-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Trichotillomania (TTM; hair-pulling disorder) is a prevalent and disabling disorder characterised by recurrent hair-pulling. Here we update a previous Cochrane Review on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Trichotillomania (TTM; hair-pulling disorder) is a prevalent and disabling disorder characterised by recurrent hair-pulling. Here we update a previous Cochrane Review on the effects of medication for TTM.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of medication for trichotillomania (TTM) in adults, children and adolescents compared with placebo or other medication.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, eleven other bibliographic databases, trial registries and grey literature sources (to 26 November 2020). We checked reference lists and contacted subject experts.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials of medication versus placebo or other medication for TTM in adults, children and adolescents.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
Twelve studies were included. We identified 10 studies in adults (286 participants) with a mean sample size of 29 participants per trial; one study in children and adolescents (39 participants); and, one study in adults and adolescents (22 participants: 18 adults and 4 adolescents). All studies were single-centre, outpatient trials. Eleven studies compared medication and placebo (334 participants); one study compared two medications (13 participants). Studies were 5 to 13 weeks duration. We undertook meta-analysis only for opioid antagonists as other comparisons contained a single study, or reported insufficient data. Antioxidants versus placebo in adults There was little to no difference in treatment response between antioxidant (35.7%) and placebo groups (28.6%) after six weeks, based on a single trial of silymarin (risk ratio (RR) 2.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 5.99; 36 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (18 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antioxidants versus placebo in adolescents There was little to no difference in treatment response between antioxidant (50%) and placebo groups (25%) after six weeks, based on a single trial of silymarin (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.28 to 14.20; 8 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (8 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antipsychotics versus placebo in adults There may be greater treatment response in the antipsychotic group (85%) compared to the placebo group (17%) after 12 weeks, based on a single trial of olanzapine (RR 5.08, 95% CI 1.4 to 18.37; 25 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (25 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cell signal transducers versus placebo in adults There was little to no difference in treatment response between cell signal transducer (42.1%) and placebo groups (31.6%) after 10 weeks, based on a single trial of inositol (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.11; 38 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (38 participants; low-certainty evidence). Glutamate modulators versus placebo in adults There is probably greater treatment response in the glutamate modulator group (56%) compared to the placebo group (16%) after 12 weeks, based on a single trial of N-acetylcysteine (RR 3.5, 95% CI 1.34 to 9.17; 50 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (50 participants; low-certainty evidence). Glutamate modulators versus placebo in children and adolescents There was little to no difference in treatment response between the glutamate modulator (25%) and placebo groups (21.1%) in children and adolescents, based on a single trial of N-acetylcysteine (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.77; 39 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in dropouts due to adverse events between glutamate modulator (5%) and placebo (0%) groups, based on a single trial (RR 2.86, 95% CI 0.12 to 66.11; 39 participants; low-certainty evidence). Opioid antagonists versus placebo in adults There may be little to no difference in treatment response between opioid antagonist (37.5%) and placebo groups (25%) after six to eight weeks, based on two studies of naltrexone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.25 to 18.17; 2 studies, 68 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available regarding dropouts due to adverse events. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus placebo in adults There were no data available for treatment response to SSRIs. There was little to no difference in dropouts due to adverse events in the SSRI group (5.1%) compared to the placebo group (0%) after 6 to 12 weeks, based on two trials of fluoxetine (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.62; 2 studies, 78 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) with predominantly serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) actions versus placebo in adults There may be greater treatment response in the TCAs with predominantly SRI actions group (40%) compared to the placebo group (0%) after nine weeks, but the evidence is very uncertain, based on a single trial of clomipramine (RR 5.73, 95% CI 0.36 to 90.83; 16 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be increased dropouts due to adverse events in the TCAs with predominantly SRI actions group (30%) compared to the placebo group (0%), but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 4.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 73.81; 16 participants; very low-certainty evidence). TCAs with predominantly SRI actions versus other TCAs in adults There may be greater treatment response in the TCAs with predominantly SRI actions group compared to the other TCAs group after five weeks, based on a single trial comparing clomipramine to desipramine (mean difference (MD) -4.00, 95% CI -6.13 to -1.87; 26 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (26 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient evidence from meta-analysis to confirm or refute the efficacy of any agent or class of medication for the treatment of TTM in adults, children or adolescents. Preliminary evidence suggests there may be beneficial treatment effects for N-acetylcysteine, clomipramine and olanzapine in adults based on four trials, albeit with relatively small sample sizes.
Topics: Adolescent; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Antipsychotic Agents; Clomipramine; Humans; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Trichotillomania
PubMed: 34582562
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007662.pub3 -
Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine Jan 2024United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) recently approved a novel combination of olanzapine-samidorphan (OLZSAM) for managing olanzapine-associated adverse... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) recently approved a novel combination of olanzapine-samidorphan (OLZSAM) for managing olanzapine-associated adverse events (weight gain) in adult patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. To opine about the safety and efficacy of OLZSAM, authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to convene justifiable evidence.
METHODS
A thorough literature search was performed through the databases Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and clinicaltrials.gov, from inception to September 2022, with the keywords: 'olanzapine and samidorphan' and schizophrenia; and "ALKS3831" and "lybalvi." Clinical trials published in English that analyzed the efficacy and safety of OLZSAM were included. The significant outcomes included in this study were change from baseline (CFB) in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) at the end of the study, the proportion of patients with weight gain at the end of the study, the proportion of patients with at least one adverse event, and the incidence of drug discontinuation due to adverse events.
RESULTS
The change in PANSS score at the end of the study was comparable among groups receiving OLZSAM and olanzapine alone: standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.04; 95% CI = -0.09 to 0.17; = 0.57. The OLZSAM group reported less incidence of weight gain: risk ratio (RR) = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.62-1.34; = 0.63, and any adverse event: RR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.90-1.09; = 0.81. Drug discontinuation incidence was higher in the OLZSAM group: RR = 1.22; 95% CI = 0.84-1.79; = 0.30.
CONCLUSIONS
The combination OLZSAM showed comparable efficacy to olanzapine alone in schizophrenia patients, with relatively less incidence of weight gain and adverse events; however, the drug discontinuation due to adverse events was more in the OLZSAM group.
PubMed: 38524957
DOI: 10.1177/02537176231201326 -
Schizophrenia Bulletin Jan 2024Long-acting injectable antipsychotic drugs (LAIs) are mainly used for relapse prevention but could also be advantageous for acutely ill patients with schizophrenia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Long-Acting Injectable Second-Generation Antipsychotics vs Placebo and Their Oral Formulations in Acute Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized-Controlled-Trials.
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS
Long-acting injectable antipsychotic drugs (LAIs) are mainly used for relapse prevention but could also be advantageous for acutely ill patients with schizophrenia.
STUDY DESIGN
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled-trials (RCTs) comparing the second-generation long-acting injectable antipsychotics (SGA-LAIs) olanzapine, risperidone, paliperidone, and aripiprazole with placebo or their oral counterparts in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia. We analyzed 23 efficacy and tolerability outcomes, with the primary outcome being overall symptoms of schizophrenia. The results were obtained through random effects, pairwise meta-analyses, and subgroup tests. The study quality was assessed using the Cochrane-Risk-of-Bias-Tool version-1.
STUDY RESULTS
Sixty-six studies with 16 457 participants were included in the analysis. Eleven studies compared second-generation long-acting injectable antipsychotics (SGA-LAIs) with a placebo, 54 compared second-generation oral antipsychotics (SGA-orals) with a placebo, and one compared an SGA-LAI (aripiprazole) with its oral formulation. All 4 SGA-LAIs reduced overall symptoms more than placebo, with mean standardized differences of -0.66 (95% CI: -0.90; -0.43) for olanzapine, -0.64 (-0.80; -0.48) for aripiprazole, -0.62 (-0.76; -0.48) for risperidone and -0.42 (-0.53; -0.31) for paliperidone. The side-effect profiles of the LAIs corresponded to the patterns known from the oral formulations. In subgroup tests compared to placebo, some side effects were less pronounced under LAIs than under their oral formulations.
CONCLUSIONS
SGA-LAIs effectively treat acute schizophrenia. Some side effects may be less frequent than under oral drugs, but due to the indirect nature of the comparisons, this finding must be confirmed by RCTs comparing LAIs and orals head-to-head.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Paliperidone Palmitate; Aripiprazole; Olanzapine; Risperidone; Delayed-Action Preparations; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 37350486
DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbad089 -
Molecular Psychiatry Jan 2023People with mood disorders have increased risk of comorbid medical diseases versus the general population. It is paramount to identify interventions to improve physical...
The impact of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on physical health outcomes in people with mood disorders across the lifespan: An umbrella review of the evidence from randomised controlled trials.
OBJECTIVE
People with mood disorders have increased risk of comorbid medical diseases versus the general population. It is paramount to identify interventions to improve physical health in this population.
METHODS
Umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on pharmacological/non-pharmacological interventions for physical health outcomes/intolerability-related discontinuation in mood disorders (any age).
RESULTS
Ninety-seven meta-analyses were included. Among youths, against placebo, in depression, antidepressants/antipsychotics had higher discontinuation rates; in bipolar depression, olanzapine+fluoxetine worsened total cholesterol (TC)/triglycerides/weight gain (WG) (large ES). In adults with bipolar disorder, olanzapine worsened HbA1c/TC/WG (moderate/large ES); asenapine increased fasting glucose (small ES); quetiapine/cariprazine/risperidone induced WG (small/moderate ES). In bipolar depression, lurasidone was metabolically neutral. In depression, psychological interventions improved physical health-related quality of life (PHQoL) (small ES), fasting glucose/HbA1c (medium/large ES); SSRIs improved fasting glucose/HbA1c, readmission for coronary disease, pain (small ES); quetiapine/aripiprazole/olanzapine induced WG (small to large ES). Exercise improved cardiorespiratory fitness (moderate ES). In the elderly, fluoxetine yielded more detrimental cardiovascular effects than sertraline/escitalopram (large ES); antidepressants were neutral on exercise tolerance and PHQoL. In mixed age groups, in bipolar disorder aripiprazole was metabolically neutral; in depression, SSRIs lowered blood pressure versus placebo and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (small ES); brexpiprazole augmentation caused WG and was less tolerated (small ES); exercise improved PHQoL (moderate ES).
CONCLUSIONS
Some interventions (psychological therapies, exercise and SSRIs) improve certain physical health outcomes in mood disorders, few are neutral, but various pharmacological interventions are associated with negative effects. Evidence from this umbrella review has limitations, should consider evidence from other disorders and should be integrated with recent evidence from individual RCTs, and observational evidence. Effective treatments with either beneficial or physically neutral profiles should be prioritized.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Aged; Adolescent; Fluoxetine; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Aripiprazole; Longevity; Glycated Hemoglobin; Antipsychotic Agents; Antidepressive Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36138129
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-022-01770-w -
Therapeutic Advances in... 2023As an atypical antipsychotic drug, olanzapine is one of the most commonly used drugs for delirium control. There are no systematic evaluations or meta-analyses of the...
BACKGROUND
As an atypical antipsychotic drug, olanzapine is one of the most commonly used drugs for delirium control. There are no systematic evaluations or meta-analyses of the efficacy and safety of olanzapine for delirium control in critically ill adults.
OBJECTIVES
In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of olanzapine for delirium control in critically ill adults in the intensive care unit (ICU).
DATA SOURCES AND METHODS
From inception to October 2022, 12 electronic databases were searched. We retrieved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies of critically ill adults with delirium that compared the effects of olanzapine and other interventions, including routine care (no intervention), nonpharmaceutical interventions and pharmaceutical interventions. The main outcome measures were the (a) relief of delirium symptoms and (b) a decrease in delirium duration. Secondary outcomes were ICU and in-hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, incidence of adverse events, cognitive function, sleep quality, quality of life, mechanical ventilation time, endotracheal intubation rate and delirium recurrence rate. We applied a random effects model.
RESULTS
Data from 10 studies (four RCTs and six retrospective cohort studies) involving 7076 patients (2459 in the olanzapine group and 4617 in the control group) were included. Olanzapine did not effectively relieve delirium symptoms (OR = 1.36, 95% CI [0.83, 2.28], = 0.21), nor did it shorten the duration of delirium [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.04, 1.09], = 0.97] when compared with other interventions. Pooled data from three studies showed that the use of olanzapine reduced the incidence of hypotension (OR = 0.44, 95% CI [0.20, 0.95], = 0.04) compared with other pharmaceuticals. There was no significant difference in other secondary outcomes, including ICU or hospital length of stay, in-hospital mortality, extrapyramidal reactions, QTc interval prolongation, or overall incidence of other adverse reactions. The number of included studies was not sufficient for performing a comparison between olanzapine and no intervention.
CONCLUSION
Compared with other interventions, olanzapine has no advantage in alleviating delirium symptoms and shortening delirium duration in critically ill adults. However, there is some evidence that the rate of hypotension was lower in patients who received olanzapine than in those who received other pharmaceutical interventions. There was a nonsignificant difference in the length of ICU or hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, and other adverse reactions. This study provides reference data for delirium research and clinical drug intervention strategies in critically ill adults.
REGISTRATION
Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42021277232).
PubMed: 36845642
DOI: 10.1177/20451253231152113 -
PloS One 2023Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are frequently prescribed for the treatment of resistant anorexia nervosa. However, few clinical trials have been conducted so...
INTRODUCTION
Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are frequently prescribed for the treatment of resistant anorexia nervosa. However, few clinical trials have been conducted so far and no pharmacological treatment has yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic scoping review exploring the effectiveness and safety of atypical antipsychotics in anorexia nervosa (AN).
METHOD
We conducted a systematic scoping review of the effectiveness and tolerability of SGAs in the management of AN. We included articles published from January 1, 2000, through September 12, 2022 from the PubMed and PsycInfo databases and a complementary manual search. We selected articles about adolescents and adults treated for AN by four SGAs (risperidone, quetiapine, aripiprazole or olanzapine). This work complies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRIMA-ScR) and was registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository.
RESULTS
This review included 55 articles: 48 assessing the effectiveness of SGAs in AN and 7 focusing only on their tolerability and safety. Olanzapine is the treatment most frequently prescribed and studied with 7 randomized double-blind controlled trials. Other atypical antipsychotics have been evaluated much less often, such as aripiprazole (no randomized trials), quetiapine (two randomized controlled trials), and risperidone (one randomized controlled trial). These treatments are well tolerated with mild and transient adverse effects in this population at particular somatic risk.
DISCUSSION
Limitations prevent the studies both from reaching conclusive, reliable, robust, and reproducible results and from concluding whether or not SGAs are effective in anorexia nervosa. Nonetheless, they continue to be regularly prescribed in clinical practice. International guidelines suggest that olanzapine and aripiprazole can be interesting in severe or first-line resistant clinical situations.
Topics: Adult; Adolescent; Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Olanzapine; Risperidone; Aripiprazole; Quetiapine Fumarate; Anorexia Nervosa; Benzodiazepines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36928656
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278189 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Bipolar disorder is a severe and common mental disorder where patients experience recurrent symptoms of elevated or irritable mood, depression, or a combination of both.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bipolar disorder is a severe and common mental disorder where patients experience recurrent symptoms of elevated or irritable mood, depression, or a combination of both. Treatment is usually with psychiatric medication, including mood stabilisers, antidepressants and antipsychotics. Valproate is an effective maintenance treatment for bipolar disorder. However, evidence assessing the efficacy of valproate in the treatment of acute mania is less robust, especially when comparing it to some of the newer antipsychotic agents. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane Review (last published 2003) on the role of valproate in acute mania.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and tolerability of valproate for acute manic episodes in bipolar disorder compared to placebo, alternative pharmacological treatments, or a combination pharmacological treatments, as measured by the treatment of symptoms on specific rating scales for individual episodes in paediatric, adolescent and adult populations.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 28 September 2018. We had also conducted an earlier search of these databases in the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR) (all years to 6 June 2016). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP) and clinicaltrials.gov in September 2018, to identify any additional unpublished or ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Single- and double-blind, randomised controlled trials comparing valproate with placebo, alternative antimanic treatments, or a combination of pharmacological treatments. We also considered studies where valproate was used as an adjunctive treatment in combination with another agent separately from studies where it was used in monotherapy. We included male and female patients of all ages and ethnicity with bipolar disorder.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed data extraction and methodological quality assessment. For analysis, we used the odds ratio (OR) for binary efficacy outcomes and the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuously distributed outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-five trials (3252 participants) compared valproate with either placebo or alternative antimanic treatments to alleviate the symptoms of acute mania. For efficacy, our primary outcome was response rate. For tolerability, our primary outcome was the number of participants with any adverse effect. This meta-analysis included studies focusing on children, adolescents, as well as adults with a range of severity of manic symptoms. The majority of studies focused on adult men and women (aged 18 and above), were conducted in inpatient settings and completed in the US. Five studies in this review focused on children and adolescents (aged 18 and under) so that the review covers an age range from 3 - 82 years. Seven studies contained outpatient participants in some form. Nine studies included data that has been collected outside the US, namely Iran (4 studies), India (3 studies), China (1 study), or across several international countries (1 study).In adults, high-quality evidence found that valproate induces a slightly higher response compared to placebo (45% vs 29%, OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.20; 4 studies, 869 participants). Moderate-quality evidence found there was probably little or no difference in response rates between valproate and lithium (56% vs 62%, OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.35; 3 studies, 356 participants). In adults, low-quality evidence found there may be little or no difference in response rate between valproate and olanzapine (38% vs 44%, OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.25; 2 studies, 667 participants).In the children and adolescent population, the evidence regarding any difference in response rates between valproate and placebo was uncertain (23% vs 22%, OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.38; 1 study, 151 participants, very low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence found that the response rate of participants receiving valproate may be lower compared to risperidone (23% vs 66%, OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.29; 1 study, 197 participants). The evidence regarding any difference in response rates between valproate and lithium was uncertain (23% vs 34%, OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.07; 1 study, 197 participants, very low-quality evidence).In terms of tolerability in adults, moderate-quality evidence found that there are probably more participants receiving valproate who experienced any adverse events compared to placebo (83% vs 75%, OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.36; 3 studies, 745 participants). Low-quality evidence found there may be little or no difference in tolerability between valproate and lithium (78% vs 86%, OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.50; 2 studies, 164 participants). We did not obtain primary tolerability outcome data on the olanzapine comparison.Within the children and adolescent population, the evidence regarding any difference between valproate or placebo was uncertain (67% vs 60%, OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.71; 1 study, 150 participants, very low-quality evidence). We did not obtain primary tolerability outcome data on the lithium or risperidone comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence that valproate is an efficacious treatment for acute mania in adults when compared to placebo. By contrast, there is no evidence of a difference in efficacy between valproate and placebo for children and adolescents. Valproate may be less efficacious than olanzapine in adults, and may also be inferior to risperidone as a monotherapy treatment for paediatric mania. Generally, there is uncertain evidence regarding whether valproate causes more or less side effects than the other main antimanic therapies. However, evidence suggests that valproate causes less weight gain and sedation than olanzapine.
PubMed: 31621892
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004052.pub2 -
Therapeutic Advances in... 2023Treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) affects approximately 30% of people with schizophrenia. Clozapine is the gold standard treatment for TRS but is not always... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) affects approximately 30% of people with schizophrenia. Clozapine is the gold standard treatment for TRS but is not always suitable, with a proportion of individuals intolerant of side effects or unable to engage in necessary blood monitoring. Given the profound impact TRS can have on those affected, alternative pharmacological approaches to care are needed.
OBJECTIVES
To review the literature on the efficacy and tolerability of high-dose olanzapine (>20 mg daily) in adults with TRS.
DESIGN
This is a systematic review.
DATA SOURCES AND METHODS
We searched for eligible trials published prior to April 2022 in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and Google Scholar. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria [five randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one randomised crossover trial and four open label studies]. Data were extracted for predefined primary outcomes (efficacy, tolerability).
RESULTS
Compared with standard treatment, high-dose olanzapine was non-inferior in four RCTs, three of which used clozapine as the comparator. Clozapine was superior to high-dose olanzapine in a double-blind crossover trial. Open-label studies demonstrated tentative evidence in support of high-dose olanzapine use. It was better tolerated than clozapine and chlorpromazine in two respective RCTs, and was generally well tolerated in open-label studies.
CONCLUSION
This evidence suggests high-dose olanzapine is superior for TRS when compared with other commonly used first- and second-generation antipsychotics, including haloperidol and risperidone. In comparison with clozapine, the data are encouraging for the use of high-dose olanzapine where clozapine use is problematic, but larger, better designed trials are needed to assess the comparative efficacy of both treatments. There is insufficient evidence to consider high-dose olanzapine equivalent to clozapine when clozapine is not contraindicated. Overall, high-dose olanzapine was well tolerated, with no serious side effects.
REGISTRATION
This systematic review was preregistered with PROSPERO [CRD42022312817].
PubMed: 37187727
DOI: 10.1177/20451253231168788 -
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 -
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