• Magdolna Tardy, Markus Dold, Rolf R Engel, and Stefan Leucht.
• Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Technische Universität München Klinikum rechts der Isar, Möhlstr. 26, München, Germany, 81675.
• Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2014 Jul 8; 2014 (7): CD009396CD009396.

BackgroundAntipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between any other antipsychotic compounds, however, low-potency antipsychotic drugs are often perceived as less efficacious than high-potency compounds by clinicians, and they also seem to differ in their side-effects.ObjectivesTo review the effects in response to treatment of trifluoperazine and low-potency antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia.Search MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (November 2010).Selection CriteriaWe included all randomised trials comparing trifluoperazine with first-generation low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis.Data Collection And AnalysisWe extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model.Main ResultsThe review currently includes seven randomised trials involving 422 participants that compared trifluoperazine with low-potency antipsychotic drugs. The size of the included studies was between 20 and 157 participants with a study length between four and 52 weeks. Overall, sequence generation, allocation procedures and blinding were poorly reported. Trifluoperazine was not significantly different from low-potency antipsychotic drugs in terms of response to treatment (trifluoperazine 26%, low-potency drug 27%, 3 RCTs, n = 120, RR 0.96 CI 0.59 to 1.56, moderate quality evidence). There was also no significant difference in acceptability of treatment with equivocal number of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason (trifluoperazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 16%, 3 RCTs, n = 239, RR 1.25, CI 0.72 to 2.17,low quality evidence). There was no significant difference in numbers with at least one adverse effect (trifluoperazine 60%, low-potency antipsychotics 38%, 1 RCT, n = 60, RR 1.60, CI 0.94 to 2.74, moderate quality evidence). However, at least one movement disorder was significantly more frequent in the trifluoperazine group (trifluoperazine 23%, low-potency antipsychotics 13%, 2 RCTs, n = 123, RR 2.08 CI 0.78 to 5.55, very low quality evidence) as well as incoordination (trifluoperazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 5%, 1 RCT, n = 60, RR 7.00, CI 1.60 to 30.66) and rigor (trifluoperazine 45%, low-potency antipsychotics 10%, 1 RCT, n = 60, RR 4.50, CI 1.58 to 12.84). No data were available for other outcomes of interest death, sedation and quality of life.Authors' ConclusionsThe results did not show a difference in efficacy between trifluoperazine and low-potency antipsychotics. Trifluoperazine produced more movement disorders. The number of randomised studies as well as their quality is low, the quality of evidence for outcomes of interest ranged from moderate to very low quality, so more, newer studies would be needed for conclusions about the relative effects of trifluoperazine and low-potency antipsychotics.

12 keywords...

hide…