-
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy Nov 2006To determine which antipsychotic is associated with the greatest efficacy and safety when used for the pharmacotherapeutic management of delirium in medically or... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine which antipsychotic is associated with the greatest efficacy and safety when used for the pharmacotherapeutic management of delirium in medically or surgically ill patients.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Current Contents, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Biological Abstracts, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE databases (all to July 2006) were searched for trials evaluating the pharmacologic treatment of delirium in medically or surgically ill patients. The key terms used included delirium, agitation, or acute confusion, and antipsychotics, phenothiazine, butyrophenone, perphenazine, fluphenazine, clozapine, trifluorophenazine, loxapine, thioridazine, pimozide, molindone, haloperidol, methotrimeprazine, chlorpromazine, prochlorperazine, droperidol, risperidone, quetiapine, ziprasidone, amisulpride, or olanzapine.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
Prospective, randomized, controlled trials comparing the clinical effects of antipsychotic therapy with placebo or comparing 2 antipsychotic treatments in an acute care setting were selected. Studies involving dementia-associated delirium, Alzheimer's disease-associated delirium, emergency department-associated acute agitation, acute brain trauma-associated agitation, or agitation secondary to underlying psychiatric afflictions such as depression or schizophrenia were excluded. All studies were evaluated independently by the 3 authors using a validated evaluation tool. Outcomes related to both efficacy and safety were collected. Four prospective trials were included in this systematic review.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Antipsychotic agents, either atypical or typical, were effective compared with baseline for the treatment of delirium in medically or surgically ill patients without underlying cognitive disorders. Oral haloperidol was associated with more frequent extrapyramidal side effects, but overall, all agents were well tolerated. Interpretation of the published evidence is limited by the small sample sizes, varied patient populations, and comparative agents of the studies reviewed.
CONCLUSIONS
The comparative studies evaluated here suggest that antipsychotic drugs are efficacious, when compared with baseline, and safe for the treatment of delirium. Haloperidol remains the most studied agent. Recommendation of one antipsychotic over another as a first-line pharmacologic intervention in the treatment of hospital-associated delirium is limited by the quality and quantity of data available. Better designed and larger studies evaluating the addition of antipsychotic agents to nonpharmacologic treatments are needed to measure the true effect of pharmacologic treatment.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Delirium; Haloperidol; Hospital Departments; Hospitalization; Humans; Surgery Department, Hospital
PubMed: 17047137
DOI: 10.1345/aph.1H241 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2002Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with ordinary antipsychotic drug treatment and various additional medications are used to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with ordinary antipsychotic drug treatment and various additional medications are used to promote additional response. The antiepileptic carbamazepine is one such drug.
OBJECTIVES
To review the effects of carbamazepine and its derivatives for the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective psychoses.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched Biological Abstracts (1980-2001), The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2001), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials (December 2001), EMBASE (1980-2001), MEDLINE (1966-2001), PsycLIT (1886-2001) and PSYNDEX (1974-2001). Citations from included trials were also inspected and relevant companies and authors contacted for additional data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials comparing carbamazepine or compounds of the carbamazepine family to placebo or no intervention, whether as sole treatment or as an adjunct to antipsychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia and/or schizoaffective psychoses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Citations and, where possible, abstracts were independently inspected by reviewers, papers ordered, re-inspected and quality assessed. Data were extracted independently by at least two reviewers. Dichotomous data were analysed using Peto odds ratio (OR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated. Where possible the number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm statistics were calculated.
MAIN RESULTS
Ten studies with a total of 258 participants were included. One study comparing carbamazepine with placebo as the sole treatment for schizophrenia (n=31) was stopped early due to high relapse rate. No effect of carbamazepine was evident (OR relapse 1.5 CI 0.2 to 9.7). Another study (n=38) compared carbamazepine with antipsychotics as the sole treatment for schizophrenia. No differences in terms of mental state were found (OR 50% BPRS reduction 1.9 CI 0.5 to 7.2). More people who received the antipsychotic (perphenazine) had parkinsonism (OR 0.03 CI 0.01 to 0.1, NNH 1 CI 0.9 to 1.4). Eight studies compared adjunctive carbamazepine plus antipsychotics versus placebo plus antipsychotics. Adding carbamazepine was as acceptable as adding placebo (n=182, OR leaving the study early 0.4 CI 0.1 to 1.4). Carbamazepine augmentation of antipsychotics was superior compared with antipsychotics alone, but participant numbers were low (n=38, OR 0.1 CI 0.02 to 0.4, NNT 2 CI 1 to 5). There were no differences for mental state outcomes (6 RCTs, n=147, OR 50% BPRS reduction 0.99 CI 0.2 to 6.0). Less people in the carbamazepine augmentation group had movement disorders than those taking haloperidol alone (1 RCT, n=20, OR 0.15 CI 0.03 to 0.8). The effects of carbamazepine on subgroups of people with schizophrenia and aggressive behaviour, negative symptoms or EEG abnormalities or with schizoaffective disorder are unknown.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
Based on currently available evidence from randomised trials, carbamazepine cannot be recommend for routine clinical use for sole treatment, or augmentation of antipsychotic treatment, of schizophrenia. Large, simple well-designed and reported trials are justified especially if focusing on those with violent episodes and people with schizoaffective disorders or on those with both schizophrenia and EEG abnormalities.
Topics: Antimanic Agents; Carbamazepine; Humans; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 12137621
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001258 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Up to 75% of people with serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have co-occurring substance use disorders (dual diagnosis). Dual... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Up to 75% of people with serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have co-occurring substance use disorders (dual diagnosis). Dual diagnosis can have an adverse effect on treatment and prognosis of SMI.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of risperidone compared to treatment with other antipsychotics (first-generation and other second-generation antipsychotics) used in people with serious mental illness and co-occurring substance misuse.
SEARCH METHODS
On 6 January 2016 and 9 October 2017, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (including trial registers).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised trials of risperidone versus any other antipsychotic in people with SMI and substance abuse (dual diagnosis). We included trials meeting our inclusion criteria and reporting useable data. We excluded trials that either did not meet our inclusion criteria or met our inclusion criteria but did not report any useable data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently inspected citations and selected studies. For included studies, we independently extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals. For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals. We pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the quality of evidence, creating a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified eight randomised trials containing a total of 1073 participants with SMI and co-occurring substance misuse. Seven of these contributed useable data to the review. There was heterogeneity in trial design and measurement. Risperidone was compared to clozapine, olanzapine, perphenazine, quetiapine and ziprasidone. Few trials compared risperidone with first-generation agents. Few trials examined participants with a dual diagnosis from the outset and most trials only contained separate analyses of subgroups with a dual diagnosis or were secondary data analyses of subgroups of people with a dual diagnosis from existing larger trials.For risperidone versus clozapine we found no clear differences between these two antipsychotics in the reduction of positive psychotic symptoms (1 randomised controlled trial (RCT), n = 36, mean difference (MD) 0.90, 95% CI -2.21 to 4.01, very low quality evidence), or reduction in cannabis use (1 RCT, n = 14, risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.35, very low quality evidence), improvement in subjective well-being (1 RCT, n = 36, MD -6.00, 95% CI -14.82 to 2.82, very low quality evidence), numbers discontinuing medication (1 RCT, n = 36, RR 4.05, 95% CI 0.21 to 78.76, very low quality evidence), extrapyramidal side-effects (2 RCTs, n = 50, RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.30 to 24.08; I² = 0%, very low quality evidence), or leaving the study early (2 RCTs, n = 45, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.51; I² = 34%, very low quality evidence). Clozapine was associated with lower levels of craving for cannabis (1 RCT, n = 28, MD 7.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 11.63, very low quality evidence).For risperidone versus olanzapine we found no clear differences in the reduction of positive psychotic symptoms (1 RCT, n = 37, MD -1.50, 95% CI -3.82 to 0.82, very low quality evidence), reduction in cannabis use (1 RCT, n = 41, MD 0.40, 95% CI -4.72 to 5.52, very low quality evidence), craving for cannabis (1 RCT, n = 41, MD 5.00, 95% CI -4.86 to 14.86, very low quality evidence), parkinsonism (1 RCT, n = 16, MD -0.08, 95% CI -1.21 to 1.05, very low quality evidence), or leaving the study early (2 RCT, n = 77, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.35; I² = 0%, very low quality evidence).For risperidone versus perphenazine, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 281, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20, low-quality evidence).For risperidone versus quetiapine, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 294, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07, low-quality evidence).For risperidone versus ziprasidone, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 240, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.10, low-quality evidence).For many comparisons, important outcomes were missing; and no data were reported in any study for metabolic disturbances, global impression of illness severity, quality of life or mortality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is not sufficient good-quality evidence available to determine the effects of risperidone compared with other antipsychotics in people with a dual diagnosis. Few trials compared risperidone with first-generation agents, leading to limited applicability to settings where access to second-generation agents is limited, such as in low- and middle-income countries. Moreover, heterogeneity in trial design and measurement of outcomes precluded the use of many trials in our analyses. Future trials in this area need to be sufficiently powered but also need to conform to consistent methods in study population selection, use of measurement scales, definition of outcomes, and measures to counter risk of bias. Investigators should adhere to CONSORT guidelines in the reporting of results.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Clozapine; Diagnosis, Dual (Psychiatry); Humans; Mental Disorders; Olanzapine; Patient Dropouts; Perphenazine; Piperazines; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone; Schizophrenia; Substance-Related Disorders; Thiazoles
PubMed: 29355909
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011057.pub2 -
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Revue... Feb 2008Lithium is an augmentation strategy for unipolar depression in geriatric populations. This review outlines the evidence in the literature regarding risk of relapse when... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Lithium is an augmentation strategy for unipolar depression in geriatric populations. This review outlines the evidence in the literature regarding risk of relapse when lithium is discontinued in geriatric patients.
METHOD
Articles were selected based on selection criteria for relevance and design quality (original studies, French or English, patients older than 65 years, patients with an episode of major depressive disorder, meeting DSM-III or greater criteria, and patients who had been successfully treated to remission with lithium augmentation of an antidepressant, then withdrawn from lithium augmentation treatment).
RESULTS
Three articles were found. Overall rate of relapse could not be clearly established but a rate of 50% relapse over about 6 months follow-up could be surmised from the study results.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a risk of relapse in elderly patients whose lithium augmentation treatment for unipolar depression is discontinued. More studies with a randomized control trial design are required to provide more definitive information on this topic.
Topics: Aged; Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Depressive Disorder, Major; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Lithium Carbonate; Perphenazine; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 18357930
DOI: 10.1177/070674370805300207