Bromperidol decanoate (depot) for schizophrenia

Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Section of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, University of Verona, Policlinico "G.B.Rossi", Pzz.le L.A. Scuro, 10, Verona, Italy, 37134.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 6.03). 11/2011; 11(9):CD001719. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001719.pub3
Source: PubMed


Antipsychotic drugs are the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia. Long-acting depot injections of drugs such as bromperidol decanoate are extensively used as a means of long-term maintenance treatment.
To assess the effects of depot bromperidol versus placebo, oral antipsychotics and other depot antipsychotic preparations for people with schizophrenia in terms of clinical, social and economic outcomes.
For this 2011 update we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (February 2011).
We sought all randomised trials focusing on people with schizophrenia where depot bromperidol, oral antipsychotics or other depot preparations. Primary outcomes were clinically significant change in global function, service utilisation outcomes (hospital admission, days in hospital), relapse.
For this 2011 update MP independently extracted data, CEA carried out the reliability check. We calculated fixed-effect risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data, and calculated weighted or standardised means for continuous data. Where possible, we calculated the number needed to treat statistic (NNT). Analysis was by intention-to-treat.
We have included no new trials in this 2011 update (4 RCTs, total n = 117). A single, small study of six months' duration compared bromperidol decanoate with placebo injection. Similar numbers left the study before completion (n = 20, 1 RCT, RR 0.4 CI 0.1 to 1.6) and there were no clear differences between bromperidol decanoate and placebo for a list of adverse effects (n = 20, 1 RCT, RR akathisia 2.0 CI 0.21 to 18.69, RR increased weight 3.0 CI 0.14 to 65.9, RR tremor 0.33 CI 0.04 to 2.69). When bromperidol decanoate was compared with fluphenazine depot, we found no important change on global outcome (n = 30, RR no clinical important improvement 1.50 CI 0.29 to 7.73). People allocated to fluphenazine decanoate and haloperidol decanoate had fewer relapses than those given bromperidol decanoate (n = 77, RR 3.92 Cl 1.05 to 14.60, NNH 6 CI 2 to 341). People allocated bromperidol decanoate required additional antipsychotic medication somewhat more frequently than those taking fluphenazine decanoate and haloperidol decanoate, but the results did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance (n = 77, 2 RCTs, RR 1.72 CI 0.7 to 4.2). The use of benzodiazepine drugs was very similar in both groups (n = 77, 2 RCTs, RR 1.08 CI 0.68 to 1.70). People left the bromperidol decanoate group more frequent than those taking other depot preparation due to any cause (n = 97, 3 RCTs, RR 2.17 CI 1.00 to 4.73). Anticholinergic adverse effects were equally common between bromperidol and other depots (n = 47, RR 3.13 CI 0.7 to 14.0) and additional anticholinergic medication was needed with equal frequency in both depot groups, although results did tend to favour the bromperidol decanoate group (n = 97, 3 RCTs, RR 0.80 CI 0.64 to 1.01). The incidence of movement disorders was similar in both depot groups (n = 77, 2 RCTs, RR 0.74 CI 0.47 to 1.17).
Minimal poorly reported trial data suggests that bromperidol decanoate may be better than placebo injection but less valuable than fluphenazine or haloperidol decanoate. If bromperidol decanoate is available it may be a viable choice, especially when there are reasons not to use fluphenazine or haloperidol decanoate. Well-conducted and reported randomised trials are needed to inform practice.

14 Reads
  • Source
    • "Studies comparing depot medication against placebo could only be identifi ed for bromperidol, fl uphenazine, fl uspirilene and haloperidol. From one Cochrane review, there is limited evidence that bromperidol decanoate is superior to placebo, but not superior to fl uphenazine or haloperidol depot (Purgato and Adams 2011). For haloperidol decanoate, only sparse data exists, but there is suggestion that it may improve symptoms in schizophrenia signifi cantly better than placebo and there are no clear differences between the oral and the depot formulation (Quaraishi et al. 1999). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Objectives. This article presents an overview of the current literature on biological markers for alcoholism, including markers associated with the pharmacological effects of alcohol and markers related to the clinical course and treatment of alcohol-related problems. Many of these studies are well known, while other studies cited are new and still being evaluated. Methods. In this paper we first describe known biomarkers of alcohol-related disorders, review their features and the problems involved in their use. We then consider future developments on biomarkers and their possible impact on the field. Results. More recent findings cited include the work on type 7 adenylcyclase (AC) polymorphism and its lower expression levels in female alcoholics. Neuroimaging studies involving biomarkers have also reported brain volume reductions of gray and white matter, including amygdala and subcortical regions in alcoholic patients, while a high association between the copy number variations (CNVs) in 6q14.1/5q13.2 and alcohol dependence has more recently been identified in genetic studies. Conclusions. In addition to their possible importance for diagnosis, biomarkers may have utility for predicting prognosis, progression of the disorder, the development of new treatments, and monitoring treatment effects. Although such findings should be verified in independent studies, the search for new biomarkers is continuing. Several potential candidate biomarkers have been found recently in blood, imaging, and genetic studies with encouraging results.
    The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry 12/2013; 14(8):549-64. DOI:10.3109/15622975.2013.838302 · 4.18 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Studies comparing depot medication against placebo could only be identifi ed for bromperidol, fl uphenazine, fl uspirilene and haloperidol. From one Cochrane review, there is limited evidence that bromperidol decanoate is superior to placebo, but not superior to fl uphenazine or haloperidol depot (Purgato and Adams 2011). For haloperidol decanoate, only sparse data exists, but there is suggestion that it may improve symptoms in schizophrenia signifi cantly better than placebo and there are no clear differences between the oral and the depot formulation (Quaraishi et al. 1999). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: These updated guidelines are based on a first edition of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of schizophrenia published in 2006. For this 2012 revision, all available publications pertaining to the biological treatment of schizophrenia were reviewed systematically to allow for an evidence-based update. These guidelines provide evidence-based practice recommendations that are clinically and scientifically meaningful. They are intended to be used by all physicians diagnosing and treating people suffering from schizophrenia. Based on the first version of these guidelines, a systematic review of the MEDLINE/PUBMED database and the Cochrane Library, in addition to data extraction from national treatment guidelines, has been performed for this update. The identified literature was evaluated with respect to the strength of evidence for its efficacy and then categorised into six levels of evidence (A-F) and five levels of recommendation (1-5) ( Bandelow et al. 2008a ,b, World J Biol Psychiatry 9:242, see Table 1 ). This second part of the updated guidelines covers long-term treatment as well as the management of relevant side effects. These guidelines are primarily concerned with the biological treatment (including antipsychotic medication and other pharmacological treatment options) of adults suffering from schizophrenia.
    The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry 12/2012; 14(1). DOI:10.3109/15622975.2012.739708 · 4.18 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic medication is the mainstay of treatment in schizophrenia. Long-acting medication has potential advantages over daily medication in improving compliance and thus reducing hospitalization and relapse rates. The high acquisition and administration costs of such formulations raise the need for pharmacoeconomic evaluation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to provide a comprehensive review of the available evidence on the cost effectiveness of long-acting/extended-release antipsychotic medication and critically appraise the strength of evidence reported in the studies from a methodological viewpoint. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified by searching five electronic databases: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment database (HTA). Search terms included, but were not limited to, 'long-acting injection', 'economic evaluation', 'cost-effectiveness' and 'cost-utility'. No limits were applied for publication dates and language. Full economic evaluations on long-acting/extended-release antipsychotics were eligible for inclusion. Observational studies and clinical trials were also checked for cost-effectiveness information. Conference abstracts and poster presentations on the cost effectiveness of long-acting antipsychotics were excluded. Thirty-two percent of identified studies met the selection criteria. Pertinent abstracts were reviewed independently by two reviewers. Relevant studies underwent data extraction by one reviewer and were checked by a second, with any discrepancies being clarified during consensus meetings. Eligible studies were assessed for methodological quality using the quality checklist for economic studies recommended by the NICE guideline on interventions in the treatment and management of schizophrenia. RESULTS: After applying the selection criteria, the final sample consisted of 28 studies. The majority of studies demonstrated that risperidone long-acting injection, relative to oral or other long-acting injectable drugs, was associated with cost savings and additional clinical benefits and was the dominant strategy in terms of cost effectiveness. However, olanzapine in either oral or long-acting injectable formulation dominated risperidone long-acting injection in a Slovenian and a US study. Furthermore, in two UK studies, the use of long-acting risperidone increased the hospitalization days and overall healthcare costs, relative to other atypical or typical long-acting antipsychotics. Finally, paliperidone extended-release was the most cost-effective treatment compared with atypical oral or typical long-acting formulations. From a methodological viewpoint, most studies employed decision analytic models, presented results using average cost-effectiveness ratios and conducted comprehensive sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the results. LIMITATIONS: Variations in study methodologies restrict consistent and direct comparisons across countries. The exclusion of a large body of potentially relevant conference abstracts as well as some papers being unobtainable may have increased the likelihood of misrepresenting the overall cost effectiveness of long-acting antipsychotics. Finally, the review process was restricted to qualitative assessment rather than a quantitative synthesis of results, which could provide more robust conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Atypical long-acting (especially risperidone)/extended-release antipsychotic medication is likely to be a cost-effective, first-line strategy for managing schizophrenia, compared with long-acting haloperidol and other oral or depot formulations, irrespective of country-specific differences. However, inconsistencies in study methodologies and in the reporting of study findings suggest caution needs to be applied in interpreting these findings.
    Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 03/2013; 11(2). DOI:10.1007/s40258-013-0016-2
Show more

Similar Publications