***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Abstract A double-blind , placebo-controlled , multicenter study , was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ziprasidone in 139 patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder . Patients were r and omized to receive ziprasidone 40 mg/day , 120 mg/day or placebo for 28 days . Ziprasidone 120 mg/day was significantly more effective than placebo in improving the BPRS total , CGI-S , BPRS depression cluster and BPRS anergia cluster scores ( all P < 0.05 ) . Similarly , the percentages of patients classified as responders on the BPRS ( ≥30 % reduction ) and the CGI improvement ( score ≤2 ) were significantly greater with ziprasidone 120 mg/day compared with placebo ( P < 0.05 ) . The number of patients who experienced an adverse event was similar in all three treatment groups , and discontinuation due to adverse events was rare ( five of 91 ziprasidone-treated patients ) . The most frequently reported adverse events , that were more common in either ziprasidone group than in the placebo group , were dyspepsia , constipation , nausea and abdominal pain . There was a notably low incidence extrapyramidal side-effects ( including akathisia ) and postural hypotension and no pattern of laboratory abnormalities or apparent weight gain  . Ziprasidone-treated patients were not clinical ly different from placebo-treated patients on the Simpson-Angus Rating scale , Barnes Akathisia scale and AIMS assessment s. These results indicate that ziprasidone 120 mg/day is effective in the treatment of the positive , negative and affective symptoms of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder with a very low side-effect burden In this double-blind study , patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were r and omized to receive either ziprasidone 80 mg/day ( n = 106 ) or 160 mg/day ( n = 104 ) or placebo ( n = 92 ) , for 6 weeks . Both doses of ziprasidone were statistically significantly more effective than placebo in improving the PANSS total , BPRS total , BPRS core items , CGI-S , and PANSS negative subscale scores ( p < .05 ) . Ziprasidone 160 mg/day significantly improved depressive symptoms in patients with clinical ly significant depression at baseline ( MADRS ≥ 14 , over-all mean 23.5 ) ( p < .05 ) as compared with placebo . The percentage of patients experiencing adverse events was similar in each treatment group , and result ant discontinuation was rare . The most frequent adverse events associated with ziprasidone were generally mild dyspepsia , nausea , dizziness , and transient somnolence  . Ziprasidone was shown to have a very low liability for inducing movement disorders and weight gain . The results indicate that ziprasidone  is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of the positive , negative , and depressive symptoms of an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder Controlled clinical trials of the treatment of acute myocardial infa rct ion offer a unique opportunity for the study of the potential influence on outcome of bias in treatment assignment . A group of 145 papers was divided into those in which the r and omization process was blinded ( 57 papers ) , those in which it may have been unblinded ( 45 papers ) , and those in which the controls were selected by a nonr and om process ( 43 papers ) . At least one prognostic variable was maldistributed ( P less than 0.05 ) in 14.0 per cent of the blinded-r and omization studies , in 26.7 per cent of the unblinded-r and omization studies , and in 58.1 per cent of the nonr and omized studies . Differences in case-fatality rates between treatment and control groups ( P less than 0.05 ) were found in 8.8 per cent of the blinded-r and omization studies , 24.4 per cent of the unblinded-r and omization studies , and 58.1 per cent of the nonr and omized studies . These data emphasize the importance of keeping those who recruit patients for clinical trials from suspecting which treatment will be assigned to the patient under consideration AIMS To assess the potential of ziprasidone to alter the renal clearance and steady-state serum levels of lithium . METHODS Healthy subjects who had stable serum lithium levels during the first 7 days of treatment with lithium 900 mg day(-1 ) , given as two divided daily doses , were r and omized to receive concomitant treatment with either ziprasidone , 40 mg day(-1 ) , given as two divided daily doses , on days 9 - 11 followed by 80 mg day(-1 ) , given as two divided daily doses on days 12 - 15 ( n = 12 ) , or placebo twice daily ( n = 13 ) . Ziprasidone or placebo was administered 2 h before each dose of lithium . RESULTS Ziprasidone administration was associated with a 0.07 mmol l(-1 ) ( 13 % ) mean increase in steady-state serum lithium levels compared with a mean increase of 0.06 mmol l(-1 ) ( 10 % ) with placebo . Mean renal clearance of lithium decreased by 0.09 l h(-1 ) ( 5 % ) in the ziprasidone group and by 0.14 l h(-1 ) ( 9 % ) in the placebo group . None of these differences between the two groups was statistically or clinical ly significant . CONCLUSIONS Ziprasidone does not alter steady-state serum lithium concentrations or renal clearance of lithium BACKGROUND Ziprasidone is a novel antipsychotic with a unique pharmacologic profile . This study compared ziprasidone with the conventional antipsychotic haloperidol in out patients with stable schizophrenia . METHOD Three hundred one out patients with stable chronic or subchronic schizophrenia ( DSM-III-R ) were r and omized and participated in this double-blind , multicenter , parallel-group clinical study comparing flexible-dose oral ziprasidone , 80 - 160 mg/day ( N = 148 ) , with haloperidol , 5 - 15 mg/day ( N = 153 ) , over 28 weeks . Patients were assessed using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale ( PANSS ) , the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale , the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale , the Simpson-Angus Scale , the Barnes Akathisia Scale , and the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale . RESULTS Modal doses at endpoint were 80 mg/day for ziprasidone and 5 mg/day for haloperidol . Improvements in all mean efficacy variables with both ziprasidone and haloperidol were observed . Significantly more patients were categorized as negative symptom responders ( > or = 20 % reduction in PANSS negative subscale score ) in the ziprasidone group ( 48 % ) compared with the haloperidol group ( 33 % ) ( p < .05 ) . Ziprasidone had clear advantages over haloperidol in all evaluations of movement disorders . Changes in body weight were negligible with both treatments . No pattern of laboratory or cardiovascular changes was observed . CONCLUSION Ziprasidone and haloperidol were both effective in reducing overall psychopathology ;  ziprasidone demonstrated effective treatment of negative symptoms and was better tolerated than haloperidol . Ziprasidone appears to offer an effective alternative to haloperidol in the long-term treatment of stable out patients with schizophrenia Ninety patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder according to DSM-III-R criteria participated in this double-blind , exploratory , dose-ranging trial . After a single-blind washout period of 4 to 7 days , patients were r and omly assigned to receive one of four fixed doses of the new antipsychotic , ziprasidone 4 ( N = 19 ) , 10 ( N = 17 ) , 40 ( N = 17 ) , or 160 ( N = 20 ) mg/day or haloperidol 15 mg/day ( N = 17 ) for 4 weeks . A dose-response relationship among ziprasidone groups was established for improvements in Clinical Global Impression Severity ( CGI-S ) score ( p = 0.002 ) but not in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale ( BPRS ) total score ( p = 0.08 ) . The intent-to-treat analysis of mean changes from baseline in the BPRS total , BPRS Psychosis core , and CGI-S scores demonstrated that ziprasidone 160 mg/day was comparable with haloperidol in reducing overall psychopathology and positive symptoms and was superior to ziprasidone 4 mg/day . Despite the small sample size and short duration of the trial , the improvement in CGI-S with both ziprasidone 160 mg/day and haloperidol 15 mg/day was statistically significantly greater than with ziprasidone 4 mg/day ( p = 0.001 and p = 0.005 , respectively ) . The percentage of patients classified as responders on both the BPRS total ( > or = 30 % improvement ) and CGI-Improvement ( score of 1 or 2 ) scales in the ziprasidone 160 mg/day group was similar to that in the haloperidol group and nonsignificantly greater than that in the ziprasidone 4 mg/day group . On all assessment s of clinical efficacy , the improvements associated with ziprasidone 4 mg/day , 10 mg/day , and 40 mg/day were similar . Concomitant benztropine use at any time during the study was less frequent with ziprasidone 160 mg/day ( 15 % ) than with haloperidol ( 53 % ) . Haloperidol was associated with a sustained hyperprolactinemia , unlike ziprasidone , where only transient elevations in prolactin that returned to normal within the dosing interval were observed . Ziprasidone was well tolerated , and the incidence of adverse events was similar in all groups . The results of this study suggest that ziprasidone 160 mg/day is as effective as haloperidol 15 mg/day in reducing overall psychopathology and positive symptoms of an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder but has a lower potential to induce extrapyramidal symptoms A modification of an earlier rating scale for extrapyramidal system disturbance is described , and evidence for the validity and reliability of the scale is presented . The usefulness of the scale in studies of neuroleptic drugs is discussed . By its application it is possible to quantify extrapyramidal side effects and to separate them into four principal factors 
    Output:
    
Ziprasidone may be an effective antipsychotic with less extrapyramidal effects than haloperidol .
It also , however , causes more nausea and vomiting than the typical drugs , and , at present , there is no data suggesting that it is different to other atypical compounds .