Schizophrenia is often a severe and disabling psychiatric disorder. Antipsychotics remain the mainstay of psychotropic treatment for people with psychosis. In limited resource and humanitarian contexts, it is key to have several options for beneficial, low-cost antipsychotics, which require minimal monitoring. We wanted to compare oral haloperidol, as one of the most available antipsychotics in these settings, with a second-generation antipsychotic, olanzapine.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical benefits and harms of haloperidol compared to olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia study-based register of trials, which is based on monthly searches of CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and WHO ICTRP. We screened the references of all included studies. We contacted relevant authors of trials for additional information where clarification was required or where data were incomplete. The register was last searched on 14 January 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials comparing haloperidol with olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in global state, relapse, clinically important change in mental state, extrapyramidal side effects, weight increase, clinically important change in quality of life and leaving the study early due to adverse effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently evaluated and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB or NNTH) with 95% CI. For continuous data, we estimated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. For all included studies, we assessed risk of bias (RoB 1) and we used the GRADE approach to create a summary of findings table.
RESULTS
We included 68 studies randomising 9132 participants. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in clinically important change in global state (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02; 6 studies, 3078 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in relapse (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.02; 7 studies, 1499 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in overall mental state compared to olanzapine (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.81; 13 studies, 1210 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every eight people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this improvement. The evidence suggests that haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects compared to olanzapine (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.28 to 5.02; 14 studies, 3290 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every three people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one additional person would experience extrapyramidal side effects. For weight gain, the evidence suggests that there may be a large reduction in the risk with haloperidol compared to olanzapine (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; 18 studies, 4302 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 10 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience weight increase. A single study suggests that haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in quality of life compared to olanzapine (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 828 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every nine people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience clinically important improvement in quality of life. Haloperidol may result in an increase in the incidence of leaving the study early due to adverse effects compared to olanzapine (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.47; 21 studies, 5047 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 22 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this outcome. Thirty otherwise relevant studies and several endpoints from 14 included studies could not be evaluated due to inconsistencies and poor transparency of several parameters. Furthermore, even within studies that were included, it was often not possible to use data for the same reasons. Risk of bias differed substantially for different outcomes and the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The most common risks of bias leading to downgrading of the evidence were blinding (performance bias) and selective reporting (reporting bias).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low to very low for the main outcomes in this review, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in terms of clinically important global state and relapse. Olanzapine may result in a slightly greater overall clinically important change in mental state and in a clinically important change in quality of life. Different side effect profiles were noted: haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects and olanzapine in a large increase in weight gain. The drug of choice needs to take into account side effect profiles and the preferences of the individual. These findings and the recent inclusion of olanzapine alongside haloperidol in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines should increase the likelihood of it becoming more easily available in low- and middle- income countries, thereby improving choice and providing a greater ability to respond to side effects for people with lived experience of schizophrenia. There is a need for additional research using appropriate and equivalent dosages of these drugs. Some of this research needs to be done in low- and middle-income settings and should actively seek to account for factors relevant to these. Research on antipsychotics needs to be person-centred and prioritise factors that are of interest to people with lived experience of schizophrenia.
BACKGROUND
Malaria and HIV infection overlap geographically in sub-Saharan Africa and share risk factors. HIV infection increases malaria's severity, especially in pregnant women. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) for pregnant women living in areas of stable malaria transmission. However, HIV-positive women on daily cotrimoxazole prophylaxis (recommended for prevention of opportunistic infections in people with HIV) cannot receive SP due to adverse drug interactions, so malaria prevention in this vulnerable population currently relies on daily cotrimoxazole prophylaxis alone. This review is based on a new protocol and provides an update to the 2011 Cochrane Review that evaluated alternative drugs for IPTp to prevent malaria in HIV-positive women.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the safety and efficacy of intermittent preventive treatment regimens for malaria prevention in HIV-positive pregnant women.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trial registries to 31 January 2024. To identify relevant additional studies or unpublished work, we checked references and contacted study authors and other researchers working on malaria and HIV.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any intermittent preventive treatment regimen for preventing malaria in HIV-positive pregnant women against daily cotrimoxazole prophylaxis alone, placebo, current or previous standard of care, or combinations of these options. By 'standard of care' we refer to the country's recommended drug regimen to prevent malaria in pregnancy among HIV-positive women, or the treatment that a trial's research team considered to be the standard of care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors, in pairs, independently screened all records identified by the search strategy, applied inclusion criteria, assessed risk of bias in included trials, and extracted data. We contacted trial authors when additional information was required. We presented dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RRs), count outcomes as incidence rate ratios (IRRs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs). We presented all measures of effect with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach for what we considered to be the main comparisons and outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 RCTs, with a total of 4976 HIV-positive pregnant women initially randomized. All trials assessed the efficacy and safety of one antimalarial used as IPTp (mefloquine, dihydroartemisinin/piperaquine, SP, or azithromycin) with or without daily cotrimoxazole, compared to daily cotrimoxazole alone, placebo, or a standard of care regimen. We grouped the trials into nine comparisons. Our main comparison evaluated the current standard of care (daily cotrimoxazole) with another drug regimen (mefloquine or dihydroartemisinin/piperaquine) versus daily cotrimoxazole with or without placebo. In this comparison, two trials evaluated mefloquine and three evaluated dihydroartemisinin/piperaquine. We conducted meta-analyses that included trials evaluating dihydroartemisinin/piperaquine plus cotrimoxazole, and trials that evaluated mefloquine plus cotrimoxazole, as we considered there to be no qualitative or quantitative heterogeneity among trials for most outcomes. We considered drug-related adverse events and HIV-related outcomes to be drug-specific. Daily cotrimoxazole prophylaxis plus another drug regimen (mefloquine or dihydroartemisinin/piperaquine) probably results in lower risk of maternal peripheral parasitaemia at delivery (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.95; 2406 participants, 5 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). It results in little or no difference in maternal anaemia cases at delivery (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; 2417 participants, 3 trials; high-certainty evidence). It probably results in a decrease in placental malaria measured by blood smear (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.93; 1337 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably results in little or no difference in low birth weight (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.41; 2915 participants, 5 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). There is insufficient evidence to ascertain whether daily cotrimoxazole prophylaxis plus another drug regimen affects the risk of cord blood parasitaemia (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.64; 2696 participants, 5 trials; very low-certainty evidence). Daily cotrimoxazole prophylaxis plus another drug regimen probably results in little or no difference in foetal loss (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.46; 2957 participants, 5 trials; moderate-certainty evidence), and may result in little or no difference in neonatal mortality (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.14; 2706 participants, 4 trials; low-certainty evidence). Due to the probability of an increased risk of mother-to-child HIV transmission and some adverse drug effects noted with mefloquine, we also looked at the results for dihydroartemisinin/piperaquine specifically. Dihydroartemisinin/piperaquine plus daily contrimoxazole probably results in little to no difference in maternal peripheral parasitaemia (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.11; 1517 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence) or anaemia at delivery (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1454 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence), but leads to fewer women having placental malaria when measured by histopathologic analysis (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 1570 participants, 3 trials; high-certainty evidence). The addition of dihydroartemisinin/piperaquine to daily cotrimoxazole probably made little to no difference to rates of low birth weight (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.48; 1695 participants, 3 trials), foetal loss (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.90; 1610 participants, 3 trials), or neonatal mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.72; 1467 participants, 2 trials) (all moderate-certainty evidence). We found low-certainty evidence of no increased risk of gastrointestinal drug-related adverse events (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.51 to 3.98; 1447 participants, 2 trials) or mother-to-child HIV transmission (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.26 to 9.19; 1063 participants, 2 trials).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Dihydroartemisinin/piperaquine and mefloquine added to daily cotrimoxazole seem to be efficacious in preventing malaria infection in HIV-positive pregnant women compared to daily cotrimoxazole alone. However, increased risk of HIV transmission to the foetus and poor drug tolerability may be barriers to implementation of mefloquine in practice. In contrast, the evidence suggests that dihydroartemisinin/piperaquine does not increase the risk of HIV mother-to-child transmission and is well tolerated.