Maayan Nicola, Quraishi Seema N, David Anthony, Jayaswal Aprajita, Eisenbruch Maurice, Rathbone John, Asher Rosie, Adams Clive E
Enhance Reviews Ltd, Central Office, Cobweb Buildings, The Lane, Lyford, Wantage, UK, OX12 0EE.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Feb 5;2015(2):CD000307. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000307.pub2.
Intramuscular injections (depot preparations) offer an advantage over oral medication for treating schizophrenia by reducing poor compliance. The benefits gained by long-acting preparations, however, may be offset by a higher incidence of adverse effects.
To assess the effects of fluphenazine decanoate and enanthate versus oral anti-psychotics and other depot neuroleptic preparations for individuals with schizophrenia in terms of clinical, social and economic outcomes.
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (February 2011 and October 16, 2013), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials.
We considered all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on people with schizophrenia comparing fluphenazine decanoate or enanthate with placebo or oral anti-psychotics or other depot preparations.
We reliably selected, assessed the quality, and extracted data of the included studies. For dichotomous data, we estimated risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. We used the mean difference (MD) for normal continuous data. We excluded continuous data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50%. Tests of heterogeneity and for publication bias were undertaken. We used a fixed-effect model for all analyses unless there was high heterogeneity. For this update. we assessed risk of bias of included studies and used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to create a 'Summary of findings' table.
This review now includes 73 randomised studies, with 4870 participants. Overall, the quality of the evidence is low to very low.Compared with placebo, use of fluphenazine decanoate does not result in any significant differences in death, nor does it reduce relapse over six months to one year, but one longer-term study found that relapse was significantly reduced in the fluphenazine arm (n = 54, 1 RCT, RR 0.35, CI 0.19 to 0.64, very low quality evidence). A very similar number of people left the medium-term studies (six months to one year) early in the fluphenazine decanoate (24%) and placebo (19%) groups, however, a two-year study significantly favoured fluphenazine decanoate (n = 54, 1 RCT, RR 0.47, CI 0.23 to 0.96, very low quality evidence). No significant differences were found in mental state measured on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) or in extrapyramidal adverse effects, although these outcomes were only reported in one small study each. No study comparing fluphenazine decanoate with placebo reported clinically significant changes in global state or hospital admissions.Fluphenazine decanoate does not reduce relapse more than oral neuroleptics in the medium term (n = 419, 6 RCTs, RR 1.46 CI 0.75 to 2.83, very low quality evidence). A small study found no difference in clinically significant changes in global state. No difference in the number of participants leaving the study early was found between fluphenazine decanoate (17%) and oral neuroleptics (18%), and no significant differences were found in mental state measured on the BPRS. Extrapyramidal adverse effects were significantly less for people receiving fluphenazine decanoate compared with oral neuroleptics (n = 259, 3 RCTs, RR 0.47 CI 0.24 to 0.91, very low quality evidence). No study comparing fluphenazine decanoate with oral neuroleptics reported death or hospital admissions.No significant difference in relapse rates in the medium term between fluphenazine decanoate and fluphenazine enanthate was found (n = 49, 1 RCT, RR 2.43, CI 0.71 to 8.32, very low quality evidence), immediate- and short-term studies were also equivocal. One small study reported the number of participants leaving the study early (29% versus 12%) and mental state measured on the BPRS and found no significant difference for either outcome. No significant difference was found in extrapyramidal adverse effects between fluphenazine decanoate and fluphenazine enanthate. No study comparing fluphenazine decanoate with fluphenazine enanthate reported death, clinically significant changes in global state or hospital admissions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are more data for fluphenazine decanoate than for the enanthate ester. Both are effective antipsychotic preparations. Fluphenazine decanoate produced fewer movement disorder effects than other oral antipsychotics but data were of low quality, and overall, adverse effect data were equivocal. In the context of trials, there is little advantage of these depots over oral medications in terms of compliance but this is unlikely to be applicable to everyday clinical practice.
肌肉注射(长效制剂)在治疗精神分裂症方面相较于口服药物具有优势,可减少依从性差的问题。然而,长效制剂带来的益处可能会被更高的不良反应发生率所抵消。
从临床、社会和经济结局方面评估癸酸氟奋乃静和庚酸氟奋乃静与口服抗精神病药物及其他长效抗精神病制剂相比,对精神分裂症患者的影响。
我们检索了Cochrane精神分裂症研究组的试验注册库(2011年2月及2013年10月16日),该注册库基于对CINAHL、BIOSIS、AMED、EMBASE、PubMed、MEDLINE、PsycINFO以及临床试验注册库的定期检索。
我们纳入了所有针对精神分裂症患者,比较癸酸氟奋乃静或庚酸氟奋乃静与安慰剂、口服抗精神病药物或其他长效制剂的相关随机对照试验(RCT)。
我们可靠地选择、评估了纳入研究的质量并提取了数据。对于二分数据,我们估计风险比(RR)及95%置信区间(CI)。分析采用意向性分析。对于正态连续数据,我们使用平均差(MD)。如果失访率大于50%,我们排除连续数据。进行了异质性检验和发表偏倚检验。除非存在高度异质性,我们对所有分析均采用固定效应模型。对于本次更新,我们评估了纳入研究的偏倚风险,并采用GRADE(推荐分级评估发展与评价)方法创建了“结果总结”表。
本综述现纳入73项随机研究,共4870名参与者。总体而言,证据质量低至极低。与安慰剂相比,使用癸酸氟奋乃静在死亡方面未产生任何显著差异,在六个月至一年期间也未降低复发率,但一项长期研究发现氟奋乃静组复发率显著降低(n = 54,1项RCT,RR 0.35,CI 0.19至0.64,极低质量证据)。在中期研究(六个月至一年)中,癸酸氟奋乃静组(24%)和安慰剂组(19%)提前退出研究的人数非常相似,然而,一项两年期研究显著支持癸酸氟奋乃静(n = 54,1项RCT,RR 0.47,CI 0.23至0.96,极低质量证据)。在简明精神病评定量表(BPRS)测量的精神状态或锥体外系不良反应方面未发现显著差异,尽管这些结果每项仅在一项小型研究中报告。没有比较癸酸氟奋乃静与安慰剂的研究报告在整体状态或住院方面有临床显著变化。
在中期,癸酸氟奋乃静在降低复发率方面并不比口服抗精神病药物更有效(n = 419,6项RCT,RR 1.46,CI 0.75至2.83,极低质量证据)。一项小型研究未发现整体状态有临床显著变化的差异。癸酸氟奋乃静组(17%)和口服抗精神病药物组(18%)提前退出研究的参与者人数没有差异,在BPRS测量的精神状态方面也未发现显著差异。与口服抗精神病药物相比,接受癸酸氟奋乃静的人锥体外系不良反应显著更少(n = 259,3项RCT,RR 0.47,CI 0.24至0.91,极低质量证据)。没有比较癸酸氟奋乃静与口服抗精神病药物的研究报告死亡或住院情况。
在中期,未发现癸酸氟奋乃静和庚酸氟奋乃静在复发率上有显著差异(n = 49,1项RCT,RR 2.43,CI 0.7至8.32,极低质量证据),即时和短期研究结果也不明确。一项小型研究报告了提前退出研究的参与者人数(29%对12%)以及BPRS测量的精神状态,未发现这两个结果有显著差异。癸酸氟奋乃静和庚酸氟奋乃静在锥体外系不良反应方面未发现显著差异。没有比较癸酸氟奋乃静与庚酸氟奋乃静的研究报告死亡、整体状态的临床显著变化或住院情况。
关于癸酸氟奋乃静的数据比庚酸酯更多。两者都是有效的抗精神病制剂。癸酸氟奋乃静产生的运动障碍效应比其他口服抗精神病药物少,但数据质量较低,总体而言,不良反应数据不明确。在试验背景下,这些长效制剂在依从性方面相较于口服药物几乎没有优势,但这可能不适用于日常临床实践。