-
European Journal of Human Genetics :... Mar 2024The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to facilitate pharmacogenetics implementation in clinical practice by developing evidence-based guidelines to...
The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to facilitate pharmacogenetics implementation in clinical practice by developing evidence-based guidelines to optimize pharmacotherapy. A guideline describing the gene-drug interaction between the genes CYP2D6, CYP3A4 and CYP1A2 and antipsychotics is presented here. The DPWG identified gene-drug interactions that require therapy adjustments when respective genotype is known for CYP2D6 with aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, haloperidol, pimozide, risperidone and zuclopenthixol, and for CYP3A4 with quetiapine. Evidence-based dose recommendations were obtained based on a systematic review of published literature. Reduction of the normal dose is recommended for aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, haloperidol, pimozide, risperidone and zuclopenthixol for CYP2D6-predicted PMs, and for pimozide and zuclopenthixol also for CYP2D6 IMs. For CYP2D6 UMs, a dose increase or an alternative drug is recommended for haloperidol and an alternative drug or titration of the dose for risperidone. In addition, in case of no or limited clinical effect, a dose increase is recommended for zuclopenthixol for CYP2D6 UMs. Even though evidence is limited, the DPWG recommends choosing an alternative drug to treat symptoms of depression or a dose reduction for other indications for quetiapine and CYP3A4 PMs. No therapy adjustments are recommended for the other CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 predicted phenotypes. In addition, no action is required for the gene-drug combinations CYP2D6 and clozapine, flupentixol, olanzapine or quetiapine and also not for CYP1A2 and clozapine or olanzapine. For identified gene-drug interactions requiring therapy adjustments, genotyping of CYP2D6 or CYP3A4 prior to treatment should not be considered for all patients, but on an individual patient basis only.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Clopenthixol; Clozapine; Cytochrome P-450 CYP1A2; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2D6; Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A; Drug Interactions; Haloperidol; Olanzapine; Pharmacogenetics; Pimozide; Quetiapine Fumarate; Quinolones; Risperidone; Thiophenes
PubMed: 37002327
DOI: 10.1038/s41431-023-01347-3 -
Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford,... Aug 2021Successful treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) can be challenging, and failures ("treatment-resistant depression" [TRD]) are frequent. Steps to address TRD... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Successful treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) can be challenging, and failures ("treatment-resistant depression" [TRD]) are frequent. Steps to address TRD include increasing antidepressant dose, combining antidepressants, adding adjunctive agents, or using nonpharmacological treatments. Their efficacy and tolerability remain inadequately tested. In particular, the value and safety of increasingly employed second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and new esketamine, compared to lithium as antidepressant adjuncts remain unclear.
METHODS
We reviewed randomized, placebo-controlled trials and used random-effects meta-analysis to compare odds ratio (OR) versus placebo, as well as numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) and to-harm (NNH), for adding SGAs, esketamine, or lithium to antidepressants for major depressive episodes.
RESULTS
Analyses involved 49 drug-placebo pairs. By NNT, SGAs were more effective than placebo (NNT = 11 [CI: 9-15]); esketamine (7 [5-10]) and lithium (5 [4-10]) were even more effective. Individually, aripiprazole, olanzapine+fluoxetine, risperidone, and ziprasidone all were more effective (all NNT < 10) than quetiapine (NNT = 13), brexpiprazole (16), or cariprazine (16), with overlapping NNT CIs. Risk of adverse effects, as NNH for most-frequently reported effects, among SGAs versus placebo was 5 [4-6] overall, and highest with quetiapine (NNH = 3), lowest with brexpiprazole (19), 5 (4-6) for esketamine, and 9 (5-106) with lithium. The risk/benefit ratio (NNH/NNT) was 1.80 (1.25-10.60) for lithium and much less favorable for esketamine (0.71 [0.60-0.80]) or SGAs (0.45 [0.17-0.77]).
CONCLUSIONS
Several modern antipsychotics and esketamine appeared to be useful adjuncts to antidepressants for acute major depressive episodes, but lithium was somewhat more effective and better tolerated.
LIMITATIONS
Most trials of adding lithium involved older, mainly tricyclic, antidepressants, and the dosing of adjunctive treatments were not optimized.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Depressive Disorder, Major; Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Ketamine; Lithium Compounds; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34238049
DOI: 10.1177/02698811211013579 -
Current Neuropharmacology 2019Trichotillomania (TTM), excoriation (or skin-picking) disorder and some severe forms of onychophagia are classified under obsessive-compulsive and related disorders....
BACKGROUND
Trichotillomania (TTM), excoriation (or skin-picking) disorder and some severe forms of onychophagia are classified under obsessive-compulsive and related disorders. There are different interacting neurotransmitter systems involved in the pathophysiology of impulse-control disorders, implicating noradrenaline, serotonin, dopamine, opioid peptides and glutamate, hence investigators focused on drugs able to act on these transmitters. Our aim was to critically review the efficacy of the drugs employed in impulse-control disorders.
METHODS
We searched for controlled drug trials to treat TTM, excoriation, and/or nail-biting six databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO/PsycARTICLES, and Web of Science), using the search strategy: (trichotillomania OR "excoriation disorder" OR "face picking" OR "skin picking" OR "hair pulling" OR onychophagia OR "nail-biting") AND drug treatment on 12 March 2018 for all databases. We followed in our method of identifying relevant literature the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.
RESULTS
SSRIs and clomipramine are considered first-line in TTM. In addition, family members of TTM patients are often affected by obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders. Other drugs used in the treatment of TTM are lamotrigine, olanzapine, N-Acetylcysteine, inositol, and naltrexone.
CONCLUSION
The treatment of TTM, excoriation disorder and nail-biting is still rather disappointing. Conjectures made from preclinical studies and the relative pathophysiological hypotheses found poor confirmations at a clinical level. There is a need for further studies and the integration of pharmacological and psychotherapeutic. Our results point to the need of integrating personalised medicine principles in the treatment of these patients.
Topics: Female; Humans; Nail Biting; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Trichotillomania
PubMed: 30892151
DOI: 10.2174/1570159X17666190320164223 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Trichotillomania (TTM; hair-pulling disorder) is a prevalent and disabling disorder characterised by recurrent hair-pulling. Here we update a previous Cochrane Review on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Trichotillomania (TTM; hair-pulling disorder) is a prevalent and disabling disorder characterised by recurrent hair-pulling. Here we update a previous Cochrane Review on the effects of medication for TTM.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of medication for trichotillomania (TTM) in adults, children and adolescents compared with placebo or other medication.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, eleven other bibliographic databases, trial registries and grey literature sources (to 26 November 2020). We checked reference lists and contacted subject experts.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials of medication versus placebo or other medication for TTM in adults, children and adolescents.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
Twelve studies were included. We identified 10 studies in adults (286 participants) with a mean sample size of 29 participants per trial; one study in children and adolescents (39 participants); and, one study in adults and adolescents (22 participants: 18 adults and 4 adolescents). All studies were single-centre, outpatient trials. Eleven studies compared medication and placebo (334 participants); one study compared two medications (13 participants). Studies were 5 to 13 weeks duration. We undertook meta-analysis only for opioid antagonists as other comparisons contained a single study, or reported insufficient data. Antioxidants versus placebo in adults There was little to no difference in treatment response between antioxidant (35.7%) and placebo groups (28.6%) after six weeks, based on a single trial of silymarin (risk ratio (RR) 2.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 5.99; 36 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (18 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antioxidants versus placebo in adolescents There was little to no difference in treatment response between antioxidant (50%) and placebo groups (25%) after six weeks, based on a single trial of silymarin (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.28 to 14.20; 8 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (8 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antipsychotics versus placebo in adults There may be greater treatment response in the antipsychotic group (85%) compared to the placebo group (17%) after 12 weeks, based on a single trial of olanzapine (RR 5.08, 95% CI 1.4 to 18.37; 25 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (25 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cell signal transducers versus placebo in adults There was little to no difference in treatment response between cell signal transducer (42.1%) and placebo groups (31.6%) after 10 weeks, based on a single trial of inositol (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.11; 38 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (38 participants; low-certainty evidence). Glutamate modulators versus placebo in adults There is probably greater treatment response in the glutamate modulator group (56%) compared to the placebo group (16%) after 12 weeks, based on a single trial of N-acetylcysteine (RR 3.5, 95% CI 1.34 to 9.17; 50 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (50 participants; low-certainty evidence). Glutamate modulators versus placebo in children and adolescents There was little to no difference in treatment response between the glutamate modulator (25%) and placebo groups (21.1%) in children and adolescents, based on a single trial of N-acetylcysteine (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.77; 39 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in dropouts due to adverse events between glutamate modulator (5%) and placebo (0%) groups, based on a single trial (RR 2.86, 95% CI 0.12 to 66.11; 39 participants; low-certainty evidence). Opioid antagonists versus placebo in adults There may be little to no difference in treatment response between opioid antagonist (37.5%) and placebo groups (25%) after six to eight weeks, based on two studies of naltrexone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.25 to 18.17; 2 studies, 68 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available regarding dropouts due to adverse events. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus placebo in adults There were no data available for treatment response to SSRIs. There was little to no difference in dropouts due to adverse events in the SSRI group (5.1%) compared to the placebo group (0%) after 6 to 12 weeks, based on two trials of fluoxetine (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.62; 2 studies, 78 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) with predominantly serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) actions versus placebo in adults There may be greater treatment response in the TCAs with predominantly SRI actions group (40%) compared to the placebo group (0%) after nine weeks, but the evidence is very uncertain, based on a single trial of clomipramine (RR 5.73, 95% CI 0.36 to 90.83; 16 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be increased dropouts due to adverse events in the TCAs with predominantly SRI actions group (30%) compared to the placebo group (0%), but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 4.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 73.81; 16 participants; very low-certainty evidence). TCAs with predominantly SRI actions versus other TCAs in adults There may be greater treatment response in the TCAs with predominantly SRI actions group compared to the other TCAs group after five weeks, based on a single trial comparing clomipramine to desipramine (mean difference (MD) -4.00, 95% CI -6.13 to -1.87; 26 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (26 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient evidence from meta-analysis to confirm or refute the efficacy of any agent or class of medication for the treatment of TTM in adults, children or adolescents. Preliminary evidence suggests there may be beneficial treatment effects for N-acetylcysteine, clomipramine and olanzapine in adults based on four trials, albeit with relatively small sample sizes.
Topics: Adolescent; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Antipsychotic Agents; Clomipramine; Humans; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Trichotillomania
PubMed: 34582562
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007662.pub3 -
The Lancet. Child & Adolescent Health Feb 2023In clinical practice guidelines there is no consensus about the medications that should be initially offered to children and young people with Tourette's syndrome. To... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of children, adolescents, and young adults with Tourette's syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
In clinical practice guidelines there is no consensus about the medications that should be initially offered to children and young people with Tourette's syndrome. To provide a rigorous evidence base that could help guide decision making and guideline development, we aimed to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of pharmacological interventions for Tourette's syndrome.
METHODS
For this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov, for published and unpublished studies from database inception to Nov 19, 2021. We included double-blind randomised controlled trials of any medication administered as a monotherapy for at least 1 week against another medication or placebo in children and adolescents (aged ≥4 years and ≤18 years), adults (>18 years), or both, diagnosed with Tourette's syndrome according to standardised criteria. We excluded studies that exclusively recruited participants with comorbid attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder. The primary outcome was change in severity of tic symptoms (efficacy). Secondary outcomes were treatment discontinuations due to adverse events (tolerability) and for any reason (acceptability). Pharmacological interventions were examined considering medication categories and medications individually in separate analyses. Summary data were extracted and pooled with a random-effects network meta-analysis to calculate standardised mean differences for efficacy and odds ratios for tolerability and acceptability, with 95% CIs. The Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework was used to assess the certainty of evidence. The protocol was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022296975).
FINDINGS
Of the 12 088 records identified through the database search, 88 records representing 39 randomised controlled trials were included in the network meta-analysis; these 39 randomised controlled trials comprised 4578 participants (mean age 11·8 [SD 4·5] years; 3676 [80·8%] male participants) and evaluated 23 individual medications distributed across six medication categories. When considering medication categories, first-generation (standardised mean difference [SMD] -0·65 [95% CI -0·79 to -0·51]; low certainty of evidence) and second-generation (-0·71 [-0·88 to -0·54]; moderate certainty of evidence) antipsychotic drugs, as well as α-2 agonists (-0·21 [-0·39 to -0·03]; moderate certainty of evidence), were more efficacious than placebo. First-generation and second-generation antipsychotic drugs did not differ from each other (SMD 0·06 [95% CI -0·14 to 0·25]; low certainty of evidence). However, both first-generation (SMD 0·44 [95% CI 0·21 to 0·66]) and second-generation (0·49 [0·25 to 0·74]) antipsychotic drugs outperformed α-2 agonists, with moderate certainty of evidence. Similar findings were observed when individual medications were considered: aripiprazole (SMD -0·60 [95% CI -0·83 to -0·38]), haloperidol (-0·51 [-0·88 to -0·14]), olanzapine (-0·83 [-1·49 to -0·18]), pimozide (-0·48 [-0·84 to -0·12]), risperidone (-0·66 [-0·98 to -0·34]), and clonidine (-0·20 [-0·37 to -0·02]) all outperformed placebo, with moderate certainty of evidence. Antipsychotic medications did not differ from each other, but there was low to very low certainty of evidence for these comparisons. However, aripiprazole (SMD -0·40 [95% CI -0·69 to -0·12]) and risperidone (-0·46 [-0·82 to -0·11]) outperformed clonidine, with moderate certainty of evidence. Heterogeneity or inconsistency only emerged for a few comparisons. In terms of tolerability and acceptability, there were no relevant findings for any of the efficacious medication categories or individual medications against each other or placebo, but there was low to very low certainty of evidence associated with these comparisons.
INTERPRETATION
Our analyses show that antipsychotic drugs are the most efficacious intervention for Tourette's syndrome, while α-2 agonists are also more efficacious than placebo and could be chosen by those who elect not to take antipsychotic drugs. Shared decision making about the degree of tic-related severity and distress or impairment, the trade-offs of efficacy and safety between antipsychotic drugs and α-2 agonists, and other highly relevant individual factors that could not be addressed in the present analysis, should guide the choice of medication for children and young people with Tourette's syndrome.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Male; Adolescent; Child; Young Adult; Humans; Female; Tourette Syndrome; Antipsychotic Agents; Clonidine; Aripiprazole; Risperidone; Network Meta-Analysis; Tics; Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36528030
DOI: 10.1016/S2352-4642(22)00316-9 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry Mar 2024There are no recommendations based on the efficacy of specific drugs for the treatment of psychotic depression. To address this evidence gap, we did a network... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There are no recommendations based on the efficacy of specific drugs for the treatment of psychotic depression. To address this evidence gap, we did a network meta-analysis to assess and compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for psychotic depression.
METHODS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to Nov 23, 2023 for randomised controlled trials published in any language that assessed pharmacological treatments for individuals of any age with a diagnosis of a major depressive episode with psychotic features, in the context of major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder in any setting. We excluded continuation or maintenance trials. We screened the study titles and abstracts identified, and we extracted data from relevant studies after full-text review. If full data were not available, we requested data from study authors twice. We analysed treatments for individual drugs (or drug combinations) and by grouping them on the basis of mechanisms of action. The primary outcomes were response rate (ie, the proportion of participants who responded to treatment) and acceptability (ie, the proportion who discontinued treatment for any reason). We calculated risk ratios and did separate frequentist network meta-analyses by using random-effects models. The risk of bias of individual studies was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the confidence in the evidence with the Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023392926.
FINDINGS
Of 6313 reports identified, 16 randomised controlled trials were included in the systematic review, and 14 were included in the network meta-analyses. The 16 trials included 1161 people with psychotic depression (mean age 50·5 years [SD 11·4]). 516 (44·4%) participants were female and 422 (36·3%) were male; sex data were not available for the other 223 (19·2%). 489 (42·1%) participants were White, 47 (4·0%) were African American, and 12 (1·0%) were Asian; race or ethnicity data were not available for the other 613 (52·8%). Only the combination of fluoxetine plus olanzapine was associated with a higher proportion of participants with a treatment response compared with placebo (risk ratio 1·91 [95% CI 1·27-2·85]), with no differences in terms of safety outcomes compared with placebo. When treatments were grouped by mechanism of action, the combination of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor with a second-generation antipsychotic was associated with a higher proportion of treatment responses than was placebo (1·89 [1·17-3·04]), with no differences in terms of safety outcomes. In head-to-head comparisons of active treatments, a significantly higher proportion of participants had a response to amitriptyline plus perphenazine (3·61 [1·23-10·56]) and amoxapine (3·14 [1·01-9·80]) than to perphenazine, and to fluoxetine plus olanzapine compared with olanzapine alone (1·60 [1·09-2·34]). Venlafaxine, venlafaxine plus quetiapine (2·25 [1·09-4·63]), and imipramine (1·95 [1·01-3·79]) were also associated with a higher proportion of treatment responses overall. In head-to-head comparisons grouped by mechanism of action, antipsychotic plus antidepressant combinations consistently outperformed monotherapies from either drug class in terms of the proportion of participants with treatment responses. Heterogeneity was low. No high-risk instances were identified in the bias assessment for our primary outcomes.
INTERPRETATION
According to the available evidence, the combination of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and a second-generation antipsychotic-and particularly of fluoxetine and olanzapine-could be the optimal treatment choice for psychotic depression. These findings should be taken into account in the development of clinical practice guidelines. However, these conclusions should be interpreted cautiously in view of the low number of included studies and the limitations of these studies.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Depressive Disorder, Major; Fluoxetine; Perphenazine; Network Meta-Analysis; Bipolar Disorder; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Depression; Antipsychotic Agents; Olanzapine
PubMed: 38360024
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(24)00006-3 -
JAMA Network Open Mar 2019Atypical antipsychotics offer modest effectiveness compared with placebo but with serious safety risks, including a boxed warning for the risk of death in the treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Assessment of Reported Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Atypical Antipsychotics in the Treatment of Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia: A Network Meta-analysis.
IMPORTANCE
Atypical antipsychotics offer modest effectiveness compared with placebo but with serious safety risks, including a boxed warning for the risk of death in the treatment of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). Their comparative effectiveness and safety are not fully known.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the relative benefits and safety of atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of BPSD shown in randomized clinical trials using network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, and Cochrane Library were searched from their inception until May 31, 2018. Key terms included dementia and atypical antipsychotics.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials comparing any atypical antipsychotic with another atypical antipsychotic or with placebo were included in the analysis.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two independent reviewers used a standardized data extraction and quality assessment form. Random-effects network meta-analyses were performed. Effect sizes were reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% CIs. In addition to ORs, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was ascertained, which represents the percentage of the effectiveness or safety for each treatment compared with a hypothetical treatment that would be ranked first without uncertainty.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary effectiveness outcome assessed was the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI); secondary effectiveness outcomes were the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI). The primary safety outcomes were death and cerebrovascular adverse events (CVAEs). Secondary safety outcomes were extrapyramidal signs/symptoms; somnolence/sedation; falls, fracture, or injury; and urinary tract infection/incontinence.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies (5373 patients) were included. The mean (SD) age of all participants was 80.8 (3.1) years, and most were women (3748 [69.8%]). Compared with placebo, aripiprazole was associated with improvement in outcomes on the NPI (SMD, -0.17; 95% CI, -0.31 to -0.02), BPRS (SMD, -0.20; 95% CI, -0.35 to -0.05), and CMAI (SMD, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.55 to -0.05); quetiapine was associated with improvement in outcomes on the BPRS (SMD, -0.24; 95% CI, -0.46 to -0.01), and risperidone was associated with improvement in outcomes on the CMAI (SMD, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.15). Differences between atypical antipsychotics were not significant for effectiveness, death, or CVAE. Compared with placebo, risperidone (OR, 3.85; 95% CI, 1.55-9.55) and olanzapine (OR, 4.28; 95% CI, 1.26-14.56) were associated with increased risk of CVAEs. The SUCRA estimated relative ranking of treatments suggested that aripiprazole might be the most effective and safe atypical antipsychotic and that olanzapine provides the least benefit overall; however, these results should be interpreted with caution where point estimates (OR and SMD) show that there is no statistically significant difference.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This network meta-analysis supports the existence of a trade-off between the effectiveness and safety of atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of BPSD and confirms that a single most effective and safe treatment option does not exist. Clinicians should individualize the assessment of safety risks against expected benefits when prescribing these medications to patients with dementia.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antipsychotic Agents; Dementia; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30901041
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.0828 -
Schizophrenia Bulletin Jan 2024Long-acting injectable antipsychotic drugs (LAIs) are mainly used for relapse prevention but could also be advantageous for acutely ill patients with schizophrenia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Long-Acting Injectable Second-Generation Antipsychotics vs Placebo and Their Oral Formulations in Acute Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized-Controlled-Trials.
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS
Long-acting injectable antipsychotic drugs (LAIs) are mainly used for relapse prevention but could also be advantageous for acutely ill patients with schizophrenia.
STUDY DESIGN
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled-trials (RCTs) comparing the second-generation long-acting injectable antipsychotics (SGA-LAIs) olanzapine, risperidone, paliperidone, and aripiprazole with placebo or their oral counterparts in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia. We analyzed 23 efficacy and tolerability outcomes, with the primary outcome being overall symptoms of schizophrenia. The results were obtained through random effects, pairwise meta-analyses, and subgroup tests. The study quality was assessed using the Cochrane-Risk-of-Bias-Tool version-1.
STUDY RESULTS
Sixty-six studies with 16 457 participants were included in the analysis. Eleven studies compared second-generation long-acting injectable antipsychotics (SGA-LAIs) with a placebo, 54 compared second-generation oral antipsychotics (SGA-orals) with a placebo, and one compared an SGA-LAI (aripiprazole) with its oral formulation. All 4 SGA-LAIs reduced overall symptoms more than placebo, with mean standardized differences of -0.66 (95% CI: -0.90; -0.43) for olanzapine, -0.64 (-0.80; -0.48) for aripiprazole, -0.62 (-0.76; -0.48) for risperidone and -0.42 (-0.53; -0.31) for paliperidone. The side-effect profiles of the LAIs corresponded to the patterns known from the oral formulations. In subgroup tests compared to placebo, some side effects were less pronounced under LAIs than under their oral formulations.
CONCLUSIONS
SGA-LAIs effectively treat acute schizophrenia. Some side effects may be less frequent than under oral drugs, but due to the indirect nature of the comparisons, this finding must be confirmed by RCTs comparing LAIs and orals head-to-head.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Paliperidone Palmitate; Aripiprazole; Olanzapine; Risperidone; Delayed-Action Preparations; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 37350486
DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbad089 -
Clinical Toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) Dec 2021The use of activated charcoal in poisoning remains both a pillar of modern toxicology and a source of debate. Following the publication of the joint position statements...
INTRODUCTION
The use of activated charcoal in poisoning remains both a pillar of modern toxicology and a source of debate. Following the publication of the joint position statements on the use of single-dose and multiple-dose activated charcoal by the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology and the European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists, the routine use of activated charcoal declined. Over subsequent years, many new pharmaceuticals became available in modified or alternative-release formulations and additional data on gastric emptying time in poisoning was published, challenging previous assumptions about absorption kinetics. The American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, the European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists and the Asia Pacific Association of Medical Toxicology founded the Clinical Toxicology Recommendations Collaborative to create a framework for evidence-based recommendations for the management of poisoned patients. The activated charcoal workgroup of the Clinical Toxicology Recommendations Collaborative was tasked with reviewing systematically the evidence pertaining to the use of activated charcoal in poisoning in order to update the previous recommendations.
OBJECTIVES
The main objective was: Does oral activated charcoal given to adults or children prevent toxicity or improve clinical outcome and survival of poisoned patients compared to those who do not receive charcoal? Secondary objectives were to evaluate pharmacokinetic outcomes, the role of cathartics, and adverse events to charcoal administration. This systematic review summarizes the available evidence on the efficacy of activated charcoal.
METHODS
A medical librarian created a systematic search strategy for Medline (Ovid), subsequently translated for Embase ( Ovid), CINAHL ( EBSCO), BIOSIS Previews ( Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library/DARE. All databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2019. There were no language limitations. One author screened all citations identified in the search based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Excluded citations were confirmed by an additional author and remaining articles were obtained in full text and evaluated by at least two authors for inclusion. All authors cross-referenced full-text articles to identify articles missed in the searches. Data from included articles were extracted by the authors on a standardized spreadsheet and two authors used the GRADE methodology to independently assess the quality and risk of bias of each included study.
RESULTS
From 22,950 titles originally identified, the final data set consisted of 296 human studies, 118 animal studies, and 145 studies. Also included were 71 human and two animal studies that reported adverse events. The quality was judged to have a Low or Very Low GRADE in 469 (83%) of the studies. Ninety studies were judged to be of Moderate or High GRADE. The higher GRADE studies reported on the following drugs: paracetamol (acetaminophen), phenobarbital, carbamazepine, cardiac glycosides (digoxin and oleander), ethanol, iron, salicylates, theophylline, tricyclic antidepressants, and valproate. Data on newer pharmaceuticals not reviewed in the previous American Academy of Clinical Toxicology/European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists statements such as quetiapine, olanzapine, citalopram, and Factor Xa inhibitors were included. No studies on the optimal dosing for either single-dose or multiple-dose activated charcoal were found. In the reviewed clinical data, the time of administration of the first dose of charcoal was beyond one hour in 97% ( = 1006 individuals), beyond two hours in 36% ( = 491 individuals), and beyond 12 h in 4% ( = 43 individuals) whereas the timing of the first dose in controlled studies was within one hour of ingestion in 48% ( = 2359 individuals) and beyond two hours in 36% ( = 484) of individuals.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review found heterogenous data. The higher GRADE data was focused on a few select poisonings, while studies that addressed patients with unknown and or mixed ingestions were hampered by low rates of clinically meaningful toxicity or death. Despite these limitations, they reported a benefit of activated charcoal beyond one hour in many clinical scenarios.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Animals; Carbamazepine; Charcoal; Decontamination; Drug Overdose; Humans
PubMed: 34424785
DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2021.1961144 -
Therapeutic Advances in... 2023As an atypical antipsychotic drug, olanzapine is one of the most commonly used drugs for delirium control. There are no systematic evaluations or meta-analyses of the...
BACKGROUND
As an atypical antipsychotic drug, olanzapine is one of the most commonly used drugs for delirium control. There are no systematic evaluations or meta-analyses of the efficacy and safety of olanzapine for delirium control in critically ill adults.
OBJECTIVES
In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of olanzapine for delirium control in critically ill adults in the intensive care unit (ICU).
DATA SOURCES AND METHODS
From inception to October 2022, 12 electronic databases were searched. We retrieved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies of critically ill adults with delirium that compared the effects of olanzapine and other interventions, including routine care (no intervention), nonpharmaceutical interventions and pharmaceutical interventions. The main outcome measures were the (a) relief of delirium symptoms and (b) a decrease in delirium duration. Secondary outcomes were ICU and in-hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, incidence of adverse events, cognitive function, sleep quality, quality of life, mechanical ventilation time, endotracheal intubation rate and delirium recurrence rate. We applied a random effects model.
RESULTS
Data from 10 studies (four RCTs and six retrospective cohort studies) involving 7076 patients (2459 in the olanzapine group and 4617 in the control group) were included. Olanzapine did not effectively relieve delirium symptoms (OR = 1.36, 95% CI [0.83, 2.28], = 0.21), nor did it shorten the duration of delirium [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.04, 1.09], = 0.97] when compared with other interventions. Pooled data from three studies showed that the use of olanzapine reduced the incidence of hypotension (OR = 0.44, 95% CI [0.20, 0.95], = 0.04) compared with other pharmaceuticals. There was no significant difference in other secondary outcomes, including ICU or hospital length of stay, in-hospital mortality, extrapyramidal reactions, QTc interval prolongation, or overall incidence of other adverse reactions. The number of included studies was not sufficient for performing a comparison between olanzapine and no intervention.
CONCLUSION
Compared with other interventions, olanzapine has no advantage in alleviating delirium symptoms and shortening delirium duration in critically ill adults. However, there is some evidence that the rate of hypotension was lower in patients who received olanzapine than in those who received other pharmaceutical interventions. There was a nonsignificant difference in the length of ICU or hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, and other adverse reactions. This study provides reference data for delirium research and clinical drug intervention strategies in critically ill adults.
REGISTRATION
Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42021277232).
PubMed: 36845642
DOI: 10.1177/20451253231152113