-
American Journal of Men's Health 2022Premature ejaculation (PE) is one of the major causes of sexual dysfunction. Levosulpiride is an off-label medicine used to treat PE, but no review on its efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Premature ejaculation (PE) is one of the major causes of sexual dysfunction. Levosulpiride is an off-label medicine used to treat PE, but no review on its efficacy exists. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine the efficacy of levosulpiride in treating PE. Databases PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar were searched. Randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing levosulpiride with placebo or other medicine were selected. Odds ratio (OR) of improved intravaginal ejaculation latency time (IELT) was calculated. A total of 97 articles were retrieved from database search, of which only four RCTs containing 203 men met the selection criteria. All four RCTs were included in systematic review while only two were included in meta-analysis. A high selection and detection bias was found in both of these studies. Meta-analysis also showed the odds of improving IELT in PE patients using levosulpiride to be significantly higher ( < .05) compared with those who used placebo, OR: 100.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) [13.12-774.90], = 0%. Odds of improving IELT for > 5 min (500% improvement) were also significantly higher ( < .05) compared with the placebo groups (OR: 38.88, 95% CI [5.12-295.29], = 0%). The odds of improving IELT for > 1 min, but < 5 min were also significantly higher ( < .05) than placebo groups (OR: 32.84, 95% CI [4.15-259.75], = 0%). Levosulpiride improved IELT, but even so, limited studies are available on this topic. Additional research is thus required to support the present review's findings.
Topics: Ejaculation; Humans; Male; Premature Ejaculation; Sulpiride; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36154321
DOI: 10.1177/15579883221124832 -
CNS Drugs Aug 2023Considering the improvement in adherence and convenience, once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) has been increasingly used in the treatment of schizophrenia.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effectiveness and Safety of Switching from Oral Antipsychotics to Once-Monthly Paliperidone Palmitate (PP1M) in the Management of Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
Considering the improvement in adherence and convenience, once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) has been increasingly used in the treatment of schizophrenia. However, the outcomes for patients who switch from oral antipsychotics (OAPs) to PP1M have not been reliably assessed. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of PP1M in the management of patients with schizophrenia with a prior history of OAP use.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library on 19 July 2022 to identify eligible studies. All studies that examined the effectiveness and safety of switching from OAPs to PP1M in patients with schizophrenia were included. The primary outcomes were relapse rate, hospitalisation rate, and the change from baseline in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score. The secondary outcomes included the changed number of inpatient visits, changed length of stay hospitalisation, change from baseline in the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) score and the personal and social performance (PSP) total score, response rate, proportion of treatment discontinuation, and adverse events. We included randomised-controlled trials (RCTs), single-arm studies, and observational studies. Case reports, case series, and reviews were excluded. The quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB2), the 9-point Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) instrument for non-randomised studies and cohort studies, and the 12-item National Institutes of Health (NIH) quality assessment tool for before-after (Pre-Post) study without control group. Follow-up times were reported as short- (≤ 13 weeks), medium- (14-26 weeks), and long term (≥ 27 weeks). Data were pooled using meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies with a total of 4740 patients were included. The long-term relapse rates and hospitalisation rates were 12% (95% CI 0.07-0.18) and 18% (95% CI 0.15-0.20), respectively. The short-, medium-, and long-term change in PANSS total score was - 21.69 (95% CI - 30.02 to -13.36), - 14.98 (95% CI - 21.45 to - 8.51) and - 17.88 (95% CI - 31.94 to -3.82), respectively. Approximately 50% of patients reported at least a 30% reduction in the PANSS score at the short-term follow-up. Improvements in CGI-S and PSP score were observed during various periods. There was a reduction in the length of stay hospitalisation and the number of inpatient visits at the medium- and long-term follow-ups. Low discontinuation and adverse event rates were reported.
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings, this study may support the efficacy and safety of switching from OAPs to PP1M for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. Future large-scale studies are warranted to confirm our findings.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Paliperidone Palmitate; Schizophrenia; Administration, Oral; Recurrence; Chronic Disease
PubMed: 37490267
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-023-01028-1 -
Brain and Behavior Jun 2023Sydenham's chorea (SC), prevalent in developing countries and occasionally affecting developed ones, poses a clinical challenge due to the lack of systematic guidelines... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Sydenham's chorea (SC), prevalent in developing countries and occasionally affecting developed ones, poses a clinical challenge due to the lack of systematic guidelines for diagnosis and treatment. Resulting from Group A Beta-Hemolytic Streptococcus infection, SC presents various symptoms. This review aims to collect and evaluate available data on SC management to propose a cohesive treatment plan.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov for literature on SC management from inception until 24th July 2022. Studies were screened by titles and abstracts. Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool (RoB-1) assessed Randomized Controlled Trials, while the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool evaluated nonrandomized studies.
RESULTS
The review includes 11 articles assessing 579 patients. Excluding one study with 229 patients, of the remaining 550 patients, 338 (61.5%) were females. Treatments used were dopamine antagonists in 118 patients, antiepileptics in 198, corticosteroids in 134, IVIG in 7, and PE in 8 patients. Dopamine antagonists, particularly haloperidol, were the primary treatment choice, while valproic acid (VPA) was favored among antiepileptics. Prednisolone, a corticosteroid, showed promising results with weight gain as the only side-effect. Our review emphasizes the importance of immunomodulators in SC, contrasting previous literature.
CONCLUSION
Despite limitations, dopamine antagonists can serve as first-line agents in SC management, followed by antiepileptics. The role of immunomodulators warrants further investigation for conclusive recommendations.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Chorea; Anticonvulsants; Valproic Acid; Haloperidol; Dopamine Antagonists
PubMed: 37150977
DOI: 10.1002/brb3.3035 -
Psychopharmacology Nov 2022While one of the basic axioms of pharmacology postulates that there is a relationship between the concentration and effects of a drug, the value of measuring blood... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
RATIONALE
While one of the basic axioms of pharmacology postulates that there is a relationship between the concentration and effects of a drug, the value of measuring blood levels is questioned by many clinicians. This is due to the often-missing validation of therapeutic reference ranges.
OBJECTIVES
Here, we present a prototypical meta-analysis of the relationships between blood levels of aripiprazole, its target engagement in the human brain, and clinical effects and side effects in patients with schizophrenia and related disorders.
METHODS
The relevant literature was systematically searched and reviewed for aripiprazole oral and injectable formulations. Population-based concentration ranges were computed (N = 3,373) and pharmacokinetic influences investigated.
RESULTS
Fifty-three study cohorts met the eligibility criteria. Twenty-nine studies report blood level after oral, 15 after injectable formulations, and nine were positron emission tomography studies. Conflicting evidence for a relationship between concentration, efficacy, and side effects exists (assigned level of evidence low, C; and absent, D). Population-based reference ranges are well in-line with findings from neuroimaging data and individual efficacy studies. We suggest a therapeutic reference range of 120-270 ng/ml and 180-380 ng/ml, respectively, for aripiprazole and its active moiety for the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders.
CONCLUSIONS
High interindividual variability and the influence of CYP2D6 genotypes gives a special indication for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of oral and long-acting aripiprazole. A starting dose of 10 mg will in most patients result in effective concentrations in blood and brain. 5 mg will be sufficient for known poor metabolizers.
Topics: Humans; Aripiprazole; Schizophrenia; Reference Values; Antipsychotic Agents; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2D6
PubMed: 36195732
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-022-06233-2 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Apr 2017The aim of this article was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of various antiemetics in prophylaxis of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of this article was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of various antiemetics in prophylaxis of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV).
METHODS
A literature search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of prophylaxis for RINV in patients receiving radiotherapy to abdomen/pelvis, including total body irradiation (TBI). Primary endpoints were complete control of nausea and complete control of vomiting during acute and delayed phases. Secondary endpoints included use of rescue medication, quality of life (QoL) and incidence of adverse events.
RESULTS
Seventeen RCTs were identified. Among patients receiving radiotherapy to abdomen/pelvis, our meta-analysis showed that prophylaxis with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3 RA) was significantly more efficacious than placebo and dopamine receptor antagonists in both complete control of vomiting [OR 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.72 and OR 0.17; 95% CI: 0.05-0.58 respectively] and complete control of nausea (OR 0.43; 95% CI: 0.26-0.70 and OR 0.46; 95% CI: 0.24-0.88 respectively). 5HT3 RAs were also more efficacious than rescue therapy and dopamine receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone. The addition of dexamethasone to 5HT3 RA compared to 5HT3 RA alone provides a modest improvement in prophylaxis of RINV. Among patients receiving TBI, 5HT3 RA was more effective than other agents (placebo, combination of metoclopramide, dexamethasone and lorazepam).
CONCLUSIONS
5HT3 RAs are more effective than other antiemetics for prophylaxis of RINV in patients receiving radiotherapy to abdomen/pelvis and TBI. Future RCTs should investigate the efficacy of newer agents such as substance P neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists in addition to 5HT3 RAs in prophylaxis of RINV during both acute and delayed phases.
Topics: Antiemetics; Humans; Nausea; Radiotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting
PubMed: 28249542
DOI: 10.21037/apm.2016.12.01 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Schizophrenia is a mental illness causing disordered beliefs, ideas and sensations. Many people with schizophrenia smoke cannabis, and it is unclear why a large... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Schizophrenia is a mental illness causing disordered beliefs, ideas and sensations. Many people with schizophrenia smoke cannabis, and it is unclear why a large proportion do so and if the effects are harmful or beneficial. It is also unclear what the best method is to allow people with schizophrenia to alter their cannabis intake.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of specific psychological treatments for cannabis reduction in people with schizophrenia.To assess the effects of antipsychotics for cannabis reduction in people with schizophrenia.To assess the effects of cannabinoids (cannabis related chemical compounds derived from cannabis or manufactured) for symptom reduction in people with schizophrenia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, 12 August 2013, which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PUBMED and PsycINFO.We searched all references of articles selected for inclusion for further relevant trials. We contacted the first author of included studies for unpublished trials or data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials involving cannabinoids and schizophrenia/schizophrenia-like illnesses, which assessed:1) treatments to reduce cannabis use in people with schizophrenia;2) the effects of cannabinoids on people with schizophrenia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently inspected citations, selected papers and then re-inspected the studies if there were discrepancies, and extracted data. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and for continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis, based on a fixed-effect model. We excluded data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50%. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified eight randomised trials, involving 530 participants, which met our selection criteria.For the cannabis reduction studies no one treatment showed superiority for reduction in cannabis use. Overall, data were poorly reported for many outcomes of interest. Our main outcomes of interest were medium-term data for cannabis use, global state, mental state, global functioning, adverse events, leaving the study early and satisfaction with treatment. 1. Reduction in cannabis use: adjunct psychological therapies (specifically about cannabis and psychosis) versus treatment as usualResults from one small study showed people receiving adjunct psychological therapies specifically about cannabis and psychosis were no more likely to reduce their intake than those receiving treatment as usual (n = 54, 1 RCT, MD -0.10, 95% CI -2.44 to 2.24, moderate quality evidence). Results for other main outcomes at medium term were also equivocal. No difference in mental state measured on the PANSS positive were observed between groups (n = 62, 1 RCT, MD -0.30 95% CI -2.55 to 1.95, moderate quality evidence). Nor for the outcome of general functioning measured using the World Health Organization Quality of Life BREF (n = 49, 1 RCT, MD 0.90 95% CI -1.15 to 2.95, moderate quality evidence). No data were reported for the other main outcomes of interest 2. Reduction in cannabis use: adjunct psychological therapy (specifically about cannabis and psychosis) versus adjunct non-specific psychoeducation One study compared specific psychological therapy aimed at cannabis reduction with general psychological therapy. At three-month follow-up, the use of cannabis in the previous four weeks was similar between treatment groups (n = 47, 1 RCT, RR 1.04 95% CI 0.62 to 1.74, moderate quality evidence). Again, at a medium-term follow-up, the average mental state scores from the Brief Pscychiatric Rating Scale-Expanded were similar between groups (n = 47, 1 RCT, MD 3.60 95% CI - 5.61 to 12.81, moderate quality evidence). No data were reported for the other main outcomes of interest: global state, general functioning, adverse events, leaving the study early and satisfaction with treatment. 3. Reduction in cannabis use: antipsychotic versus antipsychotic In a small trial comparing effectiveness of olanzapine versus risperidone for cannabis reduction, there was no difference between groups at medium-term follow-up (n = 16, 1 RCT, RR 1.80 95% CI 0.52 to 6.22, moderate quality evidence). The number of participants leaving the study early at medium term was also similar (n = 28, 1 RCT, RR 0.50 95% CI 0.19 to 1.29, moderate quality evidence). Mental state data were reported, however they were reported within the short term and no difference was observed. No data were reported for global state, general functioning, and satisfaction with treatment.With regards to adverse effects data, no study reported medium-term data. Short-term data were presented but overall, no real differences between treatment groups were observed for adverse effects. 4. Cannabinoid as treatment: cannabidiol versus amisulprideAgain, no data were reported for any of the main outcomes of interest at medium term. There were short-term data reported for mental state using the BPRS and PANSS, no overall differences in mental state were observed between treatment groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Results are limited and inconclusive due to the small number and size of randomised controlled trials available and quality of data reporting within these trials. More research is needed to a) explore the effects of adjunct psychological therapy that is specifically about cannabis and psychosis as currently there is no evidence for any novel intervention being better than standard treatment,for those that use cannabis and have schizophrenia b) decide the most effective drug treatment in treating those that use cannabis and have schizophrenia, and c) assess the effectiveness of cannabidiol in treating schizophrenia. Currently evidence is insufficient to show cannabidiol has an antipsychotic effect.
Topics: Amisulpride; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Cannabinoids; Humans; Marijuana Abuse; Medical Marijuana; Olanzapine; Psychotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone; Schizophrenia; Sulpiride
PubMed: 25314586
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004837.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Schizophrenia is a severe mental disorder with a prevalence of about 1% among the general population. It is listed among the top 10 causes of disability-adjusted life... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Schizophrenia is a severe mental disorder with a prevalence of about 1% among the general population. It is listed among the top 10 causes of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) worldwide. Antipsychotics are the mainstay treatment. Piperacetazine has been reported to be as clinically effective as chlorpromazine, a well established 'benchmark' antipsychotic, for people with schizophrenia. However, the side effect profiles of these antipsychotics differ and it is important that an evidence base is available comparing the benefits, and potential harms of these two antipsychotics.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical and side effects of chlorpromazine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses in comparison with piperacetazine.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (6 June 2015 and 8 October 2018) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, CENTRAL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on chlorpromazine versus piperacetazine for people with schizophrenia, reporting useable data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We found 12 records referring to six trials. We included five trials, all from the 1970s, randomising 343 participants. We excluded one trial. The overall methodology and data reporting by the trials was poor. Only short-term data were available.Results from the included trials found that, in terms of global state improvement, when rated by a psychiatrist, there was no clear difference between chlorpromazine and piperacetazine (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; participants = 208; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence). One trial reported change scores on the mental state scale Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS); no clear difference was observed (MD -0.40, 95% CI -1.41 to 0.61; participants = 182; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). Chlorpromazine appears no worse or better than piperacetazine regarding adverse effects. In both treatment groups, around 60% of participants experienced some sort of adverse effect (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.33; participants = 74; studies = 3; very low-quality evidence), with approximately 40% of these participants experiencing some parkinsonism-type movement disorder (RR 0.95, CI 0.61 to 1.49; participants = 106; studies = 3; very low-quality evidence). No clear difference in numbers of participants leaving the study early for any reason was observed (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.56; participants = 256; studies = 4; very low-quality evidence). No trial reported data for change in negative symptoms or economic costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The results of this review show chlorpromazine and piperacetazine may have similar clinical efficacy, but data are based on very small numbers of participants and the evidence is very low quality. We can not make firm conclusions based on such data. Currently, should clinicians and people with schizophrenia need to choose between chlorpromazine and piperacetazine they should be aware there is no good quality evidence to base decisions. More high quality research is needed.
Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Chlorpromazine; Female; Humans; Male; Phenothiazines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30378678
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011709.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Dyspepsia is a common condition associated with gastrointestinal (GI) disease. Prokinetics are the treatment of choice for functional dyspepsia (FD). However, the role... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dyspepsia is a common condition associated with gastrointestinal (GI) disease. Prokinetics are the treatment of choice for functional dyspepsia (FD). However, the role of prokinetics in FD treatment is still controversial.
OBJECTIVES
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy of prokinetics in the treatment of FD. The primary outcome was overall absence of or improvement of symptoms and symptom scores at the end of treatment. We also evaluated quality of life (QoL) and adverse events as secondary outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL, from 1946 until September 2017. RevMan 5.3 was used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RR) of symptoms persisting or without improved QoL or adverse events, mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) of post-treatment symptoms scores, changes of symptom scores, and QoL, when appropriate with 95% confidence intervals (CI), using a random-effects model. Quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE methodology.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies that were parallel group RCTs comparing one prokinetic with either placebo or another prokinetic of the same or different class for the treatment of FD. Studies involved adults who presented with dyspepsia symptoms and who had negative or insignificant findings on endoscopy as well as no other organic and metabolic disorders. Studies only including participants with primarily reflux or heartburn symptoms were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, study quality and performed data extraction.
MAIN RESULTS
From an initial 1388 citations, we identified 43 studies in 40 papers. Of those, 29 studies with 10,044 participants compared six prokinetics with placebo for the outcome of absence of symptoms or symptom improvement. There was a statistically significant effect of prokinetic treatment in reducing global symptoms of FD (RR of remaining dyspeptic = 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.89; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) =7, very low-quality evidence) with considerable heterogeneity; I = 91% (P < 0.00001). After removing cisapride from the analysis, the effect of prokinetics in global symptom improvement still persisted, compared to placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.94), but was still based on very low-quality evidence. The result showed persistence of significant improvement in subgroups of studies at unclear or at low risk of bias (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80-0.92), and in subgroups by molecules of cisapride (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93; NNTB = 4), acotiamide (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.98; NNTB = 20) and tegaserod(RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.96; NNTB = 14).Ten studies compared different types of prokinetics with each other and the most commonly used comparator was domperidone, 10 mg three times a day (eight of the 10 studies). There was a significantly better post-treatment symptom score in other prokinetics, compared to domperidone (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.03, very low-quality evidence), but no difference in reducing global symptom (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07), and mean difference symptom scores (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.05). We found five studies that assessed quality of life, but there was no benefit in improving quality of life with prokinetic treatment (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.33; participants = 1774). The adverse events in individual prokinetics was not different from placebo (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.25; participants = 3811; studies = 17). However, when we looked at the adverse effects by each prokinetic, there were overall greater adverse effects in the active treatment group with cisapride (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.65; P = 0.03). The most common side effects were diarrhoea, abdominal discomfort and nausea. The funnel plot was asymmetric (Egger's test, P = 0.02) implying reporting bias or other small-study effects may be, in part, driving the benefit of prokinetics compared to placebo in this meta-analysis. The GRADE assessment of the quality of the evidence in each outcome are mostly low or very low due to concerns around risk of bias in study design, unexplained heterogeneity and possible publication bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Due to low, or very low, quality of evidence, we are unable to say whether prokinetics are effective for the treatment of functional dyspepsia . We are uncertain which of the individual prokinetic drugs is the most effective as well as whether prokinetics can improve quality of life. Apart from cisapride, prokinetics are well-tolerated. Good quality RCTs are needed to verify the efficacy of prokinetics.
Topics: Benzamides; Benzyl Compounds; Cisapride; Domperidone; Dyspepsia; Erythromycin; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Indoles; Morpholines; Numbers Needed To Treat; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thiazoles
PubMed: 30335201
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009431.pub3 -
Medicine Sep 2023Atypical antipsychotic (AAP) augmentation is an alternative strategy for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who had an inadequate response to antidepressant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and safety of 4 atypical antipsychotics augmentation treatment for major depressive disorder in adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Atypical antipsychotic (AAP) augmentation is an alternative strategy for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who had an inadequate response to antidepressant therapy (ADT). We aimed to compare and rank the efficacy and safety of 4 AAPs in the adjuvant treatment of MDD.
METHODS
We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published and unpublished from the date of databases and clinical trial websites inception to April 30, 2023. The evidence risk of bias (RoB) and certainty are assessed using the Cochrane bias risk tool and grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) framework, respectively. Using network meta-analysis, we estimated summary risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean difference (SMD) based on the random effects model.
RESULTS
56 eligible studies comprising 11448 participants were included. In terms of primary efficacy outcome, compared with placebo (PBO), all AAPs had significant efficacy (SMD = -0.40; 95% CI, -0.68 to -0.12 for quetiapine (QTP); -0.35, -0.59 to -0.11 for olanzapine (OLA); -0.28, -0.47 to -0.09 for aripiprazole (ARI) and -0.25, -0.42 to -0.07 for brexpiprazole (BRE), respectively). In terms of acceptability, no significant difference was found, either agents versus agents or agents versus PBO. In terms of tolerability, compared with the PBO, QTP (RR = 0.24; 95% CI,0.11-0.53), OLA (0.30,0.10-0.55), ARI (0.39,0.22-0.69), and BRE (0.37,0.18-0.75) were significantly less well tolerated. 8 (14.2%) of 56 trials were assessed as low RoB, 38 (67.9%) trials had moderate RoB, and 10 (17.9%) had high RoB; By the GRADE, the certainty of most evidence was low or very low.
CONCLUSION
Adjuvant AAPs had significant efficacy compared with PBO, but treatment decisions must be made to balance the risks and benefits.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Depressive Disorder, Major; Antipsychotic Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Quetiapine Fumarate; Aripiprazole; Olanzapine; Adjuvants, Immunologic; Adjuvants, Pharmaceutic
PubMed: 37746943
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034670 -
BMJ Mental Health Feb 2023Are antipsychotic dose equivalents between acute mania and schizophrenia the same? (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
QUESTION
Are antipsychotic dose equivalents between acute mania and schizophrenia the same?
STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS
Six databases were systematically searched (from inception to 17 September 2022) to identify blinded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that used a flexible-dose oral antipsychotic drug for patients with acute mania. The mean and SD of the effective dose and the pre-post changes in manic symptoms were extracted. A network meta-analysis (NMA) under a frequentist framework was performed to examine the comparative efficacy between the antipsychotics. A classic mean dose method (sample size weighted) was used to calculate each antipsychotic dose equivalent to 1 mg/day olanzapine for acute mania. The antipsychotic dose equivalents of acute mania were compared with published data for schizophrenia.
FINDINGS
We included 42 RCTs which enrolled 11 396 participants with acute mania. The NMA showed that risperidone was superior to olanzapine (reported standardised mean difference: -022, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.02), while brexpiprazole was inferior to olanzapine (standardised mean difference: 0.36, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.64). The dose equivalents to olanzapine (with SD) were 0.68 (0.23) for haloperidol, 0.32 (0.07) for risperidone, 0.60 (0.11) for paliperidone, 8.00 (1.41) for ziprasidone, 41.46 (5.98) for quetiapine, 1.65 (0.32) for aripiprazole, 1.23 (0.20) for asenapine, 0.53 (0.14) for cariprazine and 0.22 (0.03) for brexpiprazole. Compared with the olanzapine dose equivalents for schizophrenia, those of acute mania were higher for quetiapine (p<0.001, 28.5%) and aripiprazole (p<0.001, 17.0%), but lower for haloperidol (p<0.001, -8.1%) and risperidone (p<0.001, -15.8%).
CONCLUSIONS
Antipsychotic drugs have been considered first-line treatment for acute mania, warranting specific dose equivalence for scientific and clinical purposes.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Olanzapine; Risperidone; Aripiprazole; Quetiapine Fumarate; Haloperidol; Bipolar Disorder; Mania; Schizophrenia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36789916
DOI: 10.1136/bmjment-2022-300546