-
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 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Oct 2021Concerns exist regarding the cardiovascular safety of domperidone. However, many of the previous studies addressing this issue had important limitations. We aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
Concerns exist regarding the cardiovascular safety of domperidone. However, many of the previous studies addressing this issue had important limitations. We aimed to examine domperidone and the risks of sudden cardiac death and ventricular arrhythmia through a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies, including an in-depth methodological assessment.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and CINAHL Plus to identify observational studies examining the association of domperidone and sudden cardiac death and/or ventricular arrhythmia. We assessed study quality in duplicate using the ROBINS-I tool supplemented by an assessment of specific biases and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) approach. Data were pooled across studies using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models.
RESULTS
Six case-control studies, 1 case-crossover study and 1 retrospective cohort study were included (n = 480 395). Based on ROBINS-I, 3 studies had moderate risk of bias, 4 had serious risk, and 1 had critical risk. The overall GRADE rating is moderate. When data were pooled across nonoverlapping studies, domperidone was associated with an increased risk of composite endpoint of sudden cardiac death or ventricular arrhythmia compared to nonuse (adjusted odds ratio: 1.69; 95% confidence interval: 1.46, 1.95; I : 0%; τ : 0). This association persisted when restricted to higher-quality studies (odds ratio: 1.60; 95% confidence interval: 1.30, 1.97; I : 0%; τ : 0).
CONCLUSION
Domperidone is associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death and ventricular arrhythmia compared to nonuse. Further investigation comparing domperidone to an active comparator and in younger populations are warranted.
Topics: Antiemetics; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Cross-Over Studies; Death, Sudden, Cardiac; Domperidone; Humans; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 33439512
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14737 -
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 -
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 -
Tijdschrift Voor Psychiatrie 2023Metformin is the most investigated pharmacological treatment of antipsychotics-induced weight gain (AIWG). Based on a systematic literature review, the first guideline...
BACKGROUND
Metformin is the most investigated pharmacological treatment of antipsychotics-induced weight gain (AIWG). Based on a systematic literature review, the first guideline for the treatment of AIWG with metformin was recently published.
AIM
To present a step-by-step plan, based on recent literature and clinical experience to monitor, prevent, and treat AIWG.
METHOD
Literature search to give specific advice on the choice of antipsychotic medication, stop, dose reduction or switch of antipsychotic, screening, non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to prevent and treat AIWG.
RESULTS
Especially in the first year of antipsychotic treatment timely detection of AIWG through regular monitoring is pivotal. The best way to treat AIWG is to prevent its emergence by choosing an antipsychotic with a favourable metabolic profile. Secondly, by titration of antipsychotic medication to the lowest dose possible. Achieving a healthy lifestyle shows a limited beneficial effect on AIWG. Drug-induced weight loss can be attained by the addition of metformin, topiramate, or aripiprazole. Topiramate and aripiprazole can improve positive and negative residual symptoms of schizophrenia. The evidence on liraglutide is scarce. All augmentation strategies may cause side effects. Besides, in case of nonresponse augmentation therapy should be stopped to prevent unnecessary polypharmacy.
CONCLUSION
In the revision of the Dutch multidisciplinary guideline for schizophrenia, the detection, prevention, and treatment of AIWG deserves more attention.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Topiramate; Weight Gain; Metformin
PubMed: 37323046
DOI: No ID Found -
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 -
Effects of Risperidone in Autistic Children and Young Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Current Neuropharmacology 2021There are several studies investigating the effects of risperidone on autism, but many of these studies are contradictory or inconclusive. This systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
There are several studies investigating the effects of risperidone on autism, but many of these studies are contradictory or inconclusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effects of risperidone on five domains of the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist (ABC) scale on Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), as well as weight gain and waist circumference. The protocol for the present systematic review and meta-analysis was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). For this study, we analysed articles (2,459), selecting them according to the PICOS strategy (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study design). Although risperidone is effective for the treatment of lethargy and inadequate speech, concerns about the association between weight gain, waist circumference and risperidone require a need for evaluation of the risk-benefit ratio in its use. There was a significant association between weight gain, waist circumference and risperidone. In conclusion, it was possible to suggest the efficacy of risperidone for the treatment of lethargy and inadequate speech. Finally, we emphasize that the risk-benefit in its use should be evaluated (Protocol number CRD42019122316).
Topics: Adolescent; Antipsychotic Agents; Autistic Disorder; Child; Female; Humans; Male; Risperidone; Treatment Outcome; Weight Gain; Young Adult
PubMed: 32469700
DOI: 10.2174/1570159X18666200529151741 -
Current Neuropharmacology 2023Serum prolactin levels are influenced by sex, physical development and medications among other factors. Antipsychotics usually increase serum prolactin levels in both... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Serum prolactin levels are influenced by sex, physical development and medications among other factors. Antipsychotics usually increase serum prolactin levels in both adults and younger patients, but no study has reviewed the potential association between sex and vulnerability for developing hyperprolactinemia among children and adolescents.
OBJECTIVE
Systematic review and meta-analysis of serum prolactin levels in children and adolescents on antipsychotic treatment for any psychiatric diagnosis to determine the effect of sex.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed/Web of Science and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials of antipsychotics in children and adolescents reporting serum prolactin levels by sex.
RESULTS
Of 1278 identified records, seven studies were included, comparing different single antipsychotics to placebo (risperidone N=4; lurasidone N=1; olanzapine N=1; queriapine N=1). Both male and female children and adolescents on antipsychotics presented a significant increase in prolactin levels relative to subjects receiving a placebo. (Male: 16.53 with 95% CI: 6.15-26.92; Female: 26.97 with 95% CI: 9.18-44.75). The four studies using risperidone had similar findings (Male: 26.49 with 95% CI: 17.55-35.43; Female: 37.72 with 95% CI: 9.41-66.03). In the direct comparison between sexes, females showed greater increases in prolactin, but the differences were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
Serum prolactin levels are increased in children and adolescents of both sexes on antipsychotics, with females showing a slightly greater increase than males. Further research is needed to clarify the influence of sex and pubertal status on prolactin levels in children and adolescents taking antipsychotics.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Adolescent; Child; Antipsychotic Agents; Risperidone; Prolactin; Sex Characteristics; Olanzapine
PubMed: 36305138
DOI: 10.2174/1570159X21666221027143920 -
European Review For Medical and... Feb 2021Delirium, a common behavioral manifestation of acute brain dysfunction in Intensive Care Unit (ICU), is a significant contributor to mortality and worse long-term... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Delirium, a common behavioral manifestation of acute brain dysfunction in Intensive Care Unit (ICU), is a significant contributor to mortality and worse long-term outcome. Antipsychotics, especially haloperidol, are commonly administered for the treatment and prevention of delirium in critically ill patients while the evidence for the safety and efficacy of these drugs is still lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of the benefits of haloperidol for the prevention of delirium in ICU patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We made a systematic review and meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs with 2806 patients were included. The prophylactic use of haloperidol did not reduce the delirium incidence (RR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.69-1.71), the duration of delirium (MD: -0.33, 95% CI: -1.25-0.588) and the delirium/coma free days (MD: 0.08, 95% CI: -0.06-0.23). We did not find an increase of extrapyramidal effects (RR: 1.86, 95% CI: 0.30-11.39), QTc prolongation (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.79-1.55) and arrhythmias (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.72-2.19). The use of haloperidol did not increase the ICU (MD: 0.77, 95% CI: -0.28-1.83) and hospital length of stay (MD: -0.57, 95% CI: -1.32-0.18). Haloperidol did not increase the sedation level (RR: 1.88, 95% CI: 0.76-4.63) and mortality (RR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.83-1.18).
CONCLUSIONS
Haloperidol did not reduce the delirium incidence, the delirium duration, the delirium/coma free-days and did not increase the incidence of extrapyramidal effects, arrhythmias, the ICU and hospital length of stays and sedation.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Delirium; Haloperidol; Humans; Intensive Care Units
PubMed: 33629327
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202102_24868