-
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 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Dec 2023This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine,...
PURPOSE
This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented.
CONCLUSION
There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT receptor antagonists or between NK receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.
Topics: Female; Humans; Emetics; Antiemetics; Consensus; Olanzapine; Nausea; Vomiting; Antineoplastic Agents; Cyclophosphamide; Anthracyclines
PubMed: 38127246
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-08221-4 -
Medicine Sep 2023Atypical antipsychotic (AAP) augmentation is an alternative strategy for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who had an inadequate response to antidepressant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and safety of 4 atypical antipsychotics augmentation treatment for major depressive disorder in adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Atypical antipsychotic (AAP) augmentation is an alternative strategy for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who had an inadequate response to antidepressant therapy (ADT). We aimed to compare and rank the efficacy and safety of 4 AAPs in the adjuvant treatment of MDD.
METHODS
We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published and unpublished from the date of databases and clinical trial websites inception to April 30, 2023. The evidence risk of bias (RoB) and certainty are assessed using the Cochrane bias risk tool and grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) framework, respectively. Using network meta-analysis, we estimated summary risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean difference (SMD) based on the random effects model.
RESULTS
56 eligible studies comprising 11448 participants were included. In terms of primary efficacy outcome, compared with placebo (PBO), all AAPs had significant efficacy (SMD = -0.40; 95% CI, -0.68 to -0.12 for quetiapine (QTP); -0.35, -0.59 to -0.11 for olanzapine (OLA); -0.28, -0.47 to -0.09 for aripiprazole (ARI) and -0.25, -0.42 to -0.07 for brexpiprazole (BRE), respectively). In terms of acceptability, no significant difference was found, either agents versus agents or agents versus PBO. In terms of tolerability, compared with the PBO, QTP (RR = 0.24; 95% CI,0.11-0.53), OLA (0.30,0.10-0.55), ARI (0.39,0.22-0.69), and BRE (0.37,0.18-0.75) were significantly less well tolerated. 8 (14.2%) of 56 trials were assessed as low RoB, 38 (67.9%) trials had moderate RoB, and 10 (17.9%) had high RoB; By the GRADE, the certainty of most evidence was low or very low.
CONCLUSION
Adjuvant AAPs had significant efficacy compared with PBO, but treatment decisions must be made to balance the risks and benefits.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Depressive Disorder, Major; Antipsychotic Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Quetiapine Fumarate; Aripiprazole; Olanzapine; Adjuvants, Immunologic; Adjuvants, Pharmaceutic
PubMed: 37746943
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034670 -
Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2023This systematic review compared the efficacy and tolerance of oral antipsychotics (APDs) used in the treatment of schizophrenia following the PRISMA-P© statement ( =... (Review)
Review
This systematic review compared the efficacy and tolerance of oral antipsychotics (APDs) used in the treatment of schizophrenia following the PRISMA-P© statement ( = 21). The primary outcomes of interest were clinical response measured with symptoms' improvement, tolerance to side effects and discontinuation reasons. There was better individual patients' response to aripiprazole vs. ziprasidone and quetiapine ((CDSS = 0.04), BPRS = 0.02, YMRS = 0.001) and ziprasidone vs. quetiapine (CGI = 0.02, CDSS = 0.02). Aripiprazole was more tolerated than risperidone, ziprasidone and quetiapine ( < 0.05). Quetiapine was more tolerated than aripiprazole, ziprasidone and risperidone ( < 0.05). Ziprasidone was more tolerated than quetiapine haloperidol and olanzapine ( < 0.05). Risperidone was more tolerated than olanzapine ( = 0.03) and haloperidol was more tolerated than olanzapine and quetiapine ( < 0.05). Olanzapine caused less discontinuation than quetiapine; quetiapine caused less discontinuation than ziprasidone, aripiprazole and haloperidol; ziprasidone caused less discontinuation than quetiapine, aripiprazole and haloperidol; aripiprazole caused less discontinuation than quetiapine, ziprasidone and olanzapine and olanzapine caused less discontinuation than ziprasidone and haloperidol ( < 0.05). It was concluded that individual patient clinical response, tolerance to side effects and life-threatening side effects remain the most reliable basis for selecting and continuing the use of APD.
PubMed: 37987385
DOI: 10.3390/pharmacy11060175 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Mar 2024The evidence of treatment options' efficacy on acute bipolar manic episodes is relatively less in youths than adults. We aimed to compare and rank the drug's efficacy,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The evidence of treatment options' efficacy on acute bipolar manic episodes is relatively less in youths than adults. We aimed to compare and rank the drug's efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety for acute mania in children and adolescents.
METHOD
We systematically reviewed the double-blinded, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing drugs or placebo for acute manic episodes of bipolar disorder in children and adolescents using PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, EBSCO, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and https://clinicaltrials.gov from inception until November 20, 2022. Response to treatment was the primary outcome, and random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted (PROSPERO 2022: CRD42022367455).
RESULTS
Of 10,134 citations, we included 15 RCTs, including 2372 patients (47 % female), 15 psychotropic drugs, and the placebo. Risperidone 0.5-2.5 mg/day, aripiprazole 30 mg/day olanzapine, quetiapine 400 mg/day, quetiapine 600 mg/day, asenapine 5 mg/day, asenapine 10 mg, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole 10 mg were found to be effective (in comparison with placebo) in children and adolescents, respectively (τ = 0.0072, I = 10.2 %). The tolerability of aripiprazole 30 mg/day was lower than risperidone 0.5-2.5 mg/day and olanzapine. Oxcarbazepine had the highest discontinuation due to the adverse effects risk ratio.
LIMITATIONS
Efficacy ranking of the treatments could be performed by evaluating relatively few RCT results, and only monotherapies were considered.
CONCLUSIONS
Efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety are changing with the doses of antipsychotics for children and adolescents with acute bipolar manic episodes. Drug selection and optimum dosage should be carefully adjusted in children and adolescents.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Adult; Child; Risperidone; Olanzapine; Aripiprazole; Bipolar Disorder; Quetiapine Fumarate; Mania; Network Meta-Analysis; Antipsychotic Agents; Dibenzocycloheptenes
PubMed: 38211745
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2024.01.067 -
Journal of Pediatric Hematology/oncology Oct 2023Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remain the most distressing event in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and Safety of Olanzapine for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remain the most distressing event in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olanzapine containing regimen in preventing CINV in children on HEC and MEC. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials electronic databases to identify randomized clinical trials that compared 2 groups who either got olanzapine (olanzapine group) or placebo/no olanzapine (control group) for the prevention of CINV in children. The primary outcome was to determine the efficacy of olanzapine (complete response). The secondary outcomes were nausea control, the need for rescue medications, and adverse events of olanzapine. Three randomized clinical trials (n=394 patients) were included in this meta-analysis (olanzapine group, n=194, and placebo/control group, n=200). The pooled analysis of this meta-analysis found that olanzapine had a higher complete response in all phases of emesis in the HEC group and only in the acute phase in HEC/MEC groups compared with the control group. Olanzapine had higher nausea control in all phases of HEC but no nausea control in HEC/MEC. Olanzapine also reduced the need for rescue medications. A significant number of patients in the olanzapine group experienced somnolence (grades 1 and 2), but none of the participants discontinued the study due to side effects. In conclusion, this meta-analysis showed that olanzapine significantly prevented CINV in HEC. There was also a lesser need for rescue medications in the olanzapine group. Somnolence was higher in the olanzapine group, but it was clinically insignificant.
Topics: Humans; Child; Olanzapine; Antiemetics; Sleepiness; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Nausea; Vomiting; Antineoplastic Agents; Neoplasms
PubMed: 37539996
DOI: 10.1097/MPH.0000000000002737 -
European Neuropsychopharmacology : the... Jun 2024Long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) are primarily used for relapse prevention, but in some settings and situations, they may also be useful for acute treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) are primarily used for relapse prevention, but in some settings and situations, they may also be useful for acute treatment of schizophrenia. We conducted a systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), focusing on adult patients in the acute phase of schizophrenia. Interventions were risperidone, paliperidone, aripiprazole, olanzapine, and placebo, administered either orally or as LAI. We synthesized data on overall symptoms, complemented by 17 other efficacy and tolerability outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed with the Confidence-in-Network-Meta-Analysis-framework (CINeMA). We included 115 RCTs with 25,550 participants. All drugs were significantly more efficacious than placebo with the following standardized mean differences and their 95 % confidence intervals: olanzapine LAI -0.66 [-1.00; -0.33], risperidone LAI -0.59[-0.73;-0.46], olanzapine oral -0.55[-0.62;-0.48], aripiprazole LAI -0.54[-0.71; -0.37], risperidone oral -0.48[-0.55;-0.41], paliperidone oral -0.47[-0.58;-0.37], paliperidone LAI -0.45[-0.57;-0.33], aripiprazole oral -0.40[-0.50; -0.31]. There were no significant efficacy differences between LAIs and oral formulations. Sensitivity analyses of the primary outcome overall symptoms largely confirmed these findings. Moreover, some side effects were less frequent under LAIs than under their oral counterparts. Confidence in the evidence was moderate for most comparisons. LAIs are efficacious for acute schizophrenia and may have some benefits compared to oral formulations in terms of side effects. These findings assist clinicians with insights to weigh the risks and benefits between oral and injectable agents when treating patients in the acute phase.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Administration, Oral; Schizophrenia; Delayed-Action Preparations; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Injections; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38490016
DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2024.03.003 -
European Archives of Psychiatry and... Jun 2024Clozapine is considered as the standard treatment for this subgroup, but the evidence is not unequivocal. There are several potential alternatives being used because of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Clozapine is considered as the standard treatment for this subgroup, but the evidence is not unequivocal. There are several potential alternatives being used because of the possible adverse effects of clozapine. We aimed to examine the efficacy and adverse events of different antipsychotics in treatment-resistant schizophrenia by performing a network meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group register for randomized-controlled trials (up to March 06, 2022) and MEDLINE (up to January 20, 2023). We included blinded and open studies and participants with a broad definition of treatment resistance. The primary outcome was overall symptoms of schizophrenia; secondary outcomes were response to treatment, positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, discontinuation, side effects, quality of life, and functioning. The study was registered in Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/9nf2y/ ).
RESULTS
We included 60 studies involving 6838 participants in the network meta-analysis. In the primary outcome, clozapine and olanzapine were more efficacious than risperidone, haloperidol, fluphenazine, sertindole, chlorpromazine, and quetiapine (range of mean SMDs, - 0.11 to - 0.48). The difference between clozapine and olanzapine was trivial and uncertain (SMD - 0.05, 95% CI, - 0.21 to 0.11). The result of other efficacy outcomes as well as subgroup and sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analysis. Clozapine and olanzapine were associated with more weight gain, and clozapine was associated with more sedation events compared to many other antipsychotics.
CONCLUSIONS
Clozapine remains the gold standard for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Olanzapine seems to be second-best and could be tried before switching to clozapine.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Schizophrenia, Treatment-Resistant; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Clozapine; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 37526675
DOI: 10.1007/s00406-023-01654-2 -
Acta Neuropsychiatrica Aug 2023Administration of antidepressant drugs - principally selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) - may induce clinically significant 'apathy' which can affect... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Administration of antidepressant drugs - principally selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) - may induce clinically significant 'apathy' which can affect treatment outcomes adversely. We aimed to review all relevant previous reports.
METHODS
We performed a PUBMED search of English-language studies, combining terms concerning psychopathology (e.g. apathy) and classes of antidepressants (e.g. SSRI).
RESULTS
According to certain inclusion (e.g. use of DSM/ICD diagnostic criteria) and exclusion (e.g. presence of a clinical condition that may induce apathy) criteria, 50 articles were eligible for review. Together, they suggest that administration of antidepressants - usually SSRIs - can induce an apathy syndrome or emotional blunting, i.e. a decrease in emotional responsiveness, to circumstances which would have triggered intense mood reactions prior to pharmacotherapy. The reported prevalence of antidepressant-induced apathy ranges between 5.8 and 50%, and for SSRIs ranges between 20 and 92%. Antidepressant-induced apathy emerges independently of diagnosis, age, and treatment outcome and appears dose-dependent and reversible. The main treatment strategy is dose reduction, though some data suggest the usefulness of treatment with olanzapine, bupropion, agomelatine or amisulpride, or the methylphenidate-modafinil-olanzapine combination.
CONCLUSION
Antidepressant-induced apathy needs careful clinical attention. Further systematic research is needed to investigate the prevalence, course, aetiology, and treatment of this important clinical condition.
Topics: Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Apathy; Olanzapine; Antidepressive Agents; Bupropion
PubMed: 36644883
DOI: 10.1017/neu.2023.6 -
Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and... Sep 2023The current comparative efficacy, safety, and acceptability of atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) in treating Parkinson's Disease Psychosis (PDP) are not entirely understood. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative Efficacy, Safety, and Acceptability of Pimavanserin and Other Atypical Antipsychotics for Parkinson's Disease Psychosis: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
The current comparative efficacy, safety, and acceptability of atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) in treating Parkinson's Disease Psychosis (PDP) are not entirely understood.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate comparative efficacy, safety, and acceptability of AAPs in patients with PDP.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of pimavanserin, quetiapine, olanzapine, clozapine, ziprasidone, and risperidone. We estimated relative standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (OR) for binary outcomes, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
We included 19 unique studies evaluating AAPs in a total of 1,242 persons with PDP. Based on Clinical Global Impression Scale for Severity, pimavanserin (SMD, -4.81; 95% CI, -5.39, -4.24) and clozapine (SMD, -4.25; 95% CI, -5.24, -3.26) significantly improved symptoms compared with placebo. Also, compared to placebo, pimavanserin (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.07, 1.24) significantly improved psychotic symptoms based on Scale for Assessment of Positive Symptoms for Parkinson's Disease Psychosis/Hallucinations and Delusions scores. In comparison to placebo, clozapine (SMD, -0.69; 95% CI, -1.35, -0.02), pimavanserin (SMD, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.56, 0.53), and quetiapine (SMD, 0.00; 95% CI, -0.68, 0.69) did not impair motor function per Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating scale. Based on Mini-Mental State Examination scale, quetiapine (SMD, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.07, 1.14) significantly impaired cognition compared to placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with PDP, pimavanserin and clozapine demonstrated significant improvement in psychosis without affecting motor function. With quetiapine being associated with a significant decline in cognition and despite not impairing motor function, our findings suggest that it should be avoided in patients with PDP and reduced cognitive abilities.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Parkinson Disease; Clozapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Network Meta-Analysis; Psychotic Disorders
PubMed: 36720473
DOI: 10.1177/08919887231154933