Hunter R H, Joy C B, Kennedy E, Gilbody S M, Song F
Research and Development, Greater Glasgow Primary Care NHS Trust, Gartnavel Royal Hospital, 1055 Great Western Road, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, G12 0XH.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003(2):CD000440. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000440.
Risperidone is one of the 'new generation' antipsychotics. As well as its reputed tendency to cause fewer movement disorders than the older drugs such as chlorpromazine and haloperidol, it is claimed that risperidone may improve negative symptoms.
To evaluate the effects of risperidone for schizophrenia in comparison to 'conventional' neuroleptic drugs.
The original electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1980-1997), Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (1997), The Cochrane Library (1997, Issue 1), EMBASE (1980-1997), MEDLINE (1966-1997), PsycLIT (1974-1997), and SCISEARCH (1997) were updated with a new electronic search of the same databases in 2002. The search term used in the update was identical to that used in 1997. Any new studies or relevant references were added to the review. In addition, references of all identified studies were searched for further trial citations. Pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials were also contacted.
All randomised trials comparing risperidone to any 'conventional' neuroleptic treatment for people with schizophrenia or other similar serious mental illnesses.
Citations and, where possible, abstracts were independently inspected by reviewers, papers ordered, re-inspected and quality assessed. Data were also independently extracted. Where possible, sensitivity analyses on dose of risperidone, haloperidol and duration of illness were undertaken for the primary outcomes of clinical improvement, side effects (movement disorders) and acceptability of treatment. For homogeneous dichotomous data the Relative Risk (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat/harm (NNT/H) were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis.
In the short-term, risperidone was more likely to produce an improvement in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) when compared with haloperidol (n=2368, 9 RCTs, RR not 20% improved 0.72 CI 0.59 to 0.88 NNT 8). A similar, favourable outcome for risperidone was found in long-term studies (n=859, 2RCTs RR not 20% improved 0.51 CI 0.38 to 0.67 NNT 4;n=675 1RCT, RR not improved 40% 0.75 CI 0.66 to 0.84 NNT 5; n=675, 1 RCT, RR not 60% improved 0.90 CI 0.84 to 0.96, NNT 11). Risperidone was also more likely to reduce relapse at one year follow up, compared with haloperidol (n=367, 1 RCT, RR 0.64 CI 0.41 to 0.99, NNT 7). Less people allocated risperidone left studies before completion, both for short-term (n=3066, 16 RCTs, RR 0.76 CI 0.63 to 0.92, NNT 6) and long-term trials (n=1270, 4RCTs, RR 0.55 CI 0.42 to 0.73 NNT 4). For general movement disorders results favoured risperidone. People given risperidone had significantly fewer general movement disorders (including extrapyramidal side effects) than those receiving older typical antipsychotics (n=2702, 10 RCTs, RR 0.63 CI 0.56 to 0.71, NNT 3). Significantly fewer people given risperidone used antiparkinsonian drugs (n=2524, 11 RCTs, RR 0.66 CI 0.58 to 0.74, NNT 4). As regards body weight, however, four studies (n=1708) found people were more likely to gain weight if allocated risperidone compared to typical antipsychotics (RR 1.55 CI 1.25 to 1.93, NNH 3). Risperidone was no more or less likely than haloperidol to cause sexual problems such as erectile dysfunction (n=106, 2 RCTs, RR 1.55 CI 0.58 to 4.20). Finally, some results found risperidone was more likely to cause rhinitis than conventional antipsychotics (n=656, 3 RCTs, RR1.99 CI 1.24 to 3.19, NNH 3).
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone may be more acceptable to those with schizophrenia than older antipsychotics and have marginal benefits in terms of limited clinical improvement. Its adverse effect profile may be better than haloperidol. With the addition of more studies to this review, the publication bias evident in previous versions is no longer a significant issue. Any marginal benefits this drug may have have to be balanced against its greater cost and increased tendency to cause side effects such as weight gain. Recent important longer term data favouring risperidone's effect on relapse needs to be replicated by researchers independently of the manufacturers of the drug.
利培酮是“新一代”抗精神病药物之一。除了据称它比氯丙嗪和氟哌啶醇等老药引起运动障碍的倾向更小外,还声称利培酮可能改善阴性症状。
评估利培酮与“传统”抗精神病药物相比治疗精神分裂症的效果。
最初对《生物学文摘》(1980 - 1997年)、Cochrane精神分裂症研究组注册库(1997年)、《Cochrane图书馆》(1997年第1期)、EMBASE(1980 - 1997年)、MEDLINE(1966 - 1997年)、PsycLIT(1974 - 1997年)和SCISEARCH(1997年)进行的电子检索在2002年通过对相同数据库进行新的电子检索进行了更新。更新中使用的检索词与1997年使用的相同。任何新的研究或相关参考文献都被添加到综述中。此外,对所有已识别研究的参考文献进行了检索以获取更多试验引用。还联系了制药公司和试验作者。
所有比较利培酮与任何“传统”抗精神病药物治疗精神分裂症或其他类似严重精神疾病患者的随机试验。
评审人员独立检查引用文献,并在可能的情况下检查摘要,订购论文、重新检查并进行质量评估。数据也被独立提取。在可能的情况下,针对临床改善、副作用(运动障碍)和治疗可接受性等主要结局,对利培酮、氟哌啶醇的剂量以及病程进行了敏感性分析。对于同质二分数据,在意向性治疗基础上计算相对风险(RR)、95%置信区间(CI),并在适当情况下计算治疗所需人数/伤害所需人数(NNT/H)。
短期内,与氟哌啶醇相比,利培酮更有可能使阳性和阴性症状量表(PANSS)得到改善(n = 2368,9项随机对照试验,RR未改善20%为0.72,CI为0.59至0.88,NNT为8)。在长期研究中也发现利培酮有类似的良好结果(n = 859,2项随机对照试验,RR未改善20%为0.51,CI为0.38至0.67,NNT为4;n = 675,1项随机对照试验,RR未改善40%为0.75,CI为0.66至0.84,NNT为5;n = 675,1项随机对照试验,RR未改善60%为0.90,CI为0.84至0.96,NNT为11)。与氟哌啶醇相比,利培酮在一年随访时也更有可能减少复发(n = 367,1项随机对照试验,RR为0.64,CI为0.41至0.99,NNT为7)。无论是短期试验(n = 3066,16项随机对照试验,RR为0.76,CI为0.63至0.92,NNT为6)还是长期试验(n = 1270,4项随机对照试验,RR为0.55,CI为0.42至0.73,NNT为4),分配接受利培酮治疗的人中在研究完成前退出的人数都较少。对于一般运动障碍,结果有利于利培酮。接受利培酮治疗的人出现的一般运动障碍(包括锥体外系副作用)明显少于接受老一代典型抗精神病药物治疗的人(n = 2702,10项随机对照试验,RR为0.63,CI为0.56至0.71,NNT为3)。接受利培酮治疗的人使用抗帕金森药物的人数也明显较少(n = 2524,11项随机对照试验,RR为0.66,CI为0.58至0.74,NNT为4)。然而,在体重方面,四项研究(n = 1708)发现与典型抗精神病药物相比,分配接受利培酮治疗的人更有可能体重增加(RR为1.55,CI为1.25至1.93,NNH为3)。利培酮导致勃起功能障碍等性问题的可能性与氟哌啶醇相当(n = 106,2项随机对照试验,RR为1.55,CI为0.58至4.20)。最后,一些结果发现利培酮比传统抗精神病药物更有可能引起鼻炎(n = 656,3项随机对照试验,RR为1.99,CI为1.24至3.19,NNH为3)。
对于精神分裂症患者,利培酮可能比老一代抗精神病药物更容易被接受,并且在有限的临床改善方面有微小益处。其不良反应谱可能优于氟哌啶醇。随着更多研究被纳入本综述,先前版本中明显的发表偏倚不再是一个重大问题。这种药物可能具有的任何微小益处都必须与其更高的成本以及增加的如体重增加等副作用倾向相权衡。近期支持利培酮对复发有影响的重要长期数据需要由独立于该药物制造商的研究人员进行重复验证。