暂无摘要。

Aqueous suspensions containing crystalline drug in the sub-micron range is a favorable platform for long-acting injectables where particle size can be used to obtain a desired plasma-concentration profile. Stabilizers are added to the suspensions and screened extensively to define the optimal formulation composition. In the initial formulation screening the amount of drug compound can be limited, necessitating milling methods for small-volume screening predictable for scale-up. Hence, adaptive focused ultrasound was investigated as a potential milling method for rapid small-volume suspensions by identifying the critical process parameters during preparation. Suspensions containing drug compounds with different mechanical properties and thereby grindability, i.e., cinnarizine, haloperidol, and indomethacin with brittle, elastic, and plastic properties, respectively, were investigated to gain an understanding of the manufacturing with adaptive focused acoustics as well as comparison to already established milling techniques. Using a DoE-design, peak incident power was identified as the most crucial process parameter impacting the milling process for all three compounds. It was possible to decrease the sizes of drug particles to micron range after one minute of focused ultrasound exposure which was superior compared to other milling techniques (e.g., non-focused ultrasound exposure). The addition of milling beads decreased the drug particle sizes even further, thus to a lower degree than other already established milling techniques such as milling by dual centrifugation. This study thereby demonstrated that adaptive focused ultrasonication was a promising method for rapid homogenization and particle size reduction to micron range for different compounds varying in grindability without altering the crystalline structure.

UNASSIGNED: Haloperidol and dexmedetomidine are used to treat delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU). The effects of these drugs on the corrected QT (QTc) interval have not been compared before. It was aimed to compare the effects of haloperidol and dexmedetomidine treatment on QTc intervals in patients who developed delirium during ICU follow-up.
UNASSIGNED: The study is single-center, randomized, and prospective. Half of the patients diagnosed with delirium in the ICU were treated with haloperidol and the other half with dexmedetomidine. The QTc interval was measured in the treatment groups before and after drug treatment. The study\'s primary endpoints were maximal QT and QTc interval changes after drug administration.
UNASSIGNED: 90 patients were included in the study, the mean age was 75.2±12.9 years, and half were women. The mean time to delirium was 142+173.8 hours, and 53.3% of the patients died during their ICU follow-up. The most common reason for hospitalization in the ICU was sepsis (%37.8.). There was no significant change in QT and QTc interval after dexmedetomidine treatment (QT: 360.5±81.7, 352.0±67.0, p= 0.491; QTc: 409.4±63.1, 409.8±49.7, p=0.974). There was a significant increase in both QT and QTc interval after haloperidol treatment (QT: 363.2±51.1, 384.6±59.2, p=0.028; QTc: 409.4±50.9, 427.3±45.9, p=0.020).
UNASSIGNED: Based on the results obtained from the study, it can be concluded that the administration of haloperidol was associated with a significant increase in QT and QTc interval. In contrast, the administration of dexmedetomidine did not cause a significant change in QT and QTc interval.

UNASSIGNED: There is no consensus on the optimal antipsychotic for acute agitation. Whereas haloperidol is frequently used and has proven efficacy, second generation antipsychotics show similar efficacy and improved safety and tolerability. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of short-acting intramuscular (IM) haloperidol versus other IM antipsychotics for acute agitation in adults admitted to an inpatient psychiatry unit.
UNASSIGNED: This was a retrospective medical record review of patients who received 1 or more doses of a short-acting IM antipsychotic, including chlorpromazine, haloperidol, olanzapine, or ziprasidone. The primary endpoint was the need for subsequent IM antipsychotic(s) or physical restraint within 2 hours of the initial IM antipsychotic. Secondary endpoints assessed outcomes at 24 hours and adverse events.
UNASSIGNED: One hundred six patients were included. Four patients in the haloperidol group and 0 patients in the other antipsychotic group received an additional IM antipsychotic or required physical restraints within 2 hours (5.3% versus 0%, p = .319). More patients in the other antipsychotic group required an additional dose of IM antipsychotic within 24 hours compared with the haloperidol group (p = .0096). More adverse events were seen in patients who received haloperidol.
UNASSIGNED: Haloperidol was used more frequently than other short-acting IM antipsychotics. Whereas the effectiveness at 2 hours was not significantly different between groups, patients who received haloperidol were more likely to experience adverse events and were more often subjected to polypharmacy with benzodiazepines and/or diphenhydramine. This study further supports the use of olanzapine and ziprasidone for acute agitation in patients hospitalized in inpatient psychiatry.

This study aims to quantify haloperidol and methylparaben in a liquid pharmaceutical formulation (2 mg/ml) using UV spectrometry and the simultaneous equations method. Additionally, we explored the stability of haloperidol under various stress conditions. The UV analysis revealed maximum absorption peaks at 248 nm for haloperidol and 256 nm for methylparaben, using a 1 % (v/v) lactic acid solution as the solvent. Method validation, conducted according to ICH guidelines, affirmed the method\'s reliability, showing excellent results in terms of linearity, precision, accuracy, and sensitivity. The method allows direct application to finished products, enabling simultaneous quantification without extractions. Its simplicity, speed, and cost-effectiveness make it ideal for routine controls in pharmaceutical industry haloperidol solution analyses. The method extends to monitoring forced degradation, indicating photolytic and hydrolytic degradation under acidic and basic conditions, while affirming thermal and oxidative stability. This proposed UV spectrometric method serves as a compelling alternative to pharmacopeia-recommended techniques, simplifying simultaneous determination of the active ingredient and preservative. This streamlines analysis, reducing time and costs. Additionally, it proves valuable in small industries lacking sophisticated instrumentation, offering insights into active ingredient behavior during forced degradation.

Drugs that are commercially available but have novel mechanisms of action should be explored as analgesics. This review will discuss haloperidol, miragabalin, palmitoylethanolamide (PEA), and clonidine as adjuvant analgesics or analgesics. Haloperidol is a sigma-1 receptor antagonist. Under stress and neuropathic injury, sigma-1 receptors act as a chaperone protein, which downmodulates opioid receptor activities and opens several ion channels. Clinically, there is only low-grade evidence that haloperidol improves pain when combined with morphine, methadone, or tramadol in patients who have cancer, pain from fibrosis, radiation necrosis, or neuropathic pain. Miragabalin is a gabapentinoid approved for the treatment of neuropathic pain in Japan since 2019. In randomized trials, patients with diabetic neuropathy have responded to miragabalin. Its long binding half-life on the calcium channel subunit may provide an advantage over other gabapentinoids. PEA belongs to a group of endogenous bioactive lipids called ALIAmides (autocoid local injury antagonist amides), which have a sense role in modulating numerous biological processes in particular non-neuronal neuroinflammatory responses to neuropathic injury and systemic inflammation. Multiple randomized trials and meta-analyses have demonstrated PEA\'s effectiveness in reducing pain severity arising from diverse pain phenotypes. Clonidine is an alpha2 adrenoceptor agonist and an imidazoline2 receptor agonist, which is U.S. Federal Drug Administration approved for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, Tourette\'s syndrome, adjunctive therapy for cancer-related pain, and hypertension. Clonidine activation at alpha2 adrenoceptors causes downstream activation of inhibitory G-proteins (Gi/Go), which inhibits cyclic Adenosine monophosphate (AMP) production and hyperpolarizes neuron membranes, thus reducing allodynia. Intravenous clonidine has been used in terminally ill patients with poorly controlled symptoms, in particular pain and agitation.

In everyday life, we encounter situations that require tradeoffs between potential rewards and associated costs, such as time and (physical) effort. The literature indicates a prominent role for dopamine in discounting of both delay and effort, with mixed findings for delay discounting in humans. Moreover, the reciprocal antagonistic interaction between dopaminergic and cholinergic transmission in the striatum suggests a potential opponent role of acetylcholine in these processes. We found opposing effects of dopamine D2 (haloperidol) and acetylcholine M1 receptor (biperiden) antagonism on specific components of effort-based decision-making in healthy humans: haloperidol decreased, whereas biperiden increased the willingness to exert physical effort. In contrast, delay discounting was reduced under haloperidol, but not affected by biperiden. Together, our data suggest that dopamine, acting at D2 receptors, modulates both effort and delay discounting, while acetylcholine, acting at M1 receptors, appears to exert a more specific influence on effort discounting only.

BACKGROUND: 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.
OBJECTIVE: 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.
METHODS: 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.
METHODS: 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: Induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) based neuronal differentiation is valuable for studying neuropsychiatric disorders and pharmacological mechanisms at the cellular level. We aimed to examine the effects of typical and atypical antipsychotics on human iPSC-derived neural progenitor cells (NPCs).
METHODS: Proliferation and neurite outgrowth were measured by live cell imaging, and gene expression levels related to neuronal identity were analyzed by RT-QPCR and immunocytochemistry during differentiation into hippocampal dentate gyrus granule cells following treatment of low- and high-dose antipsychotics (haloperidol, olanzapine, and risperidone).
RESULTS: Antipsychotics did not modify the growth properties of NPCs after 3 days of treatment. However, the characteristics of neurite outgrowth changed significantly in response to haloperidol and olanzapine. After three weeks of differentiation, mRNA expression levels of the selected neuronal markers increased (except for MAP2), while antipsychotics caused only subtle changes. Additionally, we found no changes in MAP2 or GFAP protein expression levels as a result of antipsychotic treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Altogether, antipsychotic medications promoted neurogenesis in vitro by influencing neurite outgrowth rather than changing cell survival or gene expression. This study provides insights into the effects of antipsychotics on neuronal differentiation and highlights the importance of considering neurite outgrowth as a potential target of action.

Prenatal stress increases the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders. NMDA-type glutamate receptor (NMDAR) activity plays an important pathophysiological role in the cortico-hippocampal circuit in these disorders. We tested the hypothesis that transcription of NMDAR subunits is modified in the frontal cortex (FCx) and hippocampus after exposure to prenatal restraint stress (PRS) in mice. At 10 weeks of age, male PRS offspring (n = 20) and non-stressed controls (NS, n = 20) were treated with haloperidol (1 mg/kg), clozapine (5 mg/kg) or saline twice daily for 5 days, before measuring social approach (SOC). Saline-treated and haloperidol-treated PRS mice had reduced SOC relative to NS (P < 0.01), but clozapine-treated PRS mice had similar SOC to NS mice. These effects of PRS were associated with increased transcription of NMDAR subunits encoded by GRIN2A and GRIN2B genes in the hippocampus but not FCx. GRIN transcription in FCx correlated positively with SOC, but hippocampal GRIN transcription had negative correlation with SOC. The ratio of GRIN2A/GRIN2B transcription is known to increase during development but was lower in PRS mice. These results suggest that GRIN2A and GRIN2B transcript levels are modified in the hippocampus by PRS, leading to life-long deficits in social behavior. These data have some overlap with the molecular pathophysiology of schizophrenia. Similar to PRS in mice, schizophrenia, has been associated with social withdrawal, with increased GRIN2 expression in the hippocampus, and reduced GRIN2A/GRIN2B expression ratios in the hippocampus. These findings suggest that PRS in mice may have construct validity as a preclinical model for antipsychotic drug development.