-
Journal of Affective Disorders Feb 2024Intravenous racemic ketamine is a promising treatment for treatment-resistant depression. However, its clinical utility compared with intranasal esketamine and the other... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparative efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of intravenous racemic ketamine with intranasal esketamine, aripiprazole and lithium as augmentative treatments for treatment-resistant unipolar depression: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Intravenous racemic ketamine is a promising treatment for treatment-resistant depression. However, its clinical utility compared with intranasal esketamine and the other well-studied conventional pharmacological interventions (i.e., aripiprazole and lithium) as augmentative treatments for treatment-resistant unipolar depression in adults remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of intravenous racemic ketamine with intranasal esketamine, aripiprazole and lithium under such conditions.
METHODS
The Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINHAL and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched from their inception to 10 May 2023. Randomised controlled trials evaluating these drugs were included. A random-effects network meta-analysis was also performed.
RESULTS
In the primary analysis, all four drugs were significantly more effective than placebo. In addition, intravenous racemic ketamine was significantly more effective and acceptable than intranasal esketamine and aripiprazole. Intravenous racemic ketamine was not significantly different from placebo in tolerability, whereas intranasal esketamine and aripiprazole were significantly less tolerable than placebo. Lithium did not differ significantly from intravenous racemic ketamine in efficacy, tolerability and acceptability.
LIMITATIONS
The sample size of patients treated with intravenous racemic ketamine was small.
CONCLUSIONS
Intravenous racemic ketamine may be a better augmentative treatment for treatment-resistant unipolar depression than intranasal esketamine and aripiprazole. Whether intravenous racemic ketamine or lithium is superior is unclear currently. A larger head-to-head trial of intravenous racemic ketamine versus conventional augmentative treatments for treatment-resistant unipolar depression is needed.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Ketamine; Aripiprazole; Antidepressive Agents; Lithium; Network Meta-Analysis; Depressive Disorder; Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant; Depression
PubMed: 37949235
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2023.11.023 -
PloS One 2024To report the first and largest systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching in patients with treatment-resistant depression or major depressive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
OBJECTIVES
To report the first and largest systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) or major depressive disorder(MDD).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature retrieval via PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane until April 2023 for RCT, which evaluated the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching for patients with TRD or MDD. Outcomes measured were changes in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), response and remission rate, and serious adverse events.
RESULTS
Five RCTs, including 4480 patients, were included for meta-analysis. Among them, two RCTs were rated as "high risk" in three aspects (allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel and blinding of outcome assessment) because of the non-blind method, and the quality evaluation of the remaining works of literature was "low risk". Augmentation treatment with Aripiprazole (A-ARI) was associated with a significant higher response rate compared with augmentation treatment with bupropion (A-BUP) (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.25; P = 0.0007; I2 = 23%). Besides, A-ARI had a significant higher remission rate compared with switching to bupropion (S-BUP) (RR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.49; P = 0.05; I2 = 59%) and A-BUP had a significant higher remission rate compared with S-BUP (RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.36; P = 0.0004; I2 = 0%). In addition, there was no significant difference in remission rate(RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.17; P = 0.42; I2 = 33%), improvement of MADRS(WMD: -2.07; 95% CI: -5.84, 1.70; P = 0.28; I2 = 70%) between A-ARI and A-BUP. No significant difference was observed in adverse events and serious adverse events among the three treatment strategies.
CONCLUSIONS
A-ARI may be a better comprehensive antidepressant treatment strategy than A-BUP or S-BUP for patients with TRD or MDD. More large-scale, multi-center, double-blind RCTs are needed to further evaluated the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching treatment strategies.
Topics: Aripiprazole; Bupropion; Humans; Depressive Disorder, Major; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant; Treatment Outcome; Drug Therapy, Combination
PubMed: 38669232
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299020 -
Journal of Affective Disorders May 2024Psychiatric disorders differ in their prevalence, symptom profiles, and disease courses in men and women. However, sex differences in psychiatric disorders have not...
BACKGROUND
Psychiatric disorders differ in their prevalence, symptom profiles, and disease courses in men and women. However, sex differences in psychiatric disorders have not received enough attention to guide treatment recommendations. This systematic review aims to summarize sex differences in the treatment responses and adverse effects of mood stabilizers and antipsychotics transdiagnostically.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA 2020 statement (CRD42020212478). A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus databases. Studies comparing mood stabilizer or antipsychotic treatment outcomes in men and women were included. JBI critical appraisal checklists were used to assess bias risk.
RESULTS
Out of 4866 records, 129 reports (14 on mood stabilizers, 115 on antipsychotics) with varying designs were included. Sample sizes ranged from 17 to 22,774 participants (median = 147). The most common psychiatric diagnoses were schizophrenia spectrum (n = 109, 84.5 %) and bipolar disorders (n = 38, 29.5 %). Only four studies explored sex differences in mood stabilizer treatment response. In 40 articles on antipsychotic treatment response, 18 indicated no sex difference, while 16 showed females had better outcomes. Women had more adverse effects with both mood stabilizers and antipsychotics. The risk of bias was low in 84 (65.1 %) of studies.
LIMITATIONS
Substantial heterogeneity among the studies precluded performing a meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
Number of studies focusing on sex differences in treatment outcomes of mood stabilizers is limited. Women may respond better to antipsychotics than men, but also experience more side effects. The impact of pharmacokinetics on sex differences warrants more attention.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Anticonvulsants; Antimanic Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Sex Characteristics
PubMed: 38367709
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2024.02.038 -
General Hospital Psychiatry 2024This network meta-analysis assessed the efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This network meta-analysis assessed the efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP).
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials investigating SGAs for PDP up to October 26, 2023.
RESULTS
We included 16 trials (N = 1252) investigating clozapine, melperone, olanzapine, pimavanserin, quetiapine, ulotaront, and placebo. In comparisons between SGAs and placebo, the findings were: i) Standardized mean differences, 95% confidence intervals (SMDs, 95%CIs), for psychotic-symptom reduction revealed the first rank of clozapine (-1.31, -1.73 to -0.89), the second rank of pimavanserin, with significant inferiority of quetiapine (SMD = 0.47, 0.02 to 0.92); ii) Mean differences (MDs, 95%CIs) for abnormal movement, as assessed by the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale - Part III, indicated that clozapine had the least motor side effects (-0.92, -2.75 to 0.91); iii) Risk ratios (RRs, 95% CIs) for adverse-effect dropout rates were lowest for melperone (1.02, 0.20 to 5.24); and iv) RRs (95% CIs) for all-cause dropout rates were lowest for clozapine (0.73, 0.42 to 1.25).
CONCLUSIONS
For patients with PDP, clozapine may substantially reduce psychotic symptoms with minimal abnormal movement, high acceptability, and moderate overall tolerability. Pimavanserin, not quetiapine, could be an alternative.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Butyrophenones; Clozapine; Dyskinesias; Network Meta-Analysis; Parkinson Disease; Piperidines; Psychotic Disorders; Quetiapine Fumarate; Urea
PubMed: 38412585
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2024.02.008 -
Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology Jan 2024Quetiapine exhibits notable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) variability, the origins of which are poorly understood. This systematic review summarizes... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Quetiapine exhibits notable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) variability, the origins of which are poorly understood. This systematic review summarizes published population PK/PD studies and identifies significant covariates accounting for this variability to inform precision dosing.
METHODS
We systematically searched the PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases and compared study characteristics, model parameters, and covariate effects. Visual predictive distributions were used to compare different models. Forest plots and Monte Carlo simulations were used to assess the influence of covariates.
RESULTS
Six population PK and three population PK/PD studies were included. The median apparent clearance in adults was 87.7 L/h. Strong and moderate cytochrome P450 3A4 inducers increased the apparent clearance approximately fourfold, while strong cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibitors reduced it by 93%. The half-maximum effect concentrations were 82.8 ng/mL for the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and 583 ng/mL for dopamine D receptor occupancy. Both treatment duration and quetiapine exposure were associated with weight gain.
CONCLUSIONS
Concurrent administration of potent or moderate CYP3A4 inducers and inhibitors need to be avoided in quetiapine-treated patients. When co-medication is required, it is recommended to adjust the dosage based on therapeutic drug monitoring. Additional research is warranted to delineate the dose-exposure-response relationships of quetiapine and active metabolite norquetiapine in pediatrics, geriatrics, hepatically-impaired patients, and women using contraceptives or are pregnant or menopausal.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42023446654.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Female; Child; Quetiapine Fumarate; Cytochrome P-450 Enzyme System; Models, Biological
PubMed: 38108086
DOI: 10.1080/17512433.2023.2295428 -
BMC Psychiatry Oct 2023We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of blonanserin and risperidone for the treatment of schizophrenia and to provide... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of blonanserin and risperidone for the treatment of schizophrenia and to provide reliable pharmacotherapeutic evidence for in the clinical treatment of schizophrenia.
METHODS
We systematically searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases for head-to-head randomized controlled trials that compared blonanserin with risperidone for the treatment of schizophrenia. We extracted the following data: author, year, country, diagnostic criteria, sample size, course of treatment, dosage and outcomes. Our main endpoint was the changes in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores. Meta-analysis of the included data was conducted by RevMan 5.3 software. We used the GRADE criteria to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.
RESULTS
A total of 411 studies were initially; 8 trials were eligible and were included in our analysis (N = 1386 participants). Regarding efficacy, there was no difference in changes in the PANSS total scores between the two groups (P > 0.05). In terms of safety, compared to risperidone, the incidence of serum prolactin increases and weight gain in the blonanserin group was lower (P<0.05), but the incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) was higher (P<0.05).
CONCLUSION
The efficacy of blonanserin is similar to that of risperidone, but it is unclear whether blonanserin is more effective than risperidone at improving cognitive and social function. More high-quality studies are needed to verify the efficacy and safety of blonanserin in the future.
Topics: Humans; Risperidone; Schizophrenia; Antipsychotic Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37821875
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-023-05240-7 -
Neuropsychopharmacology Reports Mar 2024This systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis used random-effects models is conducted to determine whether there are differences in the efficacy,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
This systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis used random-effects models is conducted to determine whether there are differences in the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety profiles of brexpiprazole (BRE) and aripiprazole (ARI) for Japanese with major depressive disorder (MDD) who were inadequately responsive to antidepressants.
METHODS
Outcome measures were scores on the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (primary), the Clinical Global Impression severity scale, and social functioning scale; the non-response rate; the non-remission rate; all-cause discontinuation; discontinuation due to adverse events (DAE); at least one adverse event (1AE); serious adverse event, akathisia; tremor; weight gain.
RESULTS
A literature search identified three double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. These comprised one BRE study (with a 1 mg/day [BRE1] and a 2 mg/day [BRE2]) and two ARI studies (with a 3 mg/day arm and a flexible-dose arm[within the dosage range approved in Japan]) (n = 1736). Both BRE and ARI demonstrated better efficacy than the placebo. BRE but not ARI had a higher DAE than the placebo. ARI but not BRE had a higher 1AE than the placebo. BRE and ARI had a higher risk of akathisia and weight gain than the placebo. There were no significant differences between BRE and ARI for any of the outcomes. Although BRE1 had good efficacy, it carried risk of weight gain. Although BRE2 also had efficacy, it carried risks of DAE, akathisia, and weight gain. However, the risk of akathisia in BRE2 was reduced by an initial dose of 0.5 mg/day rather than 1.0 mg/day.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall BRE showed similar utility to ARI and a good risk-benefit balance.
Topics: Humans; Aripiprazole; Depressive Disorder, Major; Japan; Psychomotor Agitation; Network Meta-Analysis; Weight Gain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thiophenes; Quinolones
PubMed: 38219278
DOI: 10.1002/npr2.12414 -
European Neuropsychopharmacology : the... Mar 2024People with schizophrenia die prematurely, yet regional differences are unclear. PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review/random-effects meta-analysis of cohort studies... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
People with schizophrenia die prematurely, yet regional differences are unclear. PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review/random-effects meta-analysis of cohort studies assessing mortality relative risk (RR) versus any control group, and moderators, in people with ICD/DSM-defined schizophrenia, comparing countries and continents. We conducted subgroup, meta-regression analyses, and quality assessment. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were suicide-, /natural-cause- and other-cause-related mortality. We included 135 studies from Europe (n = 70), North-America (n = 29), Asia (n = 33), Oceania (n = 2), Africa (n = 1). In incident plus prevalent schizophrenia, differences across continents emerged for all-cause mortality (highest in Africa, RR=5.98, 95 %C.I.=4.09-8.74, k = 1, lowest in North-America, RR=2.14, 95 %C.I.=1.92-2.38, k = 16), suicide (highest in Oceania, RR=13.5, 95 %C.I.=10.08-18.07, k = 1, lowest in North-America, RR=4.4, 95 %C.I.=4.07-4.76, k = 6), but not for natural-cause mortality. Europe had the largest association between antipsychotics and lower all-cause mortality/suicide (Asia had the smallest or no significant association, respectively), without differences for natural-cause mortality. Higher country socio-demographic index significantly moderated larger suicide-related and smaller natural-cause-related mortality risk in incident schizophrenia, with reversed associations in prevalent schizophrenia. Antipsychotics had a larger/smaller protective association in incident/prevalent schizophrenia regarding all-cause mortality, and smaller protective association for suicide-related mortality in prevalent schizophrenia. Additional regional differences emerged in incident schizophrenia, across countries, and secondary outcomes. Significant regional differences emerged for all-cause, cause-specific and suicide-related mortality. Natural-cause death was homogeneously increased globally. Moderators differed across countries. Global initiatives are needed to improve physical health in people with schizophrenia, local studies to identify actionable moderators.
Topics: Humans; Schizophrenia; Antipsychotic Agents; Cohort Studies; Europe
PubMed: 38368796
DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2023.12.010 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023Anorexia nervosa is a psychological condition characterised by self-starvation and fear or wait gain or other body image disturbance. The first line of treatment is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Anorexia nervosa is a psychological condition characterised by self-starvation and fear or wait gain or other body image disturbance. The first line of treatment is specific psychological therapy; however, there is no consensus on best practice for treating people who develop severe and enduring anorexia nervosa (SEAN). Notably, there is no universal definition of SEAN.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of specific psychological therapies for severe and enduring anorexia nervosa compared with other specific therapies, non-specific therapies, no treatment/waiting list, antidepressant medication, dietary counselling alone, or treatment as usual.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The last search date was 22 July 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people (any age) with anorexia nervosa of at least three years' duration. Eligible experimental interventions were any specific psychological therapy for improved physical and psychological health in anorexia nervosa, conducted in any treatment setting with no restrictions in terms of number of sessions, modality, or duration of therapy. Eligible comparator interventions included any other specific psychological therapy for anorexia nervosa, non-specific psychological therapy for mental health disorders, no treatment or waiting list, antipsychotic treatment (with or without psychological therapy), antidepressant treatment (with or without psychological therapy), dietary counselling, and treatment as usual as defined by the individual trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were clinical improvement (weight restoration to within the normal weight range for participant sample) and treatment non-completion. Results were presented using the GRADE appraisal tool.
MAIN RESULTS
We found two eligible studies, but only one study provided usable data. This was a parallel-group RCT of 63 adults with SEAN who had an illness duration of at least seven years. The trial compared outpatient cognitive behaviour therapy for SEAN (CBT-SEAN) with specialist supportive clinical management for SEAN (SSCM-SE) over eight months. It is unclear if there is any difference between the effect of CBT-SEAN versus SSCM-SE on clinical improvement at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 3.05) or treatment non-completion (RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.45 to 6.59). There were no reported data on adverse effects. The trial was at high risk of performance and detection bias. We rated the GRADE level of evidence as very low-certainty for both primary outcomes, downgrading for imprecision and risk of bias concerns.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review reports evidence from one trial that evaluated CBT-SEAN versus SSCM-SE. There was very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in clinical improvement and treatment non-completion between the two therapies. There is a need for larger high-quality trials to determine the benefits of specific psychological therapies for people with SEAN. These should take into account the duration of illness as well as participants' previous experience with evidence-based psychological therapy for anorexia nervosa.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child, Preschool; Anorexia Nervosa; Antipsychotic Agents; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Fear
PubMed: 37610143
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011570.pub2 -
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry Jul 2023Aiming at revising the therapeutic reference range for olanzapine, the present study highlights the association between blood olanzapine levels, clinical effects, and...
Aiming at revising the therapeutic reference range for olanzapine, the present study highlights the association between blood olanzapine levels, clinical effects, and dopamine D-receptor occupancy for oral and long-acting injectable (LAI) formulations. Databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and uncontrolled trials concerning blood olanzapine levels in relation to clinical outcomes or D-receptor occupancy using MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library (March 2021, updated in December 2021). We excluded articles not written in English or German and non-human data. Search terms included , , , , and . The process of study selection followed a previously published protocol and PRISMA guidelines. A total of 2,824 articles were identified through database search and 1 article via reference list check. Thirty-four studies were suitable for qualitative synthesis, and 13 studies were included in the quantitative analysis. Reviewers performed data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies independently following the review protocol. Evidence for a relationship between blood olanzapine level and efficacy/side effects (constipation) is considered low (Level C). In total, 3 studies of moderate quality consistently showed therapeutic thresholds of around 20 ng/mL for olanzapine 12 hours post-dose. This threshold is in line with findings from positron emission tomography (PET) studies that suggest optimal drug efficacy (65%-80% D-receptor occupancy) between 17 and 44 ng/mL. We suggest a therapeutic reference range of 20-40 ng/mL for olanzapine oral and LAI formulations. In this range, optimal treatment response is expected in patients with schizophrenia and schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Side effects, especially weight gain, may already occur at therapeutic levels. However, higher plasma concentrations are in general well tolerated and should not necessarily require a dose reduction in case of good response and tolerance.
Topics: Humans; Olanzapine; Antipsychotic Agents; Reference Values; Schizophrenia; Receptors, Dopamine D2; Benzodiazepines
PubMed: 37471567
DOI: 10.4088/JCP.22r14626