-quality evidence) and mental state (total endpoint Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS): 2 RCTs, n = 140, MD 0.84, 95% CI -4.17 to 5.84, low-quality evidence). However, WDD was associated with fewer people experiencing extrapyramidal effects (EPS) compared with other treatments (2 RCTs 0/70 versus 47/70, n = 140, RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.15, moderate-quality evidence).WDD is often used as an add-on intervention alongside antipsychotics. When WDD + antipsychotic was compared to antipsychotic alone, the combination group had better global state (short-term results, 6 RCTs, n = 684, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.72, moderate-quality evidence) and mental state (short-term total endpoint PANSS: 5 RCTs, n = 580, MD -11.64, 95% CI -13.33 to - 9.94, low-quality evidence), fewer people with EPS (2 RCTs n = 308, RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.70, moderate-quality evidence) and reduction of the mean use of risperidone (1 RCT n = 107, MD -0.70, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.53, low-quality evidence). But, there was no effect on weight gain (1 RCT n = 108, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.24, low-quality evidence).When WDD + low-dose antipsychotic was compared with normal-dose antipsychotic alone, the combination again showed benefits for short-term global state (7 RCTs n = 522, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.93, moderate-quality evidence), mental state (total endpoint PANSS: 4 RCTs n = 250, MD -9.53, 95% CI -17.82 to -1.24, low-quality evidence), and fewer participants with EPS (3 RCTS n = 280, RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.51, moderate-quality evidence).Across all comparisons, we found no data on outcomes directly reporting quality of life, hospital service use and economics.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Limited evidence suggests that WDD may have some positive short-term antipsychotic global effects compared to placebo or no treatment. However when WDD was compared with other antipsychotics there was no effect on global or mental state, but WDD was associated with fewer adverse effects. When WDD was combined with an antipsychotic, positive effects were found for global and mental state and the combination caused fewer adverse effects. The available evidence is not high quality. Better designed large studies are needed to fully and fairly test the effects of WDD for people with schizophrenia.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Chlorpromazine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Dyskinesia, Drug-Induced; Humans; Patient Satisfaction; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 28657646
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012217.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017The World Health Organization (WHO) Model Lists of Essential Medicines lists chlorpromazine as one of its five medicines used in psychotic disorders. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization (WHO) Model Lists of Essential Medicines lists chlorpromazine as one of its five medicines used in psychotic disorders.
OBJECTIVES
To determine chlorpromazine dose response and dose side-effect relationships for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (December 2008; 2 October 2014; 19 December 2016).
SELECTION CRITERIA
All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing low doses of chlorpromazine (≤ 400 mg/day), medium dose (401 mg/day to 800 mg/day) or higher doses (> 800 mg/day) for people with schizophrenia, and which reported clinical outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We included studies meeting review criteria and providing useable data. Review authors extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated fixed-effect risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and their 95% CIs based on a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and graded trial quality using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).
MAIN RESULTS
As a result of searches undertaken in 2014, we found one new study and in 2016 more data for already included studies. Five relevant studies with 1132 participants (585 are relevant to this review) are now included. All are hospital-based trials and, despite over 60 years of chlorpromazine use, have durations of less than six months and all are at least at moderate risk of bias. We found only data on low-dose (≤ 400 mg/day) versus medium-dose chlorpromazine (401 mg/day to 800 mg/day) and low-dose versus high-dose chlorpromazine (> 800 mg/day).When low-dose chlorpromazine (≤ 400 mg/day) was compared to medium-dose chlorpromazine (401 mg/day to 800 mg/day), there was no clear benefit of one dose over the other for both global and mental state outcomes (low-quality and very low-quality evidence). There was also no clear evidence for people in one dosage group being more likely to leave the study early, over the other dosage group (moderate-quality evidence). Similar numbers of participants from each group experienced agitation and restlessness (very low-quality evidence). However, significantly more people in the medium-dose group (401 mg/day to 800 mg/day) experienced extrapyramidal symptoms in the short term (2 RCTS, n = 108, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.74, moderate-quality evidence). No data for death were available.When low-dose chlorpromazine (≤ 400 mg/day) was compared to high-dose chlorpromazine (> 800 mg/day), data from one study with 416 patients were available. Clear evidence of a benefit of the high dose was found with regards to global state. The low-dose group had significantly fewer people improving (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.25, moderate-quality evidence). There was also a marked difference between the number of people leaving the study from each group for any reason, with significantly more people leaving from the high-dose group (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.89, moderate-quality evidence). More people in the low-dose group had to leave the study due to deterioration in behaviour (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.44, low-quality evidence). There was clear evidence of a greater risk of people experiencing extrapyramidal symptoms in general in the high-dose group (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, moderate-quality evidence). One death was reported in the high-dose group yet no effect was shown between the two dosage groups (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.14, moderate-quality evidence). No data for mental state were available.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The dosage of chlorpromazine has changed drastically over the past 50 years with lower doses now being the preferred of choice. However, this change was gradual and arose not due to trial-based evidence, but due to clinical experience and consensus. Chlorpromazine is one of the most widely used antipsychotic drugs yet appropriate use of lower levels has come about after many years of trial and error with much higher doses. In the absence of high-grade evaluative studies, clinicians have had no alternative but to learn from experience. However, such an approach can lack scientific rigor and does not allow for proper dissemination of information that would assist clinicians find the optimum treatment dosage for their patients. In the future, data for recently released medication should be available from high-quality trials and studies to provide optimum treatment to patients in the shortest amount of time.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Barbiturates; Chloral Hydrate; Chlorpromazine; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Patient Dropouts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 28407198
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007778.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017Schizophrenia is a chronic, disabling and severe mental disorder, characterised by disturbance in perception, thought, language, affect and motor behaviour.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Schizophrenia is a chronic, disabling and severe mental disorder, characterised by disturbance in perception, thought, language, affect and motor behaviour. Chlorpromazine and clotiapine are among antipsychotic drugs used for the treatment of people with schizophrenia.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical effects, safety and cost-effectiveness of chlorpromazine compared with clotiapine for adults with schizophrenia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's Trials Register (last update search 16/01/2016), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and clinical trials registries. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the Register.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised clinical trials focusing on chlorpromazine versus clotiapine for schizophrenia. We included trials meeting our selection criteria and reporting useable data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
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 random-effects model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We have included four studies, published between 1974 and 2003, randomising 276 people with schizophrenia to receive either chlorpromazine or clotiapine. The studies were poor at concealing allocation of treatment and blinding of outcome assessment. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in global and mental state, specific change in negative symptoms, incidence of movement disorder (dyskinesia), leaving the study early for any reason, and costs. All reported data were short-term (under six months' follow-up).The trials did not report data for the important outcomes of clinically important change in global or mental state, or cost of care. Improvement in mental state was reported using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). When chlorpromazine was compared with clotiapine the average improvement scores for mental state using the PANSS total was higher in the clotiapine group (1 RCT, N = 31, MD 11.50 95% CI 9.42 to 13.58, very low-quality evidence). The average change scores on the PANSS negative sub-scale were similar between treatment groups (1 RCT, N = 21, MD -0.97 95% CI -2.76 to 0.82, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in incidence of dyskinesia (1 RCT, N = 68, RR 3.00 95% CI 0.13 to 71.15, very low-quality evidence). Similar numbers of participants left the study early from each treatment group (3 RCTs, N = 158, RR 0.68 95% CI 0.24 to 1.88, very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Clinically important changes in global and mental state were not reported. Only one trial reported the average change in overall mental state; results favour clotiapine but these limited data are very difficult to trust due to methodological limitations of the study. The comparative effectiveness of chlorpromazine compared to clotiapine on change in global state remains unanswered. Results in this review suggest chlorpromazine and clotiapine cause similar adverse effects, although again, the quality of evidence for this is poor, making firm conclusions difficult.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Chlorpromazine; Dibenzothiazepines; Dyskinesia, Drug-Induced; Humans; Intention to Treat Analysis; Patient Dropouts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 28387925
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011810.pub2