-
Bipolar Disorders Jun 2022Cognitive impairments are an emerging treatment target in mood disorders, but currently there are no evidence-based pro-cognitive treatments indicated for patients in... (Review)
Review
Randomised controlled cognition trials in remitted patients with mood disorders published between 2015 and 2021: A systematic review by the International Society for Bipolar Disorders Targeting Cognition Task Force.
BACKGROUND
Cognitive impairments are an emerging treatment target in mood disorders, but currently there are no evidence-based pro-cognitive treatments indicated for patients in remission. With this systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) Targeting Cognition Task force provides an update of the most promising treatments and methodological recommendations.
METHODS
The review included RCTs of candidate pro-cognitive interventions in fully or partially remitted patients with major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder. We followed the procedures of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Searches were conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycInfo, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from January 2015, when two prior systematic reviews were conducted, until February 2021. Two independent authors reviewed the studies with the Revised Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool for Randomised trials.
RESULTS
We identified 16 RCTs (N = 859) investigating cognitive remediation (CR; k = 6; N = 311), direct current or repetitive magnetic stimulation (k = 3; N = 127), or pharmacological interventions (k = 7; N = 421). CR showed most consistent cognitive benefits, with two trials showing improvements on primary outcomes. Neuromodulatory interventions revealed no clear efficacy. Among pharmacological interventions, modafinil and lurasidone showed early positive results. Sources of bias included small samples, lack of pre-screening for objective cognitive impairment, no primary outcome and no information on allocation sequence masking.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence for pro-cognitive treatments in mood disorders is emerging. Recommendations are to increase sample sizes, pre-screen for impairment in targeted domain(s), select one primary outcome, aid transfer to real-world functioning, investigate multimodal interventions and include neuroimaging.
Topics: Bipolar Disorder; Cognition; Cognitive Dysfunction; Humans; Lurasidone Hydrochloride; Mood Disorders
PubMed: 35174594
DOI: 10.1111/bdi.13193 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022Whilst antipsychotics are the mainstay of treatment for schizophrenia spectrum disorders, there have been numerous attempts to identify biomarkers that can predict... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Whilst antipsychotics are the mainstay of treatment for schizophrenia spectrum disorders, there have been numerous attempts to identify biomarkers that can predict treatment response. One potential marker may be psychomotor abnormalities, including catatonic symptoms. Early studies suggested that catatonic symptoms predict poor treatment response, whilst anecdotal reports of rare adverse events have been invoked against antipsychotics. The efficacy and safety of antipsychotics in the treatment of this subtype of schizophrenia have rarely been studied in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of any single antipsychotic medication with another antipsychotic or with other pharmacological agents, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), other non-pharmacological neuromodulation therapies (e.g. transcranial magnetic stimulation), or placebo for treating positive, negative, and catatonic symptoms in people who have schizophrenia spectrum disorders with catatonic symptoms.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, the ISRCTN registry, and WHO ICTRP, on 19 September 2021. There were no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. We also manually searched reference lists from the included studies, and contacted study authors when relevant.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All RCTs comparing any single antipsychotic medication with another antipsychotic or with other pharmacological agents, ECT, other non-pharmacological neuromodulation therapies, or placebo for people who have schizophrenia spectrum disorders with catatonic symptoms.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
two review authors independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data, and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we planned to calculate risk ratios and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous outcomes, we planned to calculate mean differences between groups and their 95% CI. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies, and created a summary of findings table; however, we did not assess the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach because there was no quantitative evidence in the included study.
MAIN RESULTS
Out of 53 identified reports, one RCT including 14 hospitalised adults with schizophrenia and catatonic symptoms met the inclusion criteria of the review. The study, which was conducted in India and lasted only three weeks, compared risperidone with ECT in people who did not respond to an initial lorazepam trial. There were no usable data reported on the primary efficacy outcomes of clinically important changes in positive, negative, or catatonic symptoms. Whilst both study groups improved in catatonia scores on the Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS), the ECT group showed significantly greater improvement at week 3 endpoint (mean +/- estimated standard deviation; 0.68 +/- 4.58; N = 8) than the risperidone group (6.04 +/- 4.58; N = 6; P = 0.035 of a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures originally conducted in the trial). Similarly, both groups improved on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores by week 3, but ECT showed significantly greater improvement in positive symptoms scores compared with risperidone (P = 0.04). However, data on BFCRS scores in the ECT group appeared to be skewed, and mean PANSS scores were not reported, thereby precluding further analyses of both BFCRS and PANSS data according to the protocol. Although no cases of neuroleptic malignant syndrome were reported, extrapyramidal symptoms as a primary safety outcome were reported in three cases in the risperidone group. Conversely, headache (N = 6), memory loss (N = 4), and a prolonged seizure were reported in people receiving ECT. These adverse effects, which were assessed as specific for antipsychotics and ECT, respectively, were the only adverse effects reported in the study. However, the exact number of participants with adverse events was not clearly reported in both groups, precluding further analysis. Our results were based only on a single study with a very small sample size, short duration of treatment, unclear or high risk of bias due to unclear randomisation methods, possible imbalance in baseline characteristics, skewed data, and selective reporting. Data on outcomes of general functioning, global state, quality of life, and service use, as well as data on specific phenomenology and duration of catatonic symptoms, were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found only one small, short-term trial suggesting that risperidone may improve catatonic and positive symptoms scale scores amongst people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and catatonic symptoms, but that ECT may result in greater improvement in the first three weeks of treatment. Due to small sample size, methodological shortcomings and brief duration of the study, as well as risk of bias, the evidence from this review is of very low quality. We are uncertain if these are true effects, limiting any conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence. No cases of neuroleptic malignant syndrome were reported, but we cannot rule out the risk of this or other rare adverse events in larger population samples. High-quality trials continue to be necessary to differentiate treatments for people with symptoms of catatonia in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. The lack of consensus on the psychopathology of catatonia remains a barrier to defining treatments for people with schizophrenia. Better understanding of the efficacy and safety of antipsychotics may clarify treatment for this unique subtype of schizophrenia.
Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Catatonia; Humans; Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome; Risperidone; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 35844143
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013100.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2005Benperidol is a relatively old antipsychotic drug that has been marketed since 1966. It has been used in Germany for 30 years, but is also available in Belgium, Greece,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Benperidol is a relatively old antipsychotic drug that has been marketed since 1966. It has been used in Germany for 30 years, but is also available in Belgium, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK. Benperidol is a butyrophenone antipsychotic, with the highest neuroleptic potency in terms of D2 receptor blockade. Those taking it are therefore reputed to be at high risk of extrapyramidal side effects, but benperidol's unusual profile may render it valuable to subgroups of people with schizophrenia.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the clinical effects and safety of benperidol for those with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (November 2004) for this update.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials that compared benperidol with other treatments for people with schizophrenia, or schizophrenia-like psychoses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We reliably selected studies, quality rated them and extracted data. We independently extracted data but excluded data if loss to follow up was greater than 50%. For dichotomous data, we estimated relative risks (RR), with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, we calculated the number needed to treat/harm statistic (NNT/H) and used intention-to-treat analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
The update yielded no further studies for inclusion in the review. We identified only one unpublished poorly randomised controlled trial (N=40, duration 30 days, comparison perphenazine). Although benperidol was inferior to perphenazine (1 RCT, N=40, global state no better or worse RR 8.0 CI 2.1 to 30, NNH 1.4 CI 1 to 2) poor reporting suggests that an overestimate of effect is likely. It was not possible to report other outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently, there are insufficient data from randomised trials to assess the clinical effects of benperidol. This compound merits further research interest.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Benperidol; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 15846648
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003083.pub2 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Mar 2012Nausea and vomiting occur commonly during and after Caesarean delivery (CD) performed under neuraxial anaesthesia. Metoclopramide is a prokinetic agent reported to be... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Nausea and vomiting occur commonly during and after Caesarean delivery (CD) performed under neuraxial anaesthesia. Metoclopramide is a prokinetic agent reported to be safe in parturients. This meta-analysis assesses the efficacy of metoclopramide for prophylaxis against intra- and postoperative nausea and vomiting (IONV and PONV) in parturients undergoing CD under neuraxial anaesthesia. We performed a literature search of MEDLINE (1966-2011), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE (1947-2011), Google scholar, and CINAHL for randomized controlled trials which compared metoclopramide with placebo in women having CD under neuraxial anaesthesia. Eleven studies with 702 patients were included in the analysis. Administration of metoclopramide (10 mg) resulted in a significant reduction in the incidence of ION and IOV when given before block placement [relative risk (RR) (95% confidence interval, 95% CI)=0.27 (0.16, 0.45) and 0.14 (0.03, 0.56), respectively] or after delivery [RR (95% CI)=0.38 (0.20, 0.75) and 0.34 (0.18, 0.66), respectively]. The incidence of early (0-3 or 0-4 h) PON and POV [RR (95% CI)=0.47 (0.26, 0.87) and 0.45 (0.21, 0.93), respectively] and overall (0-24 or 3-24 h) PON (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.52, 0.92) were also reduced with metoclopramide. Extra-pyramidal side-effects were not reported in any patient. In conclusion, this review suggests that metoclopramide is effective and safe for IONV and PONV prophylaxis in this patient population. Given the quality of the studies and the infrequent use of neuraxial opioids, these results should be interpreted with caution in current practice and further studies are needed to confirm those findings.
Topics: Anesthesia, Conduction; Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Antiemetics; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Intraoperative Complications; Metoclopramide; Nausea; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Pregnancy; Vomiting
PubMed: 22307240
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aer509 -
Advances in Therapy May 2022Dementia-related psychosis (DRP) is characterized by hallucinations and delusions, which may increase the debilitating effects of underlying dementia. This network... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Dementia-related psychosis (DRP) is characterized by hallucinations and delusions, which may increase the debilitating effects of underlying dementia. This network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated the comparative efficacy, safety, and acceptability of atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) commonly used off label to treat DRP.
METHODS
We included 22 eligible studies from a systematic literature review of AAPs (quetiapine, risperidone, olanzapine, aripiprazole, and brexpiprazole) used off label to treat DRP. Study outcomes were: (1) efficacy-neuropsychiatric inventory-nursing home (NPI-NH psychosis subscale), (2) safety-mortality, cerebrovascular events (CVAEs), and others (somnolence, falls, fractures, injuries, etc.), and (3) acceptability-discontinuations due to all causes, lack of efficacy, and adverse events (AEs). We used random-effects modeling to estimate pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) for NPI-NH psychosis subscale scores and odds ratios (OR) for other dichotomous outcomes, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Compared with placebo, aripiprazole (SMD - 0.12; 95% CI - 0.31, 0.06), and olanzapine (SMD - 0.17; 95% CI - 0.04; 0.02) demonstrated small, non-significant numerical improvements in NPI-NH psychosis scores (5 studies; n = 1891), while quetiapine (SMD 0.04; 95% CI - 0.23, 0.32) did not improve symptoms. The odds of mortality (15 studies, n = 4989) were higher for aripiprazole (OR 1.58; 95% CI 0.62, 4.04), brexpiprazole (OR 2.22; 95% CI 0.30, 16.56), olanzapine (OR 2.21; 95% CI 0.84, 5.85), quetiapine (OR 1.68; 95% CI 0.70, 4.03), and risperidone (OR 1.63; 95% CI 0.93, 2.85) than for placebo. Risperidone (OR 3.68; 95% CI 1.68, 8.95) and olanzapine (OR 4.47; 95% CI 1.36, 14.69) demonstrated significantly greater odds of CVAEs compared to placebo. Compared with placebo, odds of all-cause discontinuation were significantly lower for aripiprazole (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.51, 0.98; 20 studies; 5744 patients) and higher for other AAPs. Aripiprazole (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.31, 0.82) and olanzapine (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.31, 0.74) had significantly lower odds of discontinuation due to lack of efficacy (OR 12 studies; n = 4382) compared to placebo, while results for quetiapine and risperidone were not significant. Compared with placebo, the odds of discontinuation due to AEs (19 studies, n = 5445) were higher for olanzapine (OR 2.62; 95% CI 1.75, 3.92), brexpiprazole (OR 1.80; 95% CI 0.80, 4.07), quetiapine (OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.82, 1.91), aripiprazole (OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.90, 2.13), and risperidone (OR 1.41; 95% CI 1.02, 1.94).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall results demonstrate that, compared with placebo, quetiapine is not associated with improvement in psychosis in patients with dementia, while olanzapine and aripiprazole have non-significant small numerical improvements. These off-label AAPs (quetiapine, risperidone, olanzapine, aripiprazole, and brexpiprazole) are associated with greater odds of mortality, CVAEs, and discontinuations due to AEs than placebo. These results underscore the ongoing unmet need for newer pharmacological options with a more favorable benefit-risk profile for the treatment of DRP.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Benzodiazepines; Dementia; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Off-Label Use; Olanzapine; Psychotic Disorders; Quetiapine Fumarate; Risperidone; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35247186
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-022-02075-8 -
CNS Drugs Sep 2016Both the US FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have approved aripiprazole for use in adolescents for specific indications. Given the assumed favorable... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Both the US FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have approved aripiprazole for use in adolescents for specific indications. Given the assumed favorable side-effect profile of aripiprazole, its use in children and adolescents has increased for both official and off-label indications (anxiety disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders). However, several cases of children and adolescents with new-onset extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) after commencing treatment with aripiprazole have been reported, and a more systematic appraisal of this possible risk is lacking.
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis to assess the evidence for acute EPS (acute dystonia, akathisia, Parkinsonism) associated with the use of aripiprazole in children and adolescents.
METHOD
We searched the MEDLINE and Embase databases (2003-10 April 2016) for clinical trials in pediatric patients (aged 0-18 years) using the keywords 'aripiprazole' (regardless of the formulation) and 'extrapyramidal symptoms'. We evaluated the abstracts of papers using the following exclusion criteria: (1) study design: case report, letter to the editor, editorial, or poster presentation data; (2) unrelated PICOS (population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, study) structure. We performed a meta-analysis, in which we used effect sizes with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). To examine the homogeneity of the effect size distribution, we used a Q-statistic. When we observed heterogeneity in effect sizes, we assessed the possible influence of moderator variables (age and sex, mean dose, study duration, and method of measuring EPS incidence) and evaluated the suitability of either a fixed or a random model. Finally, we assessed the incidence of EPS in children and adolescents treated with aripiprazole compared with placebo.
RESULTS
An initial search via PubMed and Embase yielded 328 hits. A manual search of the reference lists of review papers revealed seven additional relevant articles. We included 41 studies, with 2114 pediatric patients, in the meta-analysis. For the analysis of the mean incidence of EPS, data were provided by 24 studies, with a total of 1446 pediatric patients. Meta-analysis revealed a mean EPS incidence of 17.1 % (95 % CI 0.128-0.223). In terms of the incidence of various extrapyramidal side effects, overall, no significant effects of age, sex, mean dose, study duration, or measuring method could be demonstrated. The side effects 'EPS', 'parkinsonism', and 'tremor' were significantly more common in children and adolescents treated with aripiprazole than in those treated with placebo.
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis provides evidence for a non-negligible incidence of acute EPS in children and adolescents treated with aripiprazole. Although the study has several limitations and further investigation is needed, these findings may help clinicians make more balanced treatment choices and more closely monitor the use of this drug in youth.
Topics: Adolescent; Age Factors; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Basal Ganglia Diseases; Child; Dyskinesia, Drug-Induced; Humans; Incidence
PubMed: 27395403
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-016-0367-y -
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 -
Basic & Clinical Pharmacology &... Jan 2019The effect of risperidone treatment in patients with schizophrenia varies according to the dopamine receptor genes. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The effect of risperidone treatment in patients with schizophrenia varies according to the dopamine receptor genes. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between genes of the dopamine receptors (D1, D2, and D3) and the effect of risperidone treatment.
METHODS
Three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were searched for relevant cohort or case-control studies published before 9 May 2018. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed for qualitative and quantitative assessment of the relationship between the dopamine receptors D1, D2, and D3 (DRD1, 2, and 3) and the effect of risperidone treatment. The summary odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) in a random-effects model were used to measure these relationships.
RESULTS
Twelve studies involving 24 SNPs were included. DRD2 (Ser311Cys, rs1801028 Ser/Ser) significantly lowered the improvement rate (determined by the PANSS score) unlike Ser/Cys (WMD: -11.58, 95% CI: -17.35 to -5.18). For Asian patients, A241G (rs1799978) AA carriers showed greater improvement after risperidone therapy (P < 0.05). The polymorphisms of 141C Ins/Del (rs1799732), T939C (rs6275), rs6277, and TaqID (rs1800498) may also influence the treatment effect. TaqIA (rs1800497) and TaqIB (rs17294542) were not associated with the rate of response to risperidone. DRD3 was not associated with an improvement in the PANSS total score; however, Ser9Gly might be related to a change in negative symptoms. No significant effect of DRD1 (rs5326, rs4867798, rs4532, and rs11749676) was found.
CONCLUSIONS
Our result supported the hypothesis that DRD2 affected risperidone treatment. DRD1 had no significant effect on the response to risperidone, whereas DRD3 might be associated with an improvement in negative symptoms. Larger observational studies are warranted to verify these findings and identify other genetic factors involved.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Humans; Pharmacogenomic Variants; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; Receptors, Dopamine D1; Receptors, Dopamine D2; Receptors, Dopamine D3; Risperidone; Schizophrenia; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30103286
DOI: 10.1111/bcpt.13111 -
Journal of Managed Care & Specialty... Feb 2024Schizophrenia is a chronic, relapsing, and burdensome psychiatric disorder affecting approximately 0.25%-0.6% of the US population. Oral antipsychotic treatment (OAT)... (Review)
Review
A systematic review of the real-world effectiveness and economic and humanistic outcomes of selected oral antipsychotics among patients with schizophrenia in the United States: Updating the evidence and gaps.
BACKGROUND
Schizophrenia is a chronic, relapsing, and burdensome psychiatric disorder affecting approximately 0.25%-0.6% of the US population. Oral antipsychotic treatment (OAT) remains the cornerstone for managing schizophrenia. However, nonadherence and high treatment failure lead to increased disease burden and medical spending. Cost-effective management of schizophrenia requires understanding the value of current therapies to facilitate better planning of management policies while addressing unmet needs.
OBJECTIVE
To review existing evidence and gaps regarding real-world effectiveness and economic and humanistic outcomes of OATs, including asenapine, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, iloperidone, lumateperone, lurasidone, olanzapine/samidorphan, paliperidone, and quetiapine.
METHODS
We conducted a literature search using PubMed, American Psychological Association PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature from January 2010 to March 2022 as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. English-language articles describing adults with schizophrenia receiving at least 1 of the selected OATs and reporting real-world effectiveness, direct or indirect costs, humanistic outcomes, behavioral outcomes, adherence/persistence patterns, or product switching were identified.
RESULTS
We identified 25 studies from a total of 24,190 articles. Real-world effectiveness, cost, and adherence/persistence outcomes were reported for most OATs that were selected. Humanistic outcomes and product switching were reported only for lurasidone. Behavioral outcomes (eg, interpersonal relations and suicide ideation) were not reported for any OAT. The key economic outcomes across studies were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, cost per quality-adjusted life-years, and health care costs. In studies that compared long-acting injectables (LAIs) with OATs, LAIs had a higher pharmacy and lower medical costs, while total health care cost was similar between LAIs and OATs. Indirect costs associated with presenteeism, absenteeism, or work productivity were not reported for any of the selected OATs. Overall, patients had poor adherence to OATs, ranging between 20% and 61% across studies. Product switching did not impact the all-cause health care costs before and after treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings showed considerable gaps exist for evidence on behavioral outcomes, humanistic outcomes, medication switching, and adherence/persistence across OATs. Our findings also suggest an unmet need regarding treatment nonadherence and lack of persistence among patients receiving OATs. We identified a need for research addressing OATs' behavioral and humanistic outcomes and evaluating the impact of product switching in adults with schizophrenia in the United States, which could assist clinicians in promoting patient-centered care and help payers understand the total value of new antipsychotic drugs.
Topics: Adult; Humans; United States; Antipsychotic Agents; Schizophrenia; Lurasidone Hydrochloride; Paliperidone Palmitate; Quetiapine Fumarate
PubMed: 38308625
DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2024.30.2.183 -
European Psychiatry : the Journal of... Mar 2024We employed a Bayesian network meta-analysis for comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved atypical antipsychotics... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We employed a Bayesian network meta-analysis for comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) for the treatment of bipolar patients with depressive episodes. Sixteen randomized controlled trials with 7234 patients treated by one of the five AAPs (cariprazine, lumateperone, lurasidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine) were included. For the response rate (defined as an improvement of ≥50% from baseline on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS]), all AAPs were more efficacious than placebo. For the remission rate (defined as the endpoint of MADRS ≤12 or ≤ 10), cariprazine, lurasidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine had higher remission rates than placebo. In terms of tolerability, olanzapine was unexpectedly associated with lower odds of all-cause discontinuation in comparison with placebo, whereas quetiapine was associated with higher odds of discontinuation due to adverse events than placebo. Compared with placebo, lumateperone, olanzapine, and quetiapine showed higher odds of somnolence. Lumateperone had a lower rate of ≥ weight gain of 7% than placebo and other treatments. Olanzapine was associated with a significant increase from baseline in total cholesterol and triglycerides than placebo. These findings inform individualized prescriptions of AAPs for treating bipolar depression in clinical practice.
Topics: United States; Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Quetiapine Fumarate; Olanzapine; Lurasidone Hydrochloride; Network Meta-Analysis; United States Food and Drug Administration; Bayes Theorem; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38487836
DOI: 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2024.25