The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2004
Depot pipotiazine palmitate and undecylenate for schizophrenia.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dinesh M, David A, Quraishi S N
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic drugs are usually given orally but compliance may be problematic. The development of depot injections in the 1960s gave rise to their extensive use as a means of long-term maintenance treatment. Pipotiazine palmitate is a depot from the phenothiazine family of antipsychotic drugs.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical, social and economic effects of depot pipotiazine palmitate and undecylenate compared with placebo, oral antipsychotics and other depot antipsychotic preparations for people with schizophrenia.
SEARCH STRATEGY: For this update we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (June 2003). We also inspected references of all identified trials for more studies and contacted relevant industries.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials comparing depot pipotiazine palmitate and undecylenate to oral antipsychotics or other depot preparations for people with schizophrenia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We reliably selected, quality rated and independently extracted data from relevant studies. We calculated the random effects relative risk (RR), the 95% confidence intervals (CI) and, where possible the number needed to treat (NNT) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD). We only presented scale data for those tools that had attained pre-specified levels of quality.
MAIN RESULTS: When pipotiazine palmitate was compared with 'standard' oral antipsychotic no differences were found for outcomes of global impression (n=53, 1 RCT, RR 2.57, CI 0.8 to 8.6), relapse (n=124, 1 RCT, RR 1.55 CI 0.76 to 3.2), study attrition (n=219, 3 RCTs, RR 1.37 CI 0.8 to 2.4) and behaviour (n=124, 1 RCT, WMD 4.65, CI -1.1 to 10.4). There was also no reported difference in adverse effects such as tardive dyskinesia or the need for anticholinergic drugs. Sixteen studies compared pipotiazine palmitate with other depot preparations (n=1123). Pipotiazine palmitate was consistently equivalent to other depots in terms of a range of outcomes, including global impression (n=217, 4 RCTs, RR not improved 0.99 CI 0.91 to 1.07), relapse (n=239, 5 RCTs, RR relapse by 1 year 0.98 CI 0.55 to 1.75), and adverse effects (n=337, 5 RCTs, RR needing anticholinergic medication 0.98 CI 0.84 to 1.15).
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Although well-conducted and reported randomised trials are still needed to fully inform practice (no trial data exists reporting hospital and services outcomes, satisfaction with care and economics) pipotiazine palmitate is a viable choice for both clinician and recipient of care.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical, social and economic effects of depot pipotiazine palmitate and undecylenate compared with placebo, oral antipsychotics and other depot antipsychotic preparations for people with schizophrenia.
SEARCH STRATEGY: For this update we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (June 2003). We also inspected references of all identified trials for more studies and contacted relevant industries.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials comparing depot pipotiazine palmitate and undecylenate to oral antipsychotics or other depot preparations for people with schizophrenia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We reliably selected, quality rated and independently extracted data from relevant studies. We calculated the random effects relative risk (RR), the 95% confidence intervals (CI) and, where possible the number needed to treat (NNT) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD). We only presented scale data for those tools that had attained pre-specified levels of quality.
MAIN RESULTS: When pipotiazine palmitate was compared with 'standard' oral antipsychotic no differences were found for outcomes of global impression (n=53, 1 RCT, RR 2.57, CI 0.8 to 8.6), relapse (n=124, 1 RCT, RR 1.55 CI 0.76 to 3.2), study attrition (n=219, 3 RCTs, RR 1.37 CI 0.8 to 2.4) and behaviour (n=124, 1 RCT, WMD 4.65, CI -1.1 to 10.4). There was also no reported difference in adverse effects such as tardive dyskinesia or the need for anticholinergic drugs. Sixteen studies compared pipotiazine palmitate with other depot preparations (n=1123). Pipotiazine palmitate was consistently equivalent to other depots in terms of a range of outcomes, including global impression (n=217, 4 RCTs, RR not improved 0.99 CI 0.91 to 1.07), relapse (n=239, 5 RCTs, RR relapse by 1 year 0.98 CI 0.55 to 1.75), and adverse effects (n=337, 5 RCTs, RR needing anticholinergic medication 0.98 CI 0.84 to 1.15).
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Although well-conducted and reported randomised trials are still needed to fully inform practice (no trial data exists reporting hospital and services outcomes, satisfaction with care and economics) pipotiazine palmitate is a viable choice for both clinician and recipient of care.