-
JAMA Psychiatry May 2024Cognitive impairment contributes significantly to clinical outcome and level of function in individuals with psychotic disorders. These impairments are present already... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Cognitive impairment contributes significantly to clinical outcome and level of function in individuals with psychotic disorders. These impairments are present already at psychosis onset at a group level; however, the question of heterogeneity in cognitive function among patients has not been systematically investigated.
OBJECTIVE
To provide an updated quantification of cognitive impairment at psychosis onset before patients receive potentially confounding antipsychotic treatment, and to investigate variability in cognitive function compared with healthy controls.
DATA SOURCES
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed articles were searched up to September 15, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Original studies reporting data on cognitive function in antipsychotic drug-naive patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP) were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data were independently extracted by 2 researchers. Cognitive tasks were clustered according to 6 domains of the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) Consensus Cognitive Battery and the domain of executive function. Random-effects model meta-analyses of mean differences and coefficient of variation ratios (CVRs) were performed, as well as meta-regressions, assessment of study quality, and publication bias.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The main outcome measure was Hedges g for mean differences in cognition and CVR for within-group variability.
RESULTS
Fifty studies were included in the analysis with a total of 2625 individuals with FEP (mean [SD] age, 25.2 [3.6] years, 60% male; 40% female) and 2917 healthy controls (mean [SD] age, 26.0 [4.6]; 55% male; 45% female). In all cognitive domains, the FEP group displayed significant impairment compared with controls (speed of processing: Hedges g = -1.16; 95% CI, -1.35 to -0.98; verbal learning: Hedges g = -1.08; 95% CI, -1.28 to -0.88; visual learning: Hedges g = -1.05; 95% CI, -1.27 to -0.82; working memory: Hedges g = -1.04; 95% CI, -1.35 to -0.73; attention: Hedges g = -1.03; 95% CI, -1.24 to -0.82; reasoning/problem solving: Hedges g = -0.90; 95% CI, -1.12 to -0.68; executive function: Hedges g = -0.88; 95% CI, -1.07 to -0.69). Individuals with FEP also exhibited a larger variability across all domains (CVR range, 1.34-1.92).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Results of this systematic review and meta-analysis identified cognitive impairment in FEP before the initiation of antipsychotic treatment, with large effect sizes. The high variability within the FEP group suggests the need to identify those individuals with more severe cognitive problems who risk worse outcomes and could benefit the most from cognitive remediation.
Topics: Humans; Psychotic Disorders; Cognitive Dysfunction; Executive Function; Cognition; Antipsychotic Agents; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 38416480
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.0016 -
General Hospital Psychiatry 2024This network meta-analysis assessed the efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This network meta-analysis assessed the efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP).
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials investigating SGAs for PDP up to October 26, 2023.
RESULTS
We included 16 trials (N = 1252) investigating clozapine, melperone, olanzapine, pimavanserin, quetiapine, ulotaront, and placebo. In comparisons between SGAs and placebo, the findings were: i) Standardized mean differences, 95% confidence intervals (SMDs, 95%CIs), for psychotic-symptom reduction revealed the first rank of clozapine (-1.31, -1.73 to -0.89), the second rank of pimavanserin, with significant inferiority of quetiapine (SMD = 0.47, 0.02 to 0.92); ii) Mean differences (MDs, 95%CIs) for abnormal movement, as assessed by the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale - Part III, indicated that clozapine had the least motor side effects (-0.92, -2.75 to 0.91); iii) Risk ratios (RRs, 95% CIs) for adverse-effect dropout rates were lowest for melperone (1.02, 0.20 to 5.24); and iv) RRs (95% CIs) for all-cause dropout rates were lowest for clozapine (0.73, 0.42 to 1.25).
CONCLUSIONS
For patients with PDP, clozapine may substantially reduce psychotic symptoms with minimal abnormal movement, high acceptability, and moderate overall tolerability. Pimavanserin, not quetiapine, could be an alternative.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Butyrophenones; Clozapine; Dyskinesias; Network Meta-Analysis; Parkinson Disease; Piperidines; Psychotic Disorders; Quetiapine Fumarate; Urea
PubMed: 38412585
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2024.02.008 -
The International Journal of... Mar 2024The efficacy of pharmacological and nutritional interventions in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) remains elusive. This study aims to investigate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of pharmacological and nutritional interventions in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) remains elusive. This study aims to investigate the efficacy of pharmacological and nutritional interventions in CHR-P and whether these interventions can enhance the efficacy of psychological treatments.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed data from 5 databases until July 24, 2021: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WanFang Data. The primary outcome was the transition to psychosis. Network meta-analyses were conducted at 3 time points (6, 12, and ≥24 months) considering both pharmacological/nutritional interventions alone and its combination with psychotherapy.
RESULTS
Out of 11 417 identified references, 21 studies were included, comprising 1983 participants. CHR-P participants receiving omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids treatment were associated with a lower probability of transition compared with placebo/control at 6 months (odds ratio [OR] = 0.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] = .01 to .054), 12 months (OR = 0.14, 95% CI = .03 to .66), and ≥24 months (OR = 0.16, 95% CI = .05 to .54). Moreover, risperidone plus psychotherapy was associated with a lower likelihood of transition at 6 months compared with placebo/control plus psychotherapy, but this result was not sustained over longer durations.
CONCLUSION
Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids helped in preventing transitions to psychosis compared with controls.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021256209.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Psychotic Disorders; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; Risperidone; Odds Ratio
PubMed: 38408281
DOI: 10.1093/ijnp/pyae014 -
Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology22q11.2 deletion syndrome confers significant risk for the development of schizophrenia. While current recommendations regarding the management of psychotic symptoms in...
BACKGROUND
22q11.2 deletion syndrome confers significant risk for the development of schizophrenia. While current recommendations regarding the management of psychotic symptoms in affected individuals are generally in keeping with treatment guidelines for general schizophrenia populations, evidence for the use of clozapine has come from case reports and retrospective observational data. As no reviews on the topic currently exist, a systematic review of clozapine use in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome was completed.
METHODS
In November 2023, a literature search was completed using both PubMed and Scopus to identify English-language articles that reported the use of clozapine in humans with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome.
RESULTS
Twenty-six articles describing 57 individuals were deemed eligible for inclusion. Most individuals had a diagnosis of treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Where reported, the mean or median dose of clozapine was relatively low, and the majority of individuals exhibited a good response (approximately 65.5% across individual case reports/series). While seizures were unsurprisingly the most commonly reported serious adverse effect, the majority of individuals were able to remain on (or be restarted on) clozapine by having their dose decreased and/or by adding an anticonvulsant (most commonly valproate).
CONCLUSIONS
This review reaffirms that individuals with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome may benefit from clozapine therapy even at a low dose, assuming they meet criteria for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and provided no contraindications exist. However, given the increased incidence of seizures in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, the use of prophylactic anticonvulsant therapy should be considered, and hypoparathyroidism/hypocalcemia screened for and corrected before the initiation of clozapine. It is also recommended that clozapine blood levels be monitored.
Topics: Humans; Clozapine; DiGeorge Syndrome; Antipsychotic Agents; Anticonvulsants; Retrospective Studies; Seizures
PubMed: 38407281
DOI: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001816 -
The Australian and New Zealand Journal... May 2024The 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome (22q11.2DS) is the most common microdeletion in humans with over 180 phenotypic expressions. Approximately 30-40% of affected individuals... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome (22q11.2DS) is the most common microdeletion in humans with over 180 phenotypic expressions. Approximately 30-40% of affected individuals will develop psychosis and 25% meet the criteria for schizophrenia. Despite this, pharmacotherapy for managing psychosis in 22q11.2DS is poorly understood and 22q11.2DS psychosis is frequently labelled as treatment resistant. The objectives of this paper are to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of pharmacotherapy for 22q11.2DS psychosis and evaluate the evidence for treatment resistance.
METHOD
A systematic search was performed using CINAHL, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Clinical Answers), EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection from inception to December 2022. It yielded 39 case reports, 6 case series and 1 retrospective study which met the inclusion criteria.
RESULTS
Based on the current literature, individuals with 22q11.2DS psychosis experience a greater rate of medical co-morbidities such as cardiac arrhythmias, seizures and movement disorders, which complicate pharmacotherapy. Poor tolerability rather than poor clinical response motivates the switching of antipsychotics, which may explain the labelling of treatment resistance in the literature.
CONCLUSION
There are insufficient data to recommend a single antipsychotic for 22q11.2DS psychosis. Nonetheless, with proactive management of co-morbidities, antipsychotic medication in 22q11.2DS psychosis is an effective treatment commonly resulting in improvement in quality of life.
Topics: Humans; DiGeorge Syndrome; Psychotic Disorders; Antipsychotic Agents
PubMed: 38383990
DOI: 10.1177/00048674241233118 -
European Neuropsychopharmacology : the... Mar 2024People with schizophrenia die prematurely, yet regional differences are unclear. PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review/random-effects meta-analysis of cohort studies... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
People with schizophrenia die prematurely, yet regional differences are unclear. PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review/random-effects meta-analysis of cohort studies assessing mortality relative risk (RR) versus any control group, and moderators, in people with ICD/DSM-defined schizophrenia, comparing countries and continents. We conducted subgroup, meta-regression analyses, and quality assessment. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were suicide-, /natural-cause- and other-cause-related mortality. We included 135 studies from Europe (n = 70), North-America (n = 29), Asia (n = 33), Oceania (n = 2), Africa (n = 1). In incident plus prevalent schizophrenia, differences across continents emerged for all-cause mortality (highest in Africa, RR=5.98, 95 %C.I.=4.09-8.74, k = 1, lowest in North-America, RR=2.14, 95 %C.I.=1.92-2.38, k = 16), suicide (highest in Oceania, RR=13.5, 95 %C.I.=10.08-18.07, k = 1, lowest in North-America, RR=4.4, 95 %C.I.=4.07-4.76, k = 6), but not for natural-cause mortality. Europe had the largest association between antipsychotics and lower all-cause mortality/suicide (Asia had the smallest or no significant association, respectively), without differences for natural-cause mortality. Higher country socio-demographic index significantly moderated larger suicide-related and smaller natural-cause-related mortality risk in incident schizophrenia, with reversed associations in prevalent schizophrenia. Antipsychotics had a larger/smaller protective association in incident/prevalent schizophrenia regarding all-cause mortality, and smaller protective association for suicide-related mortality in prevalent schizophrenia. Additional regional differences emerged in incident schizophrenia, across countries, and secondary outcomes. Significant regional differences emerged for all-cause, cause-specific and suicide-related mortality. Natural-cause death was homogeneously increased globally. Moderators differed across countries. Global initiatives are needed to improve physical health in people with schizophrenia, local studies to identify actionable moderators.
Topics: Humans; Schizophrenia; Antipsychotic Agents; Cohort Studies; Europe
PubMed: 38368796
DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2023.12.010 -
Journal of Affective Disorders May 2024Psychiatric disorders differ in their prevalence, symptom profiles, and disease courses in men and women. However, sex differences in psychiatric disorders have not...
BACKGROUND
Psychiatric disorders differ in their prevalence, symptom profiles, and disease courses in men and women. However, sex differences in psychiatric disorders have not received enough attention to guide treatment recommendations. This systematic review aims to summarize sex differences in the treatment responses and adverse effects of mood stabilizers and antipsychotics transdiagnostically.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA 2020 statement (CRD42020212478). A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus databases. Studies comparing mood stabilizer or antipsychotic treatment outcomes in men and women were included. JBI critical appraisal checklists were used to assess bias risk.
RESULTS
Out of 4866 records, 129 reports (14 on mood stabilizers, 115 on antipsychotics) with varying designs were included. Sample sizes ranged from 17 to 22,774 participants (median = 147). The most common psychiatric diagnoses were schizophrenia spectrum (n = 109, 84.5 %) and bipolar disorders (n = 38, 29.5 %). Only four studies explored sex differences in mood stabilizer treatment response. In 40 articles on antipsychotic treatment response, 18 indicated no sex difference, while 16 showed females had better outcomes. Women had more adverse effects with both mood stabilizers and antipsychotics. The risk of bias was low in 84 (65.1 %) of studies.
LIMITATIONS
Substantial heterogeneity among the studies precluded performing a meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
Number of studies focusing on sex differences in treatment outcomes of mood stabilizers is limited. Women may respond better to antipsychotics than men, but also experience more side effects. The impact of pharmacokinetics on sex differences warrants more attention.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Anticonvulsants; Antimanic Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Sex Characteristics
PubMed: 38367709
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2024.02.038 -
Journal of Psychiatric Research Apr 2024Cariprazine has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating bipolar depression and as an adjunctive treatment for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD).... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cariprazine has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating bipolar depression and as an adjunctive treatment for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). However, it remains unclear about its pharmacological efficacy in treating MDD. Therefore, a meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the adjunctive use of cariprazine in MDD.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched for eligible studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of cariprazine in patients with MDD up to November 15, 2023. The changes in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score and incidence of adverse events (AEs), which represents of efficacy and tolerability, are considered as the main outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 3066 patients with MDD included in all across 5 RCTs. With regard to MADRS score, cariprazine group showed better results than control group (SMD = -0.12, 95% CI -0.19 to -0.04, P = 0.002, 5 RCTs, n = 3066). Cariprazine, meanwhile, improved the MADRS response (RR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.31, P = 0.0004, 5 RCTs, n = 3066). For safety outcomes, statistical difference was observed in AEs (RR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.35, P < 0.00001, 5 RCTs, n = 3077). The suicide ideation and SAEs showed no statistical difference between two groups.
CONCLUSION
Cariprazine demonstrated antidepressant effect as an augmentation therapy in treating MDD. Meanwhile, the tolerability of it was acceptable as an adjunctive treatment. However, studies with larger sample sizes are still needed to explore the optimal dosage.
Topics: Humans; Depressive Disorder, Major; Antipsychotic Agents; Antidepressive Agents; Piperazines; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38367320
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.02.018 -
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Apr 2024Lamotrigine monotherapy is the first-line treatment for epilepsy in pregnant women. However, altered pharmacokinetics during pregnancy can lead to suboptimal drug levels...
BACKGROUND
Lamotrigine monotherapy is the first-line treatment for epilepsy in pregnant women. However, altered pharmacokinetics during pregnancy can lead to suboptimal drug levels and increased seizure risk. This systematic review aimed to evaluate current therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) strategies for lamotrigine monotherapy in pregnant women with epilepsy and provide guidance for monitoring and dose adjustments.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed using the Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-EMBASE, and Ovid-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Studies were included if data on lamotrigine dosing, concentration, TDM strategies, efficacy, or safety were available.
RESULTS
Eleven studies were analyzed, revealing heterogeneity in outcomes with selective reporting of TDM strategies; however, clear similarities were observed. Blood samples were collected every 1-3 months during pregnancy to maintain prepregnancy baseline drug levels. Lamotrigine's apparent and relative clearance increased across trimesters, particularly in the second and third trimesters, coinciding with a period of increased seizure frequency and required dose adjustments. Details on dose adjustments were limited. Some studies have proposed using the threshold of the ratio to the target concentration to predict increased seizure risk. No distinct association was observed between adverse newborn outcomes and lamotrigine dose or serum concentration. Few maternal adverse effects have been reported after delivery, confirming the necessity of empirical postpartum tapering.
CONCLUSIONS
Further studies are required to establish evidence-based standardized protocols encompassing all aspects of TDM. Early interventions, such as empirical dose increases during pregnancy and postpartum tapering, and routine monitoring from preconception to the postpartum period may enhance seizure control, reducing the risk of breakthrough seizures for the mother and unborn child.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Lamotrigine; Pregnant Women; Triazines; Anticonvulsants; Epilepsy; Seizures
PubMed: 38366344
DOI: 10.1097/FTD.0000000000001186 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry Mar 2024There are no recommendations based on the efficacy of specific drugs for the treatment of psychotic depression. To address this evidence gap, we did a network... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There are no recommendations based on the efficacy of specific drugs for the treatment of psychotic depression. To address this evidence gap, we did a network meta-analysis to assess and compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for psychotic depression.
METHODS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to Nov 23, 2023 for randomised controlled trials published in any language that assessed pharmacological treatments for individuals of any age with a diagnosis of a major depressive episode with psychotic features, in the context of major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder in any setting. We excluded continuation or maintenance trials. We screened the study titles and abstracts identified, and we extracted data from relevant studies after full-text review. If full data were not available, we requested data from study authors twice. We analysed treatments for individual drugs (or drug combinations) and by grouping them on the basis of mechanisms of action. The primary outcomes were response rate (ie, the proportion of participants who responded to treatment) and acceptability (ie, the proportion who discontinued treatment for any reason). We calculated risk ratios and did separate frequentist network meta-analyses by using random-effects models. The risk of bias of individual studies was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the confidence in the evidence with the Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023392926.
FINDINGS
Of 6313 reports identified, 16 randomised controlled trials were included in the systematic review, and 14 were included in the network meta-analyses. The 16 trials included 1161 people with psychotic depression (mean age 50·5 years [SD 11·4]). 516 (44·4%) participants were female and 422 (36·3%) were male; sex data were not available for the other 223 (19·2%). 489 (42·1%) participants were White, 47 (4·0%) were African American, and 12 (1·0%) were Asian; race or ethnicity data were not available for the other 613 (52·8%). Only the combination of fluoxetine plus olanzapine was associated with a higher proportion of participants with a treatment response compared with placebo (risk ratio 1·91 [95% CI 1·27-2·85]), with no differences in terms of safety outcomes compared with placebo. When treatments were grouped by mechanism of action, the combination of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor with a second-generation antipsychotic was associated with a higher proportion of treatment responses than was placebo (1·89 [1·17-3·04]), with no differences in terms of safety outcomes. In head-to-head comparisons of active treatments, a significantly higher proportion of participants had a response to amitriptyline plus perphenazine (3·61 [1·23-10·56]) and amoxapine (3·14 [1·01-9·80]) than to perphenazine, and to fluoxetine plus olanzapine compared with olanzapine alone (1·60 [1·09-2·34]). Venlafaxine, venlafaxine plus quetiapine (2·25 [1·09-4·63]), and imipramine (1·95 [1·01-3·79]) were also associated with a higher proportion of treatment responses overall. In head-to-head comparisons grouped by mechanism of action, antipsychotic plus antidepressant combinations consistently outperformed monotherapies from either drug class in terms of the proportion of participants with treatment responses. Heterogeneity was low. No high-risk instances were identified in the bias assessment for our primary outcomes.
INTERPRETATION
According to the available evidence, the combination of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and a second-generation antipsychotic-and particularly of fluoxetine and olanzapine-could be the optimal treatment choice for psychotic depression. These findings should be taken into account in the development of clinical practice guidelines. However, these conclusions should be interpreted cautiously in view of the low number of included studies and the limitations of these studies.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Depressive Disorder, Major; Fluoxetine; Perphenazine; Network Meta-Analysis; Bipolar Disorder; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Depression; Antipsychotic Agents; Olanzapine
PubMed: 38360024
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(24)00006-3