-
Systematic Reviews Jan 2020Major psychiatric disorders are growing public health concern that attributed 14% of the global burden of diseases. The management of major psychiatric disorders is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Major psychiatric disorders are growing public health concern that attributed 14% of the global burden of diseases. The management of major psychiatric disorders is challenging mainly due to medication non-adherence. However, there is a paucity of summarized evidence on the prevalence of psychotropic medication non-adherence and associated factors. Therefore, we aimed to summarize existing primary studies' finding to determine the pooled prevalence and factors associated with psychotropic medication non-adherence.
METHODS
A total of 4504 studies written in English until December 31, 2017, were searched from the main databases (n = 3125) (PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) and other relevant sources (mainly from Google Scholar, n = 1379). Study selection, screening, and data extraction were carried out independently by two authors. Observational studies that had been conducted among adult patients (18 years and older) with major psychiatric disorders were eligible for the selection process. Critical appraisal of the included studies was carried out using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Systematic synthesis of the studies was carried out to summarize factors associated with psychotropic medication non-adherence. Meta-analysis was carried using Stata 14. Random effects model was used to compute the pooled prevalence, and sub-group analysis at 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS
Forty-six studies were included in the systematic review. Of these, 35 studies (schizophrenia (n = 9), depressive (n = 16), and bipolar (n = 10) disorders) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, 49% of major psychiatric disorder patients were non-adherent to their psychotropic medication. Of these, psychotropic medication non-adherence for schizophrenia, major depressive disorders, and bipolar disorders were 56%, 50%, and 44%, respectively. Individual patient's behaviors, lack of social support, clinical or treatment and illness-related, and health system factors influenced psychotropic medication non-adherence.
CONCLUSION
Psychotropic medication non-adherence was high. It was influenced by various factors operating at different levels. Therefore, comprehensive intervention strategies should be designed to address factors associated with psychotropic medication non-adherence.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42017067436.
Topics: Behavior; Bipolar Disorder; Depressive Disorder, Major; Medication Adherence; Psychotropic Drugs; Schizophrenia; Social Support
PubMed: 31948489
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-020-1274-3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Depression is one of the most common morbidities of the postnatal period. It has been associated with adverse outcomes for women, children, the wider family and society... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Depression is one of the most common morbidities of the postnatal period. It has been associated with adverse outcomes for women, children, the wider family and society as a whole. Treatment is with psychosocial interventions or antidepressant medication, or both. The aim of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of different antidepressants and to compare their effectiveness with placebo, treatment as usual or other forms of treatment. This is an update of a review last published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of antidepressant drugs in comparison with any other treatment (psychological, psychosocial, or pharmacological), placebo, or treatment as usual for postnatal depression.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Common Mental Disorders's Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO in May 2020. We also searched international trials registries and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with depression during the first 12 months postpartum that compared antidepressant treatment (alone or in combination with another treatment) with any other treatment, placebo or treatment as usual.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the study reports. We requested missing information from study authors wherever possible. We sought data to allow an intention-to-treat analysis. Where we identified sufficient comparable studies we pooled data and conducted random-effects meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 11 RCTs (1016 women), the majority of which were from English-speaking, high-income countries; two were from middle-income countries. Women were recruited from a mix of community-based, primary care, maternity and outpatient settings. Most studies used selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), with treatment duration ranging from 4 to 12 weeks. Meta-analysis showed that there may be a benefit of SSRIs over placebo in response (55% versus 43%; pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.66); remission (42% versus 27%; RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.41); and reduced depressive symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.05; 4 studies, 251 women), at 5 to 12 weeks' follow-up. We were unable to conduct meta-analysis for adverse events due to variation in the reporting of this between studies. There was no evidence of a difference between acceptability of SSRI and placebo (27% versus 27%; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.64; 4 studies; 233 women). The certainty of all the evidence for SSRIs was low or very low due to the small number of included studies and a number of potential sources of bias, including high rates of attrition. There was insufficient evidence to assess the efficacy of SSRIs compared with other classes of antidepressants and of antidepressants compared with other pharmacological interventions, complementary medicines, psychological and psychosocial interventions or treatment as usual. A substantial proportion of women experienced adverse effects but there was no evidence of differences in the number of adverse effects between treatment groups in any of the studies. Data on effects on children, including breastfed infants, parenting, and the wider family were limited, although no adverse effects were noted.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There remains limited evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of antidepressants in the management of postnatal depression, particularly for those with more severe depression. We found low-certainty evidence that SSRI antidepressants may be more effective in treating postnatal depression than placebo as measured by response and remission rates. However, the low certainty of the evidence suggests that further research is very likely to have an important impact on our effect estimate. There is a continued imperative to better understand whether, and for whom, antidepressants or other treatments are more effective for postnatal depression, and whether some antidepressants are more effective or better tolerated than others. In clinical practice, the findings of this review need to be contextualised by the extensive broader literature on antidepressants in the general population and perinatal clinical guidance, to inform an individualised risk-benefit clinical decision. Future RCTs should focus on larger samples, longer follow-up, comparisons with alternative treatment modalities and inclusion of child and parenting outcomes.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Bias; Depression, Postpartum; Female; Humans; Patient Dropouts; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 33580709
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013560.pub2 -
Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior Sep 2023Cannabis-derived compounds, such as cannabidiol (CBD) and delta-9-trans-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), are increasingly prescribed for a range of clinical indications.... (Review)
Review
Cannabis-derived compounds, such as cannabidiol (CBD) and delta-9-trans-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), are increasingly prescribed for a range of clinical indications. These phyto-cannabinoids have multiple biological targets, including the body's endocannabinoid system. There is growing scientific interest in the use of CBD, a non-intoxicating compound, to ameliorate symptoms associated with neurodevelopmental disorders. However, its suitability as a pharmaceutical intervention has not been reliably established in these clinical populations. This systematic review examines the nine published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that have probed the safety and efficacy of CBD in individuals diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, Tourette Syndrome, and complex motor disorders. Studies were identified systematically through searching four databases: Medline, CINAHL complete, PsycINFO, and EMBASE. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials involving CBD and participants with neurodevelopmental disorders. No publication year or language restrictions were applied. Relevant data were extracted from the identified list of eligible articles. After extraction, data were cross-checked between the authors to ensure consistency. Several trials indicate potential efficacy, although this possibility is currently too inconsistent across RCTs to confidently guide clinical usage. Study characteristics, treatment properties, and outcomes varied greatly across the included trials. The material lack of comparable RCTs leaves CBD's suitability as a pharmacological treatment for neurodevelopmental disorders largely undetermined. A stronger evidence base is urgently required to establish safety and efficacy profiles and guide the ever-expanding clinical uptake of cannabis-derived compounds in neurodevelopmental disorders. Prospero registration number: CRD42021267839.
Topics: Humans; Cannabidiol; Cannabinoids; Cannabis; Hallucinogens; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Dronabinol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37543051
DOI: 10.1016/j.pbb.2023.173607 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jan 2021To investigate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for back and osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for back and osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 15 November and updated on 12 May 2020.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION
Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy or safety, or both of any antidepressant drug with placebo (active or inert) in participants with low back or neck pain, sciatica, or hip or knee osteoarthritis.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two independent reviewers extracted data. Pain and disability were primary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). A random effects model was used to calculate weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Safety (any adverse event, serious adverse events, and proportion of participants who withdrew from trials owing to adverse events) was a secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) framework.
RESULTS
33 trials (5318 participants) were included. Moderate certainty evidence showed that serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) reduced back pain (mean difference -5.30, 95% confidence interval -7.31 to -3.30) at 3-13 weeks and low certainty evidence that SNRIs reduced osteoarthritis pain (-9.72, -12.75 to -6.69) at 3-13 weeks. Very low certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced sciatica at two weeks or less (-18.60, -31.87 to -5.33) but not at 3-13 weeks (-17.50, -42.90 to 7.89). Low to very low certainty evidence showed that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) did not reduce sciatica at two weeks or less (-7.55, -18.25 to 3.15) but did at 3-13 weeks (-15.95, -31.52 to -0.39) and 3-12 months (-27.0, -36.11 to -17.89). Moderate certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced disability from back pain at 3-13 weeks (-3.55, -5.22 to -1.88) and disability due to osteoarthritis at two weeks or less (-5.10, -7.31 to -2.89), with low certainty evidence at 3-13 weeks (-6.07, -8.13 to -4.02). TCAs and other antidepressants did not reduce pain or disability from back pain.
CONCLUSION
Moderate certainty evidence shows that the effect of SNRIs on pain and disability scores is small and not clinically important for back pain, but a clinically important effect cannot be excluded for osteoarthritis. TCAs and SNRIs might be effective for sciatica, but the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42020158521.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Back Pain; Humans; Osteoarthritis; Pain Management; Sciatica; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 33472813
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m4825 -
PloS One 2022Long acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics are an alternative to oral antipsychotic (OAP) treatment and may be beneficial for patients in the early stages of... (Review)
Review
AIM
Long acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics are an alternative to oral antipsychotic (OAP) treatment and may be beneficial for patients in the early stages of schizophrenia. This study aims to provide a comprehensive review on the efficacy of first-generation and second-generation LAI antipsychotics in recent-onset, first-episode, and early psychosis patients.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science Core databases were used to search for studies that used LAIs in early psychosis patients. Studies published up to 06 Jun 2019 were included with no language restrictions applied. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of schizophrenia or related disorder, where patients were in their first episode or had a duration of illness ≤5 years.
RESULTS
33 studies were included: 8 RCTs, 4 post-hoc analyses, 2 case reports, and 19 naturalistic studies. The majority of studies evaluated risperidone LAIs (N = 14) and paliperidone palmitate (N = 10), while the remainder investigated fluphenazine decanoate (N = 3), flupentixol decanoate (N = 2), and aripiprazole (N = 1). Two studies did not specify the LAI formulation used, and one cohort study compared the efficacy of multiple different LAI formulations.
CONCLUSIONS
While the majority of data is based on naturalistic studies investigating risperidone LAIs or paliperidone palmitate, LAIs may be an effective treatment for early psychosis patients in terms of adherence, relapse reduction, and symptom improvements. There is still a need to conduct more high quality RCTs that investigate the efficacy of different LAI formulations in early psychosis patients.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Cohort Studies; Delayed-Action Preparations; Humans; Paliperidone Palmitate; Psychotic Disorders; Risperidone
PubMed: 35486616
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267808 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry Apr 2020Approximately 188 million people use cannabis yearly worldwide, and it has recently been legalised in 11 US states, Canada, and Uruguay for recreational use. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Approximately 188 million people use cannabis yearly worldwide, and it has recently been legalised in 11 US states, Canada, and Uruguay for recreational use. The potential for increased cannabis use highlights the need to better understand its risks, including the acute induction of psychotic and other psychiatric symptoms. We aimed to investigate the effect of the cannabis constituent Δ-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) alone and in combination with cannabidiol (CBD) compared with placebo on psychiatric symptoms in healthy people.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for studies published in English between database inception and May 21, 2019, with a within-person, crossover design. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting symptoms using psychiatric scales (the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale [BPRS] and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS]) following the acute administration of intravenous, oral, or nasal THC, CBD, and placebo in healthy participants, and presenting data that allowed calculation of standardised mean change (SMC) scores for positive (including delusions and hallucinations), negative (such as blunted affect and amotivation), and general (including depression and anxiety) symptoms. We did a random-effects meta-analysis to assess the main outcomes of the effect sizes for total, positive, and negative PANSS and BPRS scores measured in healthy participants following THC administration versus placebo. Because the number of studies to do a meta-analysis on CBD's moderating effects was insufficient, this outcome was only systematically reviewed. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019136674.
FINDINGS
15 eligible studies involving the acute administration of THC and four studies on CBD plus THC administration were identified. Compared with placebo, THC significantly increased total symptom severity with a large effect size (assessed in nine studies, with ten independent samples, involving 196 participants: SMC 1·10 [95% CI 0·92-1·28], p<0·0001); positive symptom severity (assessed in 14 studies, with 15 independent samples, involving 324 participants: SMC 0·91 [95% CI 0·68-1·14], p<0·0001); and negative symptom severity with a large effect size (assessed in 12 studies, with 13 independent samples, involving 267 participants: SMC 0·78 [95% CI 0·59-0·97], p<0·0001). In the systematic review, of the four studies evaluating CBD's effects on THC-induced symptoms, only one identified a significant reduction in symptoms.
INTERPRETATION
A single THC administration induces psychotic, negative, and other psychiatric symptoms with large effect sizes. There is no consistent evidence that CBD induces symptoms or moderates the effects of THC. These findings highlight the potential risks associated with the use of cannabis and other cannabinoids that contain THC for recreational or therapeutic purposes.
FUNDING
UK Medical Research Council, Maudsley Charity, Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, Wellcome Trust, and the UK National Institute for Health Research.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Cannabidiol; Dronabinol; Drug Combinations; Drug Interactions; Hallucinogens; Humans; Marijuana Smoking; Psychoses, Substance-Induced
PubMed: 32197092
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30074-2 -
Expert Opinion on Drug Safety Jun 2022Racemic ketamine and esketamine have demonstrated rapid antidepressant effects. We aimed to review the efficacy and safety of racemic and esketamine for depression. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Racemic ketamine and esketamine have demonstrated rapid antidepressant effects. We aimed to review the efficacy and safety of racemic and esketamine for depression.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
We conducted a PRISMA-guided review for relevant randomized controlled trials of racemic or esketamine for unipolar or bipolar major depression from database inception through 2021. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses using pooled rate ratios (RRs) and Cohen's standardized mean differences (d) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS
We found 36 studies (2903 participants, 57% female, 45.1 +/- 7.0 years). Nine trials used esketamine, while the rest used racemic ketamine. The overall study quality was high. Treatment with any form of ketamine was associated with improved response (RR=2.14; 95% CI, 1.72-2.66; I2=65%), remission (RR=1.64; 95% CI, 1.33-2.02; I2=39%), and depression severity (d=-0.63; 95% CI, -0.80 to -0.45; I2=78%) against placebo. Overall, there was no association between treatment with any form of ketamine and retention in treatment (RR=1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01; I2<1%), dropouts due to adverse events (RR=1.56; 95% CI, 1.00-2.45; I2<1%), or the overall number of adverse events reported per participant (OR=2.14; 95% CI, 0.82-5.60; I2=62%) against placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Ketamine and esketamine are effective, safe, and acceptable treatments for individuals living with depression.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Female; Humans; Ketamine; Male
PubMed: 35231204
DOI: 10.1080/14740338.2022.2047928 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Feb 2023Primary care patients and clinicians may prefer alternative options to second-generation antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Nonpharmacologic and Pharmacologic Treatments of Adult Patients With Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for a Clinical Guideline by the American College of Physicians.
BACKGROUND
Primary care patients and clinicians may prefer alternative options to second-generation antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD).
PURPOSE
To compare the benefits and harms of nonpharmacologic treatments with second-generation antidepressants as first-step interventions for acute MDD, and to compare second-step treatment strategies for patients who did not achieve remission after an initial attempt with antidepressants.
DATA SOURCES
English-language studies from several electronic databases from 1 January 1990 to 8 August 2022, trial registries, gray literature databases, and reference lists to identify unpublished research.
STUDY SELECTION
2 investigators independently selected randomized trials of at least 6 weeks' duration.
DATA EXTRACTION
Reviewers abstracted data about study design and conduct, participants, interventions, and outcomes. They dually rated the risk of bias of studies and the certainty of evidence for outcomes of interest.
DATA SYNTHESIS
65 randomized trials met the inclusion criteria; eligible data from nonrandomized studies were not found. Meta-analyses and network meta-analyses indicated similar benefits of most nonpharmacologic treatments and antidepressants as first-step treatments. Antidepressants had higher risks for discontinuation because of adverse events than most other treatments. For second-step therapies, different switching and augmentation strategies provided similar symptomatic relief. The certainty of evidence for most comparisons is low; findings should be interpreted cautiously.
LIMITATIONS
Many studies had methodological limitations or dosing inequalities; publication bias might have affected some comparisons. In some cases, conclusions could not be drawn because of insufficient evidence.
CONCLUSION
Although benefits seem to be similar among first- and second-step MDD treatments, the certainty of evidence is low for most comparisons. Clinicians and patients should focus on options with the most reliable evidence and take adverse event profiles and patient preferences into consideration.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42020204703).
Topics: Humans; Adult; Depressive Disorder, Major; Network Meta-Analysis; Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Physicians
PubMed: 36689750
DOI: 10.7326/M22-1845 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Sep 2023Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) is used for treating depression but the efficacy and safety have not been well assessed. This study was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The efficacy and safety of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation in the treatment of depressive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) is used for treating depression but the efficacy and safety have not been well assessed. This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of taVNS in depression.
METHODS
The retrieval databases included English databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library and PsycINFO, and Chinese databases of CNKI, Wanfang, VIP and Sino Med, and the retrieval period was from their inception to November 10, 2022. The clinical trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry) were also searched. Standardized mean difference and the risk ratio were used as the effect indicator and the effect size was represented by the 95 % confidence interval. Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials and the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system were used to assess the risk of bias and quality of evidence respectively.
RESULTS
Totally, 12 studies of 838 participants were included. taVNS could significantly improve depression and reduce Hamilton Depression Scale scores. Low to very low evidence showed that taVNS had higher response rates than sham-taVMS and comparable response rates compared to antidepressants (ATD) and that taVNS combined with ATD had comparable efficacy to ATD with fewer side effects.
LIMITATIONS
The number of studies in subgroups was small and the evidence quality was low to very low.
CONCLUSIONS
taVNS is an effective and safe method for alleviating depression scores and had a comparable response rate to ATD.
Topics: Humans; Vagus Nerve Stimulation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Antidepressive Agents; Vagus Nerve; Depressive Disorder
PubMed: 37230264
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2023.05.048 -
JAMA Network Open Mar 2024Antipsychotic-induced akathisia (AIA) occurs in 14% to 35% of patients treated with antipsychotics and is associated with increased suicide and decreased adherence in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Antipsychotic-induced akathisia (AIA) occurs in 14% to 35% of patients treated with antipsychotics and is associated with increased suicide and decreased adherence in patients with schizophrenia. However, no comprehensive review and network meta-analysis has been conducted to compare the efficacy of treatments for AIA.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy associated with AIA treatments.
DATA SOURCES
Three databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were systematically searched by multiple researchers for double-blind randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing active drugs for the treatment of AIA with placebo or another treatment between May 30 and June 18, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Selected studies were RCTs that compared adjunctive drugs for AIA vs placebo or adjunctive treatment in patients treated with antipsychotics fulfilling the criteria for akathisia, RCTs with sample size of 10 patients or more, only trials in which no additional drugs were administered during the study, and RCTs that used a validated akathisia score. Trials with missing data for the main outcome (akathisia score at the end points) were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction and synthesis were performed, estimating standardized mean differences (SMDs) through pairwise and network meta-analysis with a random-effects model. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was the severity of akathisia measured by a validated scale at the last available end point.
RESULTS
Fifteen trials involving 492 participants compared 10 treatments with placebo. Mirtazapine (15 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -1.20; 95% CI, -1.83 to -0.58), biperiden (6 mg/d for ≥14 days; SMD, -1.01; 95% CI, -1.69 to -0.34), vitamin B6 (600-1200 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -0.92; 95% CI, -1.57 to -0.26), trazodone (50 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -0.84; 95% CI, -1.54 to -0.14), mianserin (15 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.44 to -0.19), and propranolol (20 mg/d for ≥6 days; SMD, -0.78; 95% CI, -1.35 to -0.22) were associated with greater efficacy than placebo, with low to moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 34.6%; 95% CI, 0.0%-71.1%). Cyproheptadine, clonazepam, zolmitriptan, and valproate did not yield significant effects. Eight trials were rated as having low risk of bias; 2, moderate risk; and 5, high risk. Sensitivity analyses generally confirmed the results for all drugs except for cyproheptadine and propranolol. No association between effect sizes and psychotic severity was found.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, mirtazapine, biperiden, and vitamin B6 were associated with the greatest efficacy for AIA, with vitamin B6 having the best efficacy and tolerance profile. Trazodone, mianserin, and propranolol appeared as effective alternatives with slightly less favorable efficacy and tolerance profiles. These findings should assist prescribers in selecting an appropriate medication for treating AIA.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Biperiden; Cyproheptadine; Gallopamil; Mianserin; Mirtazapine; Network Meta-Analysis; Propranolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Trazodone; Vitamin B 6; Akathisia, Drug-Induced
PubMed: 38451521
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.1527