-
Journal of Affective Disorders Apr 2020Currently, no specific, systematic assessment tool for the monitoring and reporting of ketamine-related side effects exists. Our aim was to develop a comprehensive...
BACKGROUND
Currently, no specific, systematic assessment tool for the monitoring and reporting of ketamine-related side effects exists. Our aim was to develop a comprehensive Ketamine Side Effect Tool (KSET) to capture acute and longer-term side effects associated with repeated ketamine treatments.
METHODS
Informed by systematic review data and clinical research, we drafted a list of the most commonly reported side effects. Face and content validation were obtained via feedback from collaborators with expertise in psychiatry and anaesthetics, clinical trial piloting and a modified Delphi Technique involving ten international experts.
RESULTS
The final version consisted of four forms that collect information at time points: screening, baseline, immediately after a single treatment, and longer-term follow-up. Instructions were developed to guide users and promote consistent utilisation.
LIMITATIONS
Further evaluation of feasibility, construct validity and reliability is required, and is planned across multiple international sites.
CONCLUSIONS
The structured Ketamine Side Effect Tool (KSET) was developed, with confirmation of content and face validity via a Delphi consensus process. This tool is timely, given the paucity of data regarding ketamine's safety, tolerability and abuse potential over the longer term, and its recent adoption internationally as a clinical treatment for depression. Although based on data from depression studies, the KSET has potential applicability for ketamine (or derivatives) used in other medical disorders, including chronic pain. We recommend its utilisation for both research and clinical scenarios, including data registries.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Ketamine; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 32056935
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.01.120 -
JAMA Psychiatry Dec 2019Antidepressant use is increasing worldwide. Yet, contrasting evidence on the safety of antidepressants is available from meta-analyses, and the credibility of these...
IMPORTANCE
Antidepressant use is increasing worldwide. Yet, contrasting evidence on the safety of antidepressants is available from meta-analyses, and the credibility of these findings has not been quantified.
OBJECTIVE
To grade the evidence from published meta-analyses of observational studies that assessed the association between antidepressant use or exposure and adverse health outcomes.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Scopus, and PsycINFO were searched from database inception to April 5, 2019.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
Only meta-analyses of observational studies with a cohort or case-control study design were eligible. Two independent reviewers recorded the data and assessed the methodological quality of the included meta-analyses. Evidence of association was ranked according to established criteria as follows: convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or not significant.
RESULTS
Forty-five meta-analyses (17.9%) from 4471 studies identified and 252 full-text articles scrutinized were selected that described 120 associations, including data from 1012 individual effect size estimates. Seventy-four (61.7%) of the 120 associations were nominally statistically significant at P ≤ .05 using random-effects models. Fifty-two associations (43.4%) had large heterogeneity (I2 > 50%), whereas small-study effects were found for 17 associations (14.2%) and excess significance bias was found for 9 associations (7.5%). Convincing evidence emerged from both main and sensitivity analyses for the association between antidepressant use and risk of suicide attempt or completion among children and adolescents, autism spectrum disorders with antidepressant exposure before and during pregnancy, preterm birth, and low Apgar scores. None of these associations remained supported by convincing evidence after sensitivity analysis, which adjusted for confounding by indication.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study's findings suggest that most putative adverse health outcomes associated with antidepressant use may not be supported by convincing evidence, and confounding by indication may alter the few associations with convincing evidence. Antidepressant use appears to be safe for the treatment of psychiatric disorders, but more studies matching for underlying disease are needed to clarify the degree of confounding by indication and other biases. No absolute contraindication to antidepressants emerged from this umbrella review.
Topics: Adolescent; Antidepressive Agents; Apgar Score; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Child; Female; Humans; Mental Disorders; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Observational Studies as Topic; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Suicide, Attempted; Suicide, Completed
PubMed: 31577342
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.2859 -
JAMA Psychiatry Oct 2019Recent meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing clozapine with nonclozapine second-generation antipsychotics (NC-SGAs) in schizophrenia have... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Association With Hospitalization and All-Cause Discontinuation Among Patients With Schizophrenia on Clozapine vs Other Oral Second-Generation Antipsychotics: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies.
IMPORTANCE
Recent meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing clozapine with nonclozapine second-generation antipsychotics (NC-SGAs) in schizophrenia have challenged clozapine's superiority in treatment-resistant patients. However, patients in RCTs are not necessarily generalizable to those in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare various outcomes of clozapine vs oral NC-SGAs in cohort studies.
DATA SOURCES
Systematic literature search in PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL without language restriction from database inception until December 17, 2018.
STUDY SELECTION
Nonrandomized cohort studies reporting effectiveness and/or safety outcomes comparing clozapine with NC-SGAs in schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Independent investigators assessed studies and extracted data. Using a random-effects model, the study calculated risk ratio (RR) unadjusted for covariates and follow-up duration, number needed to treat/number needed to harm (NNT/NNH) for dichotomous data, and standardized mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) for continuous data.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Coprimary outcomes were hospitalization and all-cause discontinuation. Secondary outcomes included all effectiveness and safety outcomes reported in at least 3 analyzable studies.
RESULTS
Of 8446 hits, 68 articles from 63 individual cohort studies (n = 109 341) (60.3% male; mean [SD] age of 38.8 [6.5] years, illness duration of 11.0 [5.1] years, and study duration of 19.1 [23.3] months) were meta-analyzed. Compared with NC-SGAs, despite greater illness severity (17 studies [n = 38 766]; Hedges g, 0.222; 95% CI, 0.013-0.430; P = .04), clozapine was significantly associated with lower hospitalization risk (19 studies [n = 49 453]; RR, 0.817; 95% CI, 0.725-0.920; P = .001; NNT, 18; 95% CI, 12-40) and all-cause discontinuation (16 studies [n = 56 368]; RR, 0.732; 95% CI, 0.639-0.838; P < .001; NNT, 8; 95% CI, 6-12). Associations were statistically significant for comparisons with quetiapine fumarate and aripiprazole regarding hospitalization and all NC-SGAs, except aripiprazole, for all-cause discontinuation. Clozapine was also significantly associated with better outcomes regarding overall symptoms (SMD, -0.302; 95% CI, -0.572 to -0.032; P = .03) and Clinical Global Impressions scale severity (SMD, -1.182; 95% CI, -2.243 to -0.122; P = .03). Clozapine was significantly associated with increases in body weight (MD, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.31-3.08 kg; P = .02), body mass index (MD, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.24-1.68; P = .009), and type 2 diabetes (RR, 1.777; 95% CI, 1.229-2.570; P = .002; NNH, 27; 95% CI, 13-90).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In cohort studies, despite more severely ill patients being treated with clozapine, use of clozapine was associated with better key efficacy outcomes and higher cardiometabolic-related risk outcomes vs NC-SGAs.
Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Clozapine; Cohort Studies; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Hospitalization; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 31365048
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.1702