-
Journal of Managed Care & Specialty... Feb 2024Schizophrenia is a chronic, relapsing, and burdensome psychiatric disorder affecting approximately 0.25%-0.6% of the US population. Oral antipsychotic treatment (OAT)... (Review)
Review
A systematic review of the real-world effectiveness and economic and humanistic outcomes of selected oral antipsychotics among patients with schizophrenia in the United States: Updating the evidence and gaps.
BACKGROUND
Schizophrenia is a chronic, relapsing, and burdensome psychiatric disorder affecting approximately 0.25%-0.6% of the US population. Oral antipsychotic treatment (OAT) remains the cornerstone for managing schizophrenia. However, nonadherence and high treatment failure lead to increased disease burden and medical spending. Cost-effective management of schizophrenia requires understanding the value of current therapies to facilitate better planning of management policies while addressing unmet needs.
OBJECTIVE
To review existing evidence and gaps regarding real-world effectiveness and economic and humanistic outcomes of OATs, including asenapine, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, iloperidone, lumateperone, lurasidone, olanzapine/samidorphan, paliperidone, and quetiapine.
METHODS
We conducted a literature search using PubMed, American Psychological Association PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature from January 2010 to March 2022 as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. English-language articles describing adults with schizophrenia receiving at least 1 of the selected OATs and reporting real-world effectiveness, direct or indirect costs, humanistic outcomes, behavioral outcomes, adherence/persistence patterns, or product switching were identified.
RESULTS
We identified 25 studies from a total of 24,190 articles. Real-world effectiveness, cost, and adherence/persistence outcomes were reported for most OATs that were selected. Humanistic outcomes and product switching were reported only for lurasidone. Behavioral outcomes (eg, interpersonal relations and suicide ideation) were not reported for any OAT. The key economic outcomes across studies were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, cost per quality-adjusted life-years, and health care costs. In studies that compared long-acting injectables (LAIs) with OATs, LAIs had a higher pharmacy and lower medical costs, while total health care cost was similar between LAIs and OATs. Indirect costs associated with presenteeism, absenteeism, or work productivity were not reported for any of the selected OATs. Overall, patients had poor adherence to OATs, ranging between 20% and 61% across studies. Product switching did not impact the all-cause health care costs before and after treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings showed considerable gaps exist for evidence on behavioral outcomes, humanistic outcomes, medication switching, and adherence/persistence across OATs. Our findings also suggest an unmet need regarding treatment nonadherence and lack of persistence among patients receiving OATs. We identified a need for research addressing OATs' behavioral and humanistic outcomes and evaluating the impact of product switching in adults with schizophrenia in the United States, which could assist clinicians in promoting patient-centered care and help payers understand the total value of new antipsychotic drugs.
Topics: Adult; Humans; United States; Antipsychotic Agents; Schizophrenia; Lurasidone Hydrochloride; Paliperidone Palmitate; Quetiapine Fumarate
PubMed: 38308625
DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2024.30.2.183 -
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry May 2020The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to summarize the impact of all reported treatments on transition to psychosis in high-risk samples. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to summarize the impact of all reported treatments on transition to psychosis in high-risk samples.
DATA SOURCES
PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, EBM, and MEDLINE online databases were searched from inception to May 2017 using the keywords psychosis, risk, and treatment with no geographical, date, or language restrictions.
STUDY SELECTION
A total of 38 independent studies met the inclusion criteria: conducted a treatment study in a sample at high risk for psychosis and reported on transition to psychosis as an outcome.
DATA EXTRACTION
The following data were extracted: study characteristics (eg, sample size), participant characteristics (eg, mean age), and clinical outcome data (eg, number and percentage of patients transited for each intervention group at each time-point and transition assessment employed). Data were analyzed using random-effects pairwise meta-analysis (to explore differences between treatment and controls) and multivariate network meta-analyses (NMAs; to explore differences between treatment types on transition) and were reported as risk ratios (RR).
RESULTS
In pairwise meta-analyses, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) studies were associated with a significant reduction in transition compared with controls at 12-month and 18-month follow-up (RR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.35-0.93; I² = 7%; P = .02 vs RR = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.92; I² = 0%; P = .02). In the NMAs, integrated psychological therapy, CBT, supportive therapy, family therapy, needs-based interventions, omega-3, risperidone plus CBT, ziprasidone, and olanzapine were not significantly more effective at reducing transition at 6 and 12 months relative to each other.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and pairwise meta-analyses demonstrated a reduced risk for transition favoring CBT at 12 and 18 months. No interventions were significantly more effective at reducing transition compared with all other interventions in the NMAs. NMA results should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Child; Disease Progression; Humans; Psychotherapy; Psychotic Disorders; Risk Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 32433834
DOI: 10.4088/JCP.17r12053 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Feb 2024People living with dementia commonly experience anxiety, which is often challenging to manage. We investigated the effectiveness of treatments for the management of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Clinical effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for the management of anxiety in community dwelling people living with dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
People living with dementia commonly experience anxiety, which is often challenging to manage. We investigated the effectiveness of treatments for the management of anxiety in this population. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, and searched EMBASE, CINAHL, MEDLINE and PsycInfo. We estimated standardised mean differences at follow-up between treatments relative to control groups and pooled these across studies using random-effects models where feasible. Thirty-one studies were identified. Meta-analysis demonstrated non-pharmacological interventions were effective in reducing anxiety in people living with dementia, compared to care as usual or active controls. Specifically, music therapy (SMD-1.92(CI:-2.58,-1.25)), muscular approaches (SMD-0.65(CI:-1.02,-0.28)) and stimulating cognitive and physical activities (SMD-0.31(CI:-0.53,-0.09)). Pharmacological interventions with evidence of potential effectiveness included Ginkgo biloba, probiotics, olanzapine, loxapine and citalopram compared to placebo, olanzapine compared to bromazepam and buspirone and risperidone compared to haloperidol. Meta-analyses were not performed for pharmacological interventions due to studies' heterogeneity. This has practice implications when promoting the use of more non-pharmacological interventions to help reduce anxiety among people living with dementia.
Topics: Humans; Independent Living; Olanzapine; Anxiety; Treatment Outcome; Dementia
PubMed: 38097097
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105507 -
European Psychiatry : the Journal of... Mar 2024We employed a Bayesian network meta-analysis for comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved atypical antipsychotics... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We employed a Bayesian network meta-analysis for comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) for the treatment of bipolar patients with depressive episodes. Sixteen randomized controlled trials with 7234 patients treated by one of the five AAPs (cariprazine, lumateperone, lurasidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine) were included. For the response rate (defined as an improvement of ≥50% from baseline on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS]), all AAPs were more efficacious than placebo. For the remission rate (defined as the endpoint of MADRS ≤12 or ≤ 10), cariprazine, lurasidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine had higher remission rates than placebo. In terms of tolerability, olanzapine was unexpectedly associated with lower odds of all-cause discontinuation in comparison with placebo, whereas quetiapine was associated with higher odds of discontinuation due to adverse events than placebo. Compared with placebo, lumateperone, olanzapine, and quetiapine showed higher odds of somnolence. Lumateperone had a lower rate of ≥ weight gain of 7% than placebo and other treatments. Olanzapine was associated with a significant increase from baseline in total cholesterol and triglycerides than placebo. These findings inform individualized prescriptions of AAPs for treating bipolar depression in clinical practice.
Topics: United States; Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Quetiapine Fumarate; Olanzapine; Lurasidone Hydrochloride; Network Meta-Analysis; United States Food and Drug Administration; Bayes Theorem; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38487836
DOI: 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2024.25 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Dec 2023This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine,...
PURPOSE
This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented.
CONCLUSION
There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT receptor antagonists or between NK receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.
Topics: Female; Humans; Emetics; Antiemetics; Consensus; Olanzapine; Nausea; Vomiting; Antineoplastic Agents; Cyclophosphamide; Anthracyclines
PubMed: 38127246
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-08221-4 -
Neuropsychopharmacology Reports Dec 2020This systematic review and random-effect model, network meta-analysis of the phase 3 trials in Japan assessed the efficacy and safety profile of lurasidone compared with... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
AIM
This systematic review and random-effect model, network meta-analysis of the phase 3 trials in Japan assessed the efficacy and safety profile of lurasidone compared with olanzapine and quetiapine extended-release (QUE-XR) for the treatment of bipolar depression.
METHODS
The study included double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials in Japan that included patients with bipolar depression. Outcomes included response rate (primary), remission rate (secondary), improvement of Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score, discontinuation rates, and incidence of individual adverse events.
RESULTS
Three studies were included (n = 1223). Lurasidone and olanzapine but not QUE-XR were superior to placebo in response rate [risk ratio (95% credible interval): lurasidone = 0.78 (0.66, 0.92); olanzapine = 0.84 (0.71, 0.99); QUE-XR = 0.87 (0.73, 1.03)]. Lurasidone, olanzapine and QUE-XR were superior to placebo in remission rate [lurasidone = 0.90 (0.83, 0.98); olanzapine = 0.87 (0.77, 0.99); QUE-XR = 0.84 (0.73, 0.98)] and the improvement of MADRS total score. There were not differences in discontinuation rates between each antipsychotic and placebo. Compared with placebo, lurasidone was higher incidence of akathisia, and increased body weight and blood prolactin level; olanzapine was higher incidence of somnolence and ≥7% weight gain, and increased body weight, blood total cholesterol level, blood LDL cholesterol level, and blood triglyceride levels; QUE-XR was higher incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms, akathisia, somnolence, dry mouth, constipation and ≥7% weight gain, and increased body weight, blood total cholesterol level, blood LDL cholesterol level, and blood triglyceride levels.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggested although the efficacy of three SGAs was similar, there were the differences in the safety profile among the SGAs.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Delayed-Action Preparations; Humans; Japan; Lurasidone Hydrochloride; Network Meta-Analysis; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32902200
DOI: 10.1002/npr2.12137 -
Journal of the Academy of... 2024Acute disturbance is a broad term referring to escalating behaviors secondary to a change in mental state, such as agitation, aggression, and violence. Available... (Review)
Review
Effectiveness and Safety of Intravenous Medications for the Management of Acute Disturbance (Agitation and Other Escalating Behaviors): A Systematic Review of Prospective Interventional Studies.
Acute disturbance is a broad term referring to escalating behaviors secondary to a change in mental state, such as agitation, aggression, and violence. Available management options include de-escalation techniques and rapid tranquilization, mostly via parenteral formulations of medication. While the intramuscular route has been extensively studied in a range of clinical settings, the same cannot be said for intravenous (IV); this is despite potential benefits, including rapid absorption and complete bioavailability. This systematic review analyzed existing evidence for effectiveness and safety of IV medication for management of acute disturbances. It followed a preregistered protocol (PROSPERO identification CRD42020216456) and is reported following the guidelines set by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. APA PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched for eligible interventional studies up until May 30th, 2023. Data analysis was limited to narrative synthesis since primary outcome measures varied significantly. Results showed mixed but positive results for the effectiveness of IV dexmedetomidine, lorazepam, droperidol, and olanzapine. Evidence was more limited for IV haloperidol, ketamine, midazolam, chlorpromazine, and valproate. There was no eligible data on the use of IV clonazepam, clonidine, diazepam, diphenhydramine, propranolol, ziprasidone, fluphenazine, carbamazepine, or promethazine. Most studies reported favorable adverse event profiles, though they are unlikely to have been sufficiently powered to pick up rare serious events. In most cases, evidence was of low or mixed quality, accentuating the need for further standardized, large-scale, multi-arm randomized controlled trials with homogeneous outcome measures. Overall, this review suggests that IV medications may offer an effective alternative parenteral route of administration in acute disturbance, particularly in general hospital settings.
Topics: Humans; Administration, Intravenous; Psychomotor Agitation; Aggression; Antipsychotic Agents; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 38309683
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaclp.2024.01.004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Pharmacological interventions for disordered and problem gambling have been employed in clinical practice. Despite the availability of several reviews of the efficacy of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pharmacological interventions for disordered and problem gambling have been employed in clinical practice. Despite the availability of several reviews of the efficacy of pharmacological interventions for disordered or problem gambling, few have employed systematic search strategies or compared different categories of pharmacological interventions. Systematic reviews of high-quality evidence are therefore essential to provide guidance regarding the efficacy of different pharmacological interventions for disordered or problem gambling.
OBJECTIVES
The primary aims of the review were to: (1) examine the efficacy of major categories of pharmacological-only interventions (antidepressants, opioid antagonists, mood stabilisers, atypical antipsychotics) for disordered or problem gambling, relative to placebo control conditions; and (2) examine the efficacy of these major categories relative to each other. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (all years to 11 January 2022).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised trials evaluating a pharmacological intervention for the treatment of disordered or problem gambling. Eligible control conditions included placebo control groups or comparisons with another category of pharmacological intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures, including systematic extraction of included study characteristics and results and risk of bias assessment. Our primary outcome was reduction in gambling symptom severity. Our secondary outcomes were reduction in gambling expenditure, gambling frequency, time spent gambling, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and functional impairment; and responder status. We evaluated treatment effects for continuous and dichotomous outcomes using standardised mean difference (SMD) and risk ratios (RR), respectively, employing random-effects meta-analyses. A minimum of two independent treatment effects were required for a meta-analysis to be conducted (with only meta-analytic findings reported in this abstract).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 studies in the review (n = 1193 randomised) that reported outcome data scheduled for end of treatment. Length of treatment ranged from 7 to 96 weeks. Antidepressants: Six studies (n = 268) evaluated antidepressants, with very low to low certainty evidence suggesting that antidepressants were no more effective than placebo at post-treatment: gambling symptom severity (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.09, n = 225), gambling expenditure (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.06, n = 144), depressive symptoms (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.23, n = 90), functional impairment (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.22, n = 110), and responder status (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.66, n = 268). Opioid antagonists: Four studies (n = 562) evaluated opioid antagonists, with very low to low certainty evidence showing a medium beneficial effect of treatment on gambling symptom severity relative to placebo at post-treatment (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.19, n = 259), but no difference between groups in responder status (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.14, n = 562). Mood stabilisers: Two studies (n = 71) evaluated mood stabilisers (including anticonvulsants), with very low certainty evidence suggesting that mood stabilisers were no more effective than placebo at post-treatment: gambling symptom severity (SMD -0.92, 95% CI -2.24 to 0.39, n = 71), depressive symptoms (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -1.14 to 0.83, n = 71), and anxiety symptoms (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.64 to 0.30, n = 71). Atypical antipsychotics:Two studies (n = 63) evaluated the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine, with very low certainty evidence showing a medium beneficial effect of treatment on gambling symptom severity relative to placebo at post-treatment (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.08, n = 63). Comparative effectiveness: Two studies (n = 62) compared antidepressants with opioid antagonists, with very low certainty evidence indicating that antidepressants were no more effective than opioid antagonists on depressive symptoms (SMD 0.22, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.72, n = 62) or anxiety symptoms (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.72, n = 62) at post-treatment. Two studies (n = 58) compared antidepressants with mood stabilisers (including anticonvulsants), with very low certainty evidence indicating that antidepressants were no more effective than mood stabilisers on depressive symptoms (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.56, n = 58) or anxiety symptoms (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.70, n = 58) at post-treatment. Tolerability and adverse events: Several common adverse effects were reported by participants receiving antidepressants (e.g. headaches, nausea, diarrhoea/gastrointestinal issues) and opioid antagonists (e.g. nausea, dry mouth, constipation). There was little consistency in the types of adverse effects experienced by participants receiving mood stabilisers (e.g. tiredness, headaches, concentration difficulties) or atypical antipsychotics (e.g. pneumonia, sedation, increased hypomania). Discontinuation of treatment due to these adverse events was highest for opioid antagonists (10% to 32%), followed by antidepressants (4% to 31%), atypical antipsychotics (14%), and mood stabilisers (13%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review provides preliminary support for the use of opioid antagonists (naltrexone, nalmefene) and atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine) to produce short-term improvements in gambling symptom severity, although a lack of available evidence precludes a conclusion regarding the degree to which these pharmacological agents can improve other gambling or psychological functioning indices. In contrast, the findings are inconclusive with regard to the effects of mood stabilisers (including anticonvulsants) in the treatment of disordered or problem gambling, and there is limited evidence to support the efficacy of antidepressants. However, these conclusions are based on very low to low certainty evidence characterised by a small number of included studies, high risk of bias, modest pooled sample sizes, imprecise estimates, moderate between-study heterogeneity, and exclusion of participants with psychiatric comorbidities. Moreover, there were insufficient studies to conduct meta-analyses on many outcome measures; to compare efficacy across and within major categories of interventions; to explore dosage effects; or to examine effects beyond post-treatment. These limitations suggest that, despite recommendations related to the administration of opioid antagonists in the treatment of disordered or problem gambling, pharmacological interventions should be administered with caution and with careful consideration of patient needs. A larger and more methodologically rigorous evidence base with longer-term evaluation periods is required before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness and durability of pharmacological treatments for disordered or problem gambling.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Gambling; Headache; Humans; Naltrexone; Narcotic Antagonists; Nausea; Olanzapine
PubMed: 36130734
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008936.pub2 -
The Mental Health Clinician Aug 2022Olanzapine (OLZ) is a second generation antipsychotic that is approved for the treatment of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder type 1 as monotherapy (acute manic or mixed... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Olanzapine (OLZ) is a second generation antipsychotic that is approved for the treatment of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder type 1 as monotherapy (acute manic or mixed episodes, maintenance), or as an add-on to lithium or valproate (manic or mixed episodes). It is one of the most effective antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia, but concerns remain due to its significant metabolic adverse effects. Notably, OLZ has one of the highest rates of weight gain among all antipsychotic drugs. Previous studies report on potential mitigation of weight gain with opioid antagonists. A systematic review was conducted to summarize the impact of these agents on weight and BMI when used as adjuncts to OLZ.
METHODS
A systematic review of randomized controlled trials was conducted with 3 searches between March 2, 2021 and March 27, 2022.
RESULTS
Six studies met inclusion criteria, 5 of which assessed OLZ and samidorphan (SAM) and 1 of which assessed OLZ and naltrexone compared with OLZ monotherapy. A total of 1752 patients were included with 952 receiving SAM and 14 receiving naltrexone as an adjunct to OLZ. SAM was shown to mitigate OLZ-induced weight gain by 1.0 kg. Only 1 study assessed naltrexone with no statistically significant results for weight gain.
DISCUSSION
SAM is effective at reducing OLZ-induced weight gain. Naltrexone did not reduce OLZ-induced increases in weight or BMI. However, there is a paucity of data on other opioid antagonists as adjuncts to OLZ treatment to prevent increases in weight or BMI.
PubMed: 36071739
DOI: 10.9740/mhc.2022.08.254