-
Molecular Psychiatry Jan 2023People with mood disorders have increased risk of comorbid medical diseases versus the general population. It is paramount to identify interventions to improve physical...
The impact of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on physical health outcomes in people with mood disorders across the lifespan: An umbrella review of the evidence from randomised controlled trials.
OBJECTIVE
People with mood disorders have increased risk of comorbid medical diseases versus the general population. It is paramount to identify interventions to improve physical health in this population.
METHODS
Umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on pharmacological/non-pharmacological interventions for physical health outcomes/intolerability-related discontinuation in mood disorders (any age).
RESULTS
Ninety-seven meta-analyses were included. Among youths, against placebo, in depression, antidepressants/antipsychotics had higher discontinuation rates; in bipolar depression, olanzapine+fluoxetine worsened total cholesterol (TC)/triglycerides/weight gain (WG) (large ES). In adults with bipolar disorder, olanzapine worsened HbA1c/TC/WG (moderate/large ES); asenapine increased fasting glucose (small ES); quetiapine/cariprazine/risperidone induced WG (small/moderate ES). In bipolar depression, lurasidone was metabolically neutral. In depression, psychological interventions improved physical health-related quality of life (PHQoL) (small ES), fasting glucose/HbA1c (medium/large ES); SSRIs improved fasting glucose/HbA1c, readmission for coronary disease, pain (small ES); quetiapine/aripiprazole/olanzapine induced WG (small to large ES). Exercise improved cardiorespiratory fitness (moderate ES). In the elderly, fluoxetine yielded more detrimental cardiovascular effects than sertraline/escitalopram (large ES); antidepressants were neutral on exercise tolerance and PHQoL. In mixed age groups, in bipolar disorder aripiprazole was metabolically neutral; in depression, SSRIs lowered blood pressure versus placebo and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (small ES); brexpiprazole augmentation caused WG and was less tolerated (small ES); exercise improved PHQoL (moderate ES).
CONCLUSIONS
Some interventions (psychological therapies, exercise and SSRIs) improve certain physical health outcomes in mood disorders, few are neutral, but various pharmacological interventions are associated with negative effects. Evidence from this umbrella review has limitations, should consider evidence from other disorders and should be integrated with recent evidence from individual RCTs, and observational evidence. Effective treatments with either beneficial or physically neutral profiles should be prioritized.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Aged; Adolescent; Fluoxetine; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Aripiprazole; Longevity; Glycated Hemoglobin; Antipsychotic Agents; Antidepressive Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36138129
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-022-01770-w -
Current Medicinal Chemistry 2018Serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) and cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy (CBT) are first-line treatments for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). However, a...
BACKGROUND
Serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) and cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy (CBT) are first-line treatments for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). However, a significant proportion of patients do not respond satisfactorily to first-choice treatments. Several options have been investigated for the management of resistant patients.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the present paper is to systematically review the available literature concerning the strategies for the treatment of resistant adult patients with OCD.
METHOD
We first reviewed studies concerning the definition of treatment-resistant OCD; we then analyzed results of studies evaluating several different strategies in resistant patients. We limited our review to double-blind, placebo-controlled studies performed in adult patients with OCD whose resistance to a first adequate (in terms of duration and dosage) SRI trial was documented and where outcome was clearly defined in terms of decrease in Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) scores and/or response/ remission rates (according to the YBOCS).
RESULTS
We identified five strategies supported by positive results in placebo-controlled randomized studies: 1) antipsychotic addition to SRIs (16 RCTs, of them 10 positive; 4 head-to-head RCTs); among antipsychotics, available RCTs examined the addition of haloperidol (butyrophenone), pimozide (diphenyl-butylpiperidine), risperidone (SDA: serotonin- dopamine antagonist), paliperidone (SDA), olanzapine (MARTA: multi-acting receptor targeted antipsychotic), quetiapine (MARTA) and aripiprazole (partial dopamine agonist); 2) CBT addition to medication (2 positive RCTs); 3) switch to intravenous clomipramine (SRI) administration (2 positive RCTs); 4) switch to paroxetine (SSRI: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) or venlafaxine (SNRI: serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor) when the first trial was negative (1 positive RCT); and 5) the addition of medications other than an antipsychotic to SRIs (18 RCTs performed with several different compounds, with only 4 positive studies).
CONCLUSION
Treatment-resistant OCD remains a significant challenge to psychiatrists. To date, the most effective strategy is the addition of antipsychotics (aripiprazole and risperidone) to SRIs; another effective strategy is CBT addition to medications. Other strategies, such as the switch to another first-line treatment or the switch to intravenous administration are promising but need further confirmation in double-blind studies. The addition of medications other than antipsychotics remains to be studied, as several negative studies exist and positive ones need confirmation (only 1 positive study).
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Drug Resistance; Drug Substitution; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29278206
DOI: 10.2174/0929867325666171222163645 -
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 -
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Revue... Feb 2017A systematic review was conducted to examine the efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of asenapine compared with other antipsychotics in the treatment of psychotic... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
A systematic review was conducted to examine the efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of asenapine compared with other antipsychotics in the treatment of psychotic disorders.
METHODS
Four databases, 8 trial registries, and conference presentations were searched for randomized clinical trials of asenapine versus any comparator for the treatment of any psychotic illness. Primary outcome measures were changes in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and the incidence of withdrawal due to adverse effects.
RESULTS
Eight randomized clinical trials, encompassing 3765 patients, that compared asenapine with placebo ( n = 5) and olanzapine ( n = 3) were included. No differences were found between asenapine and olanzapine in terms of changes to PANSS total or PANSS negative subscale scores. Patients taking asenapine were more likely to experience worsening schizophrenia and/or psychosis than were those taking olanzapine. No differences were found between asenapine and olanzapine in rates of discontinuation due to adverse drug reactions or lack of efficacy, but those taking asenapine had higher rates of withdrawal for any reason than those taking olanzapine. Asenapine caused less clinically significant weight gain or increases in triglycerides than olanzapine and was more likely to cause extrapyramidal symptoms than olanzapine. In comparison to placebo, either no difference or superiority was demonstrated in favour of asenapine on all efficacy measures.
CONCLUSION
The current evidence is limited, as asenapine has been compared only with placebo or olanzapine. In the randomized clinical trials analysed, asenapine was similar or superior to placebo and similar or inferior to olanzapine on most efficacy outcomes. While asenapine demonstrated fewer adverse metabolic outcomes than olanzapine, rates of extrapyramidal symptom-related adverse effects were higher.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Psychotic Disorders
PubMed: 27481921
DOI: 10.1177/0706743716661324 -
The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and... 2015Anxiety is common in Huntington's disease (HD), though it has been under-researched. The authors conducted a systematic review of anxiety in HD. The prevalence of... (Review)
Review
Anxiety is common in Huntington's disease (HD), though it has been under-researched. The authors conducted a systematic review of anxiety in HD. The prevalence of anxiety in manifest HD ranged from 13% to 71%. No significant difference in anxiety between manifest and premanifest HD carriers was revealed. Anxiety appears to be associated with depression, suicide, irritability, quality of life (QoL), pain, illness beliefs, and coping styles but does not seem to be linked with measures of disease progression. From the few pilot studies available, interventions that show promise include olanzapine and psychosocial approaches. Improved assessment, more exploration of the nature of anxiety in HD, and evaluation of anxiety interventions are required.
Topics: Adaptation, Psychological; Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Disease Progression; Humans; Huntington Disease; Quality of Life
PubMed: 25803201
DOI: 10.1176/appi.neuropsych.14100265 -
International Clinical... Jul 2023The whole picture of psychotropics for bipolar depression (BPD) remains unclear. This review compares the differences in efficacy and safety profiles among common...
The whole picture of psychotropics for bipolar depression (BPD) remains unclear. This review compares the differences in efficacy and safety profiles among common psychotropics for BPD. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched for proper studies. The changes in the depressive rating scale, remission/response rates, nervous system adverse events (NSAEs), gastrointestinal adverse events (GIAEs), metabolic parameters, and prolactin were compared between medication and placebo or among medications with the Cohen's d or number needed to treat/harm. The search provided 10 psychotropics for comparison. Atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) were superior to lithium and lamotrigine at alleviating acute depressive symptoms. Lithium was more likely to induce dry mouth and nausea. Cariprazine and aripiprazole seemed to be associated with an increased risk of akathisia and upper GIAEs. Lurasidone was associated with an increased risk of developing akathisia and hyperprolactinemia. Olanzapine, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (OFC), and quetiapine were associated with an increased risk of NSAEs, metabolic risk, dry mouth, and constipation. Cariprazine, lurasidone, OFC, or quetiapine was optimal monotherapy for BPD. Further studies are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of lamotrigine for treating BPD. Adverse events varied widely across different drug types due to variations in psychopharmacological mechanisms, dosages, titration, and ethnicities.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Lurasidone Hydrochloride; Quetiapine Fumarate; Lamotrigine; Lithium; Psychomotor Agitation; Antimanic Agents
PubMed: 36947416
DOI: 10.1097/YIC.0000000000000449 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Feb 2022To assess the relative efficacy and safety of second-generation antipsychotics for treating major depressive episodes in youths with bipolar disorder. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the relative efficacy and safety of second-generation antipsychotics for treating major depressive episodes in youths with bipolar disorder.
METHOD
A systematic literature review using PRISMA guidelines and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of second-generation antipsychotics for bipolar depression in youths 10 to 18 years of age was conducted. Efficacy measures included Children's Depression Rating Scale, Revised (CDRS-R) and Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Disorder-Severity Depression (CGI-BP-S-depression) and Overall (CGI-BP-S-overall) scores. Available safety outcomes included discontinuations (all-cause, lack of efficacy, adverse events), metabolic parameters (weight change, cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose), changes in prolactin, and somnolence. Results from the NMA were reported as mean changes from baseline or odds ratios (OR) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs).
RESULTS
Four RCTs comparing placebo to lurasidone, quetiapine (1 each for immediate- and extended-release), and the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (OFC) met all of the inclusion criteria. Lurasidone and OFC demonstrated similar and statistically significant improvements in CDRS-R, but quetiapine did not (lurasidone: -5.70 [-8.66, -2.76]; OFC: -5.01 [-8.63, -1.38]; quetiapine: -1.85 [-5.99, 2.27]). Lurasidone was associated with smaller changes in weight, cholesterol, and triglycerides from baseline compared to OFC and quetiapine. There were no differences in changes in glucose levels among antipsychotics. In addition, lurasidone was associated with smaller change in prolactin levels compared to OFC but not quetiapine.
CONCLUSION
Evidence from 4 studies in this NMA indicated that lurasidone and OFC, but not quetiapine, were efficacious for the treatment of bipolar depression in youths. Lurasidone was associated with less weight gain and smaller impacts on cholesterol and triglycerides compared with quetiapine and OFC.
Topics: Adolescent; Antipsychotic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Child; Humans; Lurasidone Hydrochloride; Network Meta-Analysis; Quetiapine Fumarate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34420839
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2021.03.021 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Mar 2022The overarching aim of this review is to synthesize the efficacy, tolerability, and weight-mitigation effects of the olanzapine/samidorphan (OLZ/SAM) combination... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The overarching aim of this review is to synthesize the efficacy, tolerability, and weight-mitigation effects of the olanzapine/samidorphan (OLZ/SAM) combination treatment in adults with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder-I.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and The Cochrane Library was conducted on August 15th, 2021. Studies were included if they investigated the use of OLZ/SAM treatment in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder-I, and reported the clinical outcomes: efficacy, change in weight or waist circumference, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, or change in metabolic parameters. A narrative synthesis was undertaken of the data.
RESULTS
Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. All identified studies were conducted in adults with schizophrenia. Compared to OLZ-monotherapy, OLZ/SAM was associated with decreased odds of developing clinically significant (>10%) weight gain (OR=0.50, 95% CI:0.31,0.80; p= 0.003) and increase in waist circumference (risk difference = -17.1% 95% CI:-26.3,-7.8) from baseline measurements respectively. In another study, OLZ was 2.7 times more associated with clinically significant weight gain as compared to OLZ/SAM (OR=2.73, 95% CI:1.11, 6.67; p = 0.023). The clinical efficacy of OLZ/SAM remained similar to OLZ with improved tolerability in both short- and long-term studies with no significantly altered pharmacokinetic properties of the constituent agents.
CONCLUSION
OLZ/SAM-treatment is associated with mitigated weight-gain liability when compared to OLZ-monotherapy in adults with schizophrenia. Additional studies are needed to ascertain patient acceptability, appropriate selection and sequencing of OLZ/SAM in the treatment algorithms for adults with schizophrenia (and BD-I), as well as to determine cost-effectiveness and long-term metabolic effects.
Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Humans; Naltrexone; Narcotic Antagonists; Olanzapine
PubMed: 35007644
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2022.01.004 -
PloS One 2023Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are frequently prescribed for the treatment of resistant anorexia nervosa. However, few clinical trials have been conducted so...
INTRODUCTION
Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are frequently prescribed for the treatment of resistant anorexia nervosa. However, few clinical trials have been conducted so far and no pharmacological treatment has yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic scoping review exploring the effectiveness and safety of atypical antipsychotics in anorexia nervosa (AN).
METHOD
We conducted a systematic scoping review of the effectiveness and tolerability of SGAs in the management of AN. We included articles published from January 1, 2000, through September 12, 2022 from the PubMed and PsycInfo databases and a complementary manual search. We selected articles about adolescents and adults treated for AN by four SGAs (risperidone, quetiapine, aripiprazole or olanzapine). This work complies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRIMA-ScR) and was registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository.
RESULTS
This review included 55 articles: 48 assessing the effectiveness of SGAs in AN and 7 focusing only on their tolerability and safety. Olanzapine is the treatment most frequently prescribed and studied with 7 randomized double-blind controlled trials. Other atypical antipsychotics have been evaluated much less often, such as aripiprazole (no randomized trials), quetiapine (two randomized controlled trials), and risperidone (one randomized controlled trial). These treatments are well tolerated with mild and transient adverse effects in this population at particular somatic risk.
DISCUSSION
Limitations prevent the studies both from reaching conclusive, reliable, robust, and reproducible results and from concluding whether or not SGAs are effective in anorexia nervosa. Nonetheless, they continue to be regularly prescribed in clinical practice. International guidelines suggest that olanzapine and aripiprazole can be interesting in severe or first-line resistant clinical situations.
Topics: Adult; Adolescent; Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Olanzapine; Risperidone; Aripiprazole; Quetiapine Fumarate; Anorexia Nervosa; Benzodiazepines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36928656
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278189 -
Journal of Child and Adolescent... Sep 2022Antipsychotic-related prolactin changes may expose children and adolescents to severe adverse reactions (ARs) related to pubertal development and growth. We therefore... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Antipsychotic-related prolactin changes may expose children and adolescents to severe adverse reactions (ARs) related to pubertal development and growth. We therefore aimed to assess the effects of antipsychotics on prolactin levels and associated somatic ARs in children and adolescents. We systematically searched PubMed and CENTRAL for placebo-controlled randomized trials of antipsychotics in children and adolescents aged ≤18 years, reporting prolactin levels and related ARs. We conducted a random-effect meta-analysis and assessed risk of bias version 2 (ROB2). Thirty-two randomized controlled trials with an average trial duration of 6 weeks, covering 4643 participants with an average age of 13 years and a male majority of 65.3%. Risk of bias across domains was low or unclear. The following antipsychotic compounds: aripiprazole ( = 810), asenapine ( = 506), lurasidone ( = 314), olanzapine ( = 179), paliperidone ( = 149), quetiapine ( = 381), risperidone ( = 609), and ziprasidone ( = 16) were compared with placebo ( = 1658). Compared with placebo, statistically significant higher prolactin increase occurred with risperidone (mean difference [MD] = 28.24 ng/mL), paliperidone (20.98 ng/mL), and olanzapine (11.34 ng/mL). Aripiprazole significantly decreased prolactin (MD = -4.91 ng/mL), whereas quetiapine, lurasidone, and asenapine were not associated with significantly different prolactin levels than placebo. Our results on ziprasidone are based on a single study, making it insufficient to draw strong conclusions. On average, 20.8% of patients treated with antipsychotic developed levels of prolactin that were too high (hyperprolactinemia), whereas only 1.03% of patients reported prolactin-related ARs. Data were highly limited for long-term effects. In children and adolescents, risperidone, paliperidone, and olanzapine are associated with significant prolactin increase, whereas aripiprazole is associated with significant decrease. Despite the significant changes in prolactin level, few ARs were reported. Study protocol on PROSPERO: CRD42018116451.
Topics: Adolescent; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Child; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Humans; Hyperprolactinemia; Lurasidone Hydrochloride; Male; Olanzapine; Paliperidone Palmitate; Piperazines; Prolactin; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone; Schizophrenia; Thiazoles
PubMed: 36074098
DOI: 10.1089/cap.2021.0140