-
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Nov 2022MONTELEONE, A.M., F. Pellegrino, G. Croatto, M. Carfagno, A. Hilbert, J. Treasure, T. Wade, C. Bulik, S. Zipfel, P. Hay, U. Schmidt, G. Castellini, A. Favaro, F.... (Review)
Review
MONTELEONE, A.M., F. Pellegrino, G. Croatto, M. Carfagno, A. Hilbert, J. Treasure, T. Wade, C. Bulik, S. Zipfel, P. Hay, U. Schmidt, G. Castellini, A. Favaro, F. Fernandez-Aranda, J. Il Shin, U. Voderholzer, V. Ricca, D. Moretti, D. Busatta, G. Abbate-Daga, F. Ciullini, G. Cascino, F. Monaco, C.U. Correll and M. Solmi. Treatment of Eating Disorders: a systematic meta-review of meta-analyses and network meta-analyses. NEUROSCI BIOBEHAV REV 21(1) XXX-XXX, 2022.- Treatment efficacy for eating disorders (EDs) is modest and guidelines differ. We summarized findings/quality of (network) meta-analyses (N)MA of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in EDs. Systematic meta-review ((N)MA of RCTs, ED, active/inactive control), using (anorexia or bulimia or eating disorder) AND (meta-analy*) in PubMed/PsycINFO/Cochrane database up to December 15th, 2020. Standardized mean difference, odds/risk ratio vs control were summarized at end of treatment and follow-up. Interventions involving family (family-based therapy, FBT) outperformed active control in adults/adolescents with anorexia nervosa (AN), and in adolescents with bulimia nervosa (BN). In adults with BN, individual cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-ED had the broadest efficacy versus active control; also, antidepressants outperformed active. In mixed age groups with binge-eating disorder (BED), psychotherapy, and lisdexamfetamine outperformed active control. Antidepressants, stimulants outperformed placebo, despite lower acceptability, as did CBT-ED versus waitlist/no treatment. Family-based therapy is effective in AN and BN (adolescents). CBT-ED has the largest efficacy in BN (adults), followed by antidepressants, as well as psychotherapy in BED (mixed). Medications have short-term efficacy in BED (adults).
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Humans; Antidepressive Agents; Binge-Eating Disorder; Bulimia; Bulimia Nervosa; Feeding and Eating Disorders; Network Meta-Analysis; Meta-Analysis as Topic
PubMed: 36084848
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104857 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry May 2021Evidence of comparative benefits of long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) versus oral antipsychotics for schizophrenia has been inconsistent across study designs.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Long-acting injectable versus oral antipsychotics for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis of randomised, cohort, and pre-post studies.
BACKGROUND
Evidence of comparative benefits of long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) versus oral antipsychotics for schizophrenia has been inconsistent across study designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparative benefits of LAIs versus oral antipsychotics in three study designs to inform clinical decision making.
METHODS
We did a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis comparing LAIs versus oral antipsychotics for schizophrenia covering three study designs: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and pre-post studies. Our literature search was without language restrictions, in MEDLINE and PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Embase, for studies published from database inception up to a last search on March 13, 2020. We also searched for unpublished studies and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included studies lasting at least 6 months that targeted adults with schizophrenia and related disorders (>80% of participants). Studies on penfluridol (neither an LAI or daily oral antipsychotic), case reports, and case series with fewer than 20 patients were excluded. Two investigators independently extracted study-level data and resolved disagreement by consensus, or via a third investigator. Study authors were contacted to obtain additional information as needed. For our primary outcome we meta-analysed the risk ratio (RR) for hospitalisation or relapse with LAIs versus oral antipsychotics by a random-effects model, with hospitalisation used preferentially over relapse. As secondary analyses, we reversed the preferential order to relapse over hospitalisation, and assessed hospitalisation risk and relapse risk individually. Other secondary outcomes included all meta-analysable data, classed by relevance to effectiveness, efficacy, safety, quality of life, cognitive function, and other outcomes, and analysed by study design. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as pooled RR and continuous outcomes as standardised mean difference (SMD). The protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019142094).
FINDINGS
We identified 14 687 records, of which 137 studies (397 319 patients) met the inclusion criteria (32 RCTs [23·4%; 8577 patients], 65 cohort studies [47·4%; 377 447 patients], and 40 pre-post studies [29·2%; 11 295 patients]) and were analysed. The quality of studies in terms of risk of bias varied across study designs and within each study design from low to high. LAIs were associated with a lower risk of hospitalisation or relapse than oral antipsychotics in each of the three study designs (RCTs: 29 studies, 7833 patients, RR 0·88 [95% CI 0·79-0·99], p=0·033; cohort studies: 44 studies, 106 136 patients, RR 0·92 [0·88-0·98], p=0·0044; pre-post studies: 28 studies, 17 876 patients, RR 0·44 [0·39-0·51], p<0·0001). This association was maintained across the study designs when we reversed the preferential order to risk of relapse over hospitalisation, and in individual analysis of hospitalisation risk. The association was maintained only in pre-post studies for relapse risk alone. In all other outcomes related to effectiveness, efficacy, safety, quality of life, cognitive function, and other outcomes, LAIs were more beneficial than oral antipsychotics in 60 (18·3%) of 328 comparisons, not different in 252 (76·8%) comparisons, and less beneficial in 16 (4·9%) comparisons when analysed by study design. Significant heterogeneity was observed across all three study designs. Publication biases were apparent in cohort and pre-post studies, but effect sizes were similar after trim-and-fill analyses.
INTERPRETATION
Although study designs have strengths and weaknesses, including potential low quality of observational studies, we consistently identified significant benefit with LAIs versus oral antipsychotics in preventing hospitalisation or relapse, in settings ranging from restricted research (RCTs) to real-word application (cohort and pre-post studies). Our findings suggest that increased clinical use of LAIs could improve outcomes in schizophrenia.
FUNDING
None.
TRANSLATIONS
For the Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Portugese and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antipsychotic Agents; Cohort Studies; Delayed-Action Preparations; Humans; Injections; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33862018
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00039-0 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry Nov 2023Side-effects of psychiatric medication impair quality of life and functioning. Furthermore, they contribute to morbidity, mortality, stigma, and poor treatment...
BACKGROUND
Side-effects of psychiatric medication impair quality of life and functioning. Furthermore, they contribute to morbidity, mortality, stigma, and poor treatment concordance resulting in relapse of psychiatric illness. Guidelines recommend discussing side-effects with patients when making treatment decisions, but a synthesis of antidepressant and antipsychotic side-effects to guide this process is missing, and considering all side-effects is a complex, multidimensional process. We aimed to create comprehensive databases of antipsychotic and antidepressant side-effects, and a digital tool to support database navigation.
METHODS
To create the databases, we did an umbrella review of Embase, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE from database inception to June 26, 2023. We included meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials examining antipsychotic monotherapy in the treatment of schizophrenia or antidepressant monotherapy in the treatment of major depressive disorder. We included meta-analyses in adults (aged ≥18 years) that assessed drugs with a common comparator. The search was complemented by a review of national and international guidelines and consensus statements for the treatment of major depressive disorder and schizophrenia in adults. Effect sizes for antipsychotic and antidepressant side-effects were extracted from meta-analyses examining the largest number of drugs. In cases of incomplete meta-analytic coverage, data were imputed on the basis of guideline-derived ordinal rankings or, if imputation was not possible, ordinal scores were extracted. Both meta-analytic and ordinal outcomes were normalised to provide values between 0 and 1. We then constructed a digital tool, the Psymatik Treatment Optimizer, to combine the side-effect databases with side-effect concerns of an individual user, to enable users to select side-effects of concern and the relative degree of concern for each side-effect. Concern weightings and the side-effect databases are synthesised via a multicriteria decision analysis method (technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal situation, or TOPSIS).
FINDINGS
Of 3724 citations, 14 articles containing 68 meta-analyses of individual side-effects met inclusion criteria. After review of 19 guidelines, seven provided ordinal data. Antipsychotic data were extracted from five studies (11 meta-analyses, n=65 594 patients) and four guidelines, and antidepressant data were extracted from three guidelines. The resultant databases included data on 32 antipsychotics (14 side-effects) and 37 antidepressants (nine side-effects). The databases highlighted the clinical dilemma associated with balancing side-effects, with avoidance of one side-effect (eg, weight gain for antipsychotics) increasing the risk of others (eg, akathisia). To aid with this dilemma, the Psymatik Treatment Optimizer synthesises the side-effect databases with individual user-defined concern weights. After computing up to 5851 pairwise comparisons for antidepressants and 5142 pairwise comparisons for antipsychotics, Psymatik ranks treatments in order of preference for the individual user, with the output presented in a heatmap.
INTERPRETATION
By facilitating collaborative, personalised, and evidence-based prescribing decisions, the side-effect databases and digital application supports care delivery that is consistent with international regulatory guidance for the treatment of schizophrenia and depression, and it therefore has promise for informing psychiatric practice and improving outcomes.
FUNDING
National Institute for Health and Care Research, Maudsley Charity, Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Adolescent; Antipsychotic Agents; Depressive Disorder, Major; Quality of Life; Antidepressive Agents; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 37774723
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(23)00262-6 -
JAMA Psychiatry May 2021Schizophrenia is associated with cognitive dysfunction and cardiovascular risk factors, including metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its constituent criteria. Cognitive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Schizophrenia is associated with cognitive dysfunction and cardiovascular risk factors, including metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its constituent criteria. Cognitive dysfunction and cardiovascular risk factors can worsen cognition in the general population and may contribute to cognitive impairment in schizophrenia.
OBJECTIVE
To study the association between cognitive dysfunction and cardiovascular risk factors and cognitive impairment in individuals with schizophrenia.
DATA SOURCES
A search was conducted of Embase, Scopus, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases from inception to February 25, 2020, using terms that included synonyms of schizophrenia AND metabolic adversities AND cognitive function. Conference proceedings, clinical trial registries, and reference lists of relevant publications were also searched.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies were included that (1) examined cognitive functioning in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder; (2) investigated the association of cardiovascular disease risk factors, including MetS, diabetes, obesity, overweight, obesity or overweight, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and insulin resistance with outcomes; and (3) compared cognitive performance of patients with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder between those with vs without cardiovascular disease risk factors.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Extraction of data was conducted by 2 to 3 independent reviewers per article. Data were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was global cognition, defined as a test score using clinically validated measures of overall cognitive functioning.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies involving 10 174 individuals with schizophrenia were included. Significantly greater global cognitive deficits were present in patients with schizophrenia who had MetS (13 studies; n = 2800; effect size [ES] = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.50; P = .001), diabetes (8 studies; n = 2976; ES = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.23-0.42; P < .001), or hypertension (5 studies; n = 1899; ES = 0.21; 95% CI, 0.11-0.31; P < .001); nonsignificantly greater deficits were present in patients with obesity (8 studies; n = 2779; P = .20), overweight (8 studies; n = 2825; P = .41), and insulin resistance (1 study; n = 193; P = .18). Worse performance in specific cognitive domains was associated with cognitive dysfunction and cardiovascular risk factors regarding 5 domains in patients with diabetes (ES range, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.12-0.33] to 0.40 [95% CI, 0.20-0.61]) and 4 domains with MetS (ES range, 0.15 [95% CI, 0.03-0.28] to 0.40 [95% CI, 0.20-0.61]) and hypertension (ES range, 0.15 [95% CI, 0.04-0.26] to 0.27 [95% CI, 0.15-0.39]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, MetS, diabetes, and hypertension were significantly associated with global cognitive impairment in people with schizophrenia.
Topics: Cognitive Dysfunction; Comorbidity; Diabetes Mellitus; Heart Disease Risk Factors; Humans; Hypertension; Metabolic Syndrome; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 33656533
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.0015 -
JAMA Psychiatry Dec 2023Every third to sixth patient with medical diseases receives antidepressants, but regulatory trials typically exclude comorbid medical diseases. Meta-analyses of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Every third to sixth patient with medical diseases receives antidepressants, but regulatory trials typically exclude comorbid medical diseases. Meta-analyses of antidepressants have shown small to medium effect sizes, but generalizability to clinical settings is unclear, where medical comorbidity is highly prevalent.
OBJECTIVE
To perform an umbrella systematic review of the meta-analytic evidence and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of antidepressant use in populations with medical diseases and comorbid depression.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception until March 31, 2023, for systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for treatment or prevention of comorbid depression in any medical disease.
STUDY SELECTION
Meta-analyses of placebo- or active-controlled RCTs studying antidepressants for depression in individuals with medical diseases.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction and quality assessment using A Measurement Tool for the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2 and AMSTAR-Content) were performed by pairs of independent reviewers following PRISMA guidelines. When several meta-analyses studied the same medical disease, the largest meta-analysis was included. Random-effects meta-analyses pooled data on the primary outcome (efficacy), key secondary outcomes (acceptability and tolerability), and additional secondary outcomes (response and remission).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Antidepressant efficacy presented as standardized mean differences (SMDs) and tolerability (discontinuation for adverse effects) and acceptability (all-cause discontinuation) presented as risk ratios (RRs).
RESULTS
Of 6587 references, 176 systematic reviews were identified in 43 medical diseases. Altogether, 52 meta-analyses in 27 medical diseases were included in the evidence synthesis (mean [SD] AMSTAR-2 quality score, 9.3 [3.1], with a maximum possible of 16; mean [SD] AMSTAR-Content score, 2.4 [1.9], with a maximum possible of 9). Across medical diseases (23 meta-analyses), antidepressants improved depression vs placebo (SMD, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.30-0.54]; I2 = 76.5%), with the largest SMDs for myocardial infarction (SMD, 1.38 [95% CI, 0.82-1.93]), functional chest pain (SMD, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.08-1.67]), and coronary artery disease (SMD, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.32-1.33]) and the smallest for low back pain (SMD, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.17-0.39]) and traumatic brain injury (SMD, 0.08 [95% CI, -0.28 to 0.45]). Antidepressants showed worse acceptability (24 meta-analyses; RR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.02-1.32]) and tolerability (18 meta-analyses; RR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.13-1.64]) compared with placebo. Antidepressants led to higher rates of response (8 meta-analyses; RR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.14-1.94]) and remission (6 meta-analyses; RR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.25-1.61]) than placebo. Antidepressants more likely prevented depression than placebo (7 meta-analyses; RR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.33-0.53]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The results of this umbrella systematic review of meta-analyses found that antidepressants are effective and safe in treating and preventing depression in patients with comorbid medical disease. However, few large, high-quality RCTs exist in most medical diseases.
Topics: Humans; Antidepressive Agents; Comorbidity; Depression; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 37672261
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.2983 -
JAMA Psychiatry Jun 2018The value of early intervention in psychosis and allocation of public resources has long been debated because outcomes in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The value of early intervention in psychosis and allocation of public resources has long been debated because outcomes in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders have remained suboptimal.
OBJECTIVE
To compare early intervention services (EIS) with treatment as usual (TAU) for early-phase psychosis.
DATA SOURCES
Systematic literature search of PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov without language restrictions through June 6, 2017.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized trials comparing EIS vs TAU in first-episode psychosis or early-phase schizophrenia spectrum disorders.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Three independent investigators extracted data for a random-effects meta-analysis and prespecified subgroup and meta-regression analyses.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The coprimary outcomes were all-cause treatment discontinuation and at least 1 psychiatric hospitalization during the treatment period.
RESULTS
Across 10 randomized clinical trials (mean [SD] trial duration, 16.2 [7.4] months; range, 9-24 months) among 2176 patients (mean [SD] age, 27.5 [4.6] years; 1355 [62.3%] male), EIS was associated with better outcomes than TAU at the end of treatment for all 13 meta-analyzable outcomes. These outcomes included the following: all-cause treatment discontinuation (risk ratio [RR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.80; P < .001), at least 1 psychiatric hospitalization (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.90; P = .003), involvement in school or work (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.24; P = .01), total symptom severity (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.32; 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.17; P < .001), positive symptom severity (SMD, -0.22; 95% CI, -0.32 to -0.11; P < .001), and negative symptom severity (SMD, -0.28; 95% CI, -0.42 to -0.14; P < .001). Superiority of EIS regarding all outcomes was evident at 6, 9 to 12, and 18 to 24 months of treatment (except for general symptom severity and depressive symptom severity at 18-24 months).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In early-phase psychosis, EIS are superior to TAU across all meta-analyzable outcomes. These results support the need for funding and use of EIS in patients with early-phase psychosis.
Topics: Early Medical Intervention; Education; Employment; Hospitalization; Humans; Psychotic Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Regression Analysis; Schizophrenia; Schizophrenic Psychology; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 29800949
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.0623 -
Asian Journal of Psychiatry Jan 2023To integrate all evidence derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of both pharmacological and nonpharmacological augmentation interventions for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Pharmacological and nonpharmacological augmentation treatments for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis with normalized entropy assessment.
OBJECTIVE
To integrate all evidence derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of both pharmacological and nonpharmacological augmentation interventions for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (CRS).
METHODS
Six major electronic databases were systematically searched for RCTs published until July 10, 2021. The primary outcome was change in overall symptoms, and the secondary outcomes were positive and negative symptoms and acceptability. We performed random-effects network meta-analysis. Normalized entropy was calculated to examine the uncertainty of treatment ranking.
RESULTS
We identified 35 RCTs (1472 patients with 23 active augmentation treatments) with a mean daily clozapine dose of 440.80 (91.27) mg for 1168.22 (710.28) days. Network meta-analysis of overall symptoms (reported as standardized mean difference; 95 % confidence interval) with consistent results indicated that mirtazapine (-4.41; -5.61, -3.21), electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) (-4.32; -5.43, -3.21), and memantine (-2.02; -3.14, -0.91) were ranked as the best three treatments. For positive symptoms, ECT (-5.18; -5.86, -4.49) was ranked the best with less uncertainty. For negative symptoms, memantine (-3.38; -4.50, -2.26), duloxetine (-3.27; -4.25, -2.29), and mirtazapine (-1.73; -2.71, -0.74) were ranked the best three treatments with less uncertainty. All antipsychotics, N-methyl d-aspartate receptor agonists, and antiepileptics were not associated with more efficacy than placebo. Compared to placebo, only amisulpride had statistically significant lower discontinuation rate (risk ratio: 0.21; 95 % CI: 0.05, 0.93).
CONCLUSION
Add-on mirtazapine, ECT, and memantine were the most efficacious augmentation options for CRS. Data on other important outcomes such as cognitive functioning or quality of life were rarely reported, making further large-scale, well-designed RCTs necessary. (PROSPERO number, CRD42021262197.).
Topics: Humans; Clozapine; Network Meta-Analysis; Entropy; Memantine; Mirtazapine; Antipsychotic Agents; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 36470132
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajp.2022.103375 -
JAMA Psychiatry Dec 2019Antidepressant use is increasing worldwide. Yet, contrasting evidence on the safety of antidepressants is available from meta-analyses, and the credibility of these...
IMPORTANCE
Antidepressant use is increasing worldwide. Yet, contrasting evidence on the safety of antidepressants is available from meta-analyses, and the credibility of these findings has not been quantified.
OBJECTIVE
To grade the evidence from published meta-analyses of observational studies that assessed the association between antidepressant use or exposure and adverse health outcomes.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Scopus, and PsycINFO were searched from database inception to April 5, 2019.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
Only meta-analyses of observational studies with a cohort or case-control study design were eligible. Two independent reviewers recorded the data and assessed the methodological quality of the included meta-analyses. Evidence of association was ranked according to established criteria as follows: convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or not significant.
RESULTS
Forty-five meta-analyses (17.9%) from 4471 studies identified and 252 full-text articles scrutinized were selected that described 120 associations, including data from 1012 individual effect size estimates. Seventy-four (61.7%) of the 120 associations were nominally statistically significant at P ≤ .05 using random-effects models. Fifty-two associations (43.4%) had large heterogeneity (I2 > 50%), whereas small-study effects were found for 17 associations (14.2%) and excess significance bias was found for 9 associations (7.5%). Convincing evidence emerged from both main and sensitivity analyses for the association between antidepressant use and risk of suicide attempt or completion among children and adolescents, autism spectrum disorders with antidepressant exposure before and during pregnancy, preterm birth, and low Apgar scores. None of these associations remained supported by convincing evidence after sensitivity analysis, which adjusted for confounding by indication.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study's findings suggest that most putative adverse health outcomes associated with antidepressant use may not be supported by convincing evidence, and confounding by indication may alter the few associations with convincing evidence. Antidepressant use appears to be safe for the treatment of psychiatric disorders, but more studies matching for underlying disease are needed to clarify the degree of confounding by indication and other biases. No absolute contraindication to antidepressants emerged from this umbrella review.
Topics: Adolescent; Antidepressive Agents; Apgar Score; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Child; Female; Humans; Mental Disorders; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Observational Studies as Topic; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Suicide, Attempted; Suicide, Completed
PubMed: 31577342
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.2859 -
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 -
Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria (Sao... 2023To determine the prevalence and correlates of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) through a systematic review and meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To determine the prevalence and correlates of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria, an electronic search was performed in PubMed and Embase through May 17, 2022. All study designs that assessed a minimum of 20 schizophrenia-spectrum patients and provided data on TRS prevalence or allowed its calculation were included. Estimates were produced using a random-effects model meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The TRS prevalence across 50 studies (n = 29,390) was 36.7% (95%CI 33.1-40.5, p < 0.0001). The prevalence ranged from 22% (95%CI 18.4-25.8) in first-episode to 39.5% (95%CI 32.2-47.0) in multiple-episode samples (Q = 18.27, p < 0.0001). Primary treatment resistance, defined as no response from the first episode, was 23.6% (95%CI 20.5-26.8) vs. 9.3% (95%CI 6.8-12.2) for later-onset/secondary (≥ 6 months after initial treatment response). Longer illness duration and recruitment from long-term hospitals or clozapine clinics were associated with higher prevalence estimates. In meta-regression analyses, older age and poor functioning predicted greater TRS. When including only studies with lower bias risk, the TRS prevalence was 28.4%.
CONCLUSION
Different study designs and recruitment strategies accounted for most of the observed heterogeneity in TRS prevalence rates. The results point to early-onset and later-onset TRS as two separate disease pathways requiring clinical attention.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Clozapine; Prevalence; Schizophrenia; Drug Resistance
PubMed: 37718484
DOI: 10.47626/1516-4446-2023-3126