-
PloS One 2022Long acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics are an alternative to oral antipsychotic (OAP) treatment and may be beneficial for patients in the early stages of... (Review)
Review
AIM
Long acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics are an alternative to oral antipsychotic (OAP) treatment and may be beneficial for patients in the early stages of schizophrenia. This study aims to provide a comprehensive review on the efficacy of first-generation and second-generation LAI antipsychotics in recent-onset, first-episode, and early psychosis patients.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science Core databases were used to search for studies that used LAIs in early psychosis patients. Studies published up to 06 Jun 2019 were included with no language restrictions applied. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of schizophrenia or related disorder, where patients were in their first episode or had a duration of illness ≤5 years.
RESULTS
33 studies were included: 8 RCTs, 4 post-hoc analyses, 2 case reports, and 19 naturalistic studies. The majority of studies evaluated risperidone LAIs (N = 14) and paliperidone palmitate (N = 10), while the remainder investigated fluphenazine decanoate (N = 3), flupentixol decanoate (N = 2), and aripiprazole (N = 1). Two studies did not specify the LAI formulation used, and one cohort study compared the efficacy of multiple different LAI formulations.
CONCLUSIONS
While the majority of data is based on naturalistic studies investigating risperidone LAIs or paliperidone palmitate, LAIs may be an effective treatment for early psychosis patients in terms of adherence, relapse reduction, and symptom improvements. There is still a need to conduct more high quality RCTs that investigate the efficacy of different LAI formulations in early psychosis patients.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Cohort Studies; Delayed-Action Preparations; Humans; Paliperidone Palmitate; Psychotic Disorders; Risperidone
PubMed: 35486616
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267808 -
CNS Drugs Apr 2020Stimulant drugs are second only to cannabis as the most widely used class of illicit drug globally, accounting for 68 million past-year consumers. Dependence on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Stimulant drugs are second only to cannabis as the most widely used class of illicit drug globally, accounting for 68 million past-year consumers. Dependence on amphetamines (AMPH) or methamphetamine (MA) is a growing global concern. Yet, there is no established pharmacotherapy for AMPH/MA dependence. A comprehensive assessment of the research literature on pharmacotherapy for AMPH/MA dependence may inform treatment guidelines and future research directions.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed literature via the electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and SCOPUS for randomised controlled trials reported in the English language examining a pharmacological treatment for AMPH/MA dependence or use disorder. We included all studies published to 19 June 2019. The selected studies were evaluated for design; methodology; inclusion and exclusion criteria; sample size; pharmacological and (if included) psychosocial interventions; length of follow-up and follow-up schedules; outcome variables and measures; results; overall conclusions and risk of bias. Outcome measures were any reported impact of treatment related to AMPH/MA use.
RESULTS
Our search returned 43 studies that met our criteria, collectively enrolling 4065 participants and reporting on 23 individual pharmacotherapies, alone or in combination. Disparate outcomes and measures (n = 55 for the primary outcomes) across studies did not allow for meta-analyses. Some studies demonstrated mixed or weak positive signals (often in defined populations, e.g. men who have sex with men), with some variation in efficacy signals dependent on baseline frequency of AMPH/MA use. The most consistent positive findings have been demonstrated with stimulant agonist treatment (dexamphetamine and methylphenidate), naltrexone and topiramate. Less consistent benefits have been shown with the antidepressants bupropion and mirtazapine, the glutamatergic agent riluzole and the corticotropin releasing factor (CRF-1) antagonist pexacerfont; whilst in general, antidepressant medications (e.g. selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs]) have not been effective in reducing AMPH/MA use.
CONCLUSIONS
No pharmacotherapy yielded convincing results for the treatment of AMPH/MA dependence; mostly studies were underpowered and had low treatment completion rates. However, there were positive signals from several agents that warrant further investigation in larger scale studies; agonist therapies show promise. Common outcome measures should include change in use days. Future research must address the heterogeneity of AMPH/MA dependence (e.g. coexisting conditions, severity of disorder, differences between MA and AMPH dependence) and the role of psychosocial intervention.
Topics: Amphetamine; Amphetamine-Related Disorders; Animals; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Humans; Methamphetamine; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 32185696
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-020-00711-x -
Antipsychotics for agitation and psychosis in people with Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Typical and atypical antipsychotics are widely used to treat agitation and psychosis in dementia. However, whether or not they are beneficial is uncertain. Some trials... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Typical and atypical antipsychotics are widely used to treat agitation and psychosis in dementia. However, whether or not they are beneficial is uncertain. Some trials have yielded negative results and effectiveness may be outweighed by harms.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of antipsychotics for the treatment of agitation and psychosis in people with Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE (Ovid Sp), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's meta-register, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Portal on 7 January 2021. Two review authors independently screened the title and abstract of the hits, and two review authors assessed the full text of studies that got through this screening.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm trials comparing the effects of antipsychotics and placebo for the treatment of agitation or psychosis in people with dementia due to Alzheimer's disease or vascular dementia, or both, irrespective of age, severity of cognitive impairment, and setting. (The majority of) participants had to have clinically significant agitation (including aggression) or psychosis or both at baseline. We excluded studies about antipsychotics that are no longer available in the USA or EU, or that are used for emergency short-term sedation. We also excluded head-to-head trials and antipsychotic withdrawal trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The primary outcomes were (1) reduction in agitation or psychosis in participants with agitation or psychosis, respectively at baseline, and (2) the number of participants with adverse events: somnolence, extrapyramidal symptoms, any adverse event, any serious adverse event (SAE), and death. Two review authors independently extracted the necessary data and assessed risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We calculated the pooled effect on agitation and psychosis for typical and atypical antipsychotics separately, and the pooled risk of adverse effects independent of the target symptom (agitation or psychosis). We used RevMan Web for the analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
The search yielded 8233 separate hits. After assessing the full-text of 35 studies, we included 24 trials that met the eligibility criteria. Six trials tested a typical antipsychotic, four for agitation and two for psychosis. Twenty trials tested an atypical antipsychotic, eight for agitation and 12 for psychosis. Two trials tested both drug types. Seventeen of 26 comparisons were performed in patients with Alzheimer's disease specifically. The other nine comparisons also included patients with vascular dementia or mixed dementia. Together, the studies included 6090 participants (12 to 652 per study). The trials were performed in institutionalised, hospitalised and community-dwelling patients, or a combination of those. For typical antipsychotics (e.g. haloperidol, thiothixene), we are uncertain whether these drugs improve agitation compared with placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.57 to -0.15, 4 studies, n = 361); very low-certainty evidence, but typical antipsychotics may improve psychosis slightly (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.03, 2studies, n= 240; low-certainty evidence) compared with placebo. These drugs probably increase the risk of somnolence (risk ratio (RR) 2.62, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.56, 3 studies, n = 466; moderate-certainty evidence) and increase extrapyramidal symptoms (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.58 to 3.23, 3 studies, n = 467; high-certainty) evidence. There was no evidence regarding the risk of any adverse event. The risks of SAEs (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.66, 1 study, n = 193) and death (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.54 to 4.00, 6 studies, n = 578) may be increased slightly, but these estimates were very imprecise, and the certainty was low. The effect estimates for haloperidol from five trials were in line with those of the drug class. Atypical antipsychotics (e.g. risperidone, olanzapine, aripiprazole, quetiapine) probably reduce agitation slightly (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.12, 7 studies, n = 1971; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably have a negligible effect on psychosis (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.03, 12 studies, n = 3364; moderate-certainty evidence). These drugs increase the risk of somnolence (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.57 to 2.39, 13 studies, n - 3878; high-certainty evidence) and are probably also associated with slightly increased risk of extrapyramidal symptoms (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.68, 15 studies, n = 4180; moderate-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.61, 15 studies, n= 4316; moderate-certainty evidence) and death (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.05, 17 studies, n= 5032; moderate-certainty evidence), although the latter estimate was imprecise. The drugs probably have a negligible effect on the risk of any adverse event (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09, 11 studies, n = 2785; moderate-certainty evidence). The findings from seven trials for risperidone were in line with those for the drug class.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is some evidence that typical antipsychotics might decrease agitation and psychosis slightly in patients with dementia. Atypical antipsychotics reduce agitation in dementia slightly, but their effect on psychosis in dementia is negligible. The apparent effectiveness of the drugs seen in daily practice may be explained by a favourable natural course of the symptoms, as observed in the placebo groups. Both drug classes increase the risk of somnolence and other adverse events. If antipsychotics are considered for sedation in patients with severe and dangerous symptoms, this should be discussed openly with the patient and legal representative.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Antipsychotic Agents; Dementia, Vascular; Humans; Psychotic Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone
PubMed: 34918337
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013304.pub2 -
European Neuropsychopharmacology : the... Jan 2022Uncertainty remains regarding the relative efficacy of maintenance pharmacotherapy for bipolar disorder (BD), and available data require updating. The present systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Uncertainty remains regarding the relative efficacy of maintenance pharmacotherapy for bipolar disorder (BD), and available data require updating. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to consolidate the evidence from the highest quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to July 2021, overcoming the limitations of earlier reviews. The PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for double-blind RCTs involving lithium, mood stabilizing anticonvulsants (MSAs), antipsychotics, antidepressants, and other treatments. Rates of new mood episodes with test vs. reference treatments (placebo or alternative active agent) were compared by random-effects meta-analysis. Polarity index was calculated for each treatment type. Eligible trials involved ≥6 months of maintenance follow up. Of 2,158 identified reports, 22 met study eligibility criteria, and involved 7,773 subjects stabilized for 1-12 weeks and followed-up for 24-104 weeks. Psychotropic monotherapy overall (including lithium, MSAs, and second generation antipsychotics (SGA) was more effective in preventing new BD episodes than placebo (odds ratio, OR=0.42; 95% confidence interval, CI 0.34-0.51, p<0.00001). Significantly lower risk of new BD episodes was observed with the following individual drugs: aripiprazole, asenapine, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone long-acting (ORs varied 0.19-0.46). Adding aripiprazole, divalproex, quetiapine, or olanzapine/risperidone to lithium or an MSA was more effective compared with lithium or MSA monotherapy (OR=0.37; 95%CI 0.25-0.55, p<0.00001). Active treatment favored prevention of mania over depression. The key limitations were "responder-enriched" design in most trials and high outcomes heterogeneity. PROSPERO registration number is CRD42020162663.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Lithium; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone
PubMed: 34489127
DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2021.08.264 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021About 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
About 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with cancer therapy and is associated with decreased adherence to chemotherapy. Combining 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists with corticosteroids or additionally with neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists is effective in preventing CINV among adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Various treatment options are available, but direct head-to-head comparisons do not allow comparison of all treatments versus another. OBJECTIVES: • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving HEC - To compare the effects of antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids on prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in network meta-analysis (NMA) - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving MEC - To compare whether antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids are superior for prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting to treatment combinations including 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists and corticosteroids solely, in network meta-analysis - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings, and study registries from 1988 to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs including adults with any cancer receiving HEC or MEC (according to the latest definition) and comparing combination therapies of NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors and corticosteroids for prevention of CINV.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed treatment effects as risk ratios (RRs). Prioritised outcomes were complete control of vomiting during delayed and overall phases, complete control of nausea during the overall phase, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and on-study mortality. We assessed GRADE and developed 12 'Summary of findings' tables. We report results of most crucial outcomes in the abstract, that is, complete control of vomiting during the overall phase and SAEs. For a comprehensive illustration of results, we randomly chose aprepitant plus granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for HEC, and granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for MEC.
MAIN RESULTS
Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) We included 73 studies reporting on 25,275 participants and comparing 14 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 704 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (39 RCTs, 21,642 participants; 12 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron for completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): fosnetupitant + palonosetron (810 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.37; moderate certainty), aprepitant + palonosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.98 to 1.18; low-certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21; low certainty), and fosaprepitant + palonosetron (746 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19; low certainty). Netupitant + palonosetron (704 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; high-certainty) and fosaprepitant + granisetron (697 of 1000; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; high-certainty) have little to no impact on complete control of vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant + ondansetron (676 of 1000; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; low certainty), fosaprepitant + ondansetron (662 of 1000; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (634 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; low certainty), rolapitant + granisetron (627 of 1000; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate certainty), and rolapitant + ondansetron (598 of 1000; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; low certainty). We could not include two treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons. Serious adverse events We estimated that 35 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (23 RCTs, 16,065 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that fewer participants may experience SAEs when treated with the following drug combinations than with aprepitant + granisetron: fosaprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.07; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.39; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (9 of 1000; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.58; low certainty), fosaprepitant + granisetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.50; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (20 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.70; low certainty). Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of aprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.14; very low certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (11 of 1000; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.90; very low certainty), fosaprepitant + palonosetron (12 of 1000; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.95; very low certainty), fosnetupitant + palonosetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.16; very low certainty), and aprepitant + palonosetron (17 of 1000; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.78; very low certainty) on the risk of SAEs when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively. We could not include three treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron, rolapitant + ondansetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons. Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) We included 38 studies reporting on 12,038 participants and comparing 15 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors, or 5-HT₃ inhibitors solely. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 555 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with granisetron. Evidence from NMA (22 RCTs, 7800 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): aprepitant + palonosetron (716 of 1000; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (694 of 1000; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.70; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (660 of 1000; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33; high certainty). Palonosetron (588 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) and aprepitant + granisetron (577 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) may or may not increase complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron, respectively. Azasetron (560 of 1000; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34; low certainty) may result in little to no difference in complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): fosaprepitant + ondansetron (500 of 100; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22; low certainty), aprepitant + ondansetron (477 of 1000; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (461 of 1000; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; low certainty), and ondansetron (433 of 1000; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; low certainty). We could not include five treatment combinations (fosaprepitant + granisetron, azasetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons. Serious adverse events We estimated that 153 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with granisetron. Evidence from pair-wise comparison (1 RCT, 1344 participants) suggests that more participants may experience SAEs when treated with rolapitant + granisetron (176 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; low certainty). NMA was not feasible for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons. Certainty of evidence Our main reason for downgrading was serious or very serious imprecision (e.g. due to wide 95% CIs crossing or including unity, few events leading to wide 95% CIs, or small information size). Additional reasons for downgrading some comparisons or whole networks were serious study limitations due to high risk of bias or moderate inconsistency within networks.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This field of supportive cancer care is very well researched. However, new drugs or drug combinations are continuously emerging and need to be systematically researched and assessed. For people receiving HEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest one superior treatment for prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. For people receiving MEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest superiority for treatments including both NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors when compared to treatments including 5-HT₃ inhibitors only. Rather, the results of our NMA suggest that the choice of 5-HT₃ inhibitor may have an impact on treatment efficacy in preventing CINV. When interpreting the results of this systematic review, it is important for the reader to understand that NMAs are no substitute for direct head-to-head comparisons, and that results of our NMA do not necessarily rule out differences that could be clinically relevant for some individuals.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Nausea; Network Meta-Analysis; Palonosetron; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting
PubMed: 34784425
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012775.pub2 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Aug 2022Rapid cycling is a phase of bipolar disorder with increased episode frequencies. It is a severe and disabling condition that often poses a major challenge to the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Rapid cycling is a phase of bipolar disorder with increased episode frequencies. It is a severe and disabling condition that often poses a major challenge to the clinician. The aim of this paper is to give an overview of the evidence-based treatment options for rapid cycling.
METHODS
A systematic search on Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases from inception until December 2021 was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. An additional search on clinicaltrials.gov was done. References of retrieved papers and key reviews were hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials including at least 10 patients with bipolar disorder, rapid cycling, reporting an objective outcome measure were selected.
RESULTS
Our search, initially revealing 1330 articles, resulted in 16 papers about treatment of an acute mood episode, relapse prevention or both. Lithium, anticonvulsants, second generation antipsychotics, antidepressants and thyroid hormone were assessed as treatment options in the presented data. Evidence supporting the use of aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, valproate and lamotrigine for treatment of rapid cycling bipolar disorder was found.
LIMITATIONS
Small sample sizes, different index episodes and variety of outcome measures.
CONCLUSION
Evidence regarding treatment of rapid cycling remains scarce. Evidence supports the use of aripiprazole, olanzapine, and valproate for acute manic or mixed episodes, quetiapine for acute depressive episodes and aripiprazole and lamotrigine for relapse prevention. Given the paucity of available evidence, and the burden that accompanies rapid cycling, future research is warranted.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Lamotrigine; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 35545157
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2022.05.017 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Feb 2023Emotional dysregulation and irritability are common in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We conducted the first meta-analysis assessing the efficacy of a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Efficacy of Pharmacological Interventions for Irritability and Emotional Dysregulation in Autism Spectrum Disorder and Predictors of Response.
OBJECTIVE
Emotional dysregulation and irritability are common in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We conducted the first meta-analysis assessing the efficacy of a broad range of pharmacological interventions for emotional dysregulation and irritability in ASD and predictors of response.
METHOD
Following a preregistered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42021235779), we systematically searched multiple databases until January 1, 2021. We included placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and evaluated the efficacy of pharmacological interventions and predictors of response for emotional dysregulation and irritability. We assessed heterogeneity using Q statistics and publication bias. We conducted subanalyses and meta-regressions to identify predictors of response. The primary effect size was the standardized mean difference. Quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB2).
RESULTS
A total of 2,856 individuals with ASD in 45 studies were included, among which 26.7% of RCTs had a high risk of bias. Compared to placebo, antipsychotics (standardized mean difference = 1.028, 95% CI = 0.824-1.232) and medications used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (0.471, 0.061-0.881) were significantly better than placebo in improving emotional dysregulation and irritability, whereas evidence of efficacy was not found for other drug classes (p > .05). Within individual medications, evidence of efficacy was found for aripiprazole (1.179, 0.838-1.520) and risperidone (1.074, 0.818-1.331). Increased rates of comorbid epilepsy (β = -0.049, p = .026) were associated with a lower efficacy.
CONCLUSION
Some pharmacological interventions (particularly risperidone and aripiprazole) have proved efficacy for short-term treatment of emotional dysregulation and irritability in ASD and should be considered within a multimodal treatment plan, taking into account also the tolerability profile and families' preferences.
Topics: Humans; Risperidone; Aripiprazole; Antipsychotic Agents; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity
PubMed: 35470032
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2022.03.033 -
Psychiatry Research Jan 2021Geriatric patients with dementia frequently present with agitation, aggression, psychosis, and other behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). We present... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Geriatric patients with dementia frequently present with agitation, aggression, psychosis, and other behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). We present an update of our previously published algorithms for the use of psychopharmacologic agents in these patients taking into account more recent studies and findings in meta-analyses, reviews, and other published algorithms. We propose three algorithms: BPSD in an emergent, urgent, and non-urgent setting. In the emergent setting when intramuscular (IM) administration is necessary, the first-line recommendation is for olanzapine (since IM aripiprazole, previously favored, is no longer available) and haloperidol injection is the second choice, followed by possible consideration of an IM benzodiazepine. In the urgent setting, the first line would be oral second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) aripiprazole and risperidone. Perhaps next could be then prazosin, and lastly electroconvulsive therapy is a consideration. There are risks associated with these agents, and adverse effects can be severe. Dosing strategies, discontinuation considerations, and side effects are discussed. In the non-emergent setting, medications are proposed for use in the following order: trazodone, donepezil and memantine, antidepressants such as escitalopram and sertraline, SGAs, prazosin, and carbamazepine. Other options with less support but potential future promise are discussed.
Topics: Academic Medical Centers; Aged; Algorithms; Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Benzodiazepines; Citalopram; Dementia; Electroconvulsive Therapy; Haloperidol; Humans; Olanzapine; Psychopharmacology; Risperidone
PubMed: 33340800
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113641 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Nov 2019Depression and anxiety are prevalent psychiatric disorders that carry significant morbidity. Pharmacological and psychosocial interventions are used to manage these...
BACKGROUND
Depression and anxiety are prevalent psychiatric disorders that carry significant morbidity. Pharmacological and psychosocial interventions are used to manage these conditions, but their efficacy is limited. Recent interest into the use of psychedelic-assisted therapy using ayahuasca, psilocybin or lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) may be a promising alternative for patients unresponsive to traditional treatments. This review aims to determine the efficacy and tolerability of psychedelics in the management of resistant depression.
METHODS
Clinical trials investigating psychedelics in patients with depression and/or anxiety were searched via MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsychINFO. Efficacy was assessed by measuring symptom improvement from baseline, and tolerability was evaluated by noting the incidence and type of adverse effects reported. Risk of bias was assessed.
RESULTS
Seven studies, with 130 patients, were analysed in this review. Three were conducted in patients with depression, two in patients with anxiety and two in patients with both. In a supportive setting, ayahuasca, psilocybin, and LSD consistently produced immediate and significant anti-depressant and anxiolytic effects that were endured for several months. Psychedelics were well-tolerated. The most common adverse effects were transient anxiety, short-lived headaches, nausea and mild increases in heart rate and blood pressure.
LIMITATIONS
At present, the number of studies on this subject is very limited; and the number of participating patients within these is also limited as the treatment under investigations is a relatively novel concept.
CONCLUSIONS
Though further evidence is required, psychedelics appear to be effective in significantly reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety and are well-tolerated.
Topics: Adult; Anxiety Disorders; Depressive Disorder; Female; Hallucinogens; Humans; Lysergic Acid Diethylamide; Psilocybin
PubMed: 31382100
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2019.07.076 -
Pediatrics Apr 2020Several antiemetics have been used in children with acute gastroenteritis. However, there is still controversy over their use. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CONTEXT
Several antiemetics have been used in children with acute gastroenteritis. However, there is still controversy over their use.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the effectiveness and safety of antiemetics for controlling vomiting in children with acute gastroenteritis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Latin America and the Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences, and gray literature, until December 2018.
STUDY SELECTION
We selected randomized clinical trials comparing metoclopramide, ondansetron, domperidone, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, and granisetron.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis using the random-effects model.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies were included (3482 children). Ondansetron revealed the largest effect in comparison to placebo for cessation of vomiting (odds ratio = 0.28 [95% credible interval = 0.16 to 0.46]; quality of evidence: high) and for hospitalization (odds ratio = 2.93 [95% credible interval = 1.69 to 6.18]; quality of evidence: moderate). Ondansetron was the only intervention that reduced the need for intravenous rehydration and the number of vomiting episodes. When considering side effects, dimenhydrinate was the only intervention that was worse than placebo.
LIMITATIONS
Most treatment comparisons had low- or very low-quality evidence, because of risk of biases and imprecise estimates.
CONCLUSIONS
Ondansetron is the only intervention that revealed an effect on the cessation of vomiting, on preventing hospitalizations, and in reducing the need for intravenous rehydration. Ondansetron was also considered a safe intervention.
Topics: Acute Disease; Antiemetics; Child; Child, Preschool; Dexamethasone; Diarrhea; Dimenhydrinate; Domperidone; Fluid Therapy; Gastroenteritis; Granisetron; Hospitalization; Humans; Infant; Metoclopramide; Network Meta-Analysis; Ondansetron; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Regression Analysis; Vomiting
PubMed: 32132152
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2019-3260