-
International Journal of Molecular... Nov 2022Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare immune-mediated acute polyradiculo-neuropathy that typically develops after a previous gastrointestinal or respiratory... (Review)
Review
Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare immune-mediated acute polyradiculo-neuropathy that typically develops after a previous gastrointestinal or respiratory infection. This narrative overview aims to summarise and discuss current knowledge and previous evidence regarding triggers and pathophysiology of GBS. A systematic search of the literature was carried out using suitable search terms. The most common subtypes of GBS are acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP) and acute motor axonal neuropathy (AMAN). The most common triggers of GBS, in three quarters of cases, are previous infections. The most common infectious agents that cause GBS include , , and cytomegalovirus. is responsible for about a third of GBS cases. GBS due to is usually more severe than that due to other causes. Clinical presentation of GBS is highly dependent on the structure of pathogenic lipo-oligosaccharides (LOS) that trigger the innate immune system via Toll-like-receptor (TLR)-4 signalling. AIDP is due to demyelination, whereas in AMAN, structures of the axolemma are affected in the nodal or inter-nodal space. In conclusion, GBS is a neuro-immunological disorder caused by autoantibodies against components of the myelin sheath or axolemma. Molecular mimicry between surface structures of pathogens and components of myelin or the axon is one scenario that may explain the pathophysiology of GBS.
Topics: Humans; Amantadine; Autoantibodies; Axons; Campylobacter jejuni; Guillain-Barre Syndrome
PubMed: 36430700
DOI: 10.3390/ijms232214222 -
The American Journal of Psychiatry Aug 2015The authors examined research on effects, costs, and patient and caregiver views of pharmacological management strategies for Lewy body dementia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The authors examined research on effects, costs, and patient and caregiver views of pharmacological management strategies for Lewy body dementia.
METHOD
Studies were identified through bibliographic databases, trials registers, gray literature, reference lists, and experts. The authors used the search terms "Lewy or parkinson" and "dementia" through March 2015 and used the following inclusion criteria: participants with diagnoses of Lewy body dementia, dementia with Lewy bodies, or Parkinson's disease dementia (or participants' caregivers); investigation of pharmacological management strategies; outcome measures and test scores reported. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted by at least two authors. Meta-analyses were conducted, and when studies could not be combined, summaries were provided.
RESULTS
Forty-four studies examining 22 strategies were included in the review. Meta-analysis indicated beneficial effects of donepezil and rivastigmine for cognitive and psychiatric symptoms. Rivastigmine, but not donepezil, was associated with greater risk of adverse events. Meta-analysis of memantine suggested that it is well tolerated but with few benefits. Descriptive summaries provide some evidence of benefits for galantamine, modafinil, levodopa, rotigotine, clozapine, duloxetine, clonazepam, ramelteon, gabapentin, zonisamide, and yokukansan. Piracetam, amantadine, selegiline, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and citalopram do not appear to be effective.
CONCLUSIONS
High-level evidence related to pharmacological strategies for managing Lewy body dementia is rare. Strategies for important areas of need in Lewy body dementia, such as autonomic symptoms and caregiver burden, have not been investigated, nor have the views of patients and caregivers about pharmacological strategies.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Attitude to Health; Caregivers; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Lewy Body Disease; Neuroprotective Agents; Nootropic Agents; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26085043
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.14121582 -
Expert Opinion on Drug Safety Oct 2018Currently, five pharmacotherapeutic options are available to treat Alzheimer's disease: memantine; the three cholinesterase inhibitors donepezil, galantamine, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Currently, five pharmacotherapeutic options are available to treat Alzheimer's disease: memantine; the three cholinesterase inhibitors donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine; and combination treatments with memantine and one cholinesterase inhibitor. Selection of the best course of treatment is based upon the evidence gathered by systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Areas covered: This article provides a risk-benefit analysis of these treatments using evidence from meta-analyses on their safety and their efficacy. Expert opinion: Memantine improves cognitive functions and behavioral disturbances more efficiently than the placebo, both as monotherapy and in combination with donepezil. Although memantine monotherapy and combination therapy are associated with a few individual adverse events such as somnolence, it is well-tolerated and its safety (all-cause discontinuation) is comparable or superior to that of the placebo (agitation). Pooled cholinesterase inhibitors are superior to the placebo in the improvement of cognitive functions, but not behavioral disturbances and they are not well-tolerated, as evaluated by the high discontinuation rate. Donepezil (10 mg/day) and oral rivastigmine and galantamine monotherapies carry the risk for some adverse events including gastrointestinal symptoms. Therefore, we consider that combined treatment with memantine and donepezil is the most useful treatment for Alzheimer's disease.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition; Donepezil; Drug Therapy, Combination; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Indans; Memantine; Piperidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30222469
DOI: 10.1080/14740338.2018.1524870 -
Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics 2016Adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a prevalent psychiatric condition associated with high disability and frequent comorbidity. Current standard... (Review)
Review
Adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a prevalent psychiatric condition associated with high disability and frequent comorbidity. Current standard pharmacotherapy (methylphenidate and atomoxetine) improves ADHD symptoms in the short-term, but poor data were published about long-term treatment. In addition a number of patients present partial or no response to methylphenidate and atomoxetine. Research into the main database sources has been conducted to obtain an overview of alternative pharmacological approaches in adult ADHD patients. Among alternative compounds, amphetamines (mixed amphetamine salts and lisdexamfetamine) have the most robust evidence of efficacy, but they may be associated with serious side effects (e.g. psychotic symptoms or hypertension). Antidepressants, particularly those acting as noradrenaline or dopamine enhancers, have evidence of efficacy, but they should be avoided in patients with comorbid bipolar disorder. Finally metadoxine and lithium may be particularly suitable in case of comorbid alcohol misuse or bipolar disorder.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-Agonists; Adult; Amphetamines; Antidepressive Agents; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Benzhydryl Compounds; Bridged Bicyclo Compounds, Heterocyclic; Bupropion; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Desipramine; Dopamine Agents; Droxidopa; Drug Combinations; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Guanfacine; Histamine Agents; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Lithium Compounds; Lobeline; Mecamylamine; Memantine; Modafinil; Morpholines; Nicotinic Agonists; Nicotinic Antagonists; Nomifensine; Paroxetine; Pyridines; Pyridoxine; Pyrrolidonecarboxylic Acid; Quinazolinones; Reboxetine; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Wakefulness-Promoting Agents
PubMed: 26693882
DOI: 10.1586/14737175.2016.1135735 -
Neurology Aug 2023Comprehensive guidelines for the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of disorders of consciousness (DoC) in pediatric patients have not yet been released. We aimed to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Comprehensive guidelines for the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of disorders of consciousness (DoC) in pediatric patients have not yet been released. We aimed to summarize available evidence for DoC with >14 days duration to support the future development of guidelines for children, adolescents and young adults aged 6 months-18 years.
METHODS
This scoping review was reported based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses-extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A systematic search identified records from 4 databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Abstracts received 3 blind reviews. Corresponding full-text articles rated as "in-scope" and reporting data not published in any other retained article (i.e., no double reporting) were identified and assigned to 5 thematic evaluating teams. Full-text articles were reviewed using a double-blind standardized form. Level of evidence was graded, and summative statements were generated.
RESULTS
On November 9, 2022, 2,167 documents had been identified; 132 articles were retained, of which 33 (25%) were published over the past 5 years. Overall, 2,161 individuals met the inclusion criteria; female patients were 527 of 1,554 (33.9%) cases included, whose sex was identifiable. Of 132 articles, 57 (43.2%) were single case reports and only 5 (3.8%) clinical trials; the level of evidence was prevalently low (80/132; 60.6%). Most studies included neurobehavioral measures (84/127; 66.1%) and neuroimaging (81/127; 63.8%); 59 (46.5%) were mainly related to diagnosis, 56 (44.1%) to prognosis, and 44 (34.6%) to treatment. Most frequently used neurobehavioral tools included the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised, Coma/Near-Coma Scale, Level of Cognitive Functioning Assessment Scale, and Post-Acute Level of Consciousness scale. EEG, event-related potentials, structural CT, and MRI were the most frequently used instrumental techniques. In 29/53 (54.7%) cases, DoC improvement was observed, which was associated with treatment with amantadine.
DISCUSSION
The literature on pediatric DoCs is mainly observational, and clinical details are either inconsistently presented or absent. Conclusions drawn from many studies convey insubstantial evidence and have limited validity and low potential for translation in clinical practice. Despite these limitations, our work summarizes the extant literature and constitutes a base for future guidelines related to the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of pediatric DoC.
Topics: Adolescent; Humans; Female; Child; Consciousness; Consciousness Disorders; Coma; Prognosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37308301
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000207473 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2019Memantine is a moderate affinity uncompetitive antagonist of glutamate NMDA receptors. It is licensed for use in moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease (AD); in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Memantine is a moderate affinity uncompetitive antagonist of glutamate NMDA receptors. It is licensed for use in moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease (AD); in the USA, it is also widely used off-label for mild AD.
OBJECTIVES
To determine efficacy and safety of memantine for people with dementia. To assess whether memantine adds benefit for people already taking cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register of trials (http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois/) up to 25 March 2018. We examined clinical trials registries, press releases and posters of memantine manufacturers; and the web sites of the FDA, EMEA and NICE. We contacted authors and companies for missing information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled, randomised trials of memantine in people with dementia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We pooled and analysed data from four clinical domains across different aetiologies and severities of dementia and for AD with agitation. We assessed the impact of study duration, severity and concomitant use of ChEIs. Consequently, we restricted analyses to the licensed dose (20 mg/day or 28 mg extended release) and data at six to seven months duration of follow-up, and analysed separately results for mild and moderate-to-severe AD.We transformed results for efficacy outcomes into the difference in points on particular outcome scales.
MAIN RESULTS
Across all types of dementia, data were available from almost 10,000 participants in 44 included trials, most of which were at low or unclear risk of bias. For nearly half the studies, relevant data were obtained from unpublished sources. The majority of trials (29 in 7885 participants) were conducted in people with AD.1. Moderate-to-severe AD (with or without concomitant ChEIs). High-certainty evidence from up to 14 studies in around 3700 participants consistently shows a small clinical benefit for memantine versus placebo: clinical global rating (CGR): 0.21 CIBIC+ points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.30); cognitive function (CF): 3.11 Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) points (95% CI 2.42 to 3.92); performance on activities of daily living (ADL): 1.09 ADL19 points (95% CI 0.62 to 1.64); and behaviour and mood (BM): 1.84 Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) points (95% CI 1.05 to 2.76). There may be no difference in the number of people discontinuing memantine compared to placebo: risk ratio (RR) 0.93 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.04) corresponding to 13 fewer people per 1000 (95% CI 31 fewer to 7 more). Although there is moderate-certainty evidence that fewer people taking memantine experience agitation as an adverse event: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.99) (25 fewer people per 1000, 95% CI 1 to 44 fewer), there is also moderate-certainty evidence, from three additional studies, suggesting that memantine is not beneficial as a treatment for agitation (e.g. Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory: clinical benefit of 0.50 CMAI points, 95% CI -3.71 to 4.71) .The presence of concomitant ChEI does not impact on the difference between memantine and placebo, with the possible exceptions of the BM outcome (larger effect in people taking ChEIs) and the CF outcome (smaller effect).2. Mild AD (Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) 20 to 23): mainly moderate-certainty evidence based on post-hoc subgroups from up to four studies in around 600 participants suggests there is probably no difference between memantine and placebo for CF: 0.21 ADAS-Cog points (95% CI -0.95 to 1.38); performance on ADL: -0.07 ADL 23 points (95% CI -1.80 to 1.66); and BM: -0.29 NPI points (95% CI -2.16 to 1.58). There is less certainty in the CGR evidence, which also suggests there may be no difference: 0.09 CIBIC+ points (95% CI -0.12 to 0.30). Memantine (compared with placebo) may increase the numbers of people discontinuing treatment because of adverse events (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.39).3. Mild-to-moderate vascular dementia. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence from two studies in around 750 participants indicates there is probably a small clinical benefit for CF: 2.15 ADAS-Cog points (95% CI 1.05 to 3.25); there may be a small clinical benefit for BM: 0.47 NOSGER disturbing behaviour points (95% CI 0.07 to 0.87); there is probably no difference in CGR: 0.03 CIBIC+ points (95% CI -0.28 to 0.34); and there may be no difference in ADL: 0.11 NOSGER II self-care subscale points (95% CI -0.35 to 0.54) or in the numbers of people discontinuing treatment: RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.34).There is limited, mainly low- or very low-certainty efficacy evidence for other types of dementia (Parkinson's disease and dementia Lewy bodies (for which CGR may show a small clinical benefit; four studies in 319 people); frontotemporal dementia (two studies in 133 people); and AIDS-related Dementia Complex (one study in 140 people)).There is high-certainty evidence showing no difference between memantine and placebo in the proportion experiencing at least one adverse event: RR 1.03 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.06); the RR does not differ between aetiologies or severities of dementia. Combining available data from all trials, there is moderate-certainty evidence that memantine is 1.6 times more likely than placebo to result in dizziness (6.1% versus 3.9%), low-certainty evidence of a 1.3-fold increased risk of headache (5.5% versus 4.3%), but high-certainty evidence of no difference in falls.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found important differences in the efficacy of memantine in mild AD compared to that in moderate-to-severe AD. There is a small clinical benefit of memantine in people with moderate-to-severe AD, which occurs irrespective of whether they are also taking a ChEI, but no benefit in people with mild AD.Clinical heterogeneity in AD makes it unlikely that any single drug will have a large effect size, and means that the optimal drug treatment may involve multiple drugs, each having an effect size that may be less than the minimum clinically important difference.A definitive long-duration trial in mild AD is needed to establish whether starting memantine earlier would be beneficial over the long term and safe: at present the evidence is against this, despite it being common practice. A long-duration trial in moderate-to-severe AD is needed to establish whether the benefit persists beyond six months.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Akathisia, Drug-Induced; Alzheimer Disease; Cognition Disorders; Dementia; Dementia, Vascular; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Memantine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 30891742
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003154.pub6 -
The Journal of Head Trauma...To systematically review the available literature on the pharmacological management of agitation and/or aggression in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI),...
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the available literature on the pharmacological management of agitation and/or aggression in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), synthesize the available data, and provide guidelines.
DESIGN
Systematic review of systematic reviews.
MAIN MEASURES
A literature review of the following websites was performed looking for systematic reviews on the treatment of agitation and/or aggression among patients with TBI: PubMed, CINAHL, DynaMed, Health Business Elite, and EBSCO (Psychology and behavioral sciences collection). Two researchers independently assessed articles for meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data were extracted on year of publication, reviewed databases, dates of coverage, search limitations, pharmacological agents of interest, and a list of all controlled studies included. The included controlled studies were then examined to determine potential reasons for any difference in recommendations.
RESULTS
The literature review led to 187 citations and 67 unique publications after removing the duplicates. Following review of the title/abstracts and full texts, a total of 11 systematic reviews were included. The systematic reviews evaluated the evidence for safety and efficacy of the following medications: amantadine, amphetamines, methylphenidate, antiepileptics, atypical and typical antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, β-blockers, and sertraline.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the results of this literature review, the authors recommend avoiding benzodiazepines and haloperidol for treating agitation and/or aggression in the context of TBI. Atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine in particular) can be considered as practical alternatives for the as-needed management of agitation and/or aggression in lieu of benzodiazepines and haloperidol. Amantadine, β-blockers (propranolol and pindolol), antiepileptics, and methylphenidate can be considered for scheduled treatment of agitation and/or aggression in patients with TBI.
Topics: Aggression; Antipsychotic Agents; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Humans; Psychomotor Agitation; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 33656478
DOI: 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000656 -
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease : JAD 2017The clinical benefit of memantine for Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains inconclusive. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The clinical benefit of memantine for Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains inconclusive.
OBJECTIVE
We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy/safety of memantine in AD.
METHODS
We included randomized trials of memantine for AD patients. Cognitive function scores (CF), behavioral disturbances scores (BD), and all-cause discontinuation were used as primary measures. Effect size based on a random-effects model was evaluated in the meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Thirty studies (n = 7,567; memantine versus placebo: N = 11, n = 3,298; memantine + cholinesterase inhibitors (M+ChEIs) versus ChEIs: N = 17, n = 4,175) were identified. Memantine showed a significant improvement in CF [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.24, 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) = -0.34, -0.15, p < 0.00001, I2 = 35% ] and BD (SMD = -0.16, 95% CIs = -0.29, -0.04, p = 0.01, I2 = 52%) compared with placebo. In the sensitivity analysis including only patients with moderate-severe AD, memantine was superior to the placebo in reducing BD without considerable heterogeneity (SMD = -0.20, 95% CIs = -0.34, -0.07, p = 0.003, I2 = 36%). Compared with ChEIs, M+ChEIs showed a greater reduction in BD (SMD = -0.20, 95% CIs = -0.36, -0.03, p = 0.02, I2 = 77%) and a trend of CF improvement (SMD = -0.11, 95% CIs = -0.22, 0.01, p = 0.06, I2 = 56%). However, in the sensitivity analysis of double-blind, placebo-controlled studies only, M+ChEIs showed a significant reduction in BD compared with ChEIs without considerable heterogeneity (SMD = -0.11, 95% CIs = -0.21, -0.01, p = 0.04, I2 = 40%). When performing the sensitivity analysis of donepezil studies only, M+ChEIs was superior to ChEIs in improving CF without considerable heterogeneity (SMD = -0.18, 95% CIs = -0.31, -0.05, p = 0.006, I2 = 49%). No differences were detected in all-cause discontinuation between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The meta-analyses suggest the credible efficacy and safety of memantine in treating AD when used alone or in combination with ChEIs.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Memantine
PubMed: 28922160
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-170424 -
Expert Opinion on Emerging Drugs Dec 2020Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder affecting up to 5.3% of children and 2.5% of adults depending on the country considered....
INTRODUCTION
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder affecting up to 5.3% of children and 2.5% of adults depending on the country considered. Current pharmacological treatments for ADHD are based on stimulant or non-stimulant medications, targeting dopaminergic and noradrenergic systems in the frontal cortex and dopaminergic system in the basal ganglia. These drugs are effective and safe for the majority of patients, whereas about 20% of treated patients do not tolerate current therapies or experience insufficient efficacy. The adequate treatment of ADHD is necessary to allow a proper social placement and prevent the acquisition of additional, more severe, comorbidities.
AREAS COVERED
We conducted a review of the scientific literature and of unpublished/ongoing clinical trials to summarize the advances made in the last 10 years (2010-2020) for the pharmacological treatment of ADHD. We found many pharmacological mechanisms beyond dopaminergic and noradrenergic ones have been investigated in patients.
EXPERT OPINION
Some emerging drugs for ADHD may be promising as add-on treatment especially in children, amantadine to enhance cognitive functions and tipepidine for hyperactivity/impulsivity. Stand-alone emerging treatments for ADHD include viloxazine and dasotraline, which will soon have more clinical data available to support market access requests.
Topics: Adult; Animals; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Cognition; Drug Design; Drug Development; Humans
PubMed: 32938246
DOI: 10.1080/14728214.2020.1820481 -
Asian Journal of Psychiatry Jan 2023To integrate all evidence derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of both pharmacological and nonpharmacological augmentation interventions for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Pharmacological and nonpharmacological augmentation treatments for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis with normalized entropy assessment.
OBJECTIVE
To integrate all evidence derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of both pharmacological and nonpharmacological augmentation interventions for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (CRS).
METHODS
Six major electronic databases were systematically searched for RCTs published until July 10, 2021. The primary outcome was change in overall symptoms, and the secondary outcomes were positive and negative symptoms and acceptability. We performed random-effects network meta-analysis. Normalized entropy was calculated to examine the uncertainty of treatment ranking.
RESULTS
We identified 35 RCTs (1472 patients with 23 active augmentation treatments) with a mean daily clozapine dose of 440.80 (91.27) mg for 1168.22 (710.28) days. Network meta-analysis of overall symptoms (reported as standardized mean difference; 95 % confidence interval) with consistent results indicated that mirtazapine (-4.41; -5.61, -3.21), electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) (-4.32; -5.43, -3.21), and memantine (-2.02; -3.14, -0.91) were ranked as the best three treatments. For positive symptoms, ECT (-5.18; -5.86, -4.49) was ranked the best with less uncertainty. For negative symptoms, memantine (-3.38; -4.50, -2.26), duloxetine (-3.27; -4.25, -2.29), and mirtazapine (-1.73; -2.71, -0.74) were ranked the best three treatments with less uncertainty. All antipsychotics, N-methyl d-aspartate receptor agonists, and antiepileptics were not associated with more efficacy than placebo. Compared to placebo, only amisulpride had statistically significant lower discontinuation rate (risk ratio: 0.21; 95 % CI: 0.05, 0.93).
CONCLUSION
Add-on mirtazapine, ECT, and memantine were the most efficacious augmentation options for CRS. Data on other important outcomes such as cognitive functioning or quality of life were rarely reported, making further large-scale, well-designed RCTs necessary. (PROSPERO number, CRD42021262197.).
Topics: Humans; Clozapine; Network Meta-Analysis; Entropy; Memantine; Mirtazapine; Antipsychotic Agents; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 36470132
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajp.2022.103375