-
BMC Neurology Jun 2023Many drugs are prescribed in relieving acute migraine attacks, we aim to compare metoclopramide with other antimigraine drugs. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy and safety of metoclopramide in relieving acute migraine attacks compared with other anti-migraine drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Many drugs are prescribed in relieving acute migraine attacks, we aim to compare metoclopramide with other antimigraine drugs.
METHODS
We searched online databases like PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science till June 2022 for RCTs that compared metoclopramide alone with placebo or active drugs. The main outcomes were the mean change in headache score and complete headache relief. The secondary outcomes were the rescue medications need, side effects, nausea and recurrence rate. We qualitatively reviewed the outcomes. Then, we performed the network meta-analyses (NMAs) when it was possible. which were done by the Frequentist method using the MetaInsight online software.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included with a total of 1934 patients: 826 received metoclopramide, 302 received placebo, and 806 received other active drugs. Metoclopramide was effective in reducing headache outcomes even for 24 h. The intravenous route was the most chosen route in the included studies and showed significant positive results regarding headache outcomes; however, the best route whether intramuscular, intravenous, or suppository was not compared in the previous studies. Also, both 10 and 20 mg doses of metoclopramide were effective in improving headache outcomes; however, there was no direct comparison between both doses and the 10 mg dose was the most frequently used dosage. In NMA of headache change after 30 min or 1 h, metoclopramide effect came after granisetron, ketorolac, chlorpromazine, and Dexketoprofen trometamol. Only granisetron's effect was significantly higher than metoclopramide's effect which was only significantly higher than placebo and sumatriptan. In headache-free symptoms, only prochlorperazine was non-significantly higher than metoclopramide which was higher than other medications and showed significantly higher effects only with placebo. In rescue medication, metoclopramide's effect was only non-significantly lower than prochlorperazine and chlorpromazine while its effect was higher than other drugs and showed higher significant effects only than placebo and valproate. In the recurrence rate, studies showed no significant difference between metoclopramide and other drugs. Metoclopramide significantly decreased nausea more than the placebo. Regarding side effects, metoclopramide showed a lower incidence of mild side effects than pethidine and chlorpromazine and showed a higher incidence of mild side effects than placebo, dexamethasone, and ketorolac. The reported extrapyramidal symptoms with metoclopramide were dystonia or akathisia.
CONCLUSION
A dose of 10 mg IV Metoclopramide was effective in relieving migraine attacks with minimal side effects. Compared to other active drugs, it only showed a lower significant effect compared with granisetron regarding headache change while it showed significantly higher effects only with placebo in both rescue medication needs and headache-free symptoms and valproate in only rescue medication need. Also, it significantly decreased headache scores more than placebo and sumatriptan. However, more studies are needed to support our results.
Topics: Humans; Metoclopramide; Sumatriptan; Network Meta-Analysis; Prochlorperazine; Chlorpromazine; Granisetron; Valproic Acid; Ketorolac; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Migraine Disorders; Nausea; Headache
PubMed: 37291500
DOI: 10.1186/s12883-023-03259-7 -
The International Journal of... Jun 2023Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a highly prevalent and burdensome condition. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of vortioxetine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a highly prevalent and burdensome condition. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of vortioxetine in treating MDD based on real-world data.
METHODS
A systematic search of 8 electronic databases was performed from inception until October 2022 to identify real-world studies, excluding randomized controlled trials. We conducted subgroup, meta-regression, sensitivity analyses, publication bias, and quality assessments using the random-effects model. The effects were summarized by rates or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Of the 870 records identified, 11 studies (3139 participants) and 10 case reports or series were eligible for inclusion. Vortioxetine significantly relieved depression symptoms as assessed by both patients (SMD = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.60-2.89) and physicians (SMD = 3.73, 95% CI = 2.78-4.69). Cognitive function (SMD =1.86, 95% CI = 1.11-2.62) and functional disability (SMD =1.71, 95% CI = 1.14-2.29) were similarly markedly improved. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses showed that geographic location and medication regimen (whether combined with other antidepressants) were crucial factors influencing effectiveness (in terms of depression severity and cognitive function), potentially contributing to significant heterogeneity. The estimated response and remission rates were 66.4% (95% CI = 51.2%-81.5%) and 58.0% (95% CI = 48.9%-67.1%), respectively. Vortioxetine was well tolerated, with a pooled dropout rate of 3.5% (95% CI = 1.8%-5.8%), and the most common adverse event was nausea, with an estimated rate of 8.9% (95% CI = 3.8%-15.8%).
LIMITATIONS
The study has some limitations, including significant heterogeneity and limited evidence for some outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Vortioxetine is effective, well tolerated, and safe for treating MDD in clinical practice, with significant improvements observed in depressive severity, cognitive function, and functioning. Future studies should directly compare vortioxetine with other antidepressants in real-world settings to further evaluate its clinical utility.
Topics: Humans; Vortioxetine; Depressive Disorder, Major; Antidepressive Agents; Nausea; Cognition
PubMed: 37105713
DOI: 10.1093/ijnp/pyad018 -
Archivio Italiano Di Urologia,... Dec 2021To review the evidence concerning treatment-related gynecomastia in patients taking spironolactone, antiandrogens, 5 alpha-reductase inhibitors, lipid-lowering and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To review the evidence concerning treatment-related gynecomastia in patients taking spironolactone, antiandrogens, 5 alpha-reductase inhibitors, lipid-lowering and psychotropic drugs.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A search of Medline and EMBASE was performed up to 30 June 2021. We included randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of a drug belonging to these classes versus placebo or versus a drug of the same class.
RESULTS
A total of 32 randomized controlled trials were included in the final review. There was an increased odds of gynecomastia in men receiving antiandrogens (OR = 17.38, 95% CI: 11.26 to 26.82; 6 trials, 9599 participants) and 5 alpha-reductase inhibitors compared to controls (OR = 1.77, 95% CI: 1.53 to 2.06; 7 series out of 6 trials, 34860 participants). The use of spironolactone in mixed gender populations was characterized by significantly higher odds of having gynecomastia compared to controls (OR = 8.39, 95% CI: 5.03 to 13.99; 14 trials, 3745 participants). No placebo-controlled trials focusing on the risk of gynecomastia in patients taking antipsychotic drugs was available, although there was a significant difference in the odds of having gynecomastia in a comparison between risperidone and quetiapine (OR = 4.32, 95% CI: 1.31 to 14.27; 3 trials, 343 participants). Limited evidence about the effects of statins on mammary glands was found.
CONCLUSIONS
Antiandrogens and to a lesser extent 5 alphareductase inhibitors and spironolactone are associated with an increased risk of developing gynecomastia. Such effect can be explained by a modification of the testosterone to estradiol ratio. Gynecomastia (and galactorrhea) associated to the use of conventional and certain atypical antipsychotics can be related to high prolactin levels.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Gynecomastia; Humans; Male; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone
PubMed: 34933535
DOI: 10.4081/aiua.2021.4.489 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jun 2016Constipation is a frequently overlooked side effect of clozapine treatment that can prove fatal. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Constipation is a frequently overlooked side effect of clozapine treatment that can prove fatal. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence and risk factors for clozapine-associated constipation. Two authors performed a systematic search of major electronic databases from January 1990 to March 2016 for articles reporting the prevalence of constipation in adults treated with clozapine. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted. A total of 32 studies were meta-analyzed, establishing a pooled prevalence of clozapine-associated constipation of 31.2% (95% CI: 25.6-37.4) (n = 2013). People taking clozapine were significantly more likely to be constipated versus other antipsychotics (OR 3.02 (CI: 1.91-4.77), p < 0.001, n = 11 studies). Meta-regression identified two significant study-level factors associated with constipation prevalence: significantly higher (p = 0.02) rates of constipation were observed for those treated in inpatient versus outpatient or mixed settings and for those studies in which constipation was a primary or secondary outcome measure (36.9%) compared to studies in which constipation was not a specified outcome measure (24.8%, p = 0.048). Clozapine-associated constipation is common and approximately three times more likely than with other antipsychotics. Screening and preventative strategies should be established and appropriate symptomatic treatment applied when required.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Clozapine; Constipation; Humans; Odds Ratio; Prevalence; Schizophrenia; Serotonin Antagonists
PubMed: 27271593
DOI: 10.3390/ijms17060863 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Fibromyalgia is a clinically defined chronic condition of unknown etiology characterised by chronic widespread pain, sleep disturbance, cognitive dysfunction, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fibromyalgia is a clinically defined chronic condition of unknown etiology characterised by chronic widespread pain, sleep disturbance, cognitive dysfunction, and fatigue. Many patients report high disability levels and poor quality of life. Drug therapy aims to reduce key symptoms, especially pain, and improve quality of life. The tetracyclic antidepressant, mirtazapine, may help by increasing serotonin and noradrenaline in the central nervous system (CNS).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of the tetracyclic antidepressant, mirtazapine, compared with placebo or other active drug(s) in the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, the US National Institutes of Health, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for published and ongoing trials, and examined reference lists of reviewed articles, to 9 July 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any formulation of mirtazapine against placebo, or any other active treatment of fibromyalgia, in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, outcomes of efficacy, tolerability and safety, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias, resolving discrepancies by discussion. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain relief (at least 50% or 30% pain reduction), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC; much or very much improved), safety (serious adverse events), and tolerability (adverse event withdrawal). Other outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improved by 20% or more, fatigue, sleep problems, mean pain intensity, negative mood and particular adverse events. We used a random-effects model to calculate risk difference (RD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and numbers needed to treat. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
Three studies with 606 participants compared mirtazapine with placebo (but not other drugs) over seven to 13 weeks. Two studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in six or seven of eight domains. We judged the evidence for all outcomes to be low- or very low-quality because of poor study quality, indirectness, imprecision, risk of publication bias, and sometimes low numbers of events.There was no difference between mirtazapine and placebo for any primary outcome: participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater (22% versus 16%; RD 0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.12; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); no data available for PGIC; only a single serious adverse event for evaluation of safety (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; three studies with 606 participants; very low-quality evidence); and tolerability as frequency of dropouts due to adverse events (3% versus 2%; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence).Mirtazapine showed a clinically-relevant benefit compared to placebo for some secondary outcomes: participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater (47% versus 34%; RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.21; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 8, 95% CI 5 to 20; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported mean pain intensity (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.13; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); and participant-reported sleep problems (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.06; three studies with 573 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no benefit for improvement of participant-reported improvement of HRQoL of 20% or greater (58% versus 50%; RD 0.08, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.16; three studies with 586 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported fatigue (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.16; two studies with 533 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported negative mood (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.44 to 0.10; three studies with 588 participants; low-quality evidence); or withdrawals due to lack of efficacy (1.5% versus 0.1%; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; three studies with 605 participants; very low-quality evidence).There was no difference between mirtazapine and placebo for participants reporting any adverse event (76% versus 59%; RD 0.12, 95 CI -0.01 to 0.26; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence). There was a clinically-relevant harm with mirtazapine compared to placebo: in the number of participants with somnolence (42% versus 14%; RD 0.24, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.30; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 5, 95% CI 3 to 6; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence); weight gain (19% versus 1%; RD 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.23; NNTH 6, 95% CI 5 to 10; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence); and elevated alanine aminotransferase (13% versus 2%; RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.22; NNTH 8, 95% CI 5 to 25; two studies with 566 participants; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Studies demonstrated no benefit of mirtazapine over placebo for pain relief of 50% or greater, PGIC, improvement of HRQoL of 20% or greater, or reduction of fatigue or negative mood. Clinically-relevant benefits were shown for pain relief of 30% or greater, reduction of mean pain intensity, and sleep problems. Somnolence, weight gain, and elevated alanine aminotransferase were more frequent with mirtazapine than placebo. The quality of evidence was low or very low, with two of three studies of questionable quality and issues over indirectness and risk of publication bias. On balance, any potential benefits of mirtazapine in fibromyalgia were outweighed by its potential harms, though, a small minority of people with fibromyalgia might experience substantial symptom relief without clinically-relevant adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Mianserin; Mirtazapine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30080242
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012708.pub2 -
Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford,... Jul 2023The classical psychedelics, psilocybin, peyote, ayahuasca/-dimethyltryptamine, and lysergic acid diethylamide are considered promising new treatments for psychiatric... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The classical psychedelics, psilocybin, peyote, ayahuasca/-dimethyltryptamine, and lysergic acid diethylamide are considered promising new treatments for psychiatric illnesses, such as depression, anxiety, addiction, and obsessive-compulsive disorders. However, their profound and characteristic subjective effects raise concern for distinctive biases in randomized clinical trials.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature search to identify all clinical trials on classical psychedelics with patient populations to examine descriptive data and determine the risk of bias. Two independent reviewers searched three databases (PubMed, Embase, and APA PsycNet) and extracted information on study design, study population, use of active or inactive placebo, dropouts, evaluation of blinding of intervention, and reporting of expectancy and therapeutic alliance.
RESULTS
We included 10 papers reporting on 10 unique trials. The trials generally included populations that were predominantly white and highly educated. The trials had small samples and considerable dropout. Blinding was either unsuccessful or not reported regardless of type of placebo. Few trials published protocols, statistical analysis plans (SAPs), and outcomes relating to psychotherapy fidelity. All trials but one were rated as high risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
Successful blinding of intervention is a significant challenge in this field. To better accommodate this, we suggest that future trials use a parallel-group design and utilize an active placebo on a psychedelic-naïve population. Future trials should publish trial protocol and SAPs, use clinician-rated outcomes accessed by a blinded rater, evaluate blinding of intervention, and consider measuring expectancy and therapeutic fidelity.
Topics: Humans; Hallucinogens; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Lysergic Acid Diethylamide; Psilocybin; Anxiety Disorders
PubMed: 37403379
DOI: 10.1177/02698811231180276 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Ondansetron is a selective antagonist of the serotonin 5-HT3 receptor that is commonly used to treat morning sickness. It is estimated that 70%-80% of pregnant women...
Ondansetron is a selective antagonist of the serotonin 5-HT3 receptor that is commonly used to treat morning sickness. It is estimated that 70%-80% of pregnant women suffer from morning sickness, a condition characterized by nausea and vomiting. However, it is still controversial regarding its safety during pregnancy, and continued research will be necessary to fully understand the risks and benefits associated with its use. Therefore, we aimed to identify and provide details of the efficacy and safety of ondansetron in clinical trials. A search was conducted of the ClinicalTrials.gov database on 13 April 2023, using the search term "ondansetron and pregnancy." Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined to identify relevant clinical trials. The inclusion criteria encompassed clinical trials related to pregnancy that utilized ondansetron as a treatment, while other clinical trials were excluded from consideration. All data extractions such as study title, study status, study type, intervention details, and outcome were collected. A total of 18 clinical trials were identified, of which only 6 focused on studying the effects of ondansetron. Their respective study titles, statuses, conditions, interventions, outcome measures, and enrollment sizes have been written in detail. The information collected from these trials will contribute to our understanding of the potential benefits and risks of ondansetron in the context of pregnancy and its complications. Ondansetron has been shown to be an effective treatment for nausea and vomiting, including pregnancy-related morning sickness. Further research is needed to better understand the potential risks and benefits associated with its use in pregnant women. ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier.
PubMed: 37936910
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1291235 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2016Cocaine dependence is a public health problem characterised by recidivism and a host of medical and psychosocial complications. Cocaine dependence remains a disorder for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cocaine dependence is a public health problem characterised by recidivism and a host of medical and psychosocial complications. Cocaine dependence remains a disorder for which no pharmacological treatment of proven efficacy exists.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and the acceptability of antipsychotic medications for cocaine dependence.
SEARCH METHODS
This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review published in 2007. We searched up to 15 July 2015 in Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register (searched in CRSLive); the Cochrane Library (including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL and Web of Science. All searches included non-English language literature.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials with focus on the use of any antipsychotic medication for the treatment of cocaine dependence.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 studies (719 participants). The antipsychotic drugs studied were risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, lamotrigine, aripiprazol, haloperidol and reserpine. Comparing any antipsychotic drugs versus placebo, we found that antipsychotics reduced dropout: eight studies, 397 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.97), moderate quality of evidence. We found no significant differences for any of the other primary outcomes considered: number of participants using cocaine during the treatment, two studies, 91 participants: RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.62); continuous abstinence, three studies, 139 participants: RR 1.30 (95% CI 0.73 to 2.32); side effects, six studies, 291 participants: RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.10); and craving, four studies, 240 participants: RR 0.13 (-1.08 to 1.35). For all of these comparisons we rated the quality of evidence as low.Comparisons of single drug versus placebo or versus another drug are conducted in few trials with small sample sizes, limiting the reliability of the results. Among these comparisons, only quetiapine seemed to outperform placebo in reducing cocaine use, measured by grams per week: mean difference (MD) -0.54 (95% CI -0.92 to -0.16), by US dollars spent per week: MD -53.80 (95% CI -97.85 to -9.75), and by craving: MD -1.23 (95% CI -2.19 to -0.27), but results came from one study with 60 participants.The major limitations of the studies were the high risk of attrition bias (40% of the included studies) and low quality of reporting, mainly for the risk of selection bias, performance and detection bias, that we rated as being at unclear risk for 75% to 80% of the studies. Furthermore, most of the included studies did not report results on important outcomes such as side effects, or use of cocaine during treatment and craving, which prevented the possibility of including them in statistical synthesis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
At present, there is no evidence supporting the clinical use of antipsychotic medications in the treatment of cocaine dependence, although results come from only 14 trials, with small sample sizes and moderate to low quality of evidence.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Benzodiazepines; Cocaine-Related Disorders; Haloperidol; Humans; Lamotrigine; Olanzapine; Patient Dropouts; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reserpine; Risperidone; Triazines
PubMed: 26992929
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006306.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Psychosis is three times more common in people with an intellectual disability than in those without an intellectual disability. A low intelligence quotient (IQ) is a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Psychosis is three times more common in people with an intellectual disability than in those without an intellectual disability. A low intelligence quotient (IQ) is a defining characteristic for intellectual disability and a risk factor for poor outcome in psychosis. Clozapine is recommended for treatment-resistant psychosis. The effect of psychotropic medication can be different in people with intellectual disability; for example, they may be more prone to side effects. People with an intellectual disability and psychosis form a special subgroup and we wanted to examine if there is randomised controlled trial (RCT) data in this population to support the use of clozapine.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of clozapine for treating adults with a dual diagnosis of intellectual disability and psychosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and eight other databases up to December 2014. We also searched two trials registers, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials, and contacted the manufacturers of clozapine.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs that assessed the effects of clozapine, at any dose, for treating adults (aged 18 years and over) with a dual diagnosis of intellectual disability and psychotic disorder, compared with placebo or another antipsychotic medication.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently screened all titles, abstracts and any relevant full-text reports against the inclusion criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
Of the 1224 titles and abstracts screened, we shortlisted 38 full-text articles, which we subsequently excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. These studies were not RCTs. Consequently, no studies are included in this Cochrane review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There are currently no RCTs that assess the efficacy and side effects of clozapine in people with intellectual disabilities and psychoses. Given the use of clozapine in this vulnerable population, there is an urgent need for a RCT of clozapine in people with a dual diagnosis of intellectual disability and psychosis to fill the evidence gap.
Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Clozapine; Humans; Intellectual Disability; Psychotic Disorders
PubMed: 26397173
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010625.pub2 -
East Asian Archives of Psychiatry :... Jun 2023Clozapine is a potent antipsychotic medication with a complex receptor profile. It is reserved for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. We systematically reviewed studies...
OBJECTIVE
Clozapine is a potent antipsychotic medication with a complex receptor profile. It is reserved for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. We systematically reviewed studies of non-psychosis symptoms of clozapine withdrawal.
METHODS
CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched using the keywords 'clozapine,' and 'withdrawal,' or 'supersensitivity,' 'cessation,' 'rebound,' or 'discontinuation'. Studies related to non-psychosis symptoms after clozapine withdrawal were included.
RESULTS
Five original studies and 63 case reports / series were included in analysis. In 195 patients included in the five original studies, approximately 20% experienced non-psychosis symptoms following discontinuation of clozapine. In 89 patients in four of the studies, 27 experienced cholinergic rebound, 13 exhibited extrapyramidal symptoms (including tardive dyskinesia), and three had catatonia. In 63 case reports / series included, 72 patients with non-psychosis symptoms were reported, which were catatonia (n=30), dystonia or dyskinesia (n=17), cholinergic rebound (n=11), serotonin syndrome (n=4), mania (n=3), insomnia (n=3), neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) [n=3, one of them had both catatonia and NMS], and de novo obsessive compulsive symptoms (n=2). Restarting clozapine appeared to be the most effective treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
Non-psychosis symptoms following clozapine withdrawal have important clinical implications. Clinicians should be aware of the possible presentations of symptoms to ensure early recognition and management. Further research is warranted to better characterise the prevalence, risk factors, prognosis, and optimal drug dosing for each withdrawal symptom.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Catatonia; Cholinergic Agents; Clozapine; Schizophrenia; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 37400227
DOI: 10.12809/eaap2261