Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-x2fkq Total loading time: 1.487 Render date: 2022-12-05T17:50:00.848Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Systematic meta-review of depot antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Clive E. Adams
Affiliation:
Cochrane Schizophrenia Group, Summertown Pavilion, Oxford
Mark K. P. Fenton
Affiliation:
Cochrane Schizophrenia Group, Summertown Pavilion, Oxford
Seema Quraishi
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry & Guy's, King's and St Thomas' School of Medicine, London
Anthony S. David*
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry & Guy's, King's and St Thomas' School of Medicine, London
*
Professor Anthony S. David, Institute of Psychiatry & GKT School of Medicine, Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AF, UK. Tel: 020 7848 0138; Fax: 020 7848 0572; e-mail: a.david@iop.kcl.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Long-acting depot antipsychotic medication is a widely used treatment for schizophrenia.

Aims

To synthesise relevant systematic Cochrane reviews.

Method

The Cochrane Database was searched and summary data were extracted from randomised controlled clinical trials of depots.

Results

Standard dose depot v. placebo resulted in significantly less relapse but more movement disorders. Those on depots (v. oral drugs) showed more global change on one outcome measure; relapse and adverse effects showed no difference. Comparisons showed no convincing advantages for one depot over another.

Conclusions

Depot antipsychotics are safe and effective. They may confer a small benefit over oral drugs on global outcome. Those for whom depots are most indicated may not be represented. Large studies are required to discern differences in relapse rates and long-term adverse effects, and data on satisfaction, quality of life and economics.

Type
Review Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2001 

Antipsychotic medication is the mainstay in the effective management of schizophrenia. These drugs reduce symptoms and, when used as a maintenance treatment, prevent relapse (Reference Davis and AndriukaitisDavis & Andriukaitis, 1986). Translation of this success into clinical practice is attenuated by poor compliance (Reference Weiden and OlfsonWeiden & Olfson, 1995), reasons for which include adverse effects, level of insight, severity of illness, complexity of treatment regimen and the relationship that patients have with mental health practitioners (Reference Fenton, Blyler and HeinssenFenton et al, 1997; Reference Kemp, David and BlackwellKemp & David, 1997). Long-acting depot antipsychotics were developed in the 1960s, to promote compliance in people with chronic psychotic illnesses (Reference SimpsonSimpson, 1984). They generally consist of an ester of the antipsychotic drug in an oily solution injected intramuscularly every 1-6 weeks. Depots simplify the treatment process by requiring, for example, the person to attend for injection at a specific clinic, thus guaranteeing the delivery of a known quantity of medication Reference Barnes and CursonBarnes & Curson, 1994; Reference Davis, Matalon and WatanabeDavis et al, 1994). Apart from overcoming covert non-compliance, the pharmacological advantages for depots include the avoidance of problems associated with absorption and hepatic biotransformation. Disadvantages include concerns over adverse effects, including tardive dyskinesia and those associated with parenteral administration per se (Reference JohnsonJohnson, 1984). Many clinicians have promoted the use of depots (Reference Glazer and KaneGlazer & Kane, 1992; Reference GerlachGerlach, 1995; Reference Kane, Aguglia and AltamuraKane et al, 1998), yet patient and clinician acceptance is variable, with the mode of delivery being a major stumbling block (reviewed in companion paper — Reference Walburn, Gray and GournayWalburn et al, 2001, this issue). Figures on the use of depots are sparse but a UK national household survey found that approximately 29% of 390 non-hospitalised patients with psychotic disorders were prescribed depots (Reference Foster, Meltzer and GillFoster et al, 1996).

Davis undertook meta-analyses, incorporating several methodologies (Reference Davis, Matalon and WatanabeDavis et al, 1994) including ‘mirror image’ and influential discontinuation trials (e.g. Reference Hirsch, Gaind and RohdeHirsch et al, 1973), and concluded that depots were superior to oral drugs in many respects. Similarly, Glazer & Kane (Reference Glazer and Kane1992) combined several studies comparing the incidence of tardive dyskinesia for people on depots with those on oral agents. They concluded that depots were no more harmful than oral drugs in this respect. Because non-randomised evaluative studies, including before and after (‘mirror image’) trials, repeatedly have been shown to over-estimate the effect of experimental interventions (Reference Chalmers, Celano and SacksChalmers et al, 1983; Reference Schulz, Chalmers and HayesSchulz et al, 1995), these have not been included in Cochrane schizophrenia reviews (see Reference Adams and EisenbruchAdams & Eisenbruch, 2000; Reference Coutinho, Fenton and QuraishiCoutinho et al, 2000; Quraishi & David, Reference Quraishi and David2000a , Reference Quraishi and David b , Reference Quraishi and David c , Reference Quraishi and David d , Reference Quraishi and David e ; Reference Quraishi, David and AdamsQuraishi et al, 2000).

Objective

The aim of this paper is to provide a synthesis and quantitative summary of the findings of Cochrane depot reviews.

METHOD

Search

The search strategy, methods of selection, quality assessment, data extraction and assimilation within each review are published in The Cochrane Library. The reader is referred to these reviews for explicit details.

Selection

All reviews of long-acting depot antipsychotics for schizophrenia were obtained from The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2000) by searching using the term SCHIZOPHRENIA and scanning the titles of completed reviews. The pre-stated comparisons of interest were of any long-acting depot antipsychotic medication v. placebo or v. oral medication and, finally, high-dose depot v. low-dose depot, for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses. Outcomes of a priori interest were intention-to-treat data on death, improvement in global functioning, mental state, behaviour, social functioning, quality of life, carer burden and incidence of attrition and adverse effects.

Quality assessment

There was no quality assessment of the primary reviews from which these data were extracted but the empirical-evidence-based Cochrane reviews have, in general, been shown to be of higher quality than others (Reference Jadad, Cook and JonesJadad et al, 1998).

Data extraction

Data were extracted from reviews by M. K. P. F. and re-extracted by either C. E. A. or A. S. D. Where disagreement arose, this was resolved through discussion.

Data analysis

All intention-to-treat data were binary outcomes. Risk ratios (RRs, random) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted from the original review and entered into RevMan 4.1 (http://www.updatesoftware.com/ccweb/cochrane/revman.htm). These were calculated in preference to odds ratios because they are robust to heterogeneity and more intuitive to clinicians (Reference Boissel, Cucherat and LiBoissel et al, 1999). In turn, where appropriate, summary data from each review were summated and an overall RR and the summary 95% CI were calculated. Where possible, we calculated the numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH). For a test of heterogeneity we visually inspected graphs as well as employing the χ 2 test.

There are some dangers in this overall approach. Because it was not possible to avoid spurious results by counting participants twice in the ‘specific depot v. other depots’ comparison, totals are not produced. Totalling across different pharmacological classes of antipsychotics is statistically attractive. Power to demonstrate outcomes of interest afforded by summation is increased so that any important effects that the small source trials and reviews would have missed may be highlighted. Clinically and pharmacologically, however, such totalling may not make sense. Clinicians who choose to prescribe a specific depot may not be interested in a summary statistic across all depots. In some circumstances effects could cancel out in an overall summary statistic and causative and protective effects could be masked or cancelled out. Data using summated totals must therefore be interpreted with caution.

RESULTS

The original reviews

Details of the studies included and excluded in specific reviews can be found in the individual Cochrane publications. Overall, composite data for some compounds were sparse (see Table 1). Only 111 people have been randomised within trials of perphenazine and 117 in bromperidol decanoate studies. On the other hand, 3348 people have been randomised in trials of fluphenazine decanoate. The duration of studies in the reviews ranged from 2 weeks to 3 years. Most of the included studies employed operationalised definitions of schizophrenia, which covered several classification systems and their revisions. Doses of depots varied from the very low (1.25 mg of fluphenazine every 2 weeks) to the very high (250-1100 mg of fluphenazine weekly—monthly), although analysis was undertaken only between comparable dose ranges where appropriate, with most falling within British National Formulary ranges (British Medical Association & Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 1999). Reviewers sought clinically relevant outcomes but only a limited range were recorded consistently or presented in a usable form. Overall, study attrition was remarkably low. For example, only about 14% of those randomised to the comparisons of one depot with another left the trials early. Trials of oral atypical antipsychotic agents have rates of attrition of 40-60% (Reference Thornley and AdamsThornley & Adams, 1998).

Table 1 Summary of included reviews

Review Methods Participants Intervention Outcomes
Bromperidol decanoate Allocation: all 4 studies randomised Diagnosis: schizophrenia 1. Bromperidol decanoate: dose range 50-242 mg/month (n=58) Global effect (CGI)
Blinding: double, no further details Age: range 20-65 years 2. Fluphenazine decanoate: dose range 16.7-300 mg/month (n=39) Leaving the study early
Duration: 6 months-1 year Gender: >55 M; >42 F 3. Haloperidol decanoate: mean dose 119 mg/month (n=10) Mental state (use of additional medication)
N=4, n=117 4. Placebo (n=10) Side-effects (DOTES)
Setting: community and in-patients
Flupentixol depot Allocation: all 15 studies randomised Diagnosis: schizophrenia 1. Flupentixol decanoate: dose range 9 mg/2-3 weeks to 300 mg/2-3 weeks (n=359) Death
Blinding: double, no further details Duration of illness: 1-29 years Leaving the study early
Duration: 8 weeks-2 years N=15, n=615 2. Clopenthixol decanoate: dose range 50-600 mg/2-4 weeks (n=48) Relapse
Informed consent from participants in 5 studies Gender: >373 M; >193 F, unknown in 1 trial Use of additional medication
3. Flupenthixol decanoate: mean dose 25 mg/3 weeks, range 10-50 mg (n=139) Mental state (BPRS, CPRS, HRSD)
Age: range 17-79 years Side-effects (SAS)
Setting: community and in-patient 4. Haloperidol decanoate: mean dose 151 mg/injection (n=16)
5. Penfluridol: mean dose 20 mg/week (n=30)
6. Pipothiazine: mean dose 100 mg/month (n=23)
Fluphenazine decanoate Allocation: all 48 studies randomised Diagnosis: schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder 1. Fluphenazine decanoate: mean dose 51.73 mg, range (low 1.25-6.25 mg) standard—high dose 25-1100 mg/2-4 weeks (n=1963) Global improvement (CGI)
Blinding: varying degrees of double blinding Mental state (BPRS, CPRS)
Duration of illness: range <2-39 years 2. Bromperidol decanoate: mean dose 242 mg/month, range 64-400 mg (n=23) Behaviour (NOSIE)
Duration: 2 weeks-2 years Leaving the study early
Two studies used a crossover method N=48, n=3348 3. Chlorpromazine: dose range 50-100 mg/day (n=36) Use of additional medication
Gender: >1318 M; >1054 F 4. Clopenthixol decanoate: mean dose 220 mg/3-4 weeks, range 200 mg/4 weeks to 600 mg/2 weeks (n=19) Side-effects
Age: range 24-70 years
Setting: community and in-patient 5. Flupentixol: dose range 30-40 mg/2-4 weeks (n=48)
6. Fluphenazine hydrochloride (oral): mean dose 18.9 mg, dose range 2.5-60 mg/day (n=396)
7. Fluphenazine enanthate: dose range 2.5-387.5 mg/2-4 weeks (n=96)
8. Fluspirilene decanoate: 3-20 mg/week (n=93)
9. Haloperidol decanoate: mean dose 109.4 mg, range 15-900 mg/2-4 weeks (n=142)
10. Penfluridol: dose range 20-160 mg (n=27)
11. Pimozide: dose 8 mg/day-week, range 10-60 mg (n=70)
12. Pipotiazine palmitate: mean dose 88.3 mg, dose range 6.25-400 mg/2-5 weeks (n=184)
13. Placebo (n=75)
14. Trifluoperazine: dose 10 mg/day (n=17)
Fluphenazine enanthate Allocation: all 14 studies randomised Diagnosis: schizophrenia 1. Fluphenazine enanthate: dose range 3.5-387.5 mg/2-4 weeks (n=279) Global effect (CGI)
Blinding: double, no further details Duration of illness: acute to hospitalised >2 years Mental state (BPRS)
Duration: 2 weeks-1 year 2. Chlorpromazine: mean dose 388 mg/day (n=15) Leaving the study early
One study used a crossover design N=14, n=451 3. Fluphenazine decanoate: dose range 2.5-500 mg/2-4 weeks (n=284) Use of additional medication
Age: range 17-65 years Side-effects (Bordeleau Scale, HRSD)
Setting: community and in-patient 4. Fluspirilene decanoate: dose range 1-14 mg/week (n=31)
5. Pipotiazine palmitate: dose range 25-250 mg/2-4 weeks (n=42)
Fluspirilene Allocation: all 7 studies randomised Diagnosis: schizophrenia 1. Fluspirilene decanoate: dose range 1-23 mg/1-2 weeks (n=160) Global effect (CGI)
Blinding: double, no further details Duration of illness: 2-39 years Leaving the study early
Duration: 4 weeks-6 months N=7, n=290 2. Chlorpromazine: dose range 370-720 mg/day (n=20) Side-effects (UKU)
Age: range 16-80 years 3. Fluphenazine decanoate: dose range 25-150 mg/2-3 weeks (n=71)
Gender: >98 M; >137 F
Setting: in-patient and community 4. Fluphenazine enanthate: mean dose 7.55 mg/week (n=26)
5. Pipotiazine undecylenate: mean dose 103.8 mg/2 weeks (n=13)
Haloperidol decanoate Allocation: all 11 studies randomised Diagnosis: schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder 1. Haloperidol decanoate: dose range 15-900 mg/2-4 weeks (n=238) Death
Blinding: double, no further details Global impression (CGI)
Duration: 16-60 weeks Duration of illness: 0-38 years 2. Fluphenazine decanoate: dose range 2.5-300 mg/2-4 weeks (n=125) Mental state (BPRS, CPRS, depression, Krawiecka Scale, MADRS)
N=11, n=455
Age: range 18-66 years 3. Haloperidol (oral): dose not specified (n=11) Behaviour (Wing Ward Scale)
Gender: >264 M; >175 F 4. Pipotiazine palmitate: dose range 50-125 mg/month (n=20) Leaving the study early
Setting: community and in-patient 5. Placebo (n=39) Use of additional medication
6. Zuclopenthixol decanoate: mean dose 284 mg/month (n=23) Side-effects (AIMS, Bordeleau Scale, SAS, UKU)
Perphenazine depot Allocation: both studies randomised Diagnosis: schizophrenia or acute psychosis 1. Perphenazine decanoate: dose range 20-600 mg/2 weeks (n=111) Death
Blinding: double, no further details Global impression (CGI)
Duration: range 6 weeks-6 months Duration of illness: <2-25 years 2. Clopenthixol decanoate: dose range 50-800 mg/2 weeks (n=87) Leaving the study early
N=2, n=236 Use of additional medication
Age: range 18 to >60 years 3. Perphenazine enanthate: mean dose 108.5 mg/2 weeks (n=24) Side-effects
Gender: > 135 M; >87 F
Setting: community and in-patient
Pipotiazine depot Allocation: all 14 studies randomised Diagnosis: schizophrenia 1. Pipotiazine palmitate and undecylenate (n=365) Global impression (CGI)
Blinding: varying degrees of double blinding Duration of illness: range <3-34 years 2. Fluphenazine decanoate (n=198) Mental state (BPRS, HRSD)
N=14, n=771 3. Fluphenazine enanthate (n=87) Leaving the study early
Duration: range 11 weeks-3 years Age: range 18-69 years 4. Fluspirilene (n=13) Use of additional medication
Gender: >380 M; >205 F 5. Haloperidol decanoate (n=21) Side-effects (AIMS, Bordeleau Scale, DOTES)
Informed consent given in 2 studies 6. Oral antipsychotics (various) (n=87)
Setting: community and in-patient
Zuclopenthixol depot Allocation: all 4 studies randomised Diagnosis: schizophrenia 1. Zuclopenthixol decanoate: dose range 100-600 mg/2-4 weeks (n=17) Death
Blinding: varying degrees of double blinding Duration of illness: >2 years Global impression (CGI)
N=4, n=332 2. Flupentixol palmitate: dose range 25-300 mg/4 weeks (n=48) Relapse
Duration: 12 weeks-1 year Age: range 20-65 years Leaving the study early
Gender: >197 M; >71 F 3. Haloperidol decanoate: dose range 39-200 mg/4 weeks (n=28) Use of additional medication
Setting: community and in-patient Side-effects (UKU)
4. Perphenazine enanthate: dose range 20-600 mg/2 weeks (n=85) Discharge

Depot antipsychotics v. placebo depots

Understandably, few people have been randomised within this comparison. Three reviews compared depot medication against placebo (bromperidol, fluphenazine and haloperidol decanoate). Only one small trial within the fluphenazine review reported mortality, with no clear differences between groups (n=54, RR=5, CI=0.25-99). One review reported on relapse (fluphenazine decanoate v. placebo), with the results favouring the active drug (n=415, RR=0.3, CI=0.22-0.4; NNT=2, CI=1.8-2.6; see Fig. 1). Three reviews presented data for the numbers leaving the studies early. Significantly more people taking depot medication stayed in the studies than those receiving placebo (n=152, RR=0.43, CI=0.27-0.71). Two reviews reported on the adverse effects of blurred vision or dry mouth. Curiously, these symptoms were more frequent in the placebo group (n=52, RR=0.16, CI=0.03-0.8; NNT=3, CI=2-9). When data were reported in the review as ‘movement disorders — general’, statistical significance was achieved in favour of those taking placebo (n=51, RR=20.5, CI=1.3-338; NNH=3, CI=6.5-1.9).

Fig. 1 Depot antipsychotic v. placebo depot: all outcomes.

Depot antipsychotics v. oral antipsychotics

Death is a rare, inconsistently reported outcome. One review presented limited data and there is no clear effect of either depot or oral antipsychotic (n=156, RR=2, CI=0.19-21). Three reviews present data on global change. Significantly fewer numbers of people allocated to depot preparations had no clinically meaningful change (n=127, RR=0.7, CI=0.5-0.9; NNT=4, CI=2.4-9; see Fig. 2). For outcomes such as relapse, study attrition, needing adjunctive anticholinergic medication and incidence of tardive dyskinesia, no clear differences were demonstrated between those taking depot and people allocated to oral antipsychotics (relapse, n=844, RR=0.96, CI=0.8-1.1).

Fig. 2 Depot antipsychotic v. oral antipsychotic: all outcomes.

Specific depot antipsychotic v. another depot

All nine depot reviews contributed to at least one of the outcomes in this comparison. No data were pooled because it was impossible to avoid counting data twice: one review's experimental group was another's control. For all outcomes (see Fig. 3) there were few convincing data that any real differences exist between depots. All data from reviews that compared the depot antipsychotic of interest with another, for the outcome of ‘no important improvement in global functioning’ as indexed by Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scores (Reference GuyGuy, 1976), included the possibility that there were no differences between depots. This also applies to the outcome of leaving the study early (25% attrition in the experimental groups). The outcome of ‘mental state — relapse’ showed that zuclopenthixol decanoate was statistically superior to the control depots (largely fluphenazine decanoate) (n=296, RR=0.64, CI=0.4-0.9, NNT=8, CI=5-53), but this could be a function of publication bias (see Discussion).

Fig. 3 Specific depot antipsychotic v. control depot: all outcomes, no summations.

High-dose depot v. standard dose, and standard dose v. low dose

There are limited data, but reviews found no differences between high-dose (250 mg of fluphenazine weekly; 200 mg of flupentixol every 2 weeks) v. standard-dose (12.5-50 mg of fluphenazine every 2 weeks; 40 mg of flupentixol biweekly) depot anti-psychotics for global outcome, mental state, adverse effects or attrition. The estimates of effect all had wide confidence intervals. Within the standard dose v. low dose comparison, most data were available for the outcome of relapse (n=638). Pooled data across three phenothiazine preparations (flupentixol, fluphenazine decanoate and enanthate) suggest that the standard dose (12.5-50 mg every 2 weeks) is more effective than the low doses (1.25-25 mg every 2 weeks) (RR=2.5, CI=1.1-5.9; NNT=7, CI=5-12). Although no clear differences were demonstrated between the standard dose and low dose on global functioning, attrition and adverse effects (movement disorders), data are limited.

DISCUSSION

Generalisability

This overview collates a great deal of trial data. All trial populations were slightly different and this clinical heterogeneity may mean that at least some participants, treatment regimens and circumstances should resemble those seen in everyday practice. Whether those patients for whom a depot is most indicated were included, however, is less certain. It would be problematic to recruit those who are reluctant with a prescription for oral antipsychotics into any clinical trial. The reviews mostly comprised those who were stable on oral medication. Some participants whose course of illness had not been helped previously by a variety of medications were included, but it is unclear whether these people were non-compliant or unresponsive to treatment. Studies that compared people who were stable on oral medication and then were randomised to receive either depot or inactive placebo, such that the comparison group are undergoing discontinuation of treatment, were not included in this overview.

Depot antipsychotics v. placebo depots

Currently, it would be difficult to undertake a trial comparing placebo to neuroleptic depot in the treatment of schizophrenia, given the availability of effective treatments. Even with the limited data (n=415), fluphenazine decanoate clearly reduces relapse between 12 weeks and 2 years (NNT=2). That significantly more people stayed in the study if allocated to depot (21% v. 49% over the same time period) can be interpreted as a positive outcome, assuming that those who left early were unlikely to be well. Data from within this comparison suggest that the adverse effects of blurred vision or dry mouth are not good indicators of anti-psychotic activity because they are more frequent in the placebo group. Unsurprisingly, drugs such as fluphenazine decanoate are associated with movement disorders. We have calculated that, on average, between two and seven people have to be given depot for one person to suffer significant general movement disorders (NNH=3, CI=2-6.5), which is admittedly a crude index.

Depot antipsychotics v. oral antipsychotics

An underlying assumption in psychiatric therapeutics is that people with serious mental illnesses may not take oral medication reliably, resulting in relapse. If this assumption is correct, then the comparison of relapse rates should demonstrate an advantage for those on depots v. oral drugs. Although the advantage on one outcome measure in favour of depots was statistically significant (global improvement: NNT=4, CI=2-9), other important outcomes such as relapse, attrition and adverse effects were not. Reviews involving over 800 participants did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between depots and oral medications (RR=0.9, CI=0.8-1.2) in terms of relapse, despite good statistical power. It could be argued that those participating in trials were reasonably compliant with oral medications so that the demonstration of any advantages to depot (and absence of disadvantages) is noteworthy. Trials suggest that adverse effects, reported as the proxy outcome of ‘needing additional anti-cholinergic medication’, occur in about two-thirds of people on antipsychotics, whether administered by depot or given orally.

Specific depot antipsychotic v. another depot

Many of these comparisons can be seen as fulfilling the need to market a new substance rather than answering any relevant clinical question. No differences were seen on any global measures of change. All nine reviews reported data on relapse. One found a statistically significant result in favour of zuclopenthixol decanoate (NNT=8, CI=5-53). Unlike the other depots, this finding in favour of zuclopenthixol was consistent across the outcomes of leaving the study early and needing additional anticholinergic drugs. It is feasible that zuclopenthixol decanoate is indeed a better depot in terms of the outcomes measured, although relapse rates in the comparator drugs were high and, pharmacologically, there are no grounds to suspect any superiority. On the other hand, being one of the newest preparations, it has not been used as the comparator depot in any other trial (Reference Gilbody and SongGilbody & Song, 2000). By the same token, this may explain, to some extent, the poor results for fluphenazine compounds, at least when it comes to adverse effects. These compounds have been used more than any other as the control drugs and these data may be the summation of a publication/reporting bias.

High-dose depot v. standard dose, and standard dose v. low dose

Data from trials support the clinical impression that there is no clear advantage in the use of high-dose depot preparations introduced for treatment-resistant cases, and that ultralow doses are little more than placebo.

Limitations

Many outcomes, stated by trialists to have been recorded, were lost owing to poor reporting. Modern trialists recommend that all outcome measures should be reported (Reference Begg, Cho and EastwoodBegg et al, 1996). Data from often poorly reported, small trials of limited generalisability, when taken together with larger trials, support the value of depot antipsychotic preparations. This complements information from less methodologically rigorous studies (Reference Davis, Matalon and WatanabeDavis et al, 1994). There is little convincing evidence that one depot is clearly better than another, and none that high or ultra-low doses have advantages.

Direct data on economic outcomes, quality of life and satisfaction were not found. Such outcomes were scarcely considered in randomised trials from the 1960s to early 1980s. A review of what limited evidence there is relating to satisfaction with depot antipsychotics suggests that patients on depots are, on average, reasonably satisfied (see companion paper — Reference Walburn, Gray and GournayWalburn et al, 2001, this issue).

Future studies

Clinicians and recipients of care could still benefit from thorough evaluation of any one of these widely used compounds within a large, long, simple and clinically relevant randomised trial (Reference Hotopf, Churchill and LewisHotopf et al, 1999). Further research should, ideally, focus on those living outside of hospital in community settings, whose non-adherence to treatment and follow-up is thought to contribute to relapses in their condition. Such studies are, by their very nature, difficult to perform. Those designing evaluative studies of depots in the future, including ‘atypical’ compounds, should learn from the limitations and strengths seen in depot trial design over the past three decades. Such studies would have to be of longer duration than the majority conducted to date, in order to capture a sufficient number of relapses. Long-term trials specifically designed to examine outcomes such as tardive dyskinesia also are required. The definition of relapse requires careful consideration and would need to be operationalised. Obtaining useful cost-effectiveness data and data on quality of life, satisfaction, disability, etc. is a research priority.

Clinical Implications and Limitations

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

  1. Depot neuroleptic medication is an effective maintenance therapy for schizophrenia.

  2. There may be a slight therapeutic advantage (and no obvious disadvantage) of depot over oral medication, but the evidence is weak.

  3. There are few advantages of one depot over another.

LIMITATIONS

  1. Data on patients for whom depots are most indicated are lacking.

  2. Patient satisfaction, cost-effectiveness and other outcomes have not been studied in controlled trials.

  3. There may be unforeseen methodological problems in meta-analyses of several systematic reviews.

Footnotes

See pp. 300–307, this issue.

Declaration of interest

Funded by the NHS Health Technology Assessment programme. A. S. D. is participating in a trial funded by Janssen-Cilag and has been an advisor for them. The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group has received funding from pharmaceutical companies, the NHS and Department of Health.

References

Adams, C. E. & Eisenbruch, M. (2000) Depot fluphenazine for schizophrenia. Cochrane Library, issue 3. Oxford: Update Software Google Scholar
Åsberg, M., Montgomery, S., Perris, C., et al (1978) The comprehensive psychopathological scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Supplementum, 271, 527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, T. R. & Curson, D. A. (1994) Long term depot antipsychotics. A risk–benefit assessment. Drug Safety, 10, 464479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Begg, C., Cho, M., Eastwood, S., et al (1996) Improving the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. Journal of the American Medical Association, 276, 637639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boissel, J. P., Cucherat, M., Li, W., et al (1999) The problem of therapeutic efficacy indices. 3. Comparison of the indices and their use. Thérapie, 54, 405411.Google Scholar
Bordeleau, J. M., Albert, J. M., Killer, J., et al (1967) Médication antiparkinsonienne et bilan extrapyramidal. Étude du trihexyphenidyl. Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal, 12, 585595.Google Scholar
British Medical Association & Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (1999) British National Formulary. London & Wellingford: BMJ Books & Pharmaceutical Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, T. C., Celano, P., Sacks, H. S., et al (1983) Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 309, 13581361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coutinho, E., Fenton, M. & Quraishi, S. (2000) Zuclopenthixol decanoate for schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses. Cochrane Library, issue 2. Oxford: Update Software Google Scholar
Davis, J. M. & Andriukaitis, S. (1986) The natural course of schizophrenia and effective maintenance drug treatment. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 6, 2S10S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, J. M., Matalon, L., Watanabe, M. D., et al (1994) Depot antipsychotic drugs. Place in therapy. Drugs, 47, 741773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fenton, W. S., Blyler, C. R. & Heinssen, R. K. (1997) Determinants of medication compliance in schizophrenia: empirical and clinical findings. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 23, 637651.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foster, K., Meltzer, H., Gill, B., et al (1996) Adults with a psychotic disorder living in the community. OPCS Surveys of Psychiatric Morbidity in Great Britain, Report 8. London: HMSO Google Scholar
Gerlach, J. (1995) Depot neuroleptics in relapse prevention: advantages and disadvantages. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 9 (suppl. 5), 1720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbody, S. M. & Song, F. (2000) Publication bias and the integrity of psychiatry research. Psychological Medicine, 30, 253258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glazer, W. M. & Kane, J. M. (1992) Depot neuroleptic therapy: an underutilized treatment option. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 53, 426433.Google Scholar
Guy, W. (1976) ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology. Revised DHEW Pub. (ADM). Rockville, MD: National Institute for Mental Health Google Scholar
Hamilton, M. (1960) A rating scale for depression. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 23, 5662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, S. R., Gaind, R., Rohde, P. D., et al (1973) Outpatient maintenance of chronic schizophrenic patients with long-acting fluphenazine: double-blind placebo controlled trial. British Medical Journal, i, 633637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honigfeld, G., Gillis, R. D. & Klett, C. J. (1962) NOSIE-30: a treatment sensitive ward behavior scale. Psychological Reports, 10, 799812.Google Scholar
Hotopf, M., Churchill, R. & Lewis, G. (1999) Pragmatic randomised controlled trials in psychiatry. British Journal of Psychiatry, 175, 217223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jadad, A. R., Cook, D. J., Jones, A., et al (1998) Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 278280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, D. A. (1984) Observations on the use of long-acting depot neuroleptic injections in the maintenance therapy of schizophrenia. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 45, 1321.Google ScholarPubMed
Kane, J. M., Aguglia, E., Altamura, A. C., et al (1998) Guidelines for depot antipsychotic treatment in schizophrenia. European Neuropsychopharmacology Consensus Conference in Siena, Italy. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 8, 5566.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kemp, R. A. & David, A. S. (1997) Insight and compliance. In Treatment Compliance and the Therapeutic Alliance (ed. Blackwell, B.), pp. 6184. Newark, NJ: Harwood Academic.Google Scholar
Krawiecka, M., Goldberg, D. & Vaughn, M. (1977) Standardised psychiatric assessment scale for chronic psychiatric patients. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 36, 2531.Google Scholar
Lingjaerde, O., Ahlfors, U. G., Bech, P., et al (1987) The UKU side effects rating scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 76 (suppl. 334), 1100.Google Scholar
Montgomery, S. A., Taylor, P. & Montgomery, D. (1978) Development of a schizophrenia scale sensitive to change. Neuropharmacology, 78, 10611062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overall, J. E. & Gorham, D. R. (1962) The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Psychological Reports, 10, 799812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quraishi, S. & David, A. (2000) Depot flupenthixol decanoate for schizophrenia or other similar psychotic disorders. Cochrane Library, issue 3. Oxford: Update Software Google Scholar
Quraishi, S. & David, A. (2000) Depot fluspirilene for schizophrenia. Cochrane Library, issue 3. Oxford: Update Software Google Scholar
Quraishi, S. & David, A. (2000) Depot haloperidol decanoate for schizophrenia. Cochrane Library, issue 3. Oxford: Update Software Google Scholar
Quraishi, S. & David, A. (2000) Depot perphenazine decanoate and enanthate for schizophrenia. Cochrane Library, issue 3. Oxford: Update Software Google Scholar
Quraishi, S. & David, A. (2000) Depot pipothiazine palmitate and undecylenate for schizophrenia. Cochrane Library, issue 3. Oxford: Update Software Google Scholar
Quraishi, S. & David, A. & Adams, C. E. (2000) Depot bromperidol decanoate for schizophrenia. Cochrane Library, issue 3. Oxford: Update Software Google Scholar
Schulz, K. F., Chalmers, I., Hayes, R. J., et al (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 408412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simpson, G. M. (1984) A brief history of depot neuroleptics. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 45, 34.Google ScholarPubMed
Simpson, M. & Angus, J. W. (1970) A rating scale for extrapyramidal side effects. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 212, 1119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornley, B. & Adams, C. (1998) Content and quality of 2000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 50 years. British Medical Journal, 317, 11811184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walburn, J., Gray, R., Gournay, K., et al (2001) Systematic review of patient and nurse attitudes to depot antipsychotic medication. British Journal of Psychiatry, 179, 300307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiden, P. J. & Olfson, M. (1995) Cost of relapse in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 21, 419429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wing, J. K. (1961) A simple and reliable subclassification of chronic schizophrenia. Journal of Mental Science, 107, 862876.Google ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1 Summary of included reviews

Figure 1

Fig. 1 Depot antipsychotic v. placebo depot: all outcomes.

Figure 2

Fig. 2 Depot antipsychotic v. oral antipsychotic: all outcomes.

Figure 3

Fig. 3 Specific depot antipsychotic v. control depot: all outcomes, no summations.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.
You have Access
215
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Systematic meta-review of depot antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Systematic meta-review of depot antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Systematic meta-review of depot antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *