-
CNS & Neurological Disorders Drug... Jun 2024Recently, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (rimegepant, and ubrogepant), and selective serotonin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Safety and Efficacy of Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide Receptor Antagonists and Selective Serotonin Receptor Agonist in the Management of Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Recently, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (rimegepant, and ubrogepant), and selective serotonin receptor agonists (lasmiditan) in the management of migraine. However, the exact safety and efficacy profile of these drugs is unclear so far.
METHODS
The study's primary objective was to determine the exact safety and efficacy profile. The overall estimate was calculated in terms of risk ratios using a suitable model. The subgroup analysis was also performed to check the effect of individual drugs on the outcome, whereas sensitivity analysis was performed to check the effects of outliers on the outcome. All the analyses were performed using Rev Man 5. The drugs have shown significant improvement in efficacy parameters (pain freedom, most bothersome symptoms, phonophobia, nausea, and photophobia).
RESULTS
The subgroup analysis results have shown significant improvement in all efficacy parameters in the rimegepant and ubrogepant groups. The effect of ubrogepant on safety parameters was found to be non-significant, indicating a better safety profile of ubrogepant than lasmiditan.
CONCLUSION
The sensitivity analysis results have shown no effect of outliers on the efficacy parameters. Based on the available evidence, recently approved drugs are effective in the treatment of migraine, however, associated with few adverse drug reactions.
PubMed: 38847252
DOI: 10.2174/0118715273304677240529062909 -
Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Lurasidone Hydrochloride; Asthma; Piperazines; Female; Male; Schizophrenia; Adult
PubMed: 38820328
DOI: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001871 -
Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford,... Jun 2024Delirium is a neuropsychiatric condition that commonly occurs in medical settings, especially among older individuals. Despite the lack of strong evidence in the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Delirium is a neuropsychiatric condition that commonly occurs in medical settings, especially among older individuals. Despite the lack of strong evidence in the literature, haloperidol is considered the first-line pharmacological intervention. Unfortunately, its adverse effects can be severe, and psychiatrists are considering the use of alternative drugs targeting dopamine and serotonin domains (atypical antipsychotics). Among them, aripiprazole is considered to have one of the safest pharmacological profiles.
AIMS
The purpose of this study is to examine the studies on aripiprazole as a pharmacological treatment of delirium present in today's literature.
METHODS
We carried out systematic research of MedLine, PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and ScienceDirect examining articles written between January 2002 and September 2023, including experimental studies published in peer-reviewed journals.
RESULTS
The 6 final included studies examined a total of 130 patients, showing a delirium resolution in a 7-day span of 73.8% of patients treated with aripiprazole.
CONCLUSIONS
Considering the limited data currently available, we can assert that aripiprazole is at least as efficient as haloperidol, the true point is that it has a far better tolerability and safety profile. Nonetheless, further studies are necessary to provide more compelling data, together with a more precise indication regarding minimum efficient dose, as the main limitations of our review are the very small sample size, the small percentage of subjects with preexisting dementia, and the fact that most studies used scales with low specificity for the examined condition.
Topics: Aripiprazole; Humans; Delirium; Antipsychotic Agents; Haloperidol
PubMed: 38686649
DOI: 10.1177/02698811241249648 -
PloS One 2024To report the first and largest systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching in patients with treatment-resistant depression or major depressive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
OBJECTIVES
To report the first and largest systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) or major depressive disorder(MDD).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature retrieval via PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane until April 2023 for RCT, which evaluated the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching for patients with TRD or MDD. Outcomes measured were changes in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), response and remission rate, and serious adverse events.
RESULTS
Five RCTs, including 4480 patients, were included for meta-analysis. Among them, two RCTs were rated as "high risk" in three aspects (allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel and blinding of outcome assessment) because of the non-blind method, and the quality evaluation of the remaining works of literature was "low risk". Augmentation treatment with Aripiprazole (A-ARI) was associated with a significant higher response rate compared with augmentation treatment with bupropion (A-BUP) (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.25; P = 0.0007; I2 = 23%). Besides, A-ARI had a significant higher remission rate compared with switching to bupropion (S-BUP) (RR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.49; P = 0.05; I2 = 59%) and A-BUP had a significant higher remission rate compared with S-BUP (RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.36; P = 0.0004; I2 = 0%). In addition, there was no significant difference in remission rate(RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.17; P = 0.42; I2 = 33%), improvement of MADRS(WMD: -2.07; 95% CI: -5.84, 1.70; P = 0.28; I2 = 70%) between A-ARI and A-BUP. No significant difference was observed in adverse events and serious adverse events among the three treatment strategies.
CONCLUSIONS
A-ARI may be a better comprehensive antidepressant treatment strategy than A-BUP or S-BUP for patients with TRD or MDD. More large-scale, multi-center, double-blind RCTs are needed to further evaluated the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching treatment strategies.
Topics: Aripiprazole; Bupropion; Humans; Depressive Disorder, Major; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant; Treatment Outcome; Drug Therapy, Combination
PubMed: 38669232
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299020 -
Journal of Clinical PsychopharmacologyThe augmentative antidepressant effects of dopamine partial agonists (aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, and cariprazine) for treatment-resistant depression have been compared... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
The augmentative antidepressant effects of dopamine partial agonists (aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, and cariprazine) for treatment-resistant depression have been compared in a previous network meta-analysis. However, the comparative efficacy of the dose-responses of these drugs remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the dose-response relationships and compare the effects of each dopamine partial agonist doses.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINHAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases until January 1, 2023. Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials evaluating aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, and cariprazine for treatment-resistant depression were included. A random-effect dose-response model-based network meta-analysis was conducted. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023393035).
RESULTS
The maximum effective doses were 5.5 mg for aripiprazole, 1.6 mg for brexpiprazole, and 1.5 mg for cariprazine, respectively. Although all doses of the 3 drugs were significantly more effective than placebo, aripiprazole ranging from 5.5 to 12.5 mg was significantly more effective than brexpiprazole 0.5 mg and cariprazine ranging from 0.5 to 1 mg. Moreover, aripiprazole ranging from 7.5 to 12.5 mg was significantly more effective than all doses of cariprazine. In addition, brexpiprazole ranging from 1 to 3 mg was significantly more effective than cariprazine 0.5 mg and brexpiprazole ranging from 1.6 to 2.5 mg was significantly superior to cariprazine 1 mg. There were no doses at which brexpiprazole overcame aripiprazole, and cariprazine overcame aripiprazole or brexpiprazole.
CONCLUSIONS
Aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, and cariprazine may be effective in treatment-resistant depression in that order, with the maximum effective doses at 5.5 mg, 1.6 mg, and 1.5 mg, respectively.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant; Aripiprazole; Dopamine Agonists; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Piperazines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Quinolones; Thiophenes; Antidepressive Agents; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38639435
DOI: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001862 -
Journal of Psychiatric Research Jun 2024Variability in hepatic cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes such as 2C19 and 2D6 may influence side-effect and efficacy outcomes for antipsychotics. Aripiprazole and... (Review)
Review
Variability in hepatic cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes such as 2C19 and 2D6 may influence side-effect and efficacy outcomes for antipsychotics. Aripiprazole and risperidone are two commonly prescribed antipsychotics, metabolized primarily through CYP2D6. Here, we aimed to provide an overview of the effect of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 on side-effects of aripiprazole and risperidone, and expand on existing literature by critically examining methodological issues associated with pharmacogenetic studies. A PRISMA compliant search of six electronic databases (Pubmed, PsychInfo, Embase, Central, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) identified pharmacogenetic studies on aripiprazole and risperidone. 2007 publications were first identified, of which 34 were included. Quality of literature was estimated using Newcastle-Ottowa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) and revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The average NOS score was 5.8 (range: 3-8) for risperidone literature and 5 for aripiprazole (range: 4-6). All RCTs on aripiprazole were rated as high risk of bias, and four out of six for risperidone literature. Study populations ranged from healthy volunteers to inpatient individuals in psychiatric units and included adult and pediatric samples. All n = 34 studies examined CYP2D6. Only one study genotyped for CYP2C19 and found a positive association with neurological side-effects of risperidone. Most studies did not report any relationship between CYP2D6 and any side-effect outcome. Heterogeneity between and within studies limited the ability to synthesize data and draw definitive conclusions. Studies lacked statistical power due to small sample size, selective genotyping methods, and study design. Large-scale randomized trials with multiple measurements, providing robust evidence on this topic, are suggested.
Topics: Humans; Aripiprazole; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2D6; Risperidone; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C19; Antipsychotic Agents
PubMed: 38631139
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.04.001 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jun 2024Dopamine antagonists, 5-HT antagonists, and dexamethasone are frequently used in obstetrics to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However, the superiority... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dopamine antagonists, 5-HT antagonists, and dexamethasone are frequently used in obstetrics to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However, the superiority of any drug class is yet to be established. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of these antiemetics for PONV prophylaxis in women receiving neuraxial morphine for Caesarean delivery.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Wanfang Data for eligible randomised controlled trials. Primary outcomes were the incidences of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) within 24 h after surgery. We used a Bayesian random-effects model and calculated odds ratios with 95% credible intervals for dichotomous data. We performed sensitivity and subgroup analyses for primary outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 33 studies with 4238 women were included. In the primary analyses of all women, 5-HT antagonists, dopamine antagonists, dexamethasone, and 5-HT antagonists plus dexamethasone significantly reduced PON and POV compared with placebo, and 5-HT antagonists plus dexamethasone were more effective than monotherapy. In the subgroup analyses, similar results were seen in women receiving epidural morphine or intrathecal morphine alone but not in women receiving intrathecal morphine with fentanyl or sufentanil. However, most included studies had some concerns or a high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of the evidence was low or very low.
CONCLUSIONS
Combined 5-HT antagonists plus dexamethasone are more effective than monotherapy in preventing PONV associated with neuraxial morphine after Caesarean delivery. Future studies are needed to determine the role of prophylactic antiemetics in women receiving intrathecal morphine and lipophilic opioids.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL
PROSPERO CRD42023454602.
Topics: Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Morphine; Female; Antiemetics; Cesarean Section; Pregnancy; Dexamethasone; Network Meta-Analysis; Analgesics, Opioid; Dopamine Antagonists; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38627136
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2024.03.010 -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Jun 2024There has been a lack of research comparing the efficacy of various treatments for low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
There has been a lack of research comparing the efficacy of various treatments for low anterior resection syndrome (LARS).
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search across six electronic databases and a paired meta-analysis was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of the interventions. Furthermore, a network meta-analysis was utilized to compare the efficacy of different treatments for LARS.
RESULTS
This study encompassed nine randomized controlled trials, involving a total of 450 patients. Compared to routine care, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (follow-up<3 months) and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (3 months ≤ follow-up <6 months) were effective in reducing the LARS score. Pelvic floor rehabilitation (follow-up≤3 months) was effective in decreasing daily number of bowel movements when compared to routine care. The network meta-analysis indicated that 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (follow-up<3 months) were the most effective in reducing both the LARS score and the daily number of bowel movements. Transanal irrigation (3 months ≤ follow-up ≤ 12 months) was most effective in reducing the LARS score. Additionally, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists demonstrated relative efficacy in improving patients' quality of life (follow-up ≤ 1 month).
CONCLUSIONS
This review indicates that 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and anal irrigation show significant promise in the treatment of LARS. Nevertheless, the contributions of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation and pelvic floor rehabilitation to LARS treatment should not be overlooked. Given the clinical heterogeneity observed among the studies, the results should be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Pelvic Floor; Postoperative Complications; Proctectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectal Neoplasms; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Tibial Nerve; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 38626589
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108336 -
Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism &... May 2024Antiseizure medication (ASM) add-on to clozapine may be efficient to target clozapine-resistant mood or psychotic symptoms or clozapine-related adverse drug reactions...
INTRODUCTION
Antiseizure medication (ASM) add-on to clozapine may be efficient to target clozapine-resistant mood or psychotic symptoms or clozapine-related adverse drug reactions (ADR) such as seizures. We aimed to synthesize the information relevant for clinical practice on the risks and benefits of clozapine-ASM co-prescription.
AREAS COVERED
Articles were identified with MEDLINE, Web of Sciences and PsycINFO search from inception through October 2023. The review was restricted to ASM with mood-stabilizing properties or with potential efficacy for resistant psychotic symptoms (valproate (VPA), lamotrigine, topiramate, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine).
EXPERT OPINION
VPA add-on to clozapine is associated with a high risk of serious ADR (myocarditis, neutropenia, pneumonia) mostly explained by complex time-dependent drug-drug interactions. The initial inhibitory effects on clozapine metabolism require slow titration to avoid immuno-allergic reactions. After the titration period, VPA has mainly inductive effects on clozapine metabolism that are more marked in smokers requiring therapeutic drug monitoring. Lamotrigine and topiramate add-on may be recommended as the first-line treatment for clozapine-related seizures, but there is limited evidence regarding the efficacy of this strategy for clozapine-resistant psychotic symptoms. Carbamazepine should not be co-prescribed with clozapine because of its potential for agranulocytosis and for inducing clozapine metabolism.
Topics: Humans; Anticonvulsants; Antipsychotic Agents; Clozapine; Drug Interactions; Drug Monitoring; Drug Therapy, Combination; Psychotic Disorders; Seizures
PubMed: 38613254
DOI: 10.1080/17425255.2024.2343020 -
Psychiatry Research May 2024We aim to systematically review and meta-analyze the effectiveness and safety of psychedelics [psilocybin, ayahuasca (active component DMT), LSD and MDMA] in treating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We aim to systematically review and meta-analyze the effectiveness and safety of psychedelics [psilocybin, ayahuasca (active component DMT), LSD and MDMA] in treating symptoms of various mental disorders. Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and PubMed were searched up to February 2024 and 126 articles were finally included. Results showed that psilocybin has the largest number of articles on treating mood disorders (N = 28), followed by ayahuasca (N = 7) and LSD (N = 6). Overall, psychedelics have therapeutic effects on mental disorders such as depression and anxiety. Specifically, psilocybin (Hedges' g = -1.49, 95% CI [-1.67, -1.30]) showed the strongest therapeutic effect among four psychedelics, followed by ayahuasca (Hedges' g = -1.34, 95% CI [-1.86, -0.82]), MDMA (Hedges' g = -0.83, 95% CI [-1.33, -0.32]), and LSD (Hedges' g = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.03, -0.27]). A small amount of evidence also supports psychedelics improving tobacco addiction, eating disorders, sleep disorders, borderline personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and body dysmorphic disorder. The most common adverse event with psychedelics was headache. Nearly a third of the articles reported that no participants reported lasting adverse effects. Our analyses suggest that psychedelics reduce negative mood, and have potential efficacy in other mental disorders, such as substance-use disorders and PTSD.
Topics: Humans; Hallucinogens; Psilocybin; N-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine; Lysergic Acid Diethylamide; Mental Disorders; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
PubMed: 38574699
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2024.115886