Antipsychotic efficacy of the antidepressant trimipramine: a randomized, double-blind comparison with the phenothiazine perazine. Issues that may determine the outcome of antipsychotic trials: industry sponsorship and extrapyramidal side effect. [Zotepine versus perazine in patients with paranoid schizophrenia: a double-blind controlled trial of its effectiveness]. Pharmacotherapy of impaired affect in recovering schizophrenic patients. Ethyl-eicosapentaenoic acid in first-episode psychosis: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.
The tricyclic antidepressant trimipramine exhibits several features (e. g., dopaminergic effect, molecular structure similar to a neuroleptic, receptor-binding profile similar to clozapine) that suggest its potential as an antipsychotic medication. The aim of the study was to investigate the antipsychotic potential of trimipramine in a controlled clinical trial comparing its antipsychotic efficacy with that of a neuroleptic.
                In a German multi-center, randomized, double-blind trial, the antipsychotic efficacy of trimipramine was compared with that of the phenothiazine neuroleptic perazine, using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), and Clinical Global Impressions (CGI). Antidepressant efficacy of both agents was measured by use of the Bech-Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale (BRMES). Ninety-five patients with acute schizophrenia (DSM-III-R) and a BPRS total score > 40 at baseline were treated with either 300-400 mg trimipramine or 450-600 mg perazine for 5 weeks.
                Therapeutic equivalence of both treatments (in the dosages used) could not be demonstrated (change in BPRS total score, per-protocol [PP] analysis, one-sided equivalence testing). However, intention-to-treat (ITT) as well as PP analysis showed a statistically significant decrease in the BPRS total scores in both treatment groups (PP: trimipramine, 56.5 +/- 9.8 to 44.1 +/- 17.9; perazine, 56.4 +/- 10.8 to 37.9 +/- 12.9). Significant decreases in all BPRS and PANSS subscores as well as CGI results and response rate support the antipsychotic efficacy of trimipramine. The BRMES total scores significantly decreased in both treatment groups without showing a significant difference between the two agents. Trimipramine was better tolerated than perazine and did not elicit extrapyramidal symptoms.
                Trimipramine failed to exhibit therapeutic equivalence to perazine in the dosages used. However, there was evidence of a substantial antipsychotic effect of trimipramine. It may be a useful medication if depressive symptoms in psychotic patients require antidepressant treatment or if other antipsychotics cannot be administered. This study presents a meta-analysis of the influence of several potentially biasing factors (eg industry support, extrapyramidal side effects) on efficacy of studies comparing second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) with first-generation antipsychotic (FGA) medications. We used the dataset from our previously published meta-analysis of 124 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SGAs with FGAs, to evaluate whether certain possible biases could influence the actual outcome on the total score of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), and Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scores. Industry sponsorship was determined by contact with authors or publication statement. We calculated whether (1) industry sponsorship, (2) study quality, (3) extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) properties, or (4) prophylactic antiparkinsonian medications influenced SGA vs FGA efficacy for each drug and averaged overall by two Hedges and Olkin-based meta-analyses. The analysis found that none of the factors was significantly associated with a particular outcome. While industry-sponsored articles may conclude their medication to be more favorable than that of a competitor in an RCT, we found that the observed efficacy was not influenced by sponsorship. Many attribute the finding that SGAs appears to be more efficacious than FGAs to be a result of EPS-decreasing efficacy (or its measurement). We were unable to confirm that the drug's EPS properties or antiparkinsonian management altered actual efficacy. The dibenzothiepine zotepine is a new potential "atypical" neuroleptic exhibiting powerful antiserotonergic and antidopaminergic properties. The efficacy of zotepine was evaluated in a double-blind controlled trial versus the tricyclic neuroleptic perazine in 41 patients suffering mainly from the paranoid-hallucinatory type of schizophrenia. The key outcome variable was the extent of mental disturbance as defined by the total score of the BPRS. Additional outcome variables were GAS and CGI. In addition, adverse reactions and extrapyramidal side effects were assessed according to the FSUCL scale and the Gerlach and AIMS rating scale, respectively. Additional variables recorded were blood pressure, heart rate and routine laboratory parameters as well as electrocardiogram and electroencephalogram. In the first two days, standard equivalent doses of both drugs were administered. Thereafter, doses were administered as required. The efficacy of both substances was compared after 7, 14 and 28 days of treatment. Both drugs showed a similar antipsychotic efficacy. Under zotepine treatment a 55% improvement of the BPRS total score was observed while perazine led to a 41% BPRS score reduction. After 7 days the zotepine group was significantly more improved than the perazine group, possibly due to a dosing effect in the perazine group. In the zotepine group, fewer adverse reactions and a better benefit/risk index were observed although the differences between the two treatment groups did not reach levels of statistical significance. There were no drug-specific abnormal laboratory findings. Thus, in the present study there was no significant difference between zotepine and perazine with respect to antipsychotic efficacy and side-effect rates. However, zotepine showed a trend to a better benefit/risk index at the end of treatment. Prominent and persistent anxiety, depression, and/or negative features characterize a substantial minority of recovered or residually psychotic schizophrenic outpatients and contribute to poor outcome. Because extrapyramidal side effects of typical neuroleptic medications often resemble such features, we first systematically studied the contribution of extrapyramidal side effects to these problems and their treatment. For patients who remained distressed, controlled trials of supplemental thymoleptics were undertaken.
                In trial 1, 92 distressed (depressed and/or anxious) patients and 36 patients in a defect state (patients with negative symptoms) participated in a double-blind, intramuscular challenge that compared centrally acting benztropine mesylate with peripherally acting glycopyrrolate. In trial 2, 57 distressed patients and 22 patients in a defect state were randomly assigned to a double-blind, neuroleptic medication dose-reduction group. In trial 3, 57 chronically distressed patients who were maintained on a low dose of fluphenazine decanoate were randomly assigned to a supplemental desipramine hydrochloride, lithium carbonate, or placebo group under double-blind conditions for 12 weeks.
                For patients who were already maintained on antiparkinsonian medication, impaired affect was not resolved by additional benztropine. Only distressed patients with a family history of severe mental disorder (often affective) showed improvement with neuroleptic medication dose reduction. Patients in the defect-state group reported less dysphoria on a reduced neuroleptic medication dose, but negative symptoms persisted. Desipramine improved diverse aspects of mood and residual psychoticism, possibly as a prophylaxis against minor affective exacerbations. Depression improved in women only. Lithium positively affected multiple indexes of anxiety and anxious depression.
                Most often, persistent affective impairments are neither resistant extrapyramidal side effects nor characterological traits. Thymoleptics improve the nonphasic, chronic types of anxiety and depression in contrast to the acute, episodic forms, for which little support can be found in the literature. To investigate if ethyl-eicosapentaenoic acid (E-EPA) augmentation improves antipsychotic efficacy and tolerability in first-episode psychosis (FEP).
                We performed a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 2-g E-EPA augmentation in 80 FEP patients. Sixty-nine patients were eligible for analysis; a post hoc analysis was computed for a subgroup of nonaffective FEP patients (N = 53). The first participant was included in November 2000 and the last participant completed the trial in August 2003. Primary outcome measures were symptom change scores and time to first response, while tolerability measures and cumulative antipsychotic dose were secondary outcome measures.
                Analysis of covariance controlling for baseline symptoms found no significant mean difference between E-EPA and placebo at week 12 for symptom change scores. Cox regression analysis revealed a significant treatment by diagnosis interaction (p = .024) for time to first response favoring E-EPA in nonaffective psychosis. Post hoc analysis for cumulative response rates further confirmed a higher response rate at week 6 (42.9% [15/35] vs. 17.6% [6/34] for all participants, p = .036; 54.2% [13/24] vs. 17.2% [5/29] for the nonaffective psychosis subset, p = .008); however, the difference at week 12 was no longer significant. Analysis of secondary outcome measures revealed that E-EPA-augmented participants needed 20% less antipsychotic medication between weeks 4 through 6 (p = .03), had less extrapyramidal side effects in the initial 9 weeks (p < .05 for all participants and for all timepoints), and reported less constipation (p = .011) and fewer sexual side effects (p = .016) than those treated with antipsychotic medication alone.
                The findings suggest that E-EPA may accelerate treatment response and improve the tolerability of antipsychotic medications. However, it was not possible to demonstrate a sustained symptomatic benefit of E-EPA in early psychosis, possibly due to a ceiling effect, since a high proportion of first-episode patients already achieve symptomatic remission with antipsychotic medication alone. Further controlled trials in nonaffective early psychosis seem warranted.
                Australian Clinical Trials Registry identifier 12605000267651 (http://actr.org.au).
The number, size and reporting of randomised controlled perazine trials is insufficient to present firm conclusions about the properties of this antipsychotic. It is possible that perazine is associated with a similar risk of extrapyramidal side-effects as some atypical antipsychotics, and this should be clarified in larger, well-designed trials.
[Note: the four citations in the awaiting classification section of the review may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.]