Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12600227›Full record

ReviewDrugs2003

Intramuscular preparations of antipsychotics: uses and relevance in clinical practice.

A Cario Altamura, Francesca Sassella, Annalisa Santini, Clauno Montresor, Sara Fumagalli, Emanuela Mundo

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 116 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Development of a depot formulation with anFrontiers in drug delivery · 2023
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

A Cario AltamuraDepartment of Psychiatry, Department of Clinical Sciences Luigi Sacco, University of Milan, Via G.B. Grassi 74, Milan 20157, Italy. altamura@ospedalesacco.lom.it
Francesca Sassella
Annalisa Santini
Clauno Montresor
Sara Fumagalli
Emanuela Mundo
Luigi Sacco Hospital · ITUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intramuscular formulations of antipsychotics can be sub-divided into two groups on the basis of their pharmacokinetic features: short-acting preparations and long-acting or depot preparations. Short-acting intramuscular formulations are used to manage acute psychotic episodes. On the other hand, long-acting compounds, also called "depot", are administered as antipsychotic maintenance treatment to ensure compliance and to eliminate bioavailability problems related to absorption and first pass metabolism. Adverse effects of antipsychotics have been studied with particular respect to oral versus short- and long-acting intramuscular formulations of the different compounds. For short-term intramuscular preparations the main risk with classical compounds are hypotension and extrapyramidal side effects (EPS). Data on the incidence of EPS with depot formulations are controversial: some studies point out that the incidence of EPS is significantly higher in patients receiving depot preparations, whereas others show no difference between oral and depot antipsychotics. Studies on the strategies for switching patients from oral to depot treatment suggest that this procedure is reasonably well tolerated, so that in clinical practice depot antipsychotic therapy is usually begun while the oral treatment is still being administered, with gradual tapering of the oral dose. Efficacy, pharmacodynamics and clinical pharmacokinetics of haloperidol decanoate, fluphenazine enanthate and decanoate, clopenthixol decanoate, zuclopenthixol decanoate and acutard, flupenthixol decanoate, perphenazine enanthate, pipothiazine palmitate and undecylenate, and fluspirilene are reviewed. In addition, the intramuscular preparations of atypical antipsychotics and clinical uses are reviewed. Olanzapine and ziprasidone are available only as short-acting preparations, while risperidone is to date the only novel antipsychotic available as depot formulation. To date, acutely ill, agitated psychotic patients have been treated with high parenteral doses of typical antipsychotics, which often cause serious EPS, especially dystonic reactions. Intramuscular formulations of novel antipsychotics (olanzapine and ziprasidone), which appear to have a better tolerability profile than typical compounds, showed an equivalent efficacy to parenteral typical agents in the acute treatment of psychoses. However, parenteral or depot formulations of atypical antipsychotics are not yet widely available.

Indexed as

Antipsychotic AgentsButyrophenonesDelayed-Action PreparationsHumansInjections, IntramuscularPhenothiazinesPsychotic DisordersRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSchizophreniaAntipsychotic AgentsButyrophenonesDelayed-Action PreparationsPhenothiazines

Identifiers

PMID12600227
OpenAlexW2013903790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.