Adverse events and treatment failure leading to discontinuation of recently approved antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: A network meta-analysis

Updating the Comparative Evidence on Second‐Generation Antipsychotic Use With Schizophrenia

Objective

The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of literature comparing second‐generation antipsychotics (SGAs) with each other and with first‐generation antipsychotics (FGAs) in treating schizophrenia.

Methods

MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO databases were searched through January 2020. Following standard methods, recent high‐quality systematic reviews of each drug comparison and subsequently published primary studies were included to update the meta‐analyses with any new data. Two reviewers independently conducted study selection, abstraction, and quality assessment.

Results

Two systematic reviews and 29 newer trials (total of 162 trials of SGAs, N=53,861; 116 trials of SGAs versus FGAs, N=119,558) were included. Most trials were of fair quality, industry‐funded, and included older SGAs and a few recently approved SGAs (asenapine, lurasidone, iloperidone, cariprazine, brexpiprazole and long‐acting injection [LAI] formulations of aripiprazole and paliperidone). Older SGAs had similar effects on function, quality of life, mortality, and adverse event incidence, although clozapine improved symptoms more than most other drugs and olanzapine and risperidone were superior to some other drugs. Olanzapine, risperidone, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole performed similarly on outcomes of benefit compared with haloperidol. Risperidone LAI and olanzapine resulted in fewer withdrawals due to adverse events, but risk of diabetes increased with olanzapine. Haloperidol had greater incidence of adverse events than did olanzapine and risperidone, but similar effects on other outcomes.

Conclusions

Most comparative evidence favored older SGAs, with clozapine, olanzapine, and risperidone superior on more outcomes than other SGAs. Older SGAs had similar benefits as haloperidol but with fewer adverse events.

Use of the second‐generation antipsychotics olanzapine, aripiprazole, risperidone, quetiapine, and ziprasidone resulted in similar function, quality of life, mortality, and overall incidence of adverse events.

Core illness symptoms improved more with olanzapine and risperidone than asenapine, quetiapine, or ziprasidone, and more with paliperidone than lurasidone or iloperidone.

Haloperidol showed similar benefits but more adverse events than did olanzapine or risperidone.

Efficacy and safety of drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis

The aim of this study is to gather evidence of head-to-head double-blind randomized-controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of available treatments for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. A systematic review was conducted by two independent reviewers in ten electronic databases (PROSPERO register CRD42016043239). Methodological quality of included studies was evaluated according to the Jadad scale. Network meta-analyses were performed including double-blinded head-to-head trials comparing active allopathic drugs in patients (0-18 years old) diagnosed with ADHD. The results of efficacy and safety of atomoxetine (ATX), bupropion, buspirone (BSP), dexamphetamine, edivoxetine (EDX), guanfacine (GXR), lisdexamfetamine (LDX), methylphenidate (MPH), mixed amphetamine salts, modafinil, pindolol (PDL), reboxetine (RBX), selegiline, and venlafaxine were analyzed using ADDIS software v.1.16.5. Forty-eight trials were identified (n = 4169 participants), of which 12 were used for efficacy analysis and 33 for safety analysis. On the CGI-I scale, the analysis revealed that MPH was more effective than ATX and GXR. For the safety outcomes, according to drug ranks, LDX was more likely to cause sleep disorders (39%) as well as loss of appetite (65%) and behavior problems such as irritability (60%). BSP (71%) and EDX (44%) caused less appetite decrease. For behavioral effects, PDL was considered safest (50%). For any adverse events, RBX (89%) was the safest alternative. The lack of head-to-head trials properly reporting outcomes of interest limited some comparisons. Network meta-analysis offered a broader overview on the available treatments for ADHD, especially for safety issues, and contributes towards evidence gathering and clinical practice decisions. A core outcome set for ADHD should be designed to guide the conduction and report of clinical trials.

The Role of Cannabis within an Emerging Perspective on Schizophrenia

Background: Approximately 0.5% of the population is diagnosed with some form of schizophrenia, under the prevailing view that the pathology is best treated using pharmaceutical medications that act on monoamine receptors. Methods: We briefly review evidence on the impact of environmental forces, particularly the effect of autoimmune activity, in the expression of schizophrenic profiles and the role of Cannabis therapy for regulating immunological functioning. Results: A review of the literature shows that phytocannabinoid consumption may be a safe and effective treatment option for schizophrenia as a primary or adjunctive therapy. Conclusions: Emerging research suggests that Cannabis can be used as a treatment for schizophrenia within a broader etiological perspective that focuses on environmental, autoimmune, and neuroinflammatory causes of the disorder, offering a fresh start and newfound hope for those suffering from this debilitating and poorly understood disease.

Iloperidone in the treatment of schizophrenia: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy

Introduction

Schizophrenia is a chronic and debilitating mental disorder that affects the patient’s and their family’s quality of life, as well as financial costs and health care settings. Despite the variety of available antipsychotics, optimal treatment outcomes are not always achieved. Novel drugs, such as iloperidone, can provide more effective, tolerable and safer strategies.

Aim

To review the evidence for the clinical impact of iloperidone on the treatment of patients with schizophrenia.

Evidence review

Clinical trials, observational studies and meta-analyses reached a common consensus that iloperidone is as effective as haloperidol, risperidone and ziprasidone in reducing schizophrenia symptoms. Similar amounts of adverse events and discontinuations were observed with iloperidone compared to placebo and active treatments. Common adverse events are mild and include dizziness, hypotension, dry mouth and weight gain. Iloperidone can induce extension of QTc interval, and clinicians should be aware of its contraindications. In long-term trials, iloperidone also showed promising safety and tolerability profiles. The low propensity to cause akathisia, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), increased prolactin levels or changes to metabolic laboratory parameters support its use in practice. Results showed that iloperidone prevents relapse in stabilized patients, with a time to relapse superior to placebo and similar to haloperidol. Patients using a prior antipsychotic (eg, risperidone and aripiprazole) can easily switch to iloperidone with no serious impact on safety or efficacy. However, the acquisition costs of iloperidone may hamper its use. Further evidence comparing iloperidone with other antipsychotics, and pharmacoeconomic studies would be welcome.

Place in therapy

Considering just the clinical profile of iloperidone, it represents a promising drug for treating schizophrenia, particularly in patients who are intolerant to previous antipsychotics, as well as being suitable as first-line therapy. Cost-effectiveness comparisons are needed to justify its use in clinical practice.