Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-8mjnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T01:03:27.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Establishing a dose–response relationship for haloperidol decanoate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

David Taylor*
Affiliation:
Pharmacy Department, Maudsley Hospital, London SE5 8AZ. E-mail: David.taylor@slam.nhs.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aims and Method

The aim of this literature analysis was to establish the range of doses of haloperidol decanoate effective in preventing relapse in schizophrenia. Studies reporting relapse rates in patients treated for longer than 6 months were included. Relapse rate was then plotted against dose or log dose to allow drawing of dose–response curves.

Results

Fifteen publications reporting 13 individual studies were identified. of these, 6 studies met inclusion criteria and were analysed. Dose–response curves indicated limited effect at 25 mg/4 weeks but near maximal effect at doses of 50 mg/4 weeks. There was no clear evidence that increasing the dose above 100 mg/4 weeks provided additional benefit in preventing relapse.

Clinical Implications

The recommended dose range for haloperidol decanoate (50–300 mg/ 4 weeks) does not reflect the findings of this study. Optimally effective doses appear to be around 50–100 mg/4 weeks. The use of doses above 100 mg/4 weeks is difficult to support given data available.

Type
Medicines information
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © 2005. The Royal College of Psychiatrists.

The British National Formulary (Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and British Medical Association, 2003) outlines the recommended dose of haloperidol decanoate (HD) thus: ‘initially 50 mg every four weeks, if necessary increasing by 50 mg increments to 300 mg every four weeks; higher doses may be needed in some patients’. In practice, clinical doses appear to average 200-300 mg every 4 weeks with higher doses seen in a small but important minority.

Appropriate dosing of HD is made difficult by its complex pharmacokinetic properties (Reference TaylorTaylor, 1999) and by a lack of clarity over its dose-response characteristics. Essentially three dose response ‘curves’ are possible, each based on the assumption that very low doses produce little or no effect and higher (‘threshold’) doses produce increasingly large effects. At higher doses still, effects may (i) increase still further, (ii) neither increase nor decrease (plateau), or (iii) decrease (see Reference Davis, Chen and GlickDavis et al, 2003 for discussion). With oral haloperidol, there is substantial evidence that its clinical effects plateau at doses above 4-6 mg/day (Reference Hilton, Taylor and AbelHilton et al, 1996; Reference TaylorTaylor, 2000) and it has been suggested that effectiveness decreases above 12 mg/day (Reference Geddes, Freemantle and HarrisonGeddes et al, 2000). If these outcomes are accepted then it is possible that some low but recommended doses of HD will be sub-therapeutic and some higher doses unnecessarily supra-therapeutic.

A literature search and analysis was performed in an attempt to establish and describe the dose-response relationship for HD at recommended therapeutic doses.

Method

In December 2003, a literature search was conducted using the terms HALOPERIDOL DECANOATE, HALOPERIDOL DEPOT, HALDOL, HALDOL DECANOATE and HALOPERIDOL LONG ACTING PREPARATIONS. Databases searched were Medline, Embase and Psych LIT. The Cochrane Library and the Cochrane review of HD (Reference Quraishi and DavidQuraishi & David, 2000) were also scrutinised. From the papers retrieved, those describing use of specified doses of HD for at least 6 months and providing relapse outcome data were included. (These factors represented a priori inclusion criteria.) Shorter studies and those not describing relapse data were not included.

Results

Fifteen papers describing 13 individual studies were retrieved. From those, 6 studies meeting inclusion criteria were identified. Of those not included, 5 had a duration of assessment of 6 months or less (Reference Zissi, Psaras and KyketsosZissi et al, 1982; Reference Wistedt, Petsson and HellbornWistedt et al, 1984; Reference Bechelli, Iecco and AcioliBechelli et al, 1985; Reference Eberhard and HellbornEberhard & Hellborn, 1986; Reference Dencker, Gios and MartenssonDencker et al, 1994) and 2 did not provide dosage details (Reference Cookson, Kennedy and GribbonCookson et al, 1986; Reference Meyerowitz, Jaramillo and DensonMeyerowitz et al, 1989). Two studies were each published twice - Wistedt (Reference Wistedt1984) and Wistedt et al (Reference Wistedt, Petsson and Hellborn1984) described the same study, as did Koskinen et al (Reference Koskinen, Wistedt and Thelander1991) and Wistedt et al (Reference Wistedt, Koskinen and Thelander1991). The included studies are described below.

McKane and colleagues (Reference Mckane, Robinson and Wiles1987) conducted a double-blind trial of HD and fluphenazine decanoate over 60 weeks (incorporating a 12-week run-in period). Seventeen participants received HD, of whom 6 (35%) relapsed during the 52-week post run-in period. The mean dose of HD was 120 mg every 4 weeks at week 12.

Chouinard and colleagues (Reference Chouinard, Annable and Campbell1989) conducted a similar comparative double-blind trial over 8 months but with all participants receiving fluphenazine depot for 3 months before study entry. HD was given to 36 participants at intervals of 2, 3 or 4 weeks. The mean dose given per month was 385 mg. On this dose no patient relapsed to an extent requiring readmission and only 2 required additional oral medication (a single oral dose in each case).

In a double-blind comparison of HD and zuclopenthixol decanoate, Wistedt et al (Reference Wistedt, Koskinen and Thelander1991) found that a mean dose of 92 mg every 4 weeks allowed relapse in only 4 of 27 participants (11%) receiving HD for 9 months. In this study, relapse was defined as withdrawing prematurely ‘because of deterioration’. Aside from these withdrawals, 3 participants showed deterioration on clinical assessment scales.

Eklund & Forsman (Reference Eklund and Forsman1991) conducted a rare placebocontrolled, randomised double-blind assessment of HD given for 48 weeks (after a 3-month period in which all subjects received 60 mg every 4 weeks of HD). Out of 18 participants receiving HD, 2 relapsed (11%) compared with 16 out of 23 (69%) of those receiving placebo.

Altamura and colleagues (Reference Altamura, Tacchini and Maes1995) followed 48 participants given HD for up to 3 years. In the first year 11 participants (23%) relapsed. The mean dose of HD was 120.6 mg every 4 weeks. The study was an open evaluation of naturalistic clinical practice.

In the most recently published study, Kane and colleagues (Reference Kane, Davis and Schooler2002) examined the effect of fixed doses of HD on relapse (‘symptomatic exacerbation’) in a double-blind, year-long study. Relapse rate was highest for those receiving 25 mg HD every 4 weeks (15 out of 25 participants, 60%) and lowest for 200 mg HD every 4 weeks (4 out of 26, 15%). There was no statistically significant difference in relapse rates between the highest dose and medium doses (50 mg and 100 mg every 4 weeks; 25% and 23% respectively). Oddly, this study took almost 10 years to be fully published (see Reference Davis, Mckane and MarderDavis et al, 1993).

Plotting dose-response curves

The above data (see also Table 1) were plotted as mean or fixed dose HD (or, by convention, log dose) against percentage remaining well (100–relapse rate) to estimate a dose-response curve for HD (see Figs 1 and 2). These curves suggest that HD has little effect below 25 mg/4 weeks (anchor point for no HD is placebo effect from Reference Eklund and ForsmanEklund & Forsman, 1991). Effect on relapse seems to increase substantially between > 25 mg and 100 mg/4 weeks and then to level off almost to horizontal between 100 mg and 400 mg/4 weeks. Effect could be said to be maximal or near maximal at 50 mg/4 weeks.

Table 1. Haloperidol decanoate studies, 9-12 months’ duration

Reference Duration and subject details Dose details n Relapse n (%)
Reference Mckane, Robinson and WilesMcKane et al, 1987 48 weeks (12 week run-in) Mean of 120 mg/4 weeks. 17 6 (35)
In-patients with schizophrenia well controlled with antipsychotics Range of doses not provided
Reference Chouinard, Annable and CampbellChouinard et al, 1989 8 months (+3 months before study) Mean equivalent to 385 mg/4 weeks (some received drug at shorter intervals) 36 0 (0)
Patients with schizophrenia already stabilised on depot treatment Range 15-1800 mg/4 weeks.
Reference Eklund and ForsmanEklund & Forsman, 1991 48 weeks (15 week run-in) All patients received 60 mg/4 weeks 18 2 (11)
Patients with schizophrenia mostly out-patients 16 out of 23 (69) relapsed on placebo
Reference Koskinen, Wistedt and ThelanderKoskinen et al, 1991; Reference Wistedt, Koskinen and ThelanderWistedt et al, 1991 9 months Mean of 92 mg/4 weeks 27 4 (11)
Out-patients with chronic schizophrenia Range 38-200 mg/4 weeks
Reference Altamura, Tacchini and MaesAltamura et al, 1995 1 year Mean 120.6 mg/4 weeks 48 11 out of 48 in year (23)
Out-patients with schizophrenia of mean duration 8 years Range 25-375 mg/4 weeks
Kane et al, 2003 1 year 25 mg/4 weeks 25 15 (60)
Patients with schizophrenia of at least 2 years' duration. Out-patients 50 mg/4 weeks 28 7 (25)
100 mg/4 weeks 26 6 (23)
200 mg/4 weeks 26 4 (15)

Fig. 1. Dose-response curve for haloperidol decanoate dose v. relapse.

Fig. 2. Log dose-response curve for haloperidol decanoate dose (log) v. relapse.

Discussion

This analysis of medium-term trials of HD strongly suggests that beneficial effects on relapse peak at around 100 mg/4 weeks and little, if any, therapeutic advantage is provided by higher doses. If accepted, this conclusion has important consequences for clinical practice.

Of course, the exact nature of the dose-response curve beyond 100 mg/4 weeks is a vitally important question. If horizontal, then clearly higher doses can be seen as unnecessary, incurring additional expense and perhaps producing a greater burden of adverse effects through greater drug exposure (as with oral haloperidol; Reference van Putten, Marder and MintzVan Putten et al, 1990; Reference Stone, Garver and GriffithStone et al, 1995). If the curve rises above the horizontal (as it could be drawn) then many will argue that such negative effects are a suitable price to pay for a small but palpable reduction in risk of relapse. Unfortunately, available data provide few details on the effects of doses above 120 mg/4 weeks and so we cannot be certain about the exact dose-response relationship. It is noteworthy however that the very high doses of HD reported by Chouinard and colleagues (Reference Chouinard, Annable and Campbell1989) allowed no relapses in 36 patients. Without these data, the curve is clearly flat; with it, it suggests worthwhile reduction in risk of relapse with very high doses. It is also noteworthy that receptor binding studies report near saturation of dopamine receptors at very low doses (5 mg/day) of haloperidol (Reference Tauscher and KapurTauscher & Kapur, 2001). This might predict a plateau of effect.

Aside from difficulties relating to the plotting of the dose-response curve, other caveats should be noted. First, the plotting of mean HD doses as single data points is problematic since each value conceals a range of doses given to participants. These data might be better represented as horizontal lines on the graph, describing the range of doses used. It is notable, however, that fixed dose studies (Reference Eklund and ForsmanEklund & Forsman, 1991; Kane et al, 2003) provide data-points which fit with the general trend of mean dose data. Second, there is clearly a time-effect when considering rates of relapse and studies used to generate data-points ranging in total duration from 9 months (Reference Wistedt, Koskinen and ThelanderWistedt et al, 1991) to 60 weeks (Reference Mckane, Robinson and WilesMcKane et al, 1987). Data generated from studies conducted do not allow standardisation of relapse data at a particular time point. It should be understood therefore that shorter studies probably underestimate relapse by 1 year (perhaps important for Reference Chouinard, Annable and CampbellChouinard et al, 1989) and longer studies probably over estimate relapse at 1 year (for example, Reference Mckane, Robinson and WilesMcKane et al, 1987). Third, criteria used to define relapse varied somewhat from one study to another: some used the administration of additional oral antipsychotics, some admission to hospital; others leaving the study early. Such variation is likely to have an important effect on data interpretation but the fixed dose study of Kane et al (Reference Kane, Davis and Schooler2002) used the same relapse criteria for each dose and produced results broadly in line with the trend.

A major advantage of attempting to define dose-response of a depot formulation is that, it is assumed, full compliance with treatment is certain. With oral forms, assessment of dose-response is confounded by partial or non-compliance which may well be unknown to the study investigators. It might be argued that the use of depots allows more accurate assessment of dose-response relationships.

This analysis might be strengthened still further by the inclusion of unpublished pre-licence data, but these were not available. Nevertheless, this secondary analysis serves to strengthen impressions gained from single studies. The overall impression given by data analysed here, it can tentatively be concluded, is that there is little to be gained by increasing the dose of HD above 100 mg/4 weeks. Individual clinicians will need to decide whether or not the use of doses above this level can be justified when there is little or no expectation of improved efficacy and well grounded expectation of higher cost and worsened adverse effect burden.

Declaration of interest

None.

References

Altamura, A. O., Tacchini, G. I., Maes, M. (1995) Haloperidol plasma ‘threshold’ levels for relapse prevention in schizophrenia: a study with haloperidol decanoate. European Neuropsychopharmacology Supplement, 5558.Google Scholar
Bechelli, L. P. C., Iecco, M. C., Acioli, A., et al (1985) A double-blind trial of haloperidol decanoate and pipothiazine palmitate in the maintenance treatment of schizophrenics in a public out-patient clinic. Current Therapeutic Research, 37, 662671.Google Scholar
British Medical Association And the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (2003) British National Formulary. London: British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.Google Scholar
Chouinard, G., Annable, L., Campbell, W. (1989) A randomised clinical trial of haloperidol decanoate and fluphenazine decanoate in the outpatient treatment of schizophrenia. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 9, 247253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cookson, J. C., Kennedy, N. M. & Gribbon, D. (1986) Weight gain and prolactin levels in patients on long-term antipsychotic medication: a double blind comparative trial of haloperidol decanoate and fluphenazine decanoate. International Clinical Psychopharmacology (suppl1), 4151.Google Scholar
Davis, J. M., Mckane, J. M., Marder, S. R., et al (1993) Dose reponse of prophylactic antipsychotics. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 54 (suppl), 2430.Google Scholar
Davis, J. M., Chen, N. & Glick, I. D. (2003) A meta-analysis of the efficacy of second generation antipsychotics. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60, 553564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dencker, S. J., Gios, I., Martensson, E., et al (1994) A long term cross-over pharmacokinetic study comparing perphenazine decanoate and haloperidol decanoate in schizophrenic patients. Psychopharmacology, 114, 2430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eberhard, G. & Hellborn, E. (1986) Haloperidol decanoate and flupenthixol decanoate in schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 74, 255262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eklund, K. & Forsman, A. (1991) Minimal effective dose and relapse –double blind trial: haloperidol decanoate vs. placebo. Clinical Neuropharmacology, 14, S7S15.Google Scholar
Geddes, J., Freemantle, N., Harrison, P., et al (2000) Atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia: systematic overview and meta-regression analysis. BMJ, 321, 13711376.Google Scholar
Hilton, T., Taylor, D. & Abel, K. (1996) Which dose of haloperidol? Psychiatric Bulletin, 20, 359362.Google Scholar
Kane, J. M., Davis, J. M., Schooler, N., et al (2002) A multidose study of haloperidol decanoate in the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 554560.Google Scholar
Koskinen, T., Wistedt, B. & Thelander, S. (1991) Zuclopenthixol decanoate vs. haloperidol decanoate: A double blind comparative study. Biological Psychiatry, 1, 563565.Google Scholar
Mckane, J. P., Robinson, A. D.T., Wiles, D. H., et al (1987) Haloperidol decanoate v. fluphenazine decanoate as maintenance therapy in chronic schizophrenia in-patients. British Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 333336.Google Scholar
Meyerowitz, W., Jaramillo, J. D. C., Denson, D., et al (1989) Optimum therapeutic dosing with haloperidol decanoate. Current Therapeutic Research, 46, 11741178.Google Scholar
Quraishi, S. & David, A. (2000) Depot haloperidol decanoate for schizophrenia (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, issue 4. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
Stone, C. K., Garver, D. L., Griffith, J., et al (1995) Further evidence of a dose–response threshold for haloperidol in psychosis. American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 12101212.Google ScholarPubMed
Tauscher, J. & Kapur, S. (2001) Choosing the right dose of antipsychotics in schizophrenia. CNS Drugs, 15, 671678.Google Scholar
Taylor, D. (1999) Depot antipsychotics revisited. Psychiatric Bulletin, 23, 551553.Google Scholar
Taylor, D. (2000) Low dose typical antipsychotics – a brief evaluation. Psychiatric Bulletin, 24, 465468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Putten, T., Marder, S. R. & Mintz, J. (1990) A controlled dose comparison of haloperidol in newly admitted schizophrenic patients. Archives of General Psychiatry, 47, 754758.Google Scholar
Wistedt, B. (1984) A comparative trial of haloperidol decanoate and fluphenazine decanoate in chronic schizophrenic patients. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 1 (suppl 1), 1523.Google Scholar
Wistedt, B., Petsson, T. & Hellborn, E. (1984) A clinical double-blind comparison between haloperidol decanoate and fluphenazine decanoate. Current Therapeutic Research, 35, 804814.Google Scholar
Wistedt, B., Koskinen, T., Thelander, S., et al (1991) Zuclopenthixol decanoate and haloperidol decanoate in chronic schizophrenia; a double blind multicentre study. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 84, 1416.Google Scholar
Zissi, N. P., Psaras, M. & Kyketsos, G. (1982) Haloperidol decanoate, a new long-acting antipsychotic in chronic schizophrenia: a double blind comparison with placebo. Current Therapeutic Research, 31, 650655.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Haloperidol decanoate studies, 9-12 months’ duration

Figure 1

Fig. 1. Dose-response curve for haloperidol decanoate dose v. relapse.

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Log dose-response curve for haloperidol decanoate dose (log) v. relapse.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.