-
Journal of Affective Disorders Feb 2024Intravenous racemic ketamine is a promising treatment for treatment-resistant depression. However, its clinical utility compared with intranasal esketamine and the other... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparative efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of intravenous racemic ketamine with intranasal esketamine, aripiprazole and lithium as augmentative treatments for treatment-resistant unipolar depression: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Intravenous racemic ketamine is a promising treatment for treatment-resistant depression. However, its clinical utility compared with intranasal esketamine and the other well-studied conventional pharmacological interventions (i.e., aripiprazole and lithium) as augmentative treatments for treatment-resistant unipolar depression in adults remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of intravenous racemic ketamine with intranasal esketamine, aripiprazole and lithium under such conditions.
METHODS
The Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINHAL and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched from their inception to 10 May 2023. Randomised controlled trials evaluating these drugs were included. A random-effects network meta-analysis was also performed.
RESULTS
In the primary analysis, all four drugs were significantly more effective than placebo. In addition, intravenous racemic ketamine was significantly more effective and acceptable than intranasal esketamine and aripiprazole. Intravenous racemic ketamine was not significantly different from placebo in tolerability, whereas intranasal esketamine and aripiprazole were significantly less tolerable than placebo. Lithium did not differ significantly from intravenous racemic ketamine in efficacy, tolerability and acceptability.
LIMITATIONS
The sample size of patients treated with intravenous racemic ketamine was small.
CONCLUSIONS
Intravenous racemic ketamine may be a better augmentative treatment for treatment-resistant unipolar depression than intranasal esketamine and aripiprazole. Whether intravenous racemic ketamine or lithium is superior is unclear currently. A larger head-to-head trial of intravenous racemic ketamine versus conventional augmentative treatments for treatment-resistant unipolar depression is needed.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Ketamine; Aripiprazole; Antidepressive Agents; Lithium; Network Meta-Analysis; Depressive Disorder; Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant; Depression
PubMed: 37949235
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2023.11.023 -
BMC Gastroenterology Oct 2023Since the previous network meta-analysis assessing the efficacy of prokinetics for functional dyspepsia (FD), there have been a number of new studies and cinitapride is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Since the previous network meta-analysis assessing the efficacy of prokinetics for functional dyspepsia (FD), there have been a number of new studies and cinitapride is a new prokinetic agent for FD. This updated meta-analysis aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of prokinetics for FD.
METHODS
An updated study search in Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science was conducted in literatures published from July 2015 to March 2023. Randomized controlled trials investigating the use of prokinetics in adult FD patients were included. The primary outcome was the total efficacy rate and the secondary outcome was adverse events. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using R software.
RESULTS
A total of 28 studies were included. Network meta-analysis showed that metoclopramide had a higher total efficacy rate than mosapride (OR: 3.53, 95%CI: 1.70-7.47), domperidone (OR: 2.29, 95%CI: 1.16-4.63), itopride(OR: 2.77, 95%CI: 1.41-5.59), acotiamide(OR: 2.63, OR: 1.33-5.36), and placebo(OR: 5.68, 95%CI: 2.98-11.10), however similar to cinitapride (OR: 1.62, 95%CI: 0.75-3.53). Cinitapride had a higher total efficacy rate than mosapride (OR: 2.18, 95%CI: 1.16-4.14) and placebo (OR: 3.52, 95%CI: 2.01-6.24). Cinitapride had lower risk of total adverse events than domperidone. There was no difference in the risk of drug-related adverse events between the prokinetics.
CONCLUSIONS
Metoclopramide and cinitapride may have a better efficacy than other prokinetics in the treatment of FD, and cinitapride may have a lower risk of total adverse events. Further studies using uniform definitions or validated tools to measure the total efficacy rate are needed.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Dyspepsia; Domperidone; Metoclopramide; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37907846
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-023-03014-9 -
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Dec 2023Up to 30% of patients with a diagnosis of treatment-resistant psychosis remain symptomatic despite an optimal trial with the gold standard treatment, clozapine. Emerging...
BACKGROUND
Up to 30% of patients with a diagnosis of treatment-resistant psychosis remain symptomatic despite an optimal trial with the gold standard treatment, clozapine. Emerging evidence suggests the clinical utility of long-acting injections (LAI) in such clinical scenarios. In this study, we aimed to describe clozapine augmentation with LAIs in an inner London hospital and explore the literature on the clinical effectiveness of this treatment modality.
METHODS
Patients prescribed clozapine, who were commenced on a LAI between 2007 and 2023 by the United Kingdom's largest mental health trust, were identified from electronic patient records. First, routine clinical data were used to describe the use, effectiveness, and safety of this augmentation strategy. Second, we conducted a literature search up to 1st June 2023 to identify published studies describing clinical outcomes after clozapine augmentation with a LAI. Clinical outcomes were collated and presented in a table, including hospitalisation rates and quantitative clinical assessments using validated scales.
RESULTS
Of the 1248 patients prescribed clozapine in SLaM, three patients (0.2%) received augmentation with the following LAIs: olanzapine embonate, paliperidone palmitate and pipotiazine palmitate. This treatment strategy was clinically effective and generally well tolerated in all three cases. Twelve published studies between 2010 and 2022 were included in the review. Eight distinct LAIs were reported (4 first and 4 second generation antipsychotics), with risperidone and paliperidone most widely studied. All the identified studies were observational including mirror-image studies, case series and case reports. Duration of follow up varied from 3 months to 3 years. There was evidence that the use of LAIs with clozapine can significantly reduce clinical symptoms, hospitalisation rates and bed days. No serious adverse effects were reported.
CONCLUSION
This preliminary evidence suggests clinical utility of LAIs in alleviating residual symptoms and subsequently reducing hospitalisation rates in patients optimised on clozapine treatment. The current study warrants further investigations including a randomised controlled study to establish the clinical efficacy, tolerability, and place in therapy of this treatment modality.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Clozapine; Schizophrenia; Risperidone; Paliperidone Palmitate; Delayed-Action Preparations
PubMed: 37899506
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13621 -
Current Psychiatry Reports Nov 2023Despite clear evidence that sex differences largely impact the efficacy and tolerability of antipsychotic medication, current treatment guidelines for schizophrenia... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Despite clear evidence that sex differences largely impact the efficacy and tolerability of antipsychotic medication, current treatment guidelines for schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) do not differentiate between men and women. This review summarizes the available evidence on strategies that may improve pharmacotherapy for women and provides evidence-based recommendations to optimize treatment for women with schizophrenia.
RECENT FINDINGS
We systematically searched PubMed and Embase for peer-reviewed studies on three topics: (1) sex differences in dose-adjusted antipsychotic serum concentrations, (2) hormonal augmentation therapy with estrogen and estrogen-like compounds to improve symptom severity, and (3) strategies to reduce antipsychotic-induced hyperprolactinemia. Based on three database studies and one RCT, we found higher dose-adjusted concentrations in women compared to men for most antipsychotics. For quetiapine, higher concentrations were specifically found in older women. Based on two recent meta-analyses, both estrogen and raloxifene improved overall symptomatology. Most consistent findings were found for raloxifene augmentation in postmenopausal women. No studies evaluated the effects of estrogenic contraceptives on symptoms. Based on two meta-analyses and one RCT, adjunctive aripiprazole was the best-studied and safest strategy for lowering antipsychotic-induced hyperprolactinemia. Evidence-based recommendations for female-specific pharmacotherapy for SSD consist of (1) female-specific dosing for antipsychotics (guided by therapeutic drug monitoring), (2) hormonal replacement with raloxifene in postmenopausal women, and (3) aripiprazole addition as best evidenced option in case of antipsychotic-induced hyperprolactinemia. Combining these strategies could reduce side effects and improve outcome of women with SSD, which should be confirmed in future longitudinal RCTs.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Aged; Antipsychotic Agents; Schizophrenia; Aripiprazole; Hyperprolactinemia; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Estrogens
PubMed: 37864676
DOI: 10.1007/s11920-023-01460-6 -
BMC Psychiatry Oct 2023We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of blonanserin and risperidone for the treatment of schizophrenia and to provide... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of blonanserin and risperidone for the treatment of schizophrenia and to provide reliable pharmacotherapeutic evidence for in the clinical treatment of schizophrenia.
METHODS
We systematically searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases for head-to-head randomized controlled trials that compared blonanserin with risperidone for the treatment of schizophrenia. We extracted the following data: author, year, country, diagnostic criteria, sample size, course of treatment, dosage and outcomes. Our main endpoint was the changes in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores. Meta-analysis of the included data was conducted by RevMan 5.3 software. We used the GRADE criteria to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.
RESULTS
A total of 411 studies were initially; 8 trials were eligible and were included in our analysis (N = 1386 participants). Regarding efficacy, there was no difference in changes in the PANSS total scores between the two groups (P > 0.05). In terms of safety, compared to risperidone, the incidence of serum prolactin increases and weight gain in the blonanserin group was lower (P<0.05), but the incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) was higher (P<0.05).
CONCLUSION
The efficacy of blonanserin is similar to that of risperidone, but it is unclear whether blonanserin is more effective than risperidone at improving cognitive and social function. More high-quality studies are needed to verify the efficacy and safety of blonanserin in the future.
Topics: Humans; Risperidone; Schizophrenia; Antipsychotic Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37821875
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-023-05240-7 -
Molecular Psychiatry Sep 2023Antipsychotic-induced sialorrhea carries a significant burden, but evidence-based treatment guidance is incomplete, warranting network meta-analysis (NMA) of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Antipsychotic-induced sialorrhea carries a significant burden, but evidence-based treatment guidance is incomplete, warranting network meta-analysis (NMA) of pharmacological interventions for antipsychotic-related sialorrhea. PubMed Central/PsycInfo/Cochrane Central database/Clinicaltrials.gov/WHO-ICTRP and the Chinese Electronic Journal Database (Qikan.cqvip.com) were searched for published/unpublished RCTs of antipsychotic-induced sialorrhea (any definition) in adults, up to 06/12/2023. We assessed global/local inconsistencies, publication bias, risk of bias (RoB2), and confidence in the evidence, conducting subgroup/sensitivity analyses. Co-primary efficacy outcomes were changes in saliva production (standardized mean difference/SMD) and study-defined response (risk ratios/RRs). The acceptability outcome was all-cause discontinuation (RR). Primary nodes were molecules; the mechanism of action (MoA) was secondary. Thirty-four RCTs entered a systematic review, 33 NMA (n = 1958). All interventions were for clozapine-induced sialorrhea in subjects with mental disorders. Regarding individual agents and response, metoclopramide (RR = 3.11, 95% C.I. = 1.39-6.98), cyproheptadine, (RR = 2.76, 95% C.I. = 2.00-3.82), sulpiride (RR = 2.49, 95% C.I. = 1.65-3.77), propantheline (RR = 2.39, 95% C.I. = 1.97-2.90), diphenhydramine (RR = 2.32, 95% C.I. = 1.88-2.86), benzhexol (RR = 2.32, 95% C.I. = 1.59-3.38), doxepin (RR = 2.30, 95% C.I. = 1.85-2.88), amisulpride (RR = 2.23, 95% C.I. = 1.30-3.81), chlorpheniramine (RR = 2.20, 95% C.I. = 1.67-2.89), amitriptyline (RR = 2.09, 95% C.I. = 1.34-3.26), atropine, (RR = 2.03, 95% C.I. = 1.22-3.38), and astemizole, (RR = 1.70, 95% C.I. = 1.28-2.26) outperformed placebo, but not glycopyrrolate or ipratropium. Across secondary nodes (k = 28, n = 1821), antimuscarinics (RR = 2.26, 95% C.I. = 1.91-2.68), benzamides (RR = 2.23, 95% C.I. = 1.75-3.10), TCAs (RR = 2.23, 95% C.I. = 1.83-2.72), and antihistamines (RR = 2.18, 95% C.I. = 1.83-2.59) outperformed placebo. In head-to-head comparisons, astemizole and ipratropium were outperformed by several interventions. All secondary nodes, except benzamides, outperformed the placebo on the continuous efficacy outcome. For nocturnal sialorrhea, neither benzamides nor atropine outperformed the placebo. Active interventions did not differ significantly from placebo regarding constipation or sleepiness/drowsiness. Low-confidence findings prompt caution in the interpretation of the results. Considering primary nodes' co-primary efficacy outcomes and head-to-head comparisons, efficacy for sialorrhea is most consistent for the following agents, decreasing from metoclopramide through cyproheptadine, sulpiride, propantheline, diphenhydramine, benzhexol, doxepin, amisulpride, chlorpheniramine, to amitriptyline, and atropine (the latter not for nocturnal sialorrhea). Shared decision-making with the patient should guide treatment decisions regarding clozapine-related sialorrhea.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Clozapine; Sulpiride; Amisulpride; Sialorrhea; Doxepin; Amitriptyline; Network Meta-Analysis; Propantheline; Trihexyphenidyl; Metoclopramide; Chlorpheniramine; Astemizole; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Cyproheptadine; Diphenhydramine; Ipratropium; Atropine Derivatives
PubMed: 37821573
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-023-02266-x -
Medicine Sep 2023Atypical antipsychotic (AAP) augmentation is an alternative strategy for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who had an inadequate response to antidepressant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and safety of 4 atypical antipsychotics augmentation treatment for major depressive disorder in adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Atypical antipsychotic (AAP) augmentation is an alternative strategy for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who had an inadequate response to antidepressant therapy (ADT). We aimed to compare and rank the efficacy and safety of 4 AAPs in the adjuvant treatment of MDD.
METHODS
We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published and unpublished from the date of databases and clinical trial websites inception to April 30, 2023. The evidence risk of bias (RoB) and certainty are assessed using the Cochrane bias risk tool and grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) framework, respectively. Using network meta-analysis, we estimated summary risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean difference (SMD) based on the random effects model.
RESULTS
56 eligible studies comprising 11448 participants were included. In terms of primary efficacy outcome, compared with placebo (PBO), all AAPs had significant efficacy (SMD = -0.40; 95% CI, -0.68 to -0.12 for quetiapine (QTP); -0.35, -0.59 to -0.11 for olanzapine (OLA); -0.28, -0.47 to -0.09 for aripiprazole (ARI) and -0.25, -0.42 to -0.07 for brexpiprazole (BRE), respectively). In terms of acceptability, no significant difference was found, either agents versus agents or agents versus PBO. In terms of tolerability, compared with the PBO, QTP (RR = 0.24; 95% CI,0.11-0.53), OLA (0.30,0.10-0.55), ARI (0.39,0.22-0.69), and BRE (0.37,0.18-0.75) were significantly less well tolerated. 8 (14.2%) of 56 trials were assessed as low RoB, 38 (67.9%) trials had moderate RoB, and 10 (17.9%) had high RoB; By the GRADE, the certainty of most evidence was low or very low.
CONCLUSION
Adjuvant AAPs had significant efficacy compared with PBO, but treatment decisions must be made to balance the risks and benefits.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Depressive Disorder, Major; Antipsychotic Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Quetiapine Fumarate; Aripiprazole; Olanzapine; Adjuvants, Immunologic; Adjuvants, Pharmaceutic
PubMed: 37746943
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034670 -
Cureus Aug 2023Calcium channel blocker poisoning is one of the most common poisonings encountered which presents with life-threatening complications. However, there is no unified... (Review)
Review
Calcium channel blocker poisoning is one of the most common poisonings encountered which presents with life-threatening complications. However, there is no unified approach for treating these patients in the existing literature. This study aimed to assess the effects of different treatment modalities used in calcium channel blocker poisoning, as reported by previous studies. The primary outcomes studied were mortality and hemodynamic parameters after treatment. The secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit stay, duration of vasopressor use, functional outcomes, and serum calcium channel blocker concentrations. A thorough literature search was performed through Ovid, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from January 2014 to December 31, 2022, to identify all studies analyzing the effects of the treatment of calcium channel blocker poisoning on the desired outcomes. Two reviewers reviewed 607 published articles from January 2014 to December 2022 to identify studies analyzing the effects of the treatment of calcium channel blocker poisoning on desired outcomes. In this review, 18 case reports, one case series, and one cohort study were included. Most patients were treated with an injection of calcium gluconate or calcium chloride. The use of calcium along with dopamine and norepinephrine was found to have lower mortality rates. A few patients were also treated with injection atropine for bradycardia. High-dose insulin therapy was used in 14 patients, of whom two did not survive. In the cohort study, 66 calcium channel blocker toxicity patients were included. These patients were treated with high-dose insulin therapy. A total of 11 patients with calcium channel blocker toxicity succumbed. Although it was found to be associated with improved hemodynamic parameters and lower mortality, side effects such as hypokalemia and hypoglycemia were noted. Intravenous lipid emulsion therapy (administered to eight patients), extracorporeal life support (used in three patients with refractory shock or cardiac arrest), injection glucagon, methylene blue, albumin infusion, and terlipressin were associated with a lower mortality rate as well as improvement in hemodynamic parameters. None of the case reports provided any information on end-organ damage on long-term follow-up.
PubMed: 37664357
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.42854 -
Journal of Neurology Dec 2023Our systematic review examines the effectiveness and safety of non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions in preventing or treating traumatic brain injury...
BACKGROUND
Our systematic review examines the effectiveness and safety of non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions in preventing or treating traumatic brain injury (TBI)-related delirium in acute care.
METHODS
We searched four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CDSR, and PsycINFO) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental, and observational studies. Eligible studies included adults with TBI, at least one comparator group, delirium as an outcome and took place in acute care. Two reviewers independently completed all study screening, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool for RCTs or risk of bias in non-randomized studies-of interventions tool for observational studies. We implemented the PROGRESS-Plus framework to describe social determinants of health (SDoH) reporting.
RESULTS
We identified 20,022 citations, reviewed 301 in full text, and included eight studies in the descriptive synthesis. The mean age of study participants ranged from 32 to 62 years. 12.5% of included studies reported SDoH. Included studies had moderate-to-high risk of bias. Studies compared reorientation programs and an intervention bundle to usual care, but these interventions were not better than usual care in treating TBI-related delirium. Individual studies found that rosuvastatin and aripiprazole were more efficacious than placebo, and dexmedetomidine was more efficacious than propofol and haloperidol for preventing TBI-related delirium. No studies reported safety as the primary outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
We identified efficacious pharmacologic interventions for preventing TBI-related delirium, but these studies were at moderate-to-high risk of bias, which limits our confidence in these findings. Future studies should incorporate safety outcomes, and a diverse study population, including older adults.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Adult; Middle Aged; Haloperidol; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Propofol; Delirium
PubMed: 37634162
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-023-11889-7 -
Critical Care (London, England) Aug 2023Haloperidol is frequently used in critically ill patients with delirium, but evidence for its effects has been sparse and inconclusive. By including recent trials, we... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Haloperidol is frequently used in critically ill patients with delirium, but evidence for its effects has been sparse and inconclusive. By including recent trials, we updated a systematic review assessing effects of haloperidol on mortality and serious adverse events in critically ill patients with delirium.
METHODS
This is an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials investigating haloperidol versus placebo or any comparator in critically ill patients with delirium. We adhered to the Cochrane handbook, the PRISMA guidelines and the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation statements. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and proportion of patients with one or more serious adverse events or reactions (SAEs/SARs). Secondary outcomes were days alive without delirium or coma, delirium severity, cognitive function and health-related quality of life.
RESULTS
We included 11 RCTs with 15 comparisons (n = 2200); five were placebo-controlled. The relative risk for mortality with haloperidol versus placebo was 0.89; 96.7% CI 0.77 to 1.03; I = 0% (moderate-certainty evidence) and for proportion of patients experiencing SAEs/SARs 0.94; 96.7% CI 0.81 to 1.10; I = 18% (low-certainty evidence). We found no difference in days alive without delirium or coma (moderate-certainty evidence). We found sparse data for other secondary outcomes and other comparators than placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Haloperidol may reduce mortality and likely result in little to no change in the occurrence of SAEs/SARs compared with placebo in critically ill patients with delirium. However, the results were not statistically significant and more trial data are needed to provide higher certainty for the effects of haloperidol in these patients.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
CRD42017081133, date of registration 28 November 2017.
Topics: Humans; Haloperidol; Coma; Critical Illness; Quality of Life; Delirium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37633991
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-023-04621-4