-
Annals of Palliative Medicine Apr 2017The aim of this article was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of various antiemetics in prophylaxis of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of this article was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of various antiemetics in prophylaxis of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV).
METHODS
A literature search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of prophylaxis for RINV in patients receiving radiotherapy to abdomen/pelvis, including total body irradiation (TBI). Primary endpoints were complete control of nausea and complete control of vomiting during acute and delayed phases. Secondary endpoints included use of rescue medication, quality of life (QoL) and incidence of adverse events.
RESULTS
Seventeen RCTs were identified. Among patients receiving radiotherapy to abdomen/pelvis, our meta-analysis showed that prophylaxis with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3 RA) was significantly more efficacious than placebo and dopamine receptor antagonists in both complete control of vomiting [OR 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.72 and OR 0.17; 95% CI: 0.05-0.58 respectively] and complete control of nausea (OR 0.43; 95% CI: 0.26-0.70 and OR 0.46; 95% CI: 0.24-0.88 respectively). 5HT3 RAs were also more efficacious than rescue therapy and dopamine receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone. The addition of dexamethasone to 5HT3 RA compared to 5HT3 RA alone provides a modest improvement in prophylaxis of RINV. Among patients receiving TBI, 5HT3 RA was more effective than other agents (placebo, combination of metoclopramide, dexamethasone and lorazepam).
CONCLUSIONS
5HT3 RAs are more effective than other antiemetics for prophylaxis of RINV in patients receiving radiotherapy to abdomen/pelvis and TBI. Future RCTs should investigate the efficacy of newer agents such as substance P neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists in addition to 5HT3 RAs in prophylaxis of RINV during both acute and delayed phases.
Topics: Antiemetics; Humans; Nausea; Radiotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting
PubMed: 28249542
DOI: 10.21037/apm.2016.12.01 -
Fortschritte Der Neurologie-Psychiatrie Jul 2015Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) is a rare but potentially life-threatening medication-induced syndrome. Core symptoms are hyperthermia, diaphoresis, rigidity,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) is a rare but potentially life-threatening medication-induced syndrome. Core symptoms are hyperthermia, diaphoresis, rigidity, impaired consciousness, and creatinine kinase elevation. Additionally, patients show vegetative dysregulation including blood pressure fluctuations. The purpose of this paper is to summarize current findings, to facilitate diagnostics and to distinguish NMS from other syndromes.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the literature. We included scientific publications, books and guidelines.
RESULTS
In this review we summarize the current diagnostic criteria, differential diagnosis, pathogenesis and therapeutic options.
CONCLUSION
Clinical symptoms of NMS are heterogeneous and it is difficult to diagnose early states. Early interventions are important to ensure fast and complete recovery. Since NMS is a rare condition, publications on NMS-therapy are based on single-case reports, meta-analysis or expert opinions. Core symptoms should be considered: Exposure to dopamine-antagonists, hyperthermia, diaphoresis, rigidity, mental status alteration, creatinine kinase elevation, and vegetative dysregulation.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Diagnosis, Differential; Humans; Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome; Risk Factors
PubMed: 26200042
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1553246 -
Drug Safety Jun 2016Prochlorperazine is recommended for adults with breakthrough or refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The objective of this review was to describe... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Prochlorperazine is recommended for adults with breakthrough or refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The objective of this review was to describe its safety in children when given for any indication to help define its role for CINV control in children.
METHODS
Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were performed as of 9 March 2015. All studies in English reporting adverse effects (AEs) associated with prochlorperazine in children (≤18 years) were included. AEs were synthesized for prospective studies.
RESULTS
Forty-nine (15 prospective) studies evaluating the use of prochlorperazine in 758 children were included. The most commonly reported AEs in prospective studies of prochlorperazine in children were sedation (multiple-dose studies: 10 %, 95 % CI 5-21) and extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) (single-dose studies: 9 %, 95 % CI 3-29; multiple-dose studies: 4 %, 95 % CI 1-11). Serious AEs (seizure, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, autonomic collapse, tardive dyskinesia) were rarely associated with prochlorperazine use in children. Five fatalities were reported in children receiving prochlorperazine.
LIMITATIONS
The limitations of this systematic review and meta-analysis were that the AEs reported in the included studies were heterogeneous, the prospective use of systematic clinical tools to identify AEs was rare, and the risk of bias in most prospective studies was moderate.
CONCLUSIONS
The most common AEs reported with the pediatric use of prochlorperazine are EPS and sedation. Fatalities, life-threatening, and persistent AEs have also been reported.
Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia; Child; Child Health Services; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Humans; Male; Nausea; Prochlorperazine; Risk Assessment; Vomiting
PubMed: 26884326
DOI: 10.1007/s40264-016-0398-9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2017Chlorpromazine, a widely available and inexpensive antipsychotic drug, is considered the benchmark treatment for schizophrenia worldwide. Metiapine, a dibenzothiazepine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chlorpromazine, a widely available and inexpensive antipsychotic drug, is considered the benchmark treatment for schizophrenia worldwide. Metiapine, a dibenzothiazepine derivative, has been reported to have potent antipsychotic characteristics. However, no evidence currently exists on the effectiveness of chlorpromazine in treatment of people with schizophrenia compared to metiapine, a newer antipsychotic.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effect of chlorpromazine versus metiapine for the treatment of people with schizophrenia SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials in November 2015 and 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on chlorpromazine versus metiapine for adults with schizophrenia. We included trials meeting our selection criteria and reporting useable data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three studies randomising 161 people with schizophrenia. Data were available for only two of our seven prestated main outcomes. Clinically important improvement in global state was measured using the Clinical Global Impression (CGI). There was no clear difference between chlorpromazine and metiapine groups (2 RCTs, n = 120, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.47, very low quality evidence) and numbers of participants with parkinsonism at eight weeks were similar (2 RCTs, n = 70, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.03, very low quality evidence). There were no useable data available for the other key outcomes of clinically important improvement in mental state, readmission due to relapse, satisfaction with treatment, aggressive or violent behaviour, or cost of care.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Chlorpromazine has been the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia for decades, yet available evidence comparing this drug to metiapine fails to provide high-quality trial based data. However, the need to determine whether metiapine is more or less effective than chlorpromazine seems to be lacking in clinical relevance and future research on this comparison seems unlikely.
Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Chlorpromazine; Dibenzothiazepines; Humans; Parkinson Disease, Secondary; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28349512
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011655.pub2 -
Journal of Psychiatric Research Jun 2024Variability in hepatic cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes such as 2C19 and 2D6 may influence side-effect and efficacy outcomes for antipsychotics. Aripiprazole and... (Review)
Review
Variability in hepatic cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes such as 2C19 and 2D6 may influence side-effect and efficacy outcomes for antipsychotics. Aripiprazole and risperidone are two commonly prescribed antipsychotics, metabolized primarily through CYP2D6. Here, we aimed to provide an overview of the effect of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 on side-effects of aripiprazole and risperidone, and expand on existing literature by critically examining methodological issues associated with pharmacogenetic studies. A PRISMA compliant search of six electronic databases (Pubmed, PsychInfo, Embase, Central, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) identified pharmacogenetic studies on aripiprazole and risperidone. 2007 publications were first identified, of which 34 were included. Quality of literature was estimated using Newcastle-Ottowa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) and revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The average NOS score was 5.8 (range: 3-8) for risperidone literature and 5 for aripiprazole (range: 4-6). All RCTs on aripiprazole were rated as high risk of bias, and four out of six for risperidone literature. Study populations ranged from healthy volunteers to inpatient individuals in psychiatric units and included adult and pediatric samples. All n = 34 studies examined CYP2D6. Only one study genotyped for CYP2C19 and found a positive association with neurological side-effects of risperidone. Most studies did not report any relationship between CYP2D6 and any side-effect outcome. Heterogeneity between and within studies limited the ability to synthesize data and draw definitive conclusions. Studies lacked statistical power due to small sample size, selective genotyping methods, and study design. Large-scale randomized trials with multiple measurements, providing robust evidence on this topic, are suggested.
Topics: Humans; Aripiprazole; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2D6; Risperidone; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C19; Antipsychotic Agents
PubMed: 38631139
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.04.001 -
L'Encephale Dec 2022Drug-induced hypersalivation is a frequent drug adverse event of psychotropic drugs. This excess salivary pooling in the mouth can cause an impairment of a patient's...
OBJECTIVES
Drug-induced hypersalivation is a frequent drug adverse event of psychotropic drugs. This excess salivary pooling in the mouth can cause an impairment of a patient's quality of life leading to low rates of medication adherence. The optimal management of hypersalivation is thus crucial to improve patient care. To date, no recommendations for limiting drug-induced hypersalivation have been published. In this study, we conducted a systematic review to investigate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing drug-induced hypersalivation.
METHODS
Treatment of drug-induced sialorrhea based on case reports and clinical studies were sought in May 2021 from PubMed, Google Scholar and Science Direct (keywords : « treatment », « hypersalivation », « induced », « drug », « clozapine »). Articles published between 1966 to May 2021 on the treatment of drug-induced hypersalivation were included in this study.
RESULTS
Sixty-seven articles were selected in this narrative review. First, patient education associated with non-drug related management are essential to improve the compliance to drugs inducing hypersalivation. The non-drug related management should be initiated with an increase in the frequency of swallowing with chewing gum. In the case of ineffectiveness, the dosage of drug responsive of sialorrhea can be adjusted according to the patient's response and his/her medical history (i.e. reducing the dose or splitting the daily dose). Finally, if the problem persists, a symptomatic treatment can be added according to the type of sialorrhea (diurnal or nocturnal), preferred galenic by patient, tolerance and availability of drugs. Several drugs have been tested to reduce hypersalivation induced by clozapine (61/67), risperidone (3/67), quetiapine (2/67) and aripiprazole (2/67). Among the 63 articles targeting a specific corrective treatment, anticholinergic agents were most described in the literature (41 cases out of 63) with atropine, glycopyrrolate and scopolamine (6/41 each). Other agents were described as clinically effective on hypersalivation: dopamine antagonists (9/63) with amisulpride (5/9), alpha-2-adrenergic agonists (5/63) with clonidine (3/5), botulinic toxin (4/63), and terazosine, moclobemide, bupropion and N-acetylcysteine (for each 1/63).
CONCLUSIONS
In the case of drug-induced hypersalivation, after failure of non-drug therapies and dosage optimization of the causative treatment, an anticholinergic drug can be initiated. In case of insufficient response, the different treatments presented can be used depending on the galenic form, tolerance and access to those medications. The assessment of the risk-benefit balance should be systematic. The heterogeneity of the studies, the little knowledge about the pharmacological mechanism of saliva flow modulation and the unavailability of corrective drugs are different factors contributing to the complexity of therapeutic optimization.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Sialorrhea; Clozapine; Quality of Life; Amisulpride; Scopolamine; Cholinergic Antagonists; Antipsychotic Agents
PubMed: 35989107
DOI: 10.1016/j.encep.2022.03.013 -
JAMA Dermatology Aug 2020The association between the use of medications and the development of bullous pemphigoid (BP) is unclear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The association between the use of medications and the development of bullous pemphigoid (BP) is unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the associations between previous exposure to certain medications and BP.
DATA SOURCES
For this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase were searched for relevant studies from inception to February 20, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Case-control or cohort studies and randomized clinical trials that examined the odds or risk of BP in patients with previous medication use were included. No geographic or language limitations were imposed.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guideline was followed. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the risk of bias of included observational studies; Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used for randomized clinical trials. Aggregate data were used to conduct a random-effects model meta-analysis if the included studies were sufficiently homogenous. Subgroup analyses were performed for use of various medications of the same category.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Odds ratio (OR), hazard ratio, and risk ratio of bullous pemphigoid in association with medication use.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis included 13 case-control studies, 1 cohort study, and 1 randomized clinical trial with a total of 285 884 participants. The meta-analysis of case-control studies showed a significant association of BP with previous use of aldosterone antagonists (pooled OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.28-2.40), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (pooled OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.55-2.38), anticholinergics (pooled OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.54-6.33), and dopaminergic medications (pooled OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.34-3.05). One cohort study found an increased risk of BP among patients receiving dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (hazard ratio, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.16-4.88; P = .02). One trial found a higher occurrence of BP in patients with diabetes receiving linagliptin (0.2% in diabetes group vs 0% in the placebo group).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that aldosterone antagonists, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, anticholinergics, and dopaminergic medications are associated with BP. These medications should be judiciously prescribed, particularly in high-risk patients who are elderly and have disabling neurologic disorders.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Cholinergic Antagonists; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Diuretics; Dopamine Agents; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists; Odds Ratio; Pemphigoid, Bullous; Psychotropic Drugs; Risk Factors
PubMed: 32584924
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1587 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Perphenazine is an old phenothiazine antipsychotic with a potency similar to haloperidol. It has been used for many years and is popular in the northern European... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Perphenazine is an old phenothiazine antipsychotic with a potency similar to haloperidol. It has been used for many years and is popular in the northern European countries and Japan.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the clinical effects and safety of perphenazine for those with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our original search using the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (September 2013), references of all included studies and contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of included studies in order to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials that compared perphenazine with other treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses. We excluded trials of depot formulations of perphenazine.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently inspected citations and, where possible, abstracts. We ordered papers, inspected and quality assessed them. We extracted data, again working independently. If loss to follow-up was greater than 50% we considered results as 'prone to bias'. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and for continuous data we calculated mean differences (MD), both with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed quality of data using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluationtool) and assessed risk of bias for included studies.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-one studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with a total of 4662 participants (of which 4522 were receiving the drugs relevant to our comparison) and presented data that could be used for at least one comparison. The trial centres were located in Europe (especially Scandinavia), Japan and Northern America.When comparing perphenazine with placebo, for our primary outcome of clinical response, results favoured perphenazine with significantly more people receiving placebo rated as either 'no better or deterioration' for global state than people receiving perphenazine (1 RCT, n = 61 RR 0.32 CI 0.13 to 0.78, very low quality evidence). More people receiving placebo relapsed, although not a statistically significant number (1 RCT, n = 48, RR 0.14 CI 0.02 to 1.07, very low quality evidence). Death was not reported in the perphenazine versus placebo comparison. Experiences of dystonia were equivocal between groups (1 RCT, n = 48, RR 1.00 CI 0.07 to 15.08, very low quality evidence); other outcomes not reported in this comparison include serious adverse events, economic outcomes, and service use and hospitalisation.For the comparison of perphenazine versus any other antipsychotic drugs, no real differences in effect between the drugs were found. There was no significant difference between groups for those considered 'no better or deterioration' (17 RCTs, n = 1879, RR 1.04 CI 0.91 to 1.17, very low quality evidence). For mental state outcome of 'no effect' of the study drug, there was again no significant difference between groups (4 RCTs, n = 383, RR 1.24 CI 0.61 to 2.52, very low quality evidence). Death was not reported in any of the included studies. There was no significant difference in rates of dystonia with perphenazine versus any other antipsychotic drugs (4 RCTs, n = 416, RR 1.36 CI 0.23 to 8.16, very low quality evidence), nor was there a significant difference between groups for serious adverse events (2 RCTs, n = 1760, RR 0.98 CI 0.68 to 1.41, very low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although perphenazine has been used in randomised trials for more than 50 years, incomplete reporting and the variety of comparators used make it impossible to draw clear conclusions. All data for the main outcomes in this review were of very low quality evidence. At best we can say that perphenazine showed similar effects and adverse events as several of the other antipsychotic drugs. Since perphenazine is a relatively inexpensive and frequently used compound, further trials are justified to clarify the properties of this classical antipsychotic drug.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Humans; Mental Disorders; Perphenazine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 25749632
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003443.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2016Cocaine dependence is a public health problem characterised by recidivism and a host of medical and psychosocial complications. Cocaine dependence remains a disorder for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cocaine dependence is a public health problem characterised by recidivism and a host of medical and psychosocial complications. Cocaine dependence remains a disorder for which no pharmacological treatment of proven efficacy exists.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and the acceptability of antipsychotic medications for cocaine dependence.
SEARCH METHODS
This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review published in 2007. We searched up to 15 July 2015 in Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register (searched in CRSLive); the Cochrane Library (including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL and Web of Science. All searches included non-English language literature.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials with focus on the use of any antipsychotic medication for the treatment of cocaine dependence.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 studies (719 participants). The antipsychotic drugs studied were risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, lamotrigine, aripiprazol, haloperidol and reserpine. Comparing any antipsychotic drugs versus placebo, we found that antipsychotics reduced dropout: eight studies, 397 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.97), moderate quality of evidence. We found no significant differences for any of the other primary outcomes considered: number of participants using cocaine during the treatment, two studies, 91 participants: RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.62); continuous abstinence, three studies, 139 participants: RR 1.30 (95% CI 0.73 to 2.32); side effects, six studies, 291 participants: RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.10); and craving, four studies, 240 participants: RR 0.13 (-1.08 to 1.35). For all of these comparisons we rated the quality of evidence as low.Comparisons of single drug versus placebo or versus another drug are conducted in few trials with small sample sizes, limiting the reliability of the results. Among these comparisons, only quetiapine seemed to outperform placebo in reducing cocaine use, measured by grams per week: mean difference (MD) -0.54 (95% CI -0.92 to -0.16), by US dollars spent per week: MD -53.80 (95% CI -97.85 to -9.75), and by craving: MD -1.23 (95% CI -2.19 to -0.27), but results came from one study with 60 participants.The major limitations of the studies were the high risk of attrition bias (40% of the included studies) and low quality of reporting, mainly for the risk of selection bias, performance and detection bias, that we rated as being at unclear risk for 75% to 80% of the studies. Furthermore, most of the included studies did not report results on important outcomes such as side effects, or use of cocaine during treatment and craving, which prevented the possibility of including them in statistical synthesis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
At present, there is no evidence supporting the clinical use of antipsychotic medications in the treatment of cocaine dependence, although results come from only 14 trials, with small sample sizes and moderate to low quality of evidence.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Benzodiazepines; Cocaine-Related Disorders; Haloperidol; Humans; Lamotrigine; Olanzapine; Patient Dropouts; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reserpine; Risperidone; Triazines
PubMed: 26992929
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006306.pub3 -
Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism &... 2022The effects of antipsychotic drugs are dose-dependent, which is particularly true for their efficacy, each antipsychotic having a specific dose-response curve. This may...
INTRODUCTION
The effects of antipsychotic drugs are dose-dependent, which is particularly true for their efficacy, each antipsychotic having a specific dose-response curve. This may justify individualizing doses for these agents.
AREAS COVERED
We review the pharmacokinetic profiles of seven oral antipsychotics: haloperidol, risperidone, olanzapine, clozapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole. Their main indications are psychotic and affective disorders. They are prescribed in a very large population which may have comorbidities. Hence, we analyze the impact of the latter on the pharmacokinetic profiles of these antipsychotics, focusing on renal and hepatic impairment. Reviews and clinical trials were discussed based on a systematic literature search (PubMed) ranging from 1995 to 2022.
EXPERT OPINION
Factors liable to impact antipsychotic dosage are numerous and their subsequent effects often hard to predict, due to multilevel interactions and compensatory phenomena. In clinical practice, physicians must be aware of these potential effects, but base their decisions on monitoring antipsychotic plasma levels.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Clozapine; Humans; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Risperidone
PubMed: 35979611
DOI: 10.1080/17425255.2022.2113378