-
Psychopharmacology Feb 2024Dopamine antagonists induce dopamine receptor supersensitivity. This may manifest in late-appearing movement disorders (tardive dyskinesia (TD). VMAT-2 inhibitors reduce... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
RATIONALE
Dopamine antagonists induce dopamine receptor supersensitivity. This may manifest in late-appearing movement disorders (tardive dyskinesia (TD). VMAT-2 inhibitors reduce dopaminergic transmission but have limited activity at postsynaptic receptors and so may have antipsychotic activity with lower risk of tardive dyskinesia.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic database search from inception to September 2022 for articles describing the use of VMAT-2 inhibitors in psychosis. Inclusion criteria were as follows: Population: adults diagnosed with psychosis or schizophrenia; Intervention: treatment with tetrabenazine, deutetrabenazine or valbenazine; Comparison: comparison with placebo or/and antipsychotic drug; Outcomes: with efficacy outcomes (e.g. Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) change or clinician assessment) and adverse effects ratings (e.g. rating scale or clinician assessment or dropouts); and Studies: in randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies.
RESULTS
We identified 4892 records relating to VMAT-2 inhibitor use of which 5 (173 participants) met our a priori meta-analysis inclusion criteria. VMAT-2 inhibitors were more effective than placebo for the outcome 'slight improvement' (risk ratio (RR) = 1.77 (95% CI 1.03, 3.04)) but not for 'moderate improvement' (RR 2.81 (95% CI 0.27, 29.17). VMAT-2 inhibitors were as effective as active comparators on both measures for-'slight improvement' (RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.6, 1.81)) and 'moderate improvement' (RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.51, 2.42). Antipsychotic efficacy was also suggested by a narrative review of 37 studies excluded from the meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
VMAT-2 inhibitors may have antipsychotic activity and may offer promise for treatment of psychosis with the potential for a reduced risk of TD.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Psychotic Disorders; Schizophrenia; Tardive Dyskinesia; Tetrabenazine; Vesicular Monoamine Transport Proteins
PubMed: 38238580
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-023-06488-3 -
Advances in Therapy May 2022Dementia-related psychosis (DRP) is characterized by hallucinations and delusions, which may increase the debilitating effects of underlying dementia. This network... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Dementia-related psychosis (DRP) is characterized by hallucinations and delusions, which may increase the debilitating effects of underlying dementia. This network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated the comparative efficacy, safety, and acceptability of atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) commonly used off label to treat DRP.
METHODS
We included 22 eligible studies from a systematic literature review of AAPs (quetiapine, risperidone, olanzapine, aripiprazole, and brexpiprazole) used off label to treat DRP. Study outcomes were: (1) efficacy-neuropsychiatric inventory-nursing home (NPI-NH psychosis subscale), (2) safety-mortality, cerebrovascular events (CVAEs), and others (somnolence, falls, fractures, injuries, etc.), and (3) acceptability-discontinuations due to all causes, lack of efficacy, and adverse events (AEs). We used random-effects modeling to estimate pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) for NPI-NH psychosis subscale scores and odds ratios (OR) for other dichotomous outcomes, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Compared with placebo, aripiprazole (SMD - 0.12; 95% CI - 0.31, 0.06), and olanzapine (SMD - 0.17; 95% CI - 0.04; 0.02) demonstrated small, non-significant numerical improvements in NPI-NH psychosis scores (5 studies; n = 1891), while quetiapine (SMD 0.04; 95% CI - 0.23, 0.32) did not improve symptoms. The odds of mortality (15 studies, n = 4989) were higher for aripiprazole (OR 1.58; 95% CI 0.62, 4.04), brexpiprazole (OR 2.22; 95% CI 0.30, 16.56), olanzapine (OR 2.21; 95% CI 0.84, 5.85), quetiapine (OR 1.68; 95% CI 0.70, 4.03), and risperidone (OR 1.63; 95% CI 0.93, 2.85) than for placebo. Risperidone (OR 3.68; 95% CI 1.68, 8.95) and olanzapine (OR 4.47; 95% CI 1.36, 14.69) demonstrated significantly greater odds of CVAEs compared to placebo. Compared with placebo, odds of all-cause discontinuation were significantly lower for aripiprazole (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.51, 0.98; 20 studies; 5744 patients) and higher for other AAPs. Aripiprazole (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.31, 0.82) and olanzapine (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.31, 0.74) had significantly lower odds of discontinuation due to lack of efficacy (OR 12 studies; n = 4382) compared to placebo, while results for quetiapine and risperidone were not significant. Compared with placebo, the odds of discontinuation due to AEs (19 studies, n = 5445) were higher for olanzapine (OR 2.62; 95% CI 1.75, 3.92), brexpiprazole (OR 1.80; 95% CI 0.80, 4.07), quetiapine (OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.82, 1.91), aripiprazole (OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.90, 2.13), and risperidone (OR 1.41; 95% CI 1.02, 1.94).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall results demonstrate that, compared with placebo, quetiapine is not associated with improvement in psychosis in patients with dementia, while olanzapine and aripiprazole have non-significant small numerical improvements. These off-label AAPs (quetiapine, risperidone, olanzapine, aripiprazole, and brexpiprazole) are associated with greater odds of mortality, CVAEs, and discontinuations due to AEs than placebo. These results underscore the ongoing unmet need for newer pharmacological options with a more favorable benefit-risk profile for the treatment of DRP.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Benzodiazepines; Dementia; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Off-Label Use; Olanzapine; Psychotic Disorders; Quetiapine Fumarate; Risperidone; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35247186
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-022-02075-8 -
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 -
Brain and Behavior Jun 2023Sydenham's chorea (SC), prevalent in developing countries and occasionally affecting developed ones, poses a clinical challenge due to the lack of systematic guidelines... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Sydenham's chorea (SC), prevalent in developing countries and occasionally affecting developed ones, poses a clinical challenge due to the lack of systematic guidelines for diagnosis and treatment. Resulting from Group A Beta-Hemolytic Streptococcus infection, SC presents various symptoms. This review aims to collect and evaluate available data on SC management to propose a cohesive treatment plan.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov for literature on SC management from inception until 24th July 2022. Studies were screened by titles and abstracts. Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool (RoB-1) assessed Randomized Controlled Trials, while the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool evaluated nonrandomized studies.
RESULTS
The review includes 11 articles assessing 579 patients. Excluding one study with 229 patients, of the remaining 550 patients, 338 (61.5%) were females. Treatments used were dopamine antagonists in 118 patients, antiepileptics in 198, corticosteroids in 134, IVIG in 7, and PE in 8 patients. Dopamine antagonists, particularly haloperidol, were the primary treatment choice, while valproic acid (VPA) was favored among antiepileptics. Prednisolone, a corticosteroid, showed promising results with weight gain as the only side-effect. Our review emphasizes the importance of immunomodulators in SC, contrasting previous literature.
CONCLUSION
Despite limitations, dopamine antagonists can serve as first-line agents in SC management, followed by antiepileptics. The role of immunomodulators warrants further investigation for conclusive recommendations.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Chorea; Anticonvulsants; Valproic Acid; Haloperidol; Dopamine Antagonists
PubMed: 37150977
DOI: 10.1002/brb3.3035 -
Psychopharmacology Nov 2022While one of the basic axioms of pharmacology postulates that there is a relationship between the concentration and effects of a drug, the value of measuring blood... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
RATIONALE
While one of the basic axioms of pharmacology postulates that there is a relationship between the concentration and effects of a drug, the value of measuring blood levels is questioned by many clinicians. This is due to the often-missing validation of therapeutic reference ranges.
OBJECTIVES
Here, we present a prototypical meta-analysis of the relationships between blood levels of aripiprazole, its target engagement in the human brain, and clinical effects and side effects in patients with schizophrenia and related disorders.
METHODS
The relevant literature was systematically searched and reviewed for aripiprazole oral and injectable formulations. Population-based concentration ranges were computed (N = 3,373) and pharmacokinetic influences investigated.
RESULTS
Fifty-three study cohorts met the eligibility criteria. Twenty-nine studies report blood level after oral, 15 after injectable formulations, and nine were positron emission tomography studies. Conflicting evidence for a relationship between concentration, efficacy, and side effects exists (assigned level of evidence low, C; and absent, D). Population-based reference ranges are well in-line with findings from neuroimaging data and individual efficacy studies. We suggest a therapeutic reference range of 120-270 ng/ml and 180-380 ng/ml, respectively, for aripiprazole and its active moiety for the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders.
CONCLUSIONS
High interindividual variability and the influence of CYP2D6 genotypes gives a special indication for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of oral and long-acting aripiprazole. A starting dose of 10 mg will in most patients result in effective concentrations in blood and brain. 5 mg will be sufficient for known poor metabolizers.
Topics: Humans; Aripiprazole; Schizophrenia; Reference Values; Antipsychotic Agents; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2D6
PubMed: 36195732
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-022-06233-2 -
American Journal of Men's Health 2022Premature ejaculation (PE) is one of the major causes of sexual dysfunction. Levosulpiride is an off-label medicine used to treat PE, but no review on its efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Premature ejaculation (PE) is one of the major causes of sexual dysfunction. Levosulpiride is an off-label medicine used to treat PE, but no review on its efficacy exists. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine the efficacy of levosulpiride in treating PE. Databases PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar were searched. Randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing levosulpiride with placebo or other medicine were selected. Odds ratio (OR) of improved intravaginal ejaculation latency time (IELT) was calculated. A total of 97 articles were retrieved from database search, of which only four RCTs containing 203 men met the selection criteria. All four RCTs were included in systematic review while only two were included in meta-analysis. A high selection and detection bias was found in both of these studies. Meta-analysis also showed the odds of improving IELT in PE patients using levosulpiride to be significantly higher ( < .05) compared with those who used placebo, OR: 100.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) [13.12-774.90], = 0%. Odds of improving IELT for > 5 min (500% improvement) were also significantly higher ( < .05) compared with the placebo groups (OR: 38.88, 95% CI [5.12-295.29], = 0%). The odds of improving IELT for > 1 min, but < 5 min were also significantly higher ( < .05) than placebo groups (OR: 32.84, 95% CI [4.15-259.75], = 0%). Levosulpiride improved IELT, but even so, limited studies are available on this topic. Additional research is thus required to support the present review's findings.
Topics: Ejaculation; Humans; Male; Premature Ejaculation; Sulpiride; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36154321
DOI: 10.1177/15579883221124832 -
CNS Drugs Aug 2023Considering the improvement in adherence and convenience, once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) has been increasingly used in the treatment of schizophrenia.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effectiveness and Safety of Switching from Oral Antipsychotics to Once-Monthly Paliperidone Palmitate (PP1M) in the Management of Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
Considering the improvement in adherence and convenience, once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) has been increasingly used in the treatment of schizophrenia. However, the outcomes for patients who switch from oral antipsychotics (OAPs) to PP1M have not been reliably assessed. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of PP1M in the management of patients with schizophrenia with a prior history of OAP use.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library on 19 July 2022 to identify eligible studies. All studies that examined the effectiveness and safety of switching from OAPs to PP1M in patients with schizophrenia were included. The primary outcomes were relapse rate, hospitalisation rate, and the change from baseline in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score. The secondary outcomes included the changed number of inpatient visits, changed length of stay hospitalisation, change from baseline in the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) score and the personal and social performance (PSP) total score, response rate, proportion of treatment discontinuation, and adverse events. We included randomised-controlled trials (RCTs), single-arm studies, and observational studies. Case reports, case series, and reviews were excluded. The quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB2), the 9-point Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) instrument for non-randomised studies and cohort studies, and the 12-item National Institutes of Health (NIH) quality assessment tool for before-after (Pre-Post) study without control group. Follow-up times were reported as short- (≤ 13 weeks), medium- (14-26 weeks), and long term (≥ 27 weeks). Data were pooled using meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies with a total of 4740 patients were included. The long-term relapse rates and hospitalisation rates were 12% (95% CI 0.07-0.18) and 18% (95% CI 0.15-0.20), respectively. The short-, medium-, and long-term change in PANSS total score was - 21.69 (95% CI - 30.02 to -13.36), - 14.98 (95% CI - 21.45 to - 8.51) and - 17.88 (95% CI - 31.94 to -3.82), respectively. Approximately 50% of patients reported at least a 30% reduction in the PANSS score at the short-term follow-up. Improvements in CGI-S and PSP score were observed during various periods. There was a reduction in the length of stay hospitalisation and the number of inpatient visits at the medium- and long-term follow-ups. Low discontinuation and adverse event rates were reported.
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings, this study may support the efficacy and safety of switching from OAPs to PP1M for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. Future large-scale studies are warranted to confirm our findings.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Paliperidone Palmitate; Schizophrenia; Administration, Oral; Recurrence; Chronic Disease
PubMed: 37490267
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-023-01028-1 -
Psychological Medicine Jul 2023Antipsychotics are widely used in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), but there has been no comprehensive meta-analytic assessment that examined their use... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antipsychotics are widely used in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), but there has been no comprehensive meta-analytic assessment that examined their use as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy.
METHODS
A systematic review and a meta-analysis were conducted on randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) that reported on the efficacy and safety/tolerability of antipsychotics for the treatment of adults with MDD. Data of both monotherapy and adjunctive antipsychotic use were extracted, but analyzed separately using a random-effects model. Co-primary outcomes were study-defined-treatment response and intolerability-related discontinuation. We also illustrated the risk/benefit balance of antipsychotics for MDD, using two-dimensional graphs representing the primary efficacy and safety/tolerability outcome. Secondary outcomes included psychopathology, remission, all-cause-discontinuation, inefficacy-related discontinuation, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Forty-five RCTs with 12 724 patients were included in the analysis. In monotherapy (studies = 13, = 4375), amisulpride [1.99 (1.55-2.55)], sulpiride [1.50 (1.03-2.17)], and quetiapine [1.48 (1.23-1.78)] were significantly superior to placebo regarding treatment response. However, intolerability-related discontinuations were significantly higher compared to placebo with amisulpride and quetiapine. In adjunctive therapy (studies = 32, = 8349), ziprasidone [1.80 (1.07-3.04)], risperidone [1.59 (1.19-2.14)], aripiprazole [1.54 (1.35-1.76)], brexpiprazole [1.41 (1.21-1.66)], cariprazine [1.27 (1.07-1.52)], and quetiapine [1.23 (1.08-1.41)] were significantly superior to placebo regarding treatment response. However, of these antipsychotics that were superior to placebo, only risperidone was equivalent to placebo regarding discontinuation due to intolerability, while the other antipsychotics were inferior.
CONCLUSION
Results suggest that there are significant differences regarding the risk/benefit ratio among antipsychotics for MDD, which should inform clinical care.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Quetiapine Fumarate; Risperidone; Depressive Disorder, Major; Amisulpride; Olanzapine; Benzodiazepines; Dibenzothiazepines
PubMed: 35510505
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291722000745 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Orthostatic hypotension is an excessive fall in blood pressure (BP) while standing and is the result of a decrease in cardiac output or defective or inadequate...
BACKGROUND
Orthostatic hypotension is an excessive fall in blood pressure (BP) while standing and is the result of a decrease in cardiac output or defective or inadequate vasoconstrictor mechanisms. Fludrocortisone is a mineralocorticoid that increases blood volume and blood pressure. Fludrocortisone is considered the first- or second-line pharmacological therapy for orthostatic hypotension alongside mechanical and positional measures such as increasing fluid and salt intake and venous compression methods. However, there has been no Cochrane Review of the benefits and harms of this drug for this condition.
OBJECTIVES
To identify and evaluate the benefits and harms of fludrocortisone for orthostatic hypotension.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 11 November 2019: Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. We also searched trials registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all studies evaluating the benefits and harms of fludrocortisone compared to placebo, another drug for orthostatic hypotension, or studies without comparators, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and observational studies. We included studies in people with orthostatic hypotension due to a chronic peripheral neuropathy, a central autonomic neuropathy, or autonomic failure from other causes, but not medication-induced orthostatic hypotension or orthostatic hypotension from acute volume depletion or blood loss.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used Cochrane methodological procedures for most of the review. We developed and used a tool to prioritize observational studies that offered the best available evidence where there are gaps in the evidence from RCTs. We assessed the certainty of evidence for fludrocortisone versus placebo using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 studies of 513 participants, including three cross-over RCTs and 10 observational studies (three cohort studies, six case series and one case-control study). The included RCTs were small (total of 28 participants in RCTs), short term (two to three weeks), only examined fludrocortisone for orthostatic hypotension in people with two conditions (diabetes and Parkinson disease), and had variable risk of bias (two had unclear risk of bias and one had low risk of bias). Heterogeneity in participant populations, comparators and outcome assessment methods prevented meta-analyses of the RCTs. We found very low-certainty evidence about the effects of fludrocortisone versus placebo on drop in BP in people with diabetes (-26 mmHg versus -39 mmHg systolic; -7 mmHg versus -11 mmHg diastolic; 1 cross-over study, 6 participants). For people with Parkinson disease, we found very-low certainty evidence about the effects of fludrocortisone on drop in BP compared to pyridostigmine (-14 mmHg versus -22.1 mmHg diastolic; P = 0.036; 1 cross-over study, 9 participants) and domperidone (no change after treatment in either group; 1 cross-over study, 13 participants). For orthostatic symptoms, we found very low-certainty evidence for fludrocortisone versus placebo in people with diabetes (4 out of 5 analyzed participants had improvements in orthostatic symptoms, 1 cross-over study, 6 participants), for fludrocortisone versus pyridostigmine in people with Parkinson disease (orthostatic symptoms unchanged; 1 cross-over study, 9 participants) or fludrocortisone versus domperidone (improvement to 6 for both interventions on the Composite Autonomic Symptom Scale-Orthostatic Domain (COMPASS-OD); 1 cross-over study, 13 participants). Evidence on adverse events was also very low-certainty in both populations, but indicated side effects were minimal. Observational studies filled some gaps in evidence by examining the effects in larger groups of participants, with more diverse conditions, over longer periods of time. One cohort study (341 people studied retrospectively) found fludrocortisone may not be harmful in the long term for familial dysautonomia. However, it is unclear if this translates to long-term improvements in BP drop or a meaningful improvement in orthostatic symptoms.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of fludrocortisone on blood pressure, orthostatic symptoms or adverse events in people with orthostatic hypotension and diabetes or Parkinson disease. There is a lack of information on long-term treatment and treatment of orthostatic hypotension in other disease states. There is a need for standardized reporting of outcomes and for standardization of measurements of blood pressure in orthostatic hypotension.
Topics: Bias; Diabetes Mellitus; Domperidone; Dysautonomia, Familial; Fludrocortisone; Humans; Hypotension, Orthostatic; Observational Studies as Topic; Parkinson Disease; Pyridostigmine Bromide; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34000076
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012868.pub2 -
Critical Care (London, England) Aug 2023Haloperidol is frequently used in critically ill patients with delirium, but evidence for its effects has been sparse and inconclusive. By including recent trials, we... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Haloperidol is frequently used in critically ill patients with delirium, but evidence for its effects has been sparse and inconclusive. By including recent trials, we updated a systematic review assessing effects of haloperidol on mortality and serious adverse events in critically ill patients with delirium.
METHODS
This is an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials investigating haloperidol versus placebo or any comparator in critically ill patients with delirium. We adhered to the Cochrane handbook, the PRISMA guidelines and the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation statements. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and proportion of patients with one or more serious adverse events or reactions (SAEs/SARs). Secondary outcomes were days alive without delirium or coma, delirium severity, cognitive function and health-related quality of life.
RESULTS
We included 11 RCTs with 15 comparisons (n = 2200); five were placebo-controlled. The relative risk for mortality with haloperidol versus placebo was 0.89; 96.7% CI 0.77 to 1.03; I = 0% (moderate-certainty evidence) and for proportion of patients experiencing SAEs/SARs 0.94; 96.7% CI 0.81 to 1.10; I = 18% (low-certainty evidence). We found no difference in days alive without delirium or coma (moderate-certainty evidence). We found sparse data for other secondary outcomes and other comparators than placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Haloperidol may reduce mortality and likely result in little to no change in the occurrence of SAEs/SARs compared with placebo in critically ill patients with delirium. However, the results were not statistically significant and more trial data are needed to provide higher certainty for the effects of haloperidol in these patients.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
CRD42017081133, date of registration 28 November 2017.
Topics: Humans; Haloperidol; Coma; Critical Illness; Quality of Life; Delirium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37633991
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-023-04621-4