-
Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) Dec 2022There is growing evidence of the association of Microscopic Colitis (MC) with the use of specific medications such as proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), Selective serotonin...
There is growing evidence of the association of Microscopic Colitis (MC) with the use of specific medications such as proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), Non-Steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), Statins and H2-receptor antagonists (H2RA). In our study, we calculated the pooled odds of MC in patients using these drugs. We performed a detailed search of major databases, including PubMed/Medline, Scopus, web of science, and Embase, to include the studies in which odds of MC were reported after using above mentioned drugs. A random-effects model was used to pool the estimates. Thirteen studies were included in our analysis consisting of 304,482 patients (34,194 cases and 270,018 controls). In eight studies, the control group consisted of a random population selected based on age, gender and same birth year, whereas 3 studies recruited patients who presented with diarrhea and underwent colonoscopy and biopsy to rule out MC. Two studies reported odds of MC for both diarrhea and random control groups. Patients taking PPIs were more likely to develop MC, AOR 2.65 (95% CI 1.81-3.50, 98.13%). Similarly, higher odds of association were found in patients taking SSRIs (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.27-2.96, 96.46%), NSAIDs (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.33-2.70, 92.70%) and Statins (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.19-2.30, 96.36%). No difference in odds of developing MC was seen in patients using H2RA compared to the control group (OR 2.70, 95% CI 0.32-5.08, 98.67%). We performed a subgroup analysis based on the control group and found higher odds of MC in patients on PPIs compared to the random control group (OR 4.55, 95% CI 2.90-6.19, 98.13%). Similarly, higher odds of MC were noted for SSRI (OR 3.23, 95% CI 1.54-4.92, 98.31%), NSAIDs (OR 3.27, 95% CI 2.06-4.48, 95.38%), and Statins (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.41-3.06, 98.11%) compared to the random control group. Contrary lower odds of MC were seen in the PPI and H2RA group compared to the diarrhea control group (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.88, 7.26%), (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.14-0.78, 0%) respectively. We found no difference in odds of MC in patients on SSRIs (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.49-1.42, 37.89%), NSAIDs (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.49-1.76, 59.37%) Statins (OR 0.91, 95% 0.66-1.17, 0%) and H2RA (OR 3.48, 95% CI -0.41-7.36, 98.89%) compared to the diarrhea control group. We also analyzed the association use of PPIs and NSAIDs with the development of collagenous colitis (CC) and lymphocytic colitis. Only the use of NSAIDs was associated with increased odds of developing collagenous colitis (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.50-1.72, 0%). No increased odds of CC and LC were seen in PPI users. PPIs, NSAIDs, SSRIs, and Statins are associated with an increased risk of MC compared to the random control group. On the contrary, the use of PPIs, NSAIDs, SSRIs, and Statins is not associated with an increased risk of MC when compared to the diarrhea control group.
PubMed: 36648871
DOI: 10.3390/diseases11010006 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with their initial antipsychotic drug treatment. Sometimes a second antipsychotic, in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with their initial antipsychotic drug treatment. Sometimes a second antipsychotic, in combination with the first, is used in these situations.
OBJECTIVES
To examine whether:1. treatment with antipsychotic combinations is effective for schizophrenia; and2. treatment with antipsychotic combinations is safe for the same illness.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, time, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. We ran searches in September 2010, August 2012 and January 2016. We checked for additional trials in the reference lists of included trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing antipsychotic combinations with antipsychotic monotherapy for the treatment of schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently extracted data from the included studies. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratios (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% CIs. For the meta-analysis we used a random-effects model. We used GRADE to complete a 'Summary of findings' table and assessed risk of bias for included studies.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixty-two studies are included in the review, 31 of these compared clozapine monotherapy with clozapine combination. We considered the risk of bias in the included studies to be moderate to high. The majority of trials had unclear allocation concealment, method of randomisation and blinding, and were not free of selective reporting.There is some limited evidence that combination therapy is superior to monotherapy in improving clinical response (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.85; participants = 2364; studies = 29, very low-quality evidence), although subgroup analyses show that the positive result was due to the studies with clozapine in both the monotherapy and combination groups (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.83; participants = 1127; studies = 17). Few studies reported on rate of relapse, most likely due to the short length of the studies. Overall, a combination of antipsychotics was not superior or inferior to antipsychotic monotherapy in preventing relapse (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.29; participants = 512; studies = 3, very low-quality evidence), but the pooled data showed high heterogeneity (I² = 82%). A combination of antipsychotics was not superior or inferior to antipsychotic monotherapy in reducing the number of participants discontinuing treatment early (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.07; participants = 3103; studies = 43, low-quality evidence). No difference was found between treatment groups in the number of participants hospitalised (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.55; participants = 202; studies = 3, low-quality evidence) . We did not find evidence of a difference between treatment groups in serious adverse events or those requiring discontinuation (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.69; participants = 2398; studies = 30, very low-quality evidence). There is as lack of evidence on clinically important change in quality of life, with only four studies reporting average endpoint or change data for this outcome on three different scales, none of which showed a difference between treatment groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently, most evidence regarding the use of antipsychotic combinations comes from short-term trials, limiting the assessment of long-term efficacy and safety. We found very low-quality evidence that a combination of antipsychotics may improve the clinical response. We also found low-quality evidence that a combination of antipsychotics is may make no difference at preventing participants from leaving the study early, preventing relapse and/or causing more serious adverse events than monotherapy.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Clozapine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Patient Dropouts; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Schizophrenia; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28658515
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009005.pub2 -
Addiction Biology Nov 2022Classic psychedelics refer to substances such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), psilocybin, ayahuasca, and mescaline, which induce altered states of consciousness by...
Classic psychedelics refer to substances such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), psilocybin, ayahuasca, and mescaline, which induce altered states of consciousness by acting mainly on 5-HT receptors. Recently, the interest of psychedelics as pharmacological treatment for psychiatric disorders has increased significantly, including their use on problematic use of alcohol. This systematic review is aimed to analyse the last two decades of studies examining the relationship between classic psychedelics and alcohol consumption. We searched PubMed and PsycInfo for human and preclinical studies published between January 2000 to December 2021. The search identified 639 publications. After selection, 27 studies were included. Human studies (n = 20) generally show promising data and seem to indicate that classic psychedelics could help reduce alcohol consumption. Nevertheless, some of these studies present methodological concerns such as low number of participants, lack of control group or difficulty in determining the effect of classic psychedelics in isolation. On the other hand, preclinical studies (n = 7) investigating the effect of these compounds on voluntary alcohol consumption are scarce and show some conflicting data. Among these compounds, psilocybin seems to show the most consistent data indicating that this compound could be a potential candidate to treat alcohol use disorders. In the absence of understanding the biological and/or psychological mechanisms, more studies including methodological quality parameters are needed to finally determine the effects of classic psychedelics on alcohol consumption.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Hallucinogens; Psilocybin; Alcoholism; Lysergic Acid Diethylamide; Mescaline
PubMed: 36301215
DOI: 10.1111/adb.13229 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2015Vestibular migraine is a common cause of episodic vertigo. Many preventive treatments have been proposed for this condition, including calcium antagonists,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Vestibular migraine is a common cause of episodic vertigo. Many preventive treatments have been proposed for this condition, including calcium antagonists, beta-blockers, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, selective 5-HT1 agonists, serotonin antagonists and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pharmacological agents for the prevention of vestibular migraine.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group (CENTDG) Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the CENTDG Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 5); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Clinicaltrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 5 June 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults (over 18 years) with a diagnosis of vestibular migraine orprobable vestibular migraine according to the Bárány Society/International Headache Society (IHS) criteria, treated in any setting, comparing pharmacological treatments used in the prevention of vestibular migraine, including beta-blockers, calcium antagonists, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, serotonin antagonists and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) against placebo or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
Our literature search identified 558 reports, however only 11 were sufficiently relevant for further assessment. We excluded two studies because they did not use the IHS diagnostic criteria for vestibular migraine. We excluded a further eight studies for various reasons related to their design (e.g. lack of placebo or no treatment comparator), aim (e.g. treatment of vestibular migraine rather than prevention) or conduct (e.g. early termination). We identified one ongoing study comparing metoprolol to placebo. The results of this study are awaited; recruitment of the last patient is expected by the end of 2016.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no evidence from RCTs to answer the question set out in the review objectives. This review has identified the need for well-designed randomised controlled trials to answer questions about the efficacy of current and new treatments.
Topics: Humans; Migraine Disorders; Vertigo
PubMed: 26093662
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010600.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2016Clozapine is an efficacious treatment for treatment-resistant schizophrenia; however its use can be limited by side effect intolerability. Sinus tachycardia is a common... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Clozapine is an efficacious treatment for treatment-resistant schizophrenia; however its use can be limited by side effect intolerability. Sinus tachycardia is a common adverse event associated with clozapine treatment. Various pharmacological treatments are used to control heart rate increase due to clozapine use and can include a decreased rate of clozapine titration, a switch to a different antipsychotic, or treatment with negative chronotropic drugs.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effects and efficacy of pharmacological interventions for clozapine-induced sinus tachycardia.To systematically review the adverse events associated with pharmacological interventions for clozapine-induced sinus tachycardia.
SEARCH METHODS
On 23 March 2015, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, 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
Randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological interventions, at any dose and by any route of administration, for clozapine-induced tachycardia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently screened and assessed studies for inclusion using pre-specified inclusion criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
The electronic searches located three references. However, we did not identify any studies that met our inclusion criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
With no studies meeting the inclusion criteria, it is not possible to arrive at definitive conclusions. There are currently insufficient data to confidently inform clinical practice. We cannot, therefore, conclude whether specific interventions, such as beta-blockers, are less effective or more effective than standard courses of alternative treatments for tachycardia. This lack of evidence for the treatment of clozapine-induced tachycardia has implications for research and practice. Well-planned, conducted and reported randomised trials are indicated. One trial is currently underway. Current practice outside of well-designed randomised trials should be clearly justified.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Clozapine; Humans; Schizophrenia; Tachycardia, Sinus
PubMed: 27277334
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011566.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016Psychotic disorders can lead some people to become agitated. Characterised by restlessness, excitability and irritability, this can result in verbal and physically... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Psychotic disorders can lead some people to become agitated. Characterised by restlessness, excitability and irritability, this can result in verbal and physically aggressive behaviour - and both can be prolonged. Aggression within the psychiatric setting imposes a significant challenge to clinicians and risk to service users; it is a frequent cause for admission to inpatient facilities. If people continue to be aggressive it can lengthen hospitalisation. Haloperidol is used to treat people with long-term aggression.
OBJECTIVES
To examine whether haloperidol alone, administered orally, intramuscularly or intravenously, is an effective treatment for long-term/persistent aggression in psychosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2011 and April 2015).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) or double blind trials (implying randomisation) with useable data comparing haloperidol with another drug or placebo for people with psychosis and long-term/persistent aggression.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
One review author (AK) extracted data. For dichotomous data, one review author (AK) calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a fixed-effect model. One review author (AK) assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We have no good-quality evidence of the absolute effectiveness of haloperidol for people with long-term aggression. One study randomising 110 chronically aggressive people to three different antipsychotic drugs met the inclusion criteria. When haloperidol was compared with olanzapine or clozapine, skewed data (n=83) at high risk of bias suggested some advantage in terms of scale scores of unclear clinical meaning for olanzapine/clozapine for 'total aggression'. Data were available for only one other outcome, leaving the study early. When compared with other antipsychotic drugs, people allocated to haloperidol were no more likely to leave the study (1 RCT, n=110, RR 1.37, CI 0.84 to 2.24, low-quality evidence). Although there were some data for the outcomes listed above, there were no data on most of the binary outcomes and none on service outcomes (use of hospital/police), satisfaction with treatment, acceptance of treatment, quality of life or economics.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Only one study could be included and most data were heavily skewed, almost impossible to interpret and oflow quality. There were also some limitations in the study design with unclear description of allocation concealment and high risk of bias for selective reporting, so no firm conclusions can be made. This review shows how trials in this group of people are possible - albeit difficult. Further relevant trials are needed to evaluate use of haloperidol in treatment of long-term/persistent aggression in people living with psychosis.
Topics: Adult; Aggression; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Clozapine; Drug Administration Schedule; Haloperidol; Humans; Middle Aged; Olanzapine; Psychotic Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 27889922
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009830.pub2 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Oct 2023Antipsychotic medications are increasingly used for difficult-to-treat depression in young people. However, the evidence-base for this is unclear. Our aim was to assess... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Antipsychotic medications are increasingly used for difficult-to-treat depression in young people. However, the evidence-base for this is unclear. Our aim was to assess the evidence for the efficacy of atypical antipsychotics in treating unipolar and bipolar depression in adolescents and young adults.
METHOD
We conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-control-trial studies (RCTs) of antipsychotic medications for 10- to 25-year-olds with unipolar and bipolar depression. The primary outcome of interest was change in depressive symptoms from baseline to trial endpoint.
RESULTS
No studies were identified that evaluated the use of antipsychotics in the treatment of unipolar depression. However, we identified four studies, of quetiapine, lurasidone and olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, comprising a total of 866 randomized patients, that evaluated treatment of bipolar depression. All studies used the Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R). Our meta-analysis revealed the weighted mean difference (WMD) was -4.58 (95 % CI, -6.59 to -2.57) between antipsychotic and placebo-treated groups. Response and remission rates were also significantly in favor of antipsychotic treatment.
LIMITATIONS
There were few studies, several did not address risk-of-bias domains and there was a lack of non-industry sponsored studies.
CONCLUSION
There is an absence of evidence for the use of antipsychotic medications in treatment of youth unipolar depression, and no recommendations can be made. There is some evidence for the efficacy of antipsychotics, specifically lurasidone and olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, in the treatment of young people with bipolar depression. However, this evidence is limited and more studies investigating the use of these medications in young people are needed.
Topics: Child; Adolescent; Young Adult; Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Fluoxetine; Olanzapine; Lurasidone Hydrochloride
PubMed: 37467794
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2023.07.082 -
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 -
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