-
European Journal of Gastroenterology &... Dec 2017The association between antipsychotics (also known as neuroleptics) and oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) has been suggested in several case reports. The purpose of this... (Review)
Review
The association between antipsychotics (also known as neuroleptics) and oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) has been suggested in several case reports. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the effect of antipsychotic medication on OD. A systematic literature search was carried out according to PRISMA guidelines using the electronic databases Pubmed and Embase. In Pubmed, we used the MeSH terms 'antipsychotic agents' OR 'tranquilizing agents' combined with 'deglutition disorders' OR 'deglutition'. In Embase, we used the Emtree terms 'neuroleptic agents' combined with 'swallowing' OR 'dysphagia'. Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of each report independently. The level of evidence of the included studies was also assessed according to pre-established criteria. Case reports were excluded. We found 18 clinical studies of dysphagia related to antipsychotics: 12 were related both to typical and atypical antipsychotics, four to atypical antipsychotics and two to typical antipsychotics. According to the clinical studies included, prevalence of patients with swallowing problems taking antipsychotics ranged from 21.9 to 69.5% whereas prevalence of patients without swallowing problems taking antipsychotics ranged from 5 to 30.5%. The available evidence suggests considering an etiology of dysphagia in patients with swallowing problems who are taking antipsychotics, even if no other symptoms are present. Although few general conclusions can be drawn from current evidence, both typical and atypical antipsychotics can be associated with OD.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Deglutition Disorders; Humans; Prevalence
PubMed: 29023321
DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000983 -
Psychiatry Research Feb 2024Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are widely used in treating schizophrenia and related disorders, also other mental disorders. However, the efficacy and safety of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are widely used in treating schizophrenia and related disorders, also other mental disorders. However, the efficacy and safety of SGAs for treating other mental disorders is unclear. A systematic literature search for randomized, placebo-controlled trials of 11 SGAs for treating 18 mental disorders apart from schizophrenia were carried out from database inception to April 3, 2022. The primary outcome was the mean change in the total score for different mental disorders. The secondary outcome was the odds ratio (OR) of response, remission rates and risk ratio (RR) of adverse events (AEs). A total of 181 studies (N = 65,480) were included. All SGAs showed significant effects in treating other mental disorders compared with placebo, except autistic disorder and dementia. Aripiprazole is the most effective treatment for bipolar mania [effect size = -0.90, 95% CI: -1.59, -0.21] and Tourette's disorder [effect size = -0.80, 95% CI: -1.14, -0.45], olanzapine for bipolar depression [effect size = -0.86, 95% CI: -1.32, -0.39] and post-traumatic stress disorder [effect size = -0.98, 95% CI: -1.55, -0.41], lurasidone for depression [effect size = -0.66, 95% CI: -0.82, -0.50], quetiapine for anxiety [effect size = -1.20, 95% CI: -1.96, -0.43], sleep disorders [effect size = -1.2, 95% CI: -1.97, -0.58], and delirium [effect size = -0.36, 95% CI: -0.70, -0.03], and risperidone for obsessive-compulsive disorder [effect size = -2.37, 95% CI: -3.25, -1.49], respectively. For safety, AE items for each SGAs was different. Interestingly, we found that some AEs of OLZ, QTP, RIS and PALI have significant palliative effects on some symptoms. Significant differences in the efficacy and safety of different SGAs for treatment of other mental disorders should be considered for choosing the drug and for the balance between efficacy and tolerability for the specific patient.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Risperidone; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 38150810
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2023.115637 -
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Revue... May 2015It remains unclear whether antipsychotic polypharmacy, a common clinical practice, is related to an increased risk of corrected time between start of Q wave and end of T... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
It remains unclear whether antipsychotic polypharmacy, a common clinical practice, is related to an increased risk of corrected time between start of Q wave and end of T wave (QTc) interval prolongation. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to address this important issue.
METHOD
A systematic literature search was conducted in October 2014, using MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. Studies and case reports were included if they reported QTc intervals or QTc interval changes before and after antipsychotic polypharmacy or QTc intervals in both antipsychotic polypharmacy and monotherapy groups.
RESULTS
A total of 21 articles (10 clinical trials, 4 observational studies, and 7 case reports) met inclusion criteria. The clinical trials have shown that a combination treatment with risperidone or pimozide is not obviously related to an increase in QTc interval, whereas ziprasidone or sertindole combined with clozapine may prolong QTc interval. Among the 4 observational studies, antipsychotic polypharmacy was not clearly associated with QTc prolongation in 3 studies, each cross-sectional. In contrast, one prospective study showed a significant increase in QTc interval following antipsychotic coadministration. The case reports indicated an increased risk of QTc prolongation in at least some patients receiving antipsychotic polypharmacy.
CONCLUSIONS
Currently available evidence fails to confirm that antipsychotic polypharmacy worsens QTc prolongation in general, although the evidence is scarce and inconsistent. Clinicians are advised to remain conservative in resorting to antipsychotic polypharmacy, as a combination of some QTc-prolongation liable antipsychotics may further prolong QTc interval, and efficacy supporting the clinical benefits of antipsychotic polypharmacy is equivocal, at best.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Heart Rate; Humans; Polypharmacy
PubMed: 26174525
DOI: 10.1177/070674371506000503 -
Journal of Psychiatric Research Jun 2021We examined the efficacy and safety of using antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia using only randomized trials of antipsychotic for schizophrenia conducted in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
We examined the efficacy and safety of using antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia using only randomized trials of antipsychotic for schizophrenia conducted in Japan to avoid the biological and environmental heterogeneities caused by pooling data from various races and ethnicities.
METHODS
We searched for eligible studies on Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL. Primary outcomes were improvement in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score (PANSS-T) and all-cause discontinuation. Other outcomes were improvement in PANSS subscale scores, discontinuation due to adverse events or inefficacy, and the incidence of 16 adverse events.
RESULTS
We calculated mean difference or risk ratios and 95% credible intervals. We identified 34 RCTs (6798 patients; mean study duration, 9.0 ± 4.24 weeks; proportion of male patients, 53.7%; mean age, 43.3 years). Besides placebo, studies included aripiprazole, asenapine, blonanserin, blonanserin-patch, brexpiprazole, clocapramine (no PANSS data), clozapine (no PANSS data), haloperidol, lurasidone, mosapramine, olanzapine, paliperidone, perospirone, quetiapine, and risperidone. Efficacy and safety profiles differed for antipsychotics used with schizophrenia in Japanese patients. All active treatments other than haloperidol and quetiapine outperformed placebo to improve PANSS-T. Asenapine, olanzapine, paliperidone, and risperidone outperformed placebo for all-cause discontinuation. Asenapine, blonanserin, blonanserin-patch, haloperidol, lurasidone, mosapramine, olanzapine, paliperidone, and risperidone outperformed placebo to improve PANSS positive subscale scores. Aripiprazole, asenapine, blonanserin, blonanserin-patch, brexpiprazole, lurasidone, olanzapine, paliperidone, perospirone, and risperidone outperformed placebo to improve PANSS negative subscale scores. The confidence in evidence of most outcomes was low or very low.
CONCLUSION
Our results are similar to those of previous network meta-analysis involving various races and ethnicities.
Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Humans; Japan; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 33964682
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.04.032 -
CNS Drugs Jun 2023Early non-response is a well-established prognostic marker but evidence-based and consistent recommendations to manage it are limited. The aim of this systematic review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Early non-response is a well-established prognostic marker but evidence-based and consistent recommendations to manage it are limited. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to generate evidence-based strategies for the management of schizophrenia patients with early non-response to 2 weeks of antipsychotic treatment.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing antipsychotic dose escalation, switch, augmentation and continuation in individuals with study-defined early antipsychotic treatment non-response. Eligibility criteria were (1) clinical trials of primary psychosis treating for at least 2 weeks with antipsychotic monotherapy with study-defined operationalized criteria for early non-response; and (2) randomization to at least two of the following treatment strategies: dose escalation, switch, augmentation, or treatment continuation. Information sources were Pubmed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE, and risk of bias was assessed using Jadad scores. Results were synthesized using random-effects meta-analysis, comparing each intervention with treatment continuation for total symptom change as the primary outcome, generating standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Studies meeting the selection criteria but providing insufficient data for a meta-analysis were presented separately.
RESULTS
We screened 454 records by 1 August 2022, of which 12 individual datasets met the inclusion criteria, representing 947 research participants. Of those studies, five provided data to include in the meta-analysis (four with early non-response at 2 weeks, one at 3 weeks). Early non-response was defined within a timeline of 2 weeks in eight datasets, with the remaining datasets ranging between 3 and 4 weeks. The rates of early non-response ranged between 72.0 and 24.1%, and the endpoint ranged within 4-24 weeks post randomization. Quality was good (i.e., Jadad score of ≥3) in 8 of the 12 datasets. Overall, three studies compared antipsychotic switch versus continuation and two compared antipsychotic switch versus augmentation, in both cases without significant pooled between-group differences for total symptom severity (n = 149, SMD 0.18, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.5). Individually, two relatively large studies for antipsychotic switch versus continuation found small advantages for switching antipsychotics for total symptom severity (n = 149, SMD -0.49, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.06). One relatively large study found an advantage for dose escalation, although this finding has not been replicated and was not included in the meta-analysis. None of the alternatives included antipsychotic switch to clozapine.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite robust accuracy of early antipsychotic non-response predicting ultimate response, the evidence for treatment strategies that should be used for early non-response after 2-3 weeks is limited. While meta-analytic findings were non-significant, some individual studies suggest advantages of antipsychotic switch or dose escalation. Therefore, any conclusions should be interpreted carefully, given the insufficient high-quality evidence.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Schizophrenia; Clozapine; Psychotic Disorders; Drug Therapy, Combination
PubMed: 37261669
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-023-01009-4 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Mar 2023This meta-analysis examined the efficacy of available pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for irritability among youth with autism spectrum disorder... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis examined the efficacy of available pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for irritability among youth with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), disruptive behavior disorders (DBD), disruptive mood dysregulation disorder (DMDD), and/or severe mood dysregulation (SMD).
METHOD
Literature searches were conducted in October 2020, resulting in 564 abstracts being reviewed to identify relevant papers, with 387 articles being reviewed in full. A random effects model was used for the meta-analysis, with subgroup meta-regressions run to assess effects of study design, intervention type, medication class, and clinical population.
RESULTS
A total of 101 studies were included (80 pharmacological, 13 nonpharmacological, 8 combined). Despite high heterogeneity in effects (I = 94.3%), pooled posttreatment effect size for decreasing irritability was large (Hedges' g = 1.62). Large effects were found for pharmacological (g = 1.85) and nonpharmacological (g = 1.11) interventions; moderate effects were found for combined interventions relative to monotherapy interventions (g = 0.69). Antipsychotic medications provided the largest effect for reducing irritability relative to all other medication classes and nonpharmacological interventions. A large effect was found for youth with ASD (g = 1.89), whereas a medium effect was found for youth with ADHD/DMDD/DBD/SMD (g = 0.64).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis provides a comprehensive review of interventions targeting persistent nonepisodic irritability among youth with various psychiatric disorders. Strong evidence was found for medium-to-large effects across study design, intervention type, and clinical populations, with the largest effects for pharmacological interventions, particularly antipsychotic medications and combined pharmacological interventions, and interventions for youth with ASD.
Topics: Adolescent; Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Attention Deficit and Disruptive Behavior Disorders; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Irritable Mood; Mood Disorders
PubMed: 35714838
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2022.05.012 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2017Chlorpromazine, a widely available and inexpensive antipsychotic drug, is considered the benchmark treatment for schizophrenia worldwide. Metiapine, a dibenzothiazepine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chlorpromazine, a widely available and inexpensive antipsychotic drug, is considered the benchmark treatment for schizophrenia worldwide. Metiapine, a dibenzothiazepine derivative, has been reported to have potent antipsychotic characteristics. However, no evidence currently exists on the effectiveness of chlorpromazine in treatment of people with schizophrenia compared to metiapine, a newer antipsychotic.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effect of chlorpromazine versus metiapine for the treatment of people with schizophrenia SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials in November 2015 and 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on chlorpromazine versus metiapine for adults with schizophrenia. We included trials meeting our selection criteria and reporting useable data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three studies randomising 161 people with schizophrenia. Data were available for only two of our seven prestated main outcomes. Clinically important improvement in global state was measured using the Clinical Global Impression (CGI). There was no clear difference between chlorpromazine and metiapine groups (2 RCTs, n = 120, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.47, very low quality evidence) and numbers of participants with parkinsonism at eight weeks were similar (2 RCTs, n = 70, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.03, very low quality evidence). There were no useable data available for the other key outcomes of clinically important improvement in mental state, readmission due to relapse, satisfaction with treatment, aggressive or violent behaviour, or cost of care.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Chlorpromazine has been the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia for decades, yet available evidence comparing this drug to metiapine fails to provide high-quality trial based data. However, the need to determine whether metiapine is more or less effective than chlorpromazine seems to be lacking in clinical relevance and future research on this comparison seems unlikely.
Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Chlorpromazine; Dibenzothiazepines; Humans; Parkinson Disease, Secondary; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28349512
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011655.pub2 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Jan 2021Rapid growth of antipsychotic use among children and adolescents at the turn of the 21st century led Medicaid programs to implement 3 types of system-wide interventions:... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Rapid growth of antipsychotic use among children and adolescents at the turn of the 21st century led Medicaid programs to implement 3 types of system-wide interventions: antipsychotic monitoring programs, clinician prescribing supports, and delivery system enhancements. This systematic review assessed the available evidence base for and relative merits of these system-wide interventions that aim to improve antipsychotic treatment and management.
METHOD
Using PRISMA guidelines, eligible studies were written in English and evaluated system-wide interventions to monitor antipsychotic treatment or promote antipsychotic management among children and adolescents (0-21 years of age). Studies were identified through Ovid MEDLINE and PsychInfo (years 1990-2018) and an environmental scan. From an initial review of 824 publications, 17 studies met eligibility criteria. Two authors independently conducted quality assessments using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool. Findings were summarized descriptively.
RESULTS
Identified studies (n = 17) evaluated prior authorization programs (n = 10), drug utilization reviews (n = 2), quality improvement (n = 4), care coordination programs (n = 1), and multimodal initiatives (n = 2). Studies were predominantly pre-post analyses, without a comparison group. With the exception of care coordination and drug utilization reviews, more than half of the interventions in each category were associated with significant reduction in antipsychotic treatment or promotion of best practice parameters.
CONCLUSION
This evidence review concludes that evaluations of prior authorization programs demonstrate reductions in antipsychotic treatment, though evidence of impact of other system-wide interventions and other outcomes is limited. Additional research is necessary to investigate whether interventions influenced antipsychotic prescribing independent of secular trends, the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions, the effect on functional outcomes, and the potential for unintended consequences.
Topics: Adolescent; Antipsychotic Agents; Child; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Medicaid; United States
PubMed: 32966838
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.08.441 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with ordinary antipsychotic drug treatment. In these cases, various add-on medications... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with ordinary antipsychotic drug treatment. In these cases, various add-on medications are used, and valproate is one of these.
OBJECTIVES
To examine whether:1. valproate alone is an effective treatment for schizophrenia and schizoaffective psychoses; and2. valproate augmentation of antipsychotic medication is an effective treatment for the same illnesses.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (July 2002; February 2007; July 2012; March 04, 2016). We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of relevant studies in order to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials comparing valproate to antipsychotics or to placebo (or no intervention), whether as the sole agent or as an adjunct to antipsychotic medication for the treatment of people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently inspected citations and, where possible, abstracts, ordered papers, and re-inspected and quality-assessed these. At least two review authors independently extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean differences (MD) and their 95% CI. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to create a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
The 2012 update search identified 19 further relevant studies, most of which were from China. Thus the review currently includes 26 studies with a total of 2184 participants. All trials examined the effectiveness of valproate as an adjunct to antipsychotics. With the exception of two studies, the studies were small, the participants and personnel were not blinded (neither was outcome assessment), and most were short-term and incompletely reported.For this update we prespecified seven main outcomes of interest: clinical response (clinically significant response, aggression/agitation), leaving the study early (acceptability of treatment, overall tolerability), adverse events (sedation, weight gain) and quality of life.Adding valproate to antipsychotic treatment resulted in more clinically significant response than adding placebo to antipsychotic drugs (14 RCTs, n = 1049, RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.47, I = 12%, low-quality evidence). However, this effect was removed after excluding open RCTs in a sensitivity analysis. In terms of acceptability of treatment (measured by the number of participants leaving the study early due to any reason) valproate was just as acceptable as placebo (11 RCTs, n = 951, RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.24, I = 55%). Also overall tolerability (measured by the number of participants leaving the study early for adverse events) between valproate and placebo was similar (6 RCTs, n = 974, RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.97, I = 0).Participants in the valproate group were found to be less aggressive than the control group based on the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (3 RCTs, n = 186, MD -2.55, 95% CI -3.92 to -1.19, I = 82%, very low-quality evidence). Participants receiving valproate more frequently experienced sedation (8 RCTs, n = 770, RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.79, I = 0, low-quality evidence) but were no more likely to gain weight than those receiving placebo (4 RCTs, n = 427, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.82, I = 0, low-quality evidence). No study reported on the important outcome of quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence, based on a number of trials, that the augmentation of antipsychotics with valproate may be effective for overall clinical response, and also for specific symptoms, especially in terms of excitement and aggression. However, this evidence was entirely based on open RCTs. Moreover, valproate was associated with a number of adverse events among which sedation and dizziness appeared significantly more frequently than in the control groups. Further randomised studies which are blinded are necessary before any clear recommendation can be made. Ideally these would focus on people with schizophrenia and aggression, on those with treatment-resistant forms of the illness and on those with schizoaffective disorders.
Topics: Antimanic Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 27884042
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004028.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018Since the 1950s antipsychotic medication has been extensively used to treat people with chronic mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. These drugs, however, have also... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Since the 1950s antipsychotic medication has been extensively used to treat people with chronic mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. These drugs, however, have also been associated with a wide range of adverse effects, including movement disorders such as tardive dyskinesia (TD) - a problem often seen as repetitive involuntary movements around the mouth and face. Various strategies have been examined to reduce a person's cumulative exposure to antipsychotics. These strategies include dose reduction, intermittent dosing strategies such as drug holidays, and antipsychotic cessation.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether a reduction or cessation of antipsychotic drugs is associated with a reduction in TD for people with schizophrenia (or other chronic mental illnesses) who have existing TD. Our secondary objective was to determine whether the use of specific antipsychotics for similar groups of people could be a treatment for TD that was already established.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated previous searches of Cochrane Schizophrenia's study-based Register of Trials including the registers of clinical trials (16 July 2015 and 26 April 2017). We searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations. We also contacted authors of trials for additional information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included reports if they assessed people with schizophrenia or other chronic mental illnesses who had established antipsychotic-induced TD, and had been randomly allocated to (a) antipsychotic maintenance versus antipsychotic cessation (placebo or no intervention), (b) antipsychotic maintenance versus antipsychotic reduction (including intermittent strategies), (c) specific antipsychotics for the treatment of TD versus placebo or no intervention, and (d) specific antipsychotics versus other antipsychotics or versus any other drugs for the treatment of TD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently extracted data from these trials and estimated risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assumed that people who dropped out had no improvement.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 RCTs with 711 participants; eight of these studies were newly included in this 2017 update. One trial is ongoing.There was low-quality evidence of a clear difference on no clinically important improvement in TD favouring switch to risperidone compared with antipsychotic cessation (with placebo) (1 RCT, 42 people, RR 0.45 CI 0.23 to 0.89, low-quality evidence). Because evidence was of very low quality for antipsychotic dose reduction versus antipsychotic maintenance (2 RCTs, 17 people, RR 0.42 95% CI 0.17 to 1.04, very low-quality evidence), and for switch to a new antipsychotic versus switch to another new antipsychotic (5 comparisons, 5 RCTs, 140 people, no meta-analysis, effects for all comparisons equivocal), we are uncertain about these effects. There was low-quality evidence of a significant difference on extrapyramidal symptoms: use of antiparkinsonism medication favouring switch to quetiapine compared with switch to haloperidol (1 RCT, 45 people, RR 0.45 CI 0.21 to 0.96, low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference for switch to risperidone or haloperidol compared with antipsychotic cessation (with placebo) (RR 1 RCT, 48 people, RR 2.08 95% CI 0.74 to 5.86, low-quality evidence) and switch to risperidone compared with switch to haloperidol (RR 1 RCT, 37 people, RR 0.68 95% CI 0.34 to 1.35, very low-quality evidence).Trials also reported on secondary outcomes such as other TD symptom outcomes, other adverse events outcomes, mental state, and leaving the study early, but the quality of the evidence for all these outcomes was very low due mainly to small sample sizes, very wide 95% CIs, and risk of bias. No trials reported on social confidence, social inclusion, social networks, or personalised quality of life, outcomes that we designated as being important to patients.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Limited data from small studies using antipsychotic reduction or specific antipsychotic drugs as treatments for TD did not provide any convincing evidence of the value of these approaches. There is a need for larger trials of a longer duration to fully investigate this area.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Substitution; Dyskinesia, Drug-Induced; Female; Humans; Male; Mental Disorders; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 29409162
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000459.pub3