-
Journal of Managed Care & Specialty... Feb 2024Schizophrenia is a chronic, relapsing, and burdensome psychiatric disorder affecting approximately 0.25%-0.6% of the US population. Oral antipsychotic treatment (OAT)... (Review)
Review
A systematic review of the real-world effectiveness and economic and humanistic outcomes of selected oral antipsychotics among patients with schizophrenia in the United States: Updating the evidence and gaps.
BACKGROUND
Schizophrenia is a chronic, relapsing, and burdensome psychiatric disorder affecting approximately 0.25%-0.6% of the US population. Oral antipsychotic treatment (OAT) remains the cornerstone for managing schizophrenia. However, nonadherence and high treatment failure lead to increased disease burden and medical spending. Cost-effective management of schizophrenia requires understanding the value of current therapies to facilitate better planning of management policies while addressing unmet needs.
OBJECTIVE
To review existing evidence and gaps regarding real-world effectiveness and economic and humanistic outcomes of OATs, including asenapine, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, iloperidone, lumateperone, lurasidone, olanzapine/samidorphan, paliperidone, and quetiapine.
METHODS
We conducted a literature search using PubMed, American Psychological Association PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature from January 2010 to March 2022 as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. English-language articles describing adults with schizophrenia receiving at least 1 of the selected OATs and reporting real-world effectiveness, direct or indirect costs, humanistic outcomes, behavioral outcomes, adherence/persistence patterns, or product switching were identified.
RESULTS
We identified 25 studies from a total of 24,190 articles. Real-world effectiveness, cost, and adherence/persistence outcomes were reported for most OATs that were selected. Humanistic outcomes and product switching were reported only for lurasidone. Behavioral outcomes (eg, interpersonal relations and suicide ideation) were not reported for any OAT. The key economic outcomes across studies were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, cost per quality-adjusted life-years, and health care costs. In studies that compared long-acting injectables (LAIs) with OATs, LAIs had a higher pharmacy and lower medical costs, while total health care cost was similar between LAIs and OATs. Indirect costs associated with presenteeism, absenteeism, or work productivity were not reported for any of the selected OATs. Overall, patients had poor adherence to OATs, ranging between 20% and 61% across studies. Product switching did not impact the all-cause health care costs before and after treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings showed considerable gaps exist for evidence on behavioral outcomes, humanistic outcomes, medication switching, and adherence/persistence across OATs. Our findings also suggest an unmet need regarding treatment nonadherence and lack of persistence among patients receiving OATs. We identified a need for research addressing OATs' behavioral and humanistic outcomes and evaluating the impact of product switching in adults with schizophrenia in the United States, which could assist clinicians in promoting patient-centered care and help payers understand the total value of new antipsychotic drugs.
Topics: Adult; Humans; United States; Antipsychotic Agents; Schizophrenia; Lurasidone Hydrochloride; Paliperidone Palmitate; Quetiapine Fumarate
PubMed: 38308625
DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2024.30.2.183 -
European Psychiatry : the Journal of... Mar 2024We employed a Bayesian network meta-analysis for comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved atypical antipsychotics... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We employed a Bayesian network meta-analysis for comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) for the treatment of bipolar patients with depressive episodes. Sixteen randomized controlled trials with 7234 patients treated by one of the five AAPs (cariprazine, lumateperone, lurasidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine) were included. For the response rate (defined as an improvement of ≥50% from baseline on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS]), all AAPs were more efficacious than placebo. For the remission rate (defined as the endpoint of MADRS ≤12 or ≤ 10), cariprazine, lurasidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine had higher remission rates than placebo. In terms of tolerability, olanzapine was unexpectedly associated with lower odds of all-cause discontinuation in comparison with placebo, whereas quetiapine was associated with higher odds of discontinuation due to adverse events than placebo. Compared with placebo, lumateperone, olanzapine, and quetiapine showed higher odds of somnolence. Lumateperone had a lower rate of ≥ weight gain of 7% than placebo and other treatments. Olanzapine was associated with a significant increase from baseline in total cholesterol and triglycerides than placebo. These findings inform individualized prescriptions of AAPs for treating bipolar depression in clinical practice.
Topics: United States; Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Quetiapine Fumarate; Olanzapine; Lurasidone Hydrochloride; Network Meta-Analysis; United States Food and Drug Administration; Bayes Theorem; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38487836
DOI: 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2024.25 -
Psychological Medicine Dec 2023Despite unclear evidence to support the long-term use of antipsychotics to treat challenging (problem) behaviours in people with autism in the absence of a psychiatric... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Despite unclear evidence to support the long-term use of antipsychotics to treat challenging (problem) behaviours in people with autism in the absence of a psychiatric disorder, this practice is common.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving antipsychotics for people with autism of all ages, irrespective of the outcomes assessed. We searched seven databases and hand-searched ten relevant journals. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full papers and extracted data using the Cochrane Handbook template. We conducted meta-analyses of outcomes and the rate of adverse events.
RESULTS
We included 39 papers based on 21 primary RCTs that recruited 1482 people with autism. No RCT assessed any psychiatric disorder outcome, such as psychoses or bipolar disorder. A meta-analysis of ten placebo-controlled RCTs showed a significantly improved Aberrant Behaviour Checklist-Irritability score in the antipsychotic group with an effect size of -6.45 [95% confidence interval (CI) -8.13 to -4.77] (low certainty). Pooled Clinical Global Impression data on 11 placebo-controlled RCTs showed an overall effect size of 0.84 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.21) (moderate certainty). There was a significantly higher risk of overall adverse effects ( = 0.003) and also weight gain ( < 0.00001), sedation ( < 0.00001) and increased appetite ( = 0.001) in the antipsychotic group.
CONCLUSIONS
There is some evidence for risperidone and preliminary evidence for aripiprazole to significantly improve scores on some outcome measures among children with autism but not adults or for any other antipsychotics. There is a definite increased risk of antipsychotic-related different adverse effects.
Topics: Child; Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Risperidone; Psychotic Disorders; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37539448
DOI: 10.1017/S003329172300212X -
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 -
BMC Gastroenterology Oct 2023Since the previous network meta-analysis assessing the efficacy of prokinetics for functional dyspepsia (FD), there have been a number of new studies and cinitapride is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Since the previous network meta-analysis assessing the efficacy of prokinetics for functional dyspepsia (FD), there have been a number of new studies and cinitapride is a new prokinetic agent for FD. This updated meta-analysis aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of prokinetics for FD.
METHODS
An updated study search in Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science was conducted in literatures published from July 2015 to March 2023. Randomized controlled trials investigating the use of prokinetics in adult FD patients were included. The primary outcome was the total efficacy rate and the secondary outcome was adverse events. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using R software.
RESULTS
A total of 28 studies were included. Network meta-analysis showed that metoclopramide had a higher total efficacy rate than mosapride (OR: 3.53, 95%CI: 1.70-7.47), domperidone (OR: 2.29, 95%CI: 1.16-4.63), itopride(OR: 2.77, 95%CI: 1.41-5.59), acotiamide(OR: 2.63, OR: 1.33-5.36), and placebo(OR: 5.68, 95%CI: 2.98-11.10), however similar to cinitapride (OR: 1.62, 95%CI: 0.75-3.53). Cinitapride had a higher total efficacy rate than mosapride (OR: 2.18, 95%CI: 1.16-4.14) and placebo (OR: 3.52, 95%CI: 2.01-6.24). Cinitapride had lower risk of total adverse events than domperidone. There was no difference in the risk of drug-related adverse events between the prokinetics.
CONCLUSIONS
Metoclopramide and cinitapride may have a better efficacy than other prokinetics in the treatment of FD, and cinitapride may have a lower risk of total adverse events. Further studies using uniform definitions or validated tools to measure the total efficacy rate are needed.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Dyspepsia; Domperidone; Metoclopramide; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37907846
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-023-03014-9 -
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 -
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 -
Molecular Autism Jan 2024Numerous interventions for irritability in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have been investigated. We aimed to appraise the magnitude of pharmacological and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Numerous interventions for irritability in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have been investigated. We aimed to appraise the magnitude of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for irritability in ASD without any restrictions in terms of eligible interventions.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science until April 15, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a parallel design that examined the efficacy of interventions for the treatment of irritability in patients of any age with ASD without any restrictions in terms of eligible interventions. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis by pooling effect sizes as Hedges' g. We classified assessed interventions as follows: pharmacological monotherapy, risperidone plus adjuvant therapy versus risperidone monotherapy, non-pharmacological intervention, and dietary intervention. We utilized the Cochrane tool to evaluate the risk of bias in each study and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each meta-analyzed intervention.
RESULTS
Out of 5640 references, we identified 60 eligible articles with 45 different kinds of interventions, including 3531 participants, of which 80.9% were males (mean age [SD] = 8.79 [3.85]). For pharmacological monotherapy, risperidone (Hedges' g - 0.857, 95% CI - 1.263 to - 0.451, certainty of evidence: high) and aripiprazole (Hedges' g - 0.559, 95% CI - 0.767 to - 0.351, certainty of evidence: high) outperformed placebo. Among the non-pharmacological interventions, parent training (Hedges' g - 0.893, 95% CI - 1.184 to - 0.602, certainty of evidence: moderate) showed a significant result. None of the meta-analyzed interventions yielded significant effects among risperidone + adjuvant therapy and dietary supplementation. However, several novel molecules in augmentation to risperidone outperformed risperidone monotherapy, yet from one RCT each.
LIMITATIONS
First, various tools have been utilized to measure the irritability in ASD, which may contribute to the heterogeneity of the outcomes. Second, meta-analyses for each intervention included only a small number of studies and participants.
CONCLUSIONS
Only risperidone, aripiprazole among pharmacological interventions, and parent training among non-pharmacological interventions can be recommended for irritability in ASD. As an augmentation to risperidone, several novel treatments show promising effects, but further RCTs are needed to replicate findings. Trial registration PROSPERO, CRD42021243965.
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; GRADE Approach; Aripiprazole; Risperidone; Autism Spectrum Disorder
PubMed: 38263251
DOI: 10.1186/s13229-024-00585-6 -
Journal of Clinical PsychopharmacologyThe augmentative antidepressant effects of dopamine partial agonists (aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, and cariprazine) for treatment-resistant depression have been compared... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
The augmentative antidepressant effects of dopamine partial agonists (aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, and cariprazine) for treatment-resistant depression have been compared in a previous network meta-analysis. However, the comparative efficacy of the dose-responses of these drugs remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the dose-response relationships and compare the effects of each dopamine partial agonist doses.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINHAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases until January 1, 2023. Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials evaluating aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, and cariprazine for treatment-resistant depression were included. A random-effect dose-response model-based network meta-analysis was conducted. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023393035).
RESULTS
The maximum effective doses were 5.5 mg for aripiprazole, 1.6 mg for brexpiprazole, and 1.5 mg for cariprazine, respectively. Although all doses of the 3 drugs were significantly more effective than placebo, aripiprazole ranging from 5.5 to 12.5 mg was significantly more effective than brexpiprazole 0.5 mg and cariprazine ranging from 0.5 to 1 mg. Moreover, aripiprazole ranging from 7.5 to 12.5 mg was significantly more effective than all doses of cariprazine. In addition, brexpiprazole ranging from 1 to 3 mg was significantly more effective than cariprazine 0.5 mg and brexpiprazole ranging from 1.6 to 2.5 mg was significantly superior to cariprazine 1 mg. There were no doses at which brexpiprazole overcame aripiprazole, and cariprazine overcame aripiprazole or brexpiprazole.
CONCLUSIONS
Aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, and cariprazine may be effective in treatment-resistant depression in that order, with the maximum effective doses at 5.5 mg, 1.6 mg, and 1.5 mg, respectively.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant; Aripiprazole; Dopamine Agonists; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Piperazines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Quinolones; Thiophenes; Antidepressive Agents; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38639435
DOI: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001862