-
International Journal of Molecular... Sep 2022Schizophrenia and depression are heterogeneous disorders. The complex pathomechanism of the diseases imply that medication responses vary across patients. Many... (Review)
Review
Schizophrenia and depression are heterogeneous disorders. The complex pathomechanism of the diseases imply that medication responses vary across patients. Many psychotropic drugs are available but achieving optimal therapeutic effect can be challenging. The evidence correlates well with clinical observations, suggesting that new atypical antipsychotic drugs are effective against negative and cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia, as well as against affective symptoms observed in depression. The purpose of this review presents the background and evidence for the use of the new second/third-generation antipsychotics (aripiprazole, cariprazine, lurasidone, asenapine, brexpiprazole, lumateperone, pimavanserin) in treatment of schizophrenia and depression. We have first provided a brief overview of the major neurobiological underpinnings of schizophrenia and depression. We then shortly discuss efficacy, safety and limitations of ongoing pharmacotherapy used in depression and schizophrenia. Mainly, we have focused this review on the therapeutic potential of new atypical antipsychotic drugs-currently existing-to be effective in psychotic, as well as in affective disorders.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Depression; Humans; Lurasidone Hydrochloride; Psychotropic Drugs; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 36142523
DOI: 10.3390/ijms231810624 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Mar 2023The benefits and risks of augmenting or switching antidepressants in older adults with treatment-resistant depression have not been extensively studied. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
The benefits and risks of augmenting or switching antidepressants in older adults with treatment-resistant depression have not been extensively studied.
METHODS
We conducted a two-step, open-label trial involving adults 60 years of age or older with treatment-resistant depression. In step 1, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to augmentation of existing antidepressant medication with aripiprazole, augmentation with bupropion, or a switch from existing antidepressant medication to bupropion. Patients who did not benefit from or were ineligible for step 1 were randomly assigned in step 2 in a 1:1 ratio to augmentation with lithium or a switch to nortriptyline. Each step lasted approximately 10 weeks. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in psychological well-being, assessed with the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Positive Affect and General Life Satisfaction subscales (population mean, 50; higher scores indicate greater well-being). A secondary outcome was remission of depression.
RESULTS
In step 1, a total of 619 patients were enrolled; 211 were assigned to aripiprazole augmentation, 206 to bupropion augmentation, and 202 to a switch to bupropion. Well-being scores improved by 4.83 points, 4.33 points, and 2.04 points, respectively. The difference between the aripiprazole-augmentation group and the switch-to-bupropion group was 2.79 points (95% CI, 0.56 to 5.02; P = 0.014, with a prespecified threshold P value of 0.017); the between-group differences were not significant for aripiprazole augmentation versus bupropion augmentation or for bupropion augmentation versus a switch to bupropion. Remission occurred in 28.9% of patients in the aripiprazole-augmentation group, 28.2% in the bupropion-augmentation group, and 19.3% in the switch-to-bupropion group. The rate of falls was highest with bupropion augmentation. In step 2, a total of 248 patients were enrolled; 127 were assigned to lithium augmentation and 121 to a switch to nortriptyline. Well-being scores improved by 3.17 points and 2.18 points, respectively (difference, 0.99; 95% CI, -1.92 to 3.91). Remission occurred in 18.9% of patients in the lithium-augmentation group and 21.5% in the switch-to-nortriptyline group; rates of falling were similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
In older adults with treatment-resistant depression, augmentation of existing antidepressants with aripiprazole improved well-being significantly more over 10 weeks than a switch to bupropion and was associated with a numerically higher incidence of remission. Among patients in whom augmentation or a switch to bupropion failed, changes in well-being and the occurrence of remission with lithium augmentation or a switch to nortriptyline were similar. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; OPTIMUM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02960763.).
Topics: Aged; Humans; Antidepressive Agents; Aripiprazole; Bupropion; Depression; Drug Therapy, Combination; Nortriptyline; Treatment Switching; Lithium Compounds
PubMed: 36867173
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2204462 -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2021Dopamine receptor partial agonists (DRPAs; aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, and cariprazine) constitute a novel class of antipsychotics. Although they share a similar... (Review)
Review
Dopamine receptor partial agonists (DRPAs; aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, and cariprazine) constitute a novel class of antipsychotics. Although they share a similar mechanism of action, DRPAs differ in their pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, drug interactions, or safety and tolerability. The antipsychotic efficacy of all three drugs was established in several placebo-controlled randomized trials (RCTs) in schizophrenia, both acute phase and relapse prevention. In addition, each of the DRPA agents has been tested in other psychiatric disorders, including bipolar disorder or major depression. However, a few studies have examined their comparative clinical efficacy. There are no head-to-head comparisons between aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, or cariprazine. In two acute schizophrenia RCTs of cariprazine and brexpiprazole, aripiprazole was used as an indirect comparator to control for study sensitivity. To assess potential differences in the efficacy of DRPAs, we reviewed data from controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Our results showed that the acute antipsychotic effects of DRPAs, as measured by the number needed to treat, are comparable. The three agents were superior to placebo in acute treatment, and cariprazine was found to be effective in the reduction of primary negative symptoms of schizophrenia. In the therapy of bipolar disorder, aripiprazole and cariprazine showed antimanic efficacy, cariprazine was also effective in the management of bipolar depression, and aripiprazole was effective for relapse prevention. The addon administration of aripiprazole or brexpiprazole reduced symptoms of major depression. Aripiprazole can control acute agitation associated with psychosis or bipolar disorder; brexpiprazole showed the potential to manage agitation in dementia patients. Aripiprazole has also established evidence of efficacy in children and adolescents and other conditions: OCD, tic disorders, and autism spectrum disorder. Our review of published data suggests that in terms of clinical efficacy, DRPAs are a heterogeneous group, with each drug possessing its own therapeutic benefits.
PubMed: 35145438
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.781946 -
Molecular Psychiatry Feb 2022A systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of pharmacological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of pharmacological interventions for adults with acute bipolar mania. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase databases for eligible studies published before March 14, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of oral medication monotherapy lasting ≥10 days in adults with mania were included, and studies that allowed the use of antipsychotics as a rescue medication during a trial were excluded. The primary outcomes were response to treatment (efficacy) and all-cause discontinuation (acceptability). The secondary outcomes were the improvement of mania symptoms and discontinuation due to inefficacy. Of the 79 eligible RCTs, 72 double-blind RCTs of 23 drugs and a placebo were included in the meta-analysis (mean study duration = 3.96 ± 2.39 weeks, n = 16442, mean age = 39.55 years, with 50.93% males). Compared with the placebo, aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, cariprazine, haloperidol, lithium, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, tamoxifen, valproate, and ziprasidone outperformed response to treatment (N = 56, n = 14503); aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone had lower all-cause discontinuation; however, topiramate had higher all-cause discontinuation (N = 70, n = 16324). Compared with the placebo, aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, cariprazine, haloperidol, lithium, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, tamoxifen, valproate, and ziprasidone outperformed the improvement of mania symptoms (N = 61, n = 15466), and aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, cariprazine, haloperidol, lithium, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, valproate, and ziprasidone had lower discontinuation due to inefficacy (N = 50, n = 14284). In conclusions, these antipsychotics, carbamazepine, lithium, tamoxifen, and valproate were effective for acute mania. However, only aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone had better acceptability than the placebo.
Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Carbamazepine; Female; Haloperidol; Humans; Lithium; Male; Mania; Network Meta-Analysis; Olanzapine; Paliperidone Palmitate; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone; Tamoxifen; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 34642461
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-021-01334-4 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders having a high influence on social interactions. The number of... (Review)
Review
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders having a high influence on social interactions. The number of approved treatments and clinical trials for ADHD have increased markedly during the recent decade. This analytical review provides a quantitative overview of the existing pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods of ADHD treatments investigated in clinical trials during 1999-2021. A total of 695 interventional trials were manually assessed from clinicaltrial.gov with the search term « ADHD», and trial data has been used for analysis. A clear majority of the studies investigated non-pharmacological therapies (∼80%), including many behavioral options, such as social skills training, sleep and physical activity interventions, meditation and hypnotherapy. Devices, complementary and other alternative methods of ADHD treatment are also gaining attention. The pharmacological group accounts for ∼20% of all the studies. The most common drug classes include central nervous system stimulants (e.g., methylphenidate hydrochloride, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, amphetamine sulfate, mixed amphetamine salts, a combination of dexmethylphenidate hydrochloride and serdexmethylphenidate chloride), selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (atomoxetine, viloxazine), and alpha2 adrenergic receptor agonists (guanfacine hydrochloride, clonidine hydrochloride). Several studies investigated antidepressants (e.g., bupropion hydrochloride, vortioxetine), and atypical antipsychotics (e.g., quetiapine, aripiprazole) but these are yet not approved by the FDA for ADHD treatment. We discuss the quantitative trends in clinical trials and provide an overview of the new drug agents and non-pharmacological therapies, drug targets, and novel treatment options.
PubMed: 36467081
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1066988 -
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Oct 2022Rapid cycling is a common and disabling phenomenon in individuals with bipolar disorders. In the absence of a recent literature examination, this systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Rapid cycling is a common and disabling phenomenon in individuals with bipolar disorders. In the absence of a recent literature examination, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesise the evidence of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of treatments for individuals with rapid cycling bipolar disorder (RCBD).
METHOD
A systematic search was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials assigning participants with RCBD to pharmacological and/or non-pharmacological interventions. Study inclusion and data extraction were undertaken by two reviewers independently. The primary outcome was continuous within-subject RCBD illness severity before and after treatment. Pre-post random effects meta-analyses were conducted for each outcome/intervention arm studied, generating a standardised effect size (hedge's g) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
A total of 34 articles describing 30 studies were included. A total of 16 separate pharmacological treatments were examined in contrast to 1 psychological therapy study. Only quetiapine and lamotrigine were assessed in >5 studies. By assessing 95% CI overlap of within-subject efficacy effects compared to placebo, the only interventions suggesting significant depression benefits (placebo g = 0.60) were olanzapine (with/without fluoxetine; g = 1.01), citalopram (g = 1.10) and venlafaxine (g = 2.48). For mania, benefits were indicated for quetiapine (g = 1.01), olanzapine (g = 1.19) and aripiprazole (g = 1.09), versus placebo (g = 0.33). Most of these effect sizes were from only one trial per treatment. Heterogeneity between studies was variable, and 20% were rated to have a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
While many interventions appeared efficacious, there was a lack of robust evidence for most treatments. Given the limited and heterogeneous evidence base, the optimal treatment strategies for people with RCBD are yet to be established.
Topics: Aripiprazole; Bipolar Disorder; Citalopram; Fluoxetine; Humans; Lamotrigine; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 35778967
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13471 -
BMC Psychiatry May 2021While clinical trial evidence has firmly established the efficacy of several atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) for treating bipolar depression, no randomized controlled... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
While clinical trial evidence has firmly established the efficacy of several atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) for treating bipolar depression, no randomized controlled trials (RCT's) comparing AAPs have been conducted. This Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the relative efficacy and tolerability of AAP monotherapy in adults with bipolar depression.
METHODS
Efficacy measures included change in Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Improvement - Bipolar Disorder (CGI-BP), response, and remission. Multiple tolerability outcomes were examined. Results from random effects models were reported as difference in change from baseline for continuous variables or odds ratios for dichotomous variables. Treatments were ranked using the surface under the curve cumulative ranking probabilities. Number needed to treat (NNT) and harm (NNH) were calculated.
RESULTS
Eighteen RCT's met inclusion criteria of the systematic literature review. On change in MADRS, lurasidone (- 4.71 [95% Crl - 6.98, - 2.41]), quetiapine (- 4.80 [- 5.93, - 3.72]), olanzapine (- 4.57 [- 5.92, - 3.20]), and cariprazine (- 2.29 [- 3.47, - 1.09]) were more efficacious than placebo. Lurasidone was associated with a significantly greater odds of response (≥50% improvement in MADRS) compared to cariprazine (1.78 [95% Crl 1.08, 2.77]), aripiprazole (2.38 [1.38, 3.85]), and ziprasidone (2.47 [1.41, 3.98]), but was similar to olanzapine (1.68 [0.99,2.65]) and quetiapine (1.25 [0.78, 1.90]). For change in CGI-BP-S-overall score, lurasidone was significantly better than cariprazine (- 0.38 [95% Crl - 0.66,-0.10]) and ziprasidone (- 0.58 [- 0.91,-0.26]), but similar to quetiapine (- 0.08 [- 0.36, 0.19])and olanzapine (- 0.04 [- 1.41, 1.46]). Lurasidone (0.34 kg [95% Crl - 0.22, 0.89]) and aripiprazole (0.20 kg [- 0.59, 1.00]) had a similar weight change compared to placebo, but olanzapine (2.88 kg [2.40, 3.36]), quetiapine (1.17 kg [0.84, 1.49]), and cariprazine (0.65 kg [0.34, 0.96]) were associated with greater weight gain. The NNT for response was the lowest for lurasidone (NNT = 5) followed by quetiapine (NNT = 6), olanzapine (NNT = 10) and cariprazine (NNT = 12).
CONCLUSIONS
In this NMA in adults with bipolar depression, which evaluated change in depressive symptoms (assessed by MADRS) across short-term trials, the largest improvement versus placebo was observed for lurasidone, olanzapine and quetiapine with cariprazine, showing a smaller treatment effect. Aripiprazole and ziprasidone were ineffective for the treatment of bipolar depression. Improvement in CGI-BP-S score for lurasidone was larger than cariprazine and ziprasidone but similar to quetiapine and olanzapine. Based on short term studies lurasidone and aripiprazole had similar weight gain compared to placebo.
Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Bayes Theorem; Bipolar Disorder; Depression; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Quetiapine Fumarate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33975574
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-021-03220-3 -
JAMA Psychiatry Dec 2020Long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) can potentially reduce hospitalization risk by enhancing medication adherence but are rarely considered for early-phase... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
Long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) can potentially reduce hospitalization risk by enhancing medication adherence but are rarely considered for early-phase schizophrenia treatment.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether encouraging use of a LAI compared with usual care delays the time to first hospitalization with patients with early-phase illness.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
The Prevention of Relapse in Schizophrenia (PRELAPSE) trial was cluster randomized with a follow-up duration of 2 years. The study began in December 2014, was completed in March 2019, and was conducted in 39 mental health centers in 19 US states. Site randomization assigned 19 clinics to encourage treatment with long-acting aripiprazole monohydrate (aripiprazole once monthly [AOM] condition) and 20 to provide treatment as usual (clinician's choice [CC] condition). Participant eligibility criteria included (1) schizophrenia diagnosis confirmed by a structured clinical interview, (2) fewer than 5 years of lifetime antipsychotic use, and (3) age 18 to 35 years. The AOM sites identified 576 potentially eligible participants, of whom 234 (40.6%) enrolled; CC sites identified 685 potentially eligible participants, of whom 255 (37.2%) enrolled.
INTERVENTIONS
There were no restrictions on treatment at CC sites (including using LAIs) or at AOM sites with the exception that aripiprazole monohydrate had to be prescribed within US Food and Drug Administration-approved guidelines.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was time to first psychiatric hospitalization based on participant interviews every 2 months, the service use resource form administered every 4 months, and other sources (eg, health records) as available. Potential events were adjudicated by an independent committee masked to treatment assignment.
RESULTS
The 489 participants (368 men [75.3%]) had a mean (SD) age of 25.2 (4.2) years and 225 (46.0%) had 1 year or less lifetime antipsychotic use. Fifty-two AOM (22%) and 91 CC participants (36%) had at least 1 hospitalization. The mean survival time until first hospitalization was 613.7 days (95% CI, 582.3-645.1 days) for AOM participants and 530.6 days (95% CI, 497.3-563.9 days) for CC participants. For time to first hospitalization, the hazard ratio was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.34- 0.92; P = .02), favoring AOM. Survival probabilities were 0.73 (95% CI, 0.65-0.83) for AOM participants and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.50-0.67) for CC participants. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 additional hospitalization was 7 participants treated with AOM compared with CC.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Long-acting injectable antipsychotic use by patients with early-phase schizophrenia can significantly delay time to hospitalization, a personally and economically important outcome. Clinicians should more broadly consider LAI treatment for patients with early-phase illness.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02360319.
Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Delayed-Action Preparations; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Hospitalization; Humans; Injections; Male; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Schizophrenia; Time Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 32667636
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.2076