-
International Journal of Clinical... Jun 2024To describe the efficacy of atropine in controlling salivary flow in patients with sialorrhea or drooling. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To describe the efficacy of atropine in controlling salivary flow in patients with sialorrhea or drooling.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We included randomized controlled studies, quasi-randomized trials, case reports, clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses assessing the use of atropine in patients with sialorrhea or drooling. The endpoints were reduction in salivary flow rate, amount of saliva secreted, reduction in clinical symptoms of sialorrhea, death rattle intensity, or reduction in drooling intensity as measured by an objective scale such as the drooling intensity scale.
RESULTS
A total of 56 studies with 2,378 patients were included in the systematic review. The underlying disease states included brain injury, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, cerebral palsy, clozapine- and perphenazine-induced sialorrhea, Parkinson's disease, and terminal illness. The routes of atropine administration included sublingual, intravenous, subcutaneous, oral tablet or solution, and direct injection of atropine into parotid glands or at the base of the tongue. The generalized estimated equation regression models showed that sublingual administration is superior to oral and subcutaneous routes.
CONCLUSION
Atropine is efficacious in managing sialorrhea in most disease states. Sublingual administration of atropine is superior to other routes of administration in reducing salivary flow in patients with sialorrhea.
Topics: Sialorrhea; Humans; Atropine; Treatment Outcome; Salivation
PubMed: 38577753
DOI: 10.5414/CP204538 -
Current Drug Targets 2020Different clinical studies have given inconsistent results on whether the use of antipsychotics increases the risk of thromboembolism. In this paper, we reviewed all... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Different clinical studies have given inconsistent results on whether the use of antipsychotics increases the risk of thromboembolism. In this paper, we reviewed all relevant literature to provide suggestions for clinical diagnosis and treatment.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane and Scopus databases were thoroughly searched up to June 2019. Two researchers independently searched the literature, extracted data. Data were analyzed by Stata 12.0 software.
RESULTS
A total of 22 studies involving 31514226 subjects were included. This meta-analysis showed that patients taking the first- or second-generation antipsychotics had a higher risk of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism than those who did not, and low potency first-generation agents increased the risk of venous thromboembolism more than high potency antipsychotics, and olanzapine, clozapine, haloperidol, perphenazine and risperidone also significantly increased the risk of it. The risk of venous thrombosis in obese people was higher than that in overweight people, patients not less than 65 years old had an increased risk compared with younger patients. In addition, women taking antipsychotics had a higher risk of pulmonary embolism than men.
CONCLUSION
The use of antipsychotics will increase the risk of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism, which will be affected by the type of antipsychotics and patient characteristics.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antipsychotic Agents; Data Interpretation, Statistical; Humans; Middle Aged; Observational Studies as Topic; Pulmonary Embolism; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Software; Venous Thromboembolism; Young Adult
PubMed: 32321400
DOI: 10.2174/1389450121666200422084414 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Up to 75% of people with serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have co-occurring substance use disorders (dual diagnosis). Dual... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Up to 75% of people with serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have co-occurring substance use disorders (dual diagnosis). Dual diagnosis can have an adverse effect on treatment and prognosis of SMI.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of risperidone compared to treatment with other antipsychotics (first-generation and other second-generation antipsychotics) used in people with serious mental illness and co-occurring substance misuse.
SEARCH METHODS
On 6 January 2016 and 9 October 2017, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (including trial registers).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised trials of risperidone versus any other antipsychotic in people with SMI and substance abuse (dual diagnosis). We included trials meeting our inclusion criteria and reporting useable data. We excluded trials that either did not meet our inclusion criteria or met our inclusion criteria but did not report any useable data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently inspected citations and selected studies. For included studies, we independently extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals. For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals. We pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the quality of evidence, creating a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified eight randomised trials containing a total of 1073 participants with SMI and co-occurring substance misuse. Seven of these contributed useable data to the review. There was heterogeneity in trial design and measurement. Risperidone was compared to clozapine, olanzapine, perphenazine, quetiapine and ziprasidone. Few trials compared risperidone with first-generation agents. Few trials examined participants with a dual diagnosis from the outset and most trials only contained separate analyses of subgroups with a dual diagnosis or were secondary data analyses of subgroups of people with a dual diagnosis from existing larger trials.For risperidone versus clozapine we found no clear differences between these two antipsychotics in the reduction of positive psychotic symptoms (1 randomised controlled trial (RCT), n = 36, mean difference (MD) 0.90, 95% CI -2.21 to 4.01, very low quality evidence), or reduction in cannabis use (1 RCT, n = 14, risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.35, very low quality evidence), improvement in subjective well-being (1 RCT, n = 36, MD -6.00, 95% CI -14.82 to 2.82, very low quality evidence), numbers discontinuing medication (1 RCT, n = 36, RR 4.05, 95% CI 0.21 to 78.76, very low quality evidence), extrapyramidal side-effects (2 RCTs, n = 50, RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.30 to 24.08; I² = 0%, very low quality evidence), or leaving the study early (2 RCTs, n = 45, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.51; I² = 34%, very low quality evidence). Clozapine was associated with lower levels of craving for cannabis (1 RCT, n = 28, MD 7.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 11.63, very low quality evidence).For risperidone versus olanzapine we found no clear differences in the reduction of positive psychotic symptoms (1 RCT, n = 37, MD -1.50, 95% CI -3.82 to 0.82, very low quality evidence), reduction in cannabis use (1 RCT, n = 41, MD 0.40, 95% CI -4.72 to 5.52, very low quality evidence), craving for cannabis (1 RCT, n = 41, MD 5.00, 95% CI -4.86 to 14.86, very low quality evidence), parkinsonism (1 RCT, n = 16, MD -0.08, 95% CI -1.21 to 1.05, very low quality evidence), or leaving the study early (2 RCT, n = 77, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.35; I² = 0%, very low quality evidence).For risperidone versus perphenazine, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 281, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20, low-quality evidence).For risperidone versus quetiapine, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 294, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07, low-quality evidence).For risperidone versus ziprasidone, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 240, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.10, low-quality evidence).For many comparisons, important outcomes were missing; and no data were reported in any study for metabolic disturbances, global impression of illness severity, quality of life or mortality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is not sufficient good-quality evidence available to determine the effects of risperidone compared with other antipsychotics in people with a dual diagnosis. Few trials compared risperidone with first-generation agents, leading to limited applicability to settings where access to second-generation agents is limited, such as in low- and middle-income countries. Moreover, heterogeneity in trial design and measurement of outcomes precluded the use of many trials in our analyses. Future trials in this area need to be sufficiently powered but also need to conform to consistent methods in study population selection, use of measurement scales, definition of outcomes, and measures to counter risk of bias. Investigators should adhere to CONSORT guidelines in the reporting of results.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Clozapine; Diagnosis, Dual (Psychiatry); Humans; Mental Disorders; Olanzapine; Patient Dropouts; Perphenazine; Piperazines; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone; Schizophrenia; Substance-Related Disorders; Thiazoles
PubMed: 29355909
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011057.pub2