-
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 2022Motion sickness is a syndrome that occurs as a result of passive body movement in response to actual motion, or the illusion of motion when exposed to virtual and moving... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Motion sickness is a syndrome that occurs as a result of passive body movement in response to actual motion, or the illusion of motion when exposed to virtual and moving visual environments. The most common symptoms are nausea and vomiting. Antihistamines have been used in the management of motion sickness for decades, however studies have shown conflicting results regarding their efficacy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of antihistamines in the prevention and treatment of motion sickness in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 7 December 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in susceptible adults and children in whom motion sickness was induced under natural conditions such as air, sea and land transportation. We also included studies in which motion sickness was induced under experimental conditions (analysed separately). Antihistamines were included regardless of class, route or dosage and compared to no treatment, placebo or any other pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1) the proportion of susceptible participants who did not experience any motion sickness symptoms; 2) the proportion of susceptible participants who experienced a reduction or resolution of existing symptoms. Secondary outcomes were 1) physiological measures (heart rate, core temperature and gastric tachyarrhythmia (electrogastrography)) and 2) adverse effects (sedation, impaired cognition, blurred vision). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine RCTs (658 participants). Studies were conducted across seven countries, with an overall age range of 16 to 55 years. Motion sickness was induced naturally in six studies and experimentally in four studies (rotating chair). All the naturally induced studies only evaluated first-generation antihistamines (cinnarizine and dimenhydrinate). Risk of bias across the studies varied, with mostly low risk for random sequence generation and allocation concealment, and mostly high risk for selective reporting. Only the experimentally induced studies measured physiological parameters and only the naturally induced studies evaluated adverse effects. There were no studies that clearly assessed the paediatric population. Antihistamines versus placebo or no treatment Antihistamines are probably more effective than placebo at preventing motion sickness symptoms under natural conditions (symptoms prevented: 25% placebo; 40% antihistamines) (risk ratio (RR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 2.66; 3 studies; 240 participants) (moderate-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on preventing motion sickness under experimental conditions (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.32, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.83; 2 studies; 62 participants) (very low-certainty). No studies reported results on the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms. Antihistamines may result in little or no difference in gastric tachyarrhythmia under experimental conditions (mean difference (MD) -2.2, 95% CI -11.71 to 7.31; 1 study; 42 participants) (low-certainty). No studies reported results for any other physiological measures. When compared to placebo, antihistamines may be more likely to cause sedation (sedation: 44% placebo; 66% antihistamines) (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.02; 2 studies; 190 participants) (low-certainty); they may result in little or no difference in blurred vision (blurred vision: 12.5% placebo; 14% antihistamines) (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.48; 2 studies; 190 participants) (low-certainty); and they may result in little or no difference in terms of impaired cognition (impaired cognition: 33% placebo; 29% antihistamines) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; 2 studies; 190 participants) (low-certainty). Antihistamines versus scopolamine The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on preventing motion sickness under natural conditions when compared to scopolamine (symptoms prevented: 81% scopolamine; 71% antihistamines) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.16; 2 studies; 71 participants) (very low-certainty). No studies were performed under experimental conditions. No studies reported results on the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on heart rate under natural conditions (narrative report, 1 study; 20 participants; "No difference in pulse frequency"; very low-certainty). No studies reported results for any other physiological measures. When compared to scopolamine, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on sedation (sedation: 21% scopolamine; 30% antihistamines) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.07 to 9.25; 2 studies; 90 participants) (very low-certainty) and on blurred vision (narrative report: not a significant difference; 1 study; 51 participants; very low-certainty). No studies evaluated impaired cognition. Antihistamines versus antiemetics Antihistamines may result in little or no difference in the prevention of motion sickness under experimental conditions (MD -0.20, 95% CI -10.91 to 10.51; 1 study; 42 participants) (low-certainty). The evidence is of low certainty due to imprecision as the sample size is small and the confidence interval crosses the line of no effect. No studies assessed the effects of antihistamines versus antiemetics under natural conditions. No studies reported results on the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms. Antihistamines may result in little or no difference in gastric tachyarrhythmia (MD 4.56, 95% CI -3.49 to 12.61; 1 study; 42 participants) (low-certainty). No studies reported results for any other physiological measures. No studies evaluated sedation, impaired cognition or blurred vision. One study reported physiological data for this outcome, evaluating gastric tachyarrhythmia specifically. Antihistamines may result in little or no difference in gastric tachyarrhythmia (MD 4.56, 95% CI -3.49 to 12.61; 1 study; 42 participants; low-certainty evidence). This evidence is of low certainty due to imprecision as the sample size is small and the confidence interval crosses the line of no effect. Antihistamines versus acupuncture The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of antihistamines on the prevention of motion sickness under experimental conditions when compared to acupuncture (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.57; 1 study; 100 participants) (very low-certainty). This study did not assess the prevention of motion sickness under natural conditions, nor the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms. There was no study performed under natural conditions. Physiological measures and adverse effects were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is probably a reduction in the risk of developing motion sickness symptoms under naturally occurring conditions of motion when using first-generation antihistamines, in motion sickness-susceptible adults, compared to placebo. Antihistamines may be more likely to cause sedation when compared to placebo. No studies evaluated the treatment of existing motion sickness, and there are few data on the effect of antihistamines in children. The evidence for all other outcomes and comparisons (versus scopolamine, antiemetics and acupuncture) was of low or very low certainty and we are therefore uncertain about these effects of antihistamines.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Antiemetics; Child; Cinnarizine; Dimenhydrinate; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Middle Aged; Motion Sickness; Scopolamine Derivatives; Young Adult
PubMed: 36250781
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012715.pub2 -
Medicine Dec 2023A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to explore the efficacy and safety of different antiplatelet or anticoagulation drugs in chronic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to explore the efficacy and safety of different antiplatelet or anticoagulation drugs in chronic coronary syndromes patients.
METHODS
Electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases) were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating different antiplatelet or anticoagulation drugs (aspirin, aspirin + clopidogrel, aspirin + clopidogrel + cilostazol, clopidogrel/prasugrel + aspirin, aspirin + rivaoxaban 2.5 mg, aspirin + ticagrelor 60 mg, aspirin + ticagrelor 90 mg, clopidogrel or rivroxaban 5 mg) versus placebo for treatment chronic coronary syndromes patients. Outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events, all cause death, major bleeding and myocardial infarction. A random-effect Bayesian NMA was conducted for outcomes of interest, and results were presented as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% credible intervals. The NMA was performed using R Software with a GeMTC package. A Bayesian NMA was performed and relative ranking of agents was assessed using surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities.
RESULTS
Ten randomized controlled trials met criteria for inclusion and finally included in this NMA. In head-to-head comparison, no significant difference was observed between all antithrombotic treatment strategies with respect to primary endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events. In head-to-head comparison, no significant difference was observed between all antithrombotic treatment strategies with respect to all cause death. Clopidogrel/prasugrel + aspirin (OR = 3.8, 95% credible intervals [CrI]: 1.3-12.0, P < .05) and aspirin + rivaroxaban 2.5 mg (OR = 3.1, 95%CrI: 1.1-9.5, P < .05) was associated with an increase of the major bleeding. Compared with aspirin alone, aspirin + clopidogrel (OR = 0.42, 95%CrI: 0.22-0.76, P < .05) and aspirin + ticagrelor 90 mg (OR = 0.42, 95%CrI: 0.17-0.95, P < .05) was associated with a decrease of the myocardial infarction.
CONCLUSIONS
Myocardial infarction was significantly lower when adding clopidogrel or ticagrelor 90 mg to aspirin than those in the aspirin alone group. However, clopidogrel/prasugrel and rivaroxaban 2.5 mg was associated with an increase of the major bleeding than aspirin alone.
Topics: Humans; Clopidogrel; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Ticagrelor; Prasugrel Hydrochloride; Rivaroxaban; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Fibrinolytic Agents; Aspirin; Myocardial Infarction; Hemorrhage; Anticoagulants; Acute Coronary Syndrome; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38050293
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000036429 -
Current Psychiatry Reports Nov 2023Despite clear evidence that sex differences largely impact the efficacy and tolerability of antipsychotic medication, current treatment guidelines for schizophrenia... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Despite clear evidence that sex differences largely impact the efficacy and tolerability of antipsychotic medication, current treatment guidelines for schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) do not differentiate between men and women. This review summarizes the available evidence on strategies that may improve pharmacotherapy for women and provides evidence-based recommendations to optimize treatment for women with schizophrenia.
RECENT FINDINGS
We systematically searched PubMed and Embase for peer-reviewed studies on three topics: (1) sex differences in dose-adjusted antipsychotic serum concentrations, (2) hormonal augmentation therapy with estrogen and estrogen-like compounds to improve symptom severity, and (3) strategies to reduce antipsychotic-induced hyperprolactinemia. Based on three database studies and one RCT, we found higher dose-adjusted concentrations in women compared to men for most antipsychotics. For quetiapine, higher concentrations were specifically found in older women. Based on two recent meta-analyses, both estrogen and raloxifene improved overall symptomatology. Most consistent findings were found for raloxifene augmentation in postmenopausal women. No studies evaluated the effects of estrogenic contraceptives on symptoms. Based on two meta-analyses and one RCT, adjunctive aripiprazole was the best-studied and safest strategy for lowering antipsychotic-induced hyperprolactinemia. Evidence-based recommendations for female-specific pharmacotherapy for SSD consist of (1) female-specific dosing for antipsychotics (guided by therapeutic drug monitoring), (2) hormonal replacement with raloxifene in postmenopausal women, and (3) aripiprazole addition as best evidenced option in case of antipsychotic-induced hyperprolactinemia. Combining these strategies could reduce side effects and improve outcome of women with SSD, which should be confirmed in future longitudinal RCTs.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Aged; Antipsychotic Agents; Schizophrenia; Aripiprazole; Hyperprolactinemia; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Estrogens
PubMed: 37864676
DOI: 10.1007/s11920-023-01460-6 -
The International Journal of... Jun 2023Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a highly prevalent and burdensome condition. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of vortioxetine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a highly prevalent and burdensome condition. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of vortioxetine in treating MDD based on real-world data.
METHODS
A systematic search of 8 electronic databases was performed from inception until October 2022 to identify real-world studies, excluding randomized controlled trials. We conducted subgroup, meta-regression, sensitivity analyses, publication bias, and quality assessments using the random-effects model. The effects were summarized by rates or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Of the 870 records identified, 11 studies (3139 participants) and 10 case reports or series were eligible for inclusion. Vortioxetine significantly relieved depression symptoms as assessed by both patients (SMD = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.60-2.89) and physicians (SMD = 3.73, 95% CI = 2.78-4.69). Cognitive function (SMD =1.86, 95% CI = 1.11-2.62) and functional disability (SMD =1.71, 95% CI = 1.14-2.29) were similarly markedly improved. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses showed that geographic location and medication regimen (whether combined with other antidepressants) were crucial factors influencing effectiveness (in terms of depression severity and cognitive function), potentially contributing to significant heterogeneity. The estimated response and remission rates were 66.4% (95% CI = 51.2%-81.5%) and 58.0% (95% CI = 48.9%-67.1%), respectively. Vortioxetine was well tolerated, with a pooled dropout rate of 3.5% (95% CI = 1.8%-5.8%), and the most common adverse event was nausea, with an estimated rate of 8.9% (95% CI = 3.8%-15.8%).
LIMITATIONS
The study has some limitations, including significant heterogeneity and limited evidence for some outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Vortioxetine is effective, well tolerated, and safe for treating MDD in clinical practice, with significant improvements observed in depressive severity, cognitive function, and functioning. Future studies should directly compare vortioxetine with other antidepressants in real-world settings to further evaluate its clinical utility.
Topics: Humans; Vortioxetine; Depressive Disorder, Major; Antidepressive Agents; Nausea; Cognition
PubMed: 37105713
DOI: 10.1093/ijnp/pyad018 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) is an allergic reaction to colonisation of the lungs with the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus, and affects around 10% of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) is an allergic reaction to colonisation of the lungs with the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus, and affects around 10% of people with cystic fibrosis. ABPA is associated with an accelerated decline in lung function. High doses of corticosteroids are the main treatment for ABPA; although the long-term benefits are not clear, and their many side effects are well-documented. A group of compounds, the azoles, have activity against A fumigatus, and have been proposed as an alternative treatment for ABPA. Of this group, itraconazole is the most active. A separate antifungal compound, amphotericin B, has been used in aerosolised form to treat invasive infection with A fumigatus, and may have potential for the treatment of ABPA. Antifungal therapy for ABPA in cystic fibrosis needs to be evaluated. This is an update of a previously published review.
OBJECTIVES
The review aimed to test the hypotheses that antifungal interventions for the treatment of ABPA in cystic fibrosis: 1. improve clinical status compared to placebo or standard therapy (no placebo); and 2. do not have unacceptable adverse effects. If benefit was demonstrated, we planned to assess the optimal type, duration, and dose of antifungal therapy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register, which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals, and abstract books of conference proceedings. Date of the most recent search of the Group's Trials Register was 28 September 2021. We searched ongoing trials registries, most recently on 11 March 2022. Earlier, we also approached pharmaceutical companies regarding possible unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials, in which antifungal treatments were compared to either placebo or no treatment, or where different doses of the same treatment were used in the treatment of ABPA in people with cystic fibrosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The searches identified six trials; none of which met the inclusion criteria for the review.
MAIN RESULTS
We included no completed randomised controlled trials. There is currently one ongoing trial, which we may find eligible for a future update.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
At present, there are no randomised controlled trials that evaluate the use of antifungal therapies for the treatment of ABPA in people with cystic fibrosis, although one trial is currently ongoing. Trials with clear outcome measures are needed to properly evaluate the use of corticosteroids in people with ABPA and cystic fibrosis.
Topics: Antifungal Agents; Aspergillosis, Allergic Bronchopulmonary; Aspergillus fumigatus; Cystic Fibrosis; Humans; Itraconazole
PubMed: 36053129
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002204.pub5 -
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 -
The Journal of Headache and Pain Sep 2023Novel disease-specific and mechanism-based treatments sharing good evidence of efficacy for migraine have been recently marketed. However, reimbursement by insurers... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Novel disease-specific and mechanism-based treatments sharing good evidence of efficacy for migraine have been recently marketed. However, reimbursement by insurers depends on treatment failure with classic anti-migraine drugs. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to identify and rate the evidence for efficacy of flunarizine, a repurposed, first- or second-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis.
METHODS
A systematic search in MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Eligible trials for meta-analysis were randomized, placebo-controlled studies comparing flunarizine with placebo. Outcomes of interest according to the Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) were the proportion of patients reaching a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, the change in monthly migraine days (MMDs), and Adverse Events (AEs) leading to discontinuation.
RESULTS
Five trials were eligible for narrative description and three for data synthesis and analysis. No studies reported the predefined outcomes, but one study assessed the 50% reduction in monthly migraine attacks with flunarizine as compared to placebo showing a benefit from flunarizine with a low or probably low risk of bias. We found that flunarizine may increase the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.02; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06).
CONCLUSIONS
Published flunarizine trials predate the recommended endpoints for evaluating migraine prophylaxis drugs, hence the lack of an adequate assessment for these endpoints. Further, modern-day, large-scale studies would be valuable in re-evaluating the efficacy of flunarizine for the treatment of migraines, offering additional insights into its potential benefits.
Topics: Humans; Flunarizine; Headache; Migraine Disorders; Migraine with Aura; Research Design; Transcription Factors
PubMed: 37723437
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-023-01657-3 -
BMJ Mental Health Feb 2023Are antipsychotic dose equivalents between acute mania and schizophrenia the same? (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
QUESTION
Are antipsychotic dose equivalents between acute mania and schizophrenia the same?
STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS
Six databases were systematically searched (from inception to 17 September 2022) to identify blinded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that used a flexible-dose oral antipsychotic drug for patients with acute mania. The mean and SD of the effective dose and the pre-post changes in manic symptoms were extracted. A network meta-analysis (NMA) under a frequentist framework was performed to examine the comparative efficacy between the antipsychotics. A classic mean dose method (sample size weighted) was used to calculate each antipsychotic dose equivalent to 1 mg/day olanzapine for acute mania. The antipsychotic dose equivalents of acute mania were compared with published data for schizophrenia.
FINDINGS
We included 42 RCTs which enrolled 11 396 participants with acute mania. The NMA showed that risperidone was superior to olanzapine (reported standardised mean difference: -022, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.02), while brexpiprazole was inferior to olanzapine (standardised mean difference: 0.36, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.64). The dose equivalents to olanzapine (with SD) were 0.68 (0.23) for haloperidol, 0.32 (0.07) for risperidone, 0.60 (0.11) for paliperidone, 8.00 (1.41) for ziprasidone, 41.46 (5.98) for quetiapine, 1.65 (0.32) for aripiprazole, 1.23 (0.20) for asenapine, 0.53 (0.14) for cariprazine and 0.22 (0.03) for brexpiprazole. Compared with the olanzapine dose equivalents for schizophrenia, those of acute mania were higher for quetiapine (p<0.001, 28.5%) and aripiprazole (p<0.001, 17.0%), but lower for haloperidol (p<0.001, -8.1%) and risperidone (p<0.001, -15.8%).
CONCLUSIONS
Antipsychotic drugs have been considered first-line treatment for acute mania, warranting specific dose equivalence for scientific and clinical purposes.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Olanzapine; Risperidone; Aripiprazole; Quetiapine Fumarate; Haloperidol; Bipolar Disorder; Mania; Schizophrenia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36789916
DOI: 10.1136/bmjment-2022-300546 -
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