Penfluridol: a long-acting oral neuroleptic. A controlled study. Study of penfluridol and chlorpromazine in the treatment of chronic schizophrenia. Long-acting oral vs injectable antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenics: a one-year double-blind comparison in multiple episode schizophrenics. Penfluridol: a long acting oral antipsychotic drug. Comparative short-term evaluation of penfluridol and trifluoperazine in chronic schizophrenia. A controlled study of penfluridol in the treatment of chronic schizophrenia. A twelve month comparison of penfluridol and trifluoperazine in chronic schizophrenic outpatients. Peroral and parenteral administration of long-acting neuroleptics: a double-blind study of penfluridol compared to flupenthixol decanoate in the treatment of schizophrenia. Risperidone, quetiapine, and fluphenazine in the treatment of patients with therapy-refractory schizophrenia. Penfluridol: an efficacious long-acting oral antipsychotic compound. Trial of brief intermittent neuroleptic prophylaxis for selected schizophrenic outpatients: clinical and social outcome at two years.
The clinical promise of penfluridol as a long-acting oral antipsychotic medication has led to a number of controlled studies designed to verify its usefulness. These studies have been reviewed and compared with a controlled study carried out by the authors. The data obtained from this study have tended to confirm the impression of previous investigators that penfluridol, administered in a dosage of 40 to 80 mg on a once-a-week basis in a single dose, compares favorably with the antipsychotic activity of those neuroleptics requiring administration on a daily basis. This study presents data on the use of penfluridol, a once-a-week orally administered, antipsychotic agent, in the treatment of chronic schizophrenic patients. Fifty-nine patients participated in the initial dose titration segment during which doses of penfluridol were adjusted weekly until the patients' condition became stabilized. The starting dose did not exceed 60 mg per week, and the maximum weekly dose did not exceed 140 mg. Forty-one of these patients continued on to participate in a double-blind comparison of penfluridol with chlorpromazine. Maximum doses did not exceed 140 mg per dose per week for penfluridol and 7350 mg per week for chlorpromazine in the double-blind segment. Patients were abruptly switched from their previous neuroleptic medication to penfluridol without loss of control. Side effects, mainly extrapyramidal in nature, were readily alleviated with benztropine mesylate. Penfluridol, administered orally once a week, appeared to be well tolerated; it was comparable to daily chlorpromazine in treating and maintaining schizophrenic patients. Sixty patients meeting the criteria established for schizophrenia who attained a clinical plateau following hospital discharge were randomized to receive for one year either penfluridol, 20 to 160 mg orally once each week, or fluphenazine decanoate, 0.5 to 4 ml every two weeks. The relapse rate for both treatments was low and equal. The rate of recurrence of psychosis for patients receiving penfluridol was 7% and for those receiving fluphenazine decanoate 10%. A retrospective comparison of the penfluridol group was made to a similar group of patients assigned to placebo in an earlier study. Placebo-treated patients had a relapse rate of 68%. Penfluridol patients had statistically fewer psychotic relapses. Questions about the possible carcinogenicity of penfluridol in animals will have to be resolved before it can be widely used. This study demonstrates the feasibility of using an oral, long-acting antipsychotic agent. It would be a useful psychopharmacologic addition in the treatment of outpatient schizophrenics. Penfluridol is a diphenylbutylpiperdine derivative with a half-life of sixty-six (66) hours. The present study was designed to determine its efficacy for the maintenance of schizophrenia. In a 52 week double-blind study, once weekly doses of penfluridol were compared with once daily doses of chlorpromazine in 56 schizophrenic patients receiving maintenance treatment on an outpatient basis. Both drugs were similar in their clinical effectiveness; no major side effects occurred with either drug. A double blind comparative study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of penfluridol and trifluoperazine in patients of chronic schizophrenia. Penfluridol was administered once weekly while trifluoperazine was administered twice daily by preparing identical capsules. The data revealed that both the compounds were similarly effective in maintaining control of symptoms of chronic schizophrenia. However, penfluridol has a definite advantage over trifluoperazine since it is administered once a week instead of twice a day. Twenty patients were treated with penfluridol and 21 with fluphenazine for a period of up to 1 year. Penfluridol, an oral neuroleptic administered weekly was as efficacious as fluphenazine administered twice daily and appeared to be superior to fluphenazine in improving emotional withdrawal and anergia. The low incidence of side effects and other signs of toxicity, coupled with an effective prophylactic activity, suggests that penfluridol is an important addition to our therapeutic armamentarium for the treatment of chronic schizophrenia. This investigation is a 52-week double-blind study comparing the efficacy and safety of penfluridol and trifluoperazine in 25 chronic schizophrenic outpatients. Penfluridol was administered once weekly and trifluoperazine daily. Measurements were made at baseline, various fixed intervals during the study period and termination. The data reveals that both agents were similarly effective in maintaining control of the symptoms of chronic schizophrenic patients at a level commensurate with or better than that provided by their previous medication. Besides being effective, medications were also well tolerated. The side effects were characteristic of marketed neuroleptics. Akathisia was more common with penfluridol but readily controlled with anti-parkinsonian medication. Other side effects were similar in severity and occurrence between study-drug groups. Both agents had low autonomic liability, and neither agent was depressogenic. Fifty-six out of 60 schizophrenic patients completed a double-blind study of two long-acting neuroleptics, penfluridol (peroral) and flupenthixol decanoate (parenteral). Half of the patients were on maintenance therapy of flupenthixol prior to the study, the other half on penfluridol. The actual double-blind study (12 weeks) was commenced after a preliminary period of 4 weeks, the patients in the two main groups being randomly divided into two further groups, one continuing the medication unchanged, the other changing to the alternative drug. It was found possible to make a sudden switch from penfluridol to flupenthixol decanoate and vice versa without any significant change in the condition of the patient. The same dosage (in 70% of the patients from 40 to 80 mg) of penfluridol was used per week as was employed for flupenthixol decanoate per fortnight. Changes in the intensity of the symptoms (total Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) score) were moe pronounced in the preliminary period (during unchanged treatment) than on changed medication in the blind period. Both drugs induced approximately the same degree of akathisia, Parkinsonism and autonomic side effects. The practical consequences of equipotent therapeutical effect of a peroral and parenteral long-acting neuroleptic are briefly discussed. This 12-week, double-blind study evaluated the effectiveness of risperidone (4 mg/day), quetiapine (400 mg/day), or fluphenazine (12.5 mg/day) in a stringently defined treatment-resistant population of people with schizophrenia. No differences were noted in total Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) or Clinical Global Impression scores among the drug groups (n = 38). More subjects tended to complete the study on risperidone (69%) or quetiapine (58%) than those treated with fluphenazine (31%; P value not significant). Eighty-nine percent of those who discontinued on fluphenazine (8 of 9) were due to lack of efficacy. Discontinuation due to adverse effects was low, with only 2 subjects (both on quetiapine) stopping due to side effects. Three of 13 risperidone-treated subjects (23%) and 3 of 12 quetiapine-treated subjects (25%) met response criteria (decrease of 20% of total BPRS score), whereas 2 of 13 subjects (15%) responded to fluphenazine. Side effect occurrence was similar among drug groups and EPS ratings on the Simpson Angus Scale improved in all drug groups (quetiapine, 1.64; risperidone, 1.30; fluphenazine, 0.69; P value not significant). Despite the newer class of second-generation antipsychotic medications, this treatment-resistant population remains difficult to treat. Many people have only minimal to modest improvements with antipsychotic treatment and most continue to have residual psychotic symptoms. Treatment with first- and second-generation antipsychotics may demonstrate similar efficacy; however, patients treated with second-generation antipsychotics may be more likely to adhere to treatment. nan To evaluate a novel approach to the prophylaxis of schizophrenic relapse characterised by administration of brief courses of neuroleptic for the earliest non-psychotic signs of relapse (prodromal symptoms).
                Two year follow up of subjects randomised, double blind, to receive either active (control group) or placebo (intermittent group) depot neuroleptic medication. Both groups received brief courses of oral neuroleptic when prodromal symptoms or relapse occurred.
                Psychiatric outpatient department, Charing Cross Hospital, London.
                54 Stable patients in remission who met the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-III criteria for schizophrenia on the basis of case notes.
                Survival without relapse, survival without hospitalisation, point prevalence of extrapyramidal side effects and tardive dyskinesia, structured assessment of social functioning (social adjustment scale II), and frequency of prodromal symptoms.
                Of 19 relapses recorded over two years, 10 (53%) were preceded by non-psychotic prodromal signs. Survival rates for both relapse and hospitalisation were worse with intermittent treatment than continuous treatment over the two year follow up: 92% of controls and only 54% of patients given intermittent treatment survived the two year period without hospitalisation. Prolonged or frequent relapses as well as episodes of prodromal symptoms were more frequent with intermittent treatment. Lower scores for extrapyramidal side effects were recorded in the intermittent treatment group, but periodic assessments of social functioning failed to show any social advantages from this.
                The findings are at variance with a previous report of one year follow up in this cohort and attest to the superiority of continuous depot neuroleptic prophylaxis in preventing both psychotic and neurotic or dysphoric morbidity in schizophrenia.
Although there are shortcomings and gaps in the data, there appears to be enough overall consistency for different outcomes. The efficacy and adverse effects profile of penfluridol are similar to other typical antipsychotics; both oral and depot. Furthermore, penfluridol is shown to be an adequate treatment option for people with schizophrenia, especially those who do not respond to oral medication on a daily basis and do not adapt well to depot drugs. One of the results favouring penfluridol was a lower drop out rate in medium term when compared to depot medications. It is also an option for chronic sufferers of schizophrenia with residual psychotic symptoms who nevertheless need continuous use of antipsychotic medication. An additional benefit of penfluridol is that it is a low-cost intervention.
Note: the eight citations in the awaiting classification section of the review may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.