-
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Ondansetron is a selective antagonist of the serotonin 5-HT3 receptor that is commonly used to treat morning sickness. It is estimated that 70%-80% of pregnant women...
Ondansetron is a selective antagonist of the serotonin 5-HT3 receptor that is commonly used to treat morning sickness. It is estimated that 70%-80% of pregnant women suffer from morning sickness, a condition characterized by nausea and vomiting. However, it is still controversial regarding its safety during pregnancy, and continued research will be necessary to fully understand the risks and benefits associated with its use. Therefore, we aimed to identify and provide details of the efficacy and safety of ondansetron in clinical trials. A search was conducted of the ClinicalTrials.gov database on 13 April 2023, using the search term "ondansetron and pregnancy." Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined to identify relevant clinical trials. The inclusion criteria encompassed clinical trials related to pregnancy that utilized ondansetron as a treatment, while other clinical trials were excluded from consideration. All data extractions such as study title, study status, study type, intervention details, and outcome were collected. A total of 18 clinical trials were identified, of which only 6 focused on studying the effects of ondansetron. Their respective study titles, statuses, conditions, interventions, outcome measures, and enrollment sizes have been written in detail. The information collected from these trials will contribute to our understanding of the potential benefits and risks of ondansetron in the context of pregnancy and its complications. Ondansetron has been shown to be an effective treatment for nausea and vomiting, including pregnancy-related morning sickness. Further research is needed to better understand the potential risks and benefits associated with its use in pregnant women. ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier.
PubMed: 37936910
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1291235 -
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 -
Medicine Sep 2023Propofol is the most commonly used intravenous anesthetic medication and is most commonly associated with post-operative pain. Several drugs are investigated to reduce... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Propofol is the most commonly used intravenous anesthetic medication and is most commonly associated with post-operative pain. Several drugs are investigated to reduce post-operative pain caused by propofol injection. Ondansetron is a potent anti-emetic drug showing promising results as an analgesic. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of ondansetron to placebo and lidocaine in reducing post-operative pain caused by propofol injection.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) till May 2022. We conducted a meta-analysis using RevMan software version 5.4, and we assessed the quality of included RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
RESULTS
In our study, we included 23 RCTs with 2957 participants. Compared to placebo, ondansetron significantly increased the rate of no pain [risk ratio (RR) = 2.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.39-4.01)], and reduced moderate [RR = 0.39, 95% CI (0.30-0.52)] and severe pain [RR = 0.34, 95% CI (0.24-0.50)]. Furthermore, ondansetron significantly reduced PONV [RR = 0.73, 95% CI (0.58, 0.91)]. On the other hand, ondansetron showed an inferior efficacy to lidocaine regarding the incidence of no, moderate, and severe pain.
CONCLUSION
Ondansetron is effective in reducing post-operative propofol-induced pain. However, lidocaine is more effective than it.
Topics: Humans; Propofol; Lidocaine; Ondansetron; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37746949
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000035021 -
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 -
Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria (Sao... 2023To determine the prevalence and correlates of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) through a systematic review and meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To determine the prevalence and correlates of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria, an electronic search was performed in PubMed and Embase through May 17, 2022. All study designs that assessed a minimum of 20 schizophrenia-spectrum patients and provided data on TRS prevalence or allowed its calculation were included. Estimates were produced using a random-effects model meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The TRS prevalence across 50 studies (n = 29,390) was 36.7% (95%CI 33.1-40.5, p < 0.0001). The prevalence ranged from 22% (95%CI 18.4-25.8) in first-episode to 39.5% (95%CI 32.2-47.0) in multiple-episode samples (Q = 18.27, p < 0.0001). Primary treatment resistance, defined as no response from the first episode, was 23.6% (95%CI 20.5-26.8) vs. 9.3% (95%CI 6.8-12.2) for later-onset/secondary (≥ 6 months after initial treatment response). Longer illness duration and recruitment from long-term hospitals or clozapine clinics were associated with higher prevalence estimates. In meta-regression analyses, older age and poor functioning predicted greater TRS. When including only studies with lower bias risk, the TRS prevalence was 28.4%.
CONCLUSION
Different study designs and recruitment strategies accounted for most of the observed heterogeneity in TRS prevalence rates. The results point to early-onset and later-onset TRS as two separate disease pathways requiring clinical attention.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Clozapine; Prevalence; Schizophrenia; Drug Resistance
PubMed: 37718484
DOI: 10.47626/1516-4446-2023-3126 -
Psychopharmacology Oct 2023Clozapine is a unique medication with a potential role in the treatment of severe borderline personality disorder (BPD). (Review)
Review
RATIONALE
Clozapine is a unique medication with a potential role in the treatment of severe borderline personality disorder (BPD).
OBJECTIVES
The review examines the effectiveness of clozapine as a medication for management for severe BPD with high risk of suicide, violence or imprisonment, and aims to help guide clinical practice in managing severe BPD.
METHODS
A database search of the terms "Clozapine" AND "BPD"; "Antipsychotics" AND "BPD"; "Clozapine" AND "Borderline Personality Disorder"; and "Antipsychotics" AND "Borderline Personality Disorder" were performed in CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science. Full-text articles of clinical clozapine use for BPD were included for review.
RESULTS
A total of 24 articles consisting of 1 randomised control trial, 10 non-controlled trials, and 13 case reports were identified. Most of the studies reported benefits from clozapine when used for severe BPD. Many of the studies focused on clozapine use in BPD patients at high risk of suicide. Results from these non-controlled and case reports support the use of clozapine in patients with severe BPD at high risk of suicide.
CONCLUSION
There may be a role for clozapine in treating severe treatment refractory BPD, especially for those patients at high risk of suicide and frequent hospitalisations.
Topics: Humans; Clozapine; Antipsychotic Agents; Suicide; Borderline Personality Disorder; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37572113
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-023-06431-6 -
Molecular Psychiatry Aug 2023Antipsychotic drugs differ in their propensity to cause extrapyramidal side-effects (EPS), but their dose-effects are unclear. Therefore, we conducted a systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Antipsychotic drugs differ in their propensity to cause extrapyramidal side-effects (EPS), but their dose-effects are unclear. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. We searched multiple electronic databases up to 20.02.2023 for fixed-dose studies investigating 16 second-generation antipsychotics and haloperidol (all formulations and administration routes) in adults with acute exacerbations of schizophrenia. The primary outcome was the number of participants receiving antiparkinsonian medication, and if not available, the number of participants with extrapyramidal side-effects (EPS) and the mean scores of EPS rating scales were used as proxies. The effect-size was odds ratio (ORs) compared with placebo. One-stage random-effects dose-response meta-analyses with restricted cubic splines were conducted to estimate the dose-response curves. We also examined the relationship between dopamine D receptor (DR) occupancy and ORs by estimating occupancies from administrated doses. We included data from 110 studies with 382 dose arms (37193 participants). Most studies were short-term with median duration of 6 weeks (range 3-26 weeks). Almost all antipsychotics were associated with dose-dependent EPS with varied degrees and the maximum ORs ranged from OR = 1.57 95%CI [0.97, 2.56] for aripiprazole to OR = 7.56 95%CI [3.16, 18.08] for haloperidol at 30 mg/d. Exceptions were quetiapine and sertindole with negligible risks across all doses. There was very low quality of findings for cariprazine, iloperidone, and zotepine, and no data for clozapine. The DR occupancy curves showed that the risk increased substantially when DR occupancy exceeded 75-85%, except for DR partial agonists that had smaller ORs albeit high DR occupancies. In conclusion, we found that the risk of EPS increases with rising doses and differs substantially in magnitude among antipsychotics, yet exceptions were quetiapine and sertindole with negligible risks. Our data provided additional insights into the current DR therapeutic window for EPS.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Quetiapine Fumarate; Haloperidol; Clozapine; Receptors, Dopamine D2; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 37537284
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-023-02203-y -
European Archives of Psychiatry and... Jun 2024Clozapine is considered as the standard treatment for this subgroup, but the evidence is not unequivocal. There are several potential alternatives being used because of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Clozapine is considered as the standard treatment for this subgroup, but the evidence is not unequivocal. There are several potential alternatives being used because of the possible adverse effects of clozapine. We aimed to examine the efficacy and adverse events of different antipsychotics in treatment-resistant schizophrenia by performing a network meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group register for randomized-controlled trials (up to March 06, 2022) and MEDLINE (up to January 20, 2023). We included blinded and open studies and participants with a broad definition of treatment resistance. The primary outcome was overall symptoms of schizophrenia; secondary outcomes were response to treatment, positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, discontinuation, side effects, quality of life, and functioning. The study was registered in Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/9nf2y/ ).
RESULTS
We included 60 studies involving 6838 participants in the network meta-analysis. In the primary outcome, clozapine and olanzapine were more efficacious than risperidone, haloperidol, fluphenazine, sertindole, chlorpromazine, and quetiapine (range of mean SMDs, - 0.11 to - 0.48). The difference between clozapine and olanzapine was trivial and uncertain (SMD - 0.05, 95% CI, - 0.21 to 0.11). The result of other efficacy outcomes as well as subgroup and sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analysis. Clozapine and olanzapine were associated with more weight gain, and clozapine was associated with more sedation events compared to many other antipsychotics.
CONCLUSIONS
Clozapine remains the gold standard for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Olanzapine seems to be second-best and could be tried before switching to clozapine.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Schizophrenia, Treatment-Resistant; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Clozapine; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 37526675
DOI: 10.1007/s00406-023-01654-2 -
CNS Drugs Aug 2023Considering the improvement in adherence and convenience, once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) has been increasingly used in the treatment of schizophrenia.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effectiveness and Safety of Switching from Oral Antipsychotics to Once-Monthly Paliperidone Palmitate (PP1M) in the Management of Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
Considering the improvement in adherence and convenience, once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) has been increasingly used in the treatment of schizophrenia. However, the outcomes for patients who switch from oral antipsychotics (OAPs) to PP1M have not been reliably assessed. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of PP1M in the management of patients with schizophrenia with a prior history of OAP use.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library on 19 July 2022 to identify eligible studies. All studies that examined the effectiveness and safety of switching from OAPs to PP1M in patients with schizophrenia were included. The primary outcomes were relapse rate, hospitalisation rate, and the change from baseline in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score. The secondary outcomes included the changed number of inpatient visits, changed length of stay hospitalisation, change from baseline in the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) score and the personal and social performance (PSP) total score, response rate, proportion of treatment discontinuation, and adverse events. We included randomised-controlled trials (RCTs), single-arm studies, and observational studies. Case reports, case series, and reviews were excluded. The quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB2), the 9-point Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) instrument for non-randomised studies and cohort studies, and the 12-item National Institutes of Health (NIH) quality assessment tool for before-after (Pre-Post) study without control group. Follow-up times were reported as short- (≤ 13 weeks), medium- (14-26 weeks), and long term (≥ 27 weeks). Data were pooled using meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies with a total of 4740 patients were included. The long-term relapse rates and hospitalisation rates were 12% (95% CI 0.07-0.18) and 18% (95% CI 0.15-0.20), respectively. The short-, medium-, and long-term change in PANSS total score was - 21.69 (95% CI - 30.02 to -13.36), - 14.98 (95% CI - 21.45 to - 8.51) and - 17.88 (95% CI - 31.94 to -3.82), respectively. Approximately 50% of patients reported at least a 30% reduction in the PANSS score at the short-term follow-up. Improvements in CGI-S and PSP score were observed during various periods. There was a reduction in the length of stay hospitalisation and the number of inpatient visits at the medium- and long-term follow-ups. Low discontinuation and adverse event rates were reported.
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings, this study may support the efficacy and safety of switching from OAPs to PP1M for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. Future large-scale studies are warranted to confirm our findings.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Paliperidone Palmitate; Schizophrenia; Administration, Oral; Recurrence; Chronic Disease
PubMed: 37490267
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-023-01028-1