Single-arm meta-analysis of drug response in placebo-controlled versus active-controlled antipsychotic drug trials in schizophrenia

Antipsychotic drug efficacy may vary in placebo-controlled and active-controlled trials. The study aims to investigate the performance of antipsychotics in these two different study designs using single-arm meta-analysis. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing second-generation antipsychotics with placebo or other antipsychotics from our previous systematic reviews and updated the results with the search on Cochrane Schizophrenia Group register until March 06, 2022. The outcomes were the differences in the change of overall, positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, and the difference in study discontinuation between placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials. Random-effects single-arm meta-analysis and subgroup test were conducted to examine the differences in each outcome. A total of 208 RCTs (n = 42,159) were included in the analysis. Of these, 85 trials with 17,056 participants were placebo-controlled, while the remaining were head-to-head trials. Antipsychotics in head-to-head trials demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in overall symptoms (MC -23.58; 95 % CI -25.33, -21.83) compared to antipsychotics in placebo-controlled trials (MC -16.74; 95 % CI -17.80, -15.69; p < 0.0001). Similar findings were observed for positive symptoms, negative symptoms, study discontinuation and sensitivity analyses. Notably, when assessing antipsychotics individually, the same antipsychotic consistently demonstrated superior performance in head-to-head trials compared to placebo-controlled trials. In conclusion, antipsychotics in head-to-head trials presented a considerable efficacy superiority compared to those in placebo-controlled trials. Moreover, the efficacy of the same antipsychotics varied depending on the study design. Future trials should carefully consider the methodology and employ strategies to mitigate the potential for overestimation or underestimation of treatment efficacy.

Efficacy, acceptability and side-effects of oral versus long-acting- injectables antipsychotics: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

Long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) are primarily used for relapse prevention, but in some settings and situations, they may also be useful for acute treatment of schizophrenia. We conducted a systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), focusing on adult patients in the acute phase of schizophrenia. Interventions were risperidone, paliperidone, aripiprazole, olanzapine, and placebo, administered either orally or as LAI. We synthesized data on overall symptoms, complemented by 17 other efficacy and tolerability outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed with the Confidence-in-Network-Meta-Analysis-framework (CINeMA). We included 115 RCTs with 25,550 participants. All drugs were significantly more efficacious than placebo with the following standardized mean differences and their 95 % confidence intervals: olanzapine LAI -0.66 [-1.00; -0.33], risperidone LAI -0.59[-0.73;-0.46], olanzapine oral -0.55[-0.62;-0.48], aripiprazole LAI -0.54[-0.71; -0.37], risperidone oral -0.48[-0.55;-0.41], paliperidone oral -0.47[-0.58;-0.37], paliperidone LAI -0.45[-0.57;-0.33], aripiprazole oral -0.40[-0.50; -0.31]. There were no significant efficacy differences between LAIs and oral formulations. Sensitivity analyses of the primary outcome overall symptoms largely confirmed these findings. Moreover, some side effects were less frequent under LAIs than under their oral counterparts. Confidence in the evidence was moderate for most comparisons. LAIs are efficacious for acute schizophrenia and may have some benefits compared to oral formulations in terms of side effects. These findings assist clinicians with insights to weigh the risks and benefits between oral and injectable agents when treating patients in the acute phase.

Are the results of open randomised controlled trials comparing antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia biased? Exploratory meta- and subgroup analysis

A recent meta-epidemiological study did not reveal major differences between the results of blinded and open randomised-controlled trials (RCTs). Fewer patients may consent to double-blind RCTs than to open RCTs, compromising generalisability, making this question very important. However, the issue has not been addressed in schizophrenia. We used a database of randomised, acute-phase antipsychotic drug trials. Whenever at least one open and one blinded RCT was available for a comparison of two drugs, we contrasted the results by random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup tests. The primary outcome was overall symptoms as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, supplemented by seven secondary efficacy and side-effect outcomes. We also examined whether open RCTs were biased in favour of more recently introduced antipsychotics, less efficacious or more prone to side-effects antipsychotics, and pharmaceutical sponsors. 183 RCTs (155 blinded and 28 open) with 34715 participants comparing two active drugs were available. The results did not suggest general differences between open and blinded RCTs, which examined two active drugs. Only 12 out of 122 subgroup tests had a p-value below 0.1, four below 0.05, and if a Bonferroni correction for multiple tests had been applied, only one would have been significant. There were some exceptions which, however, did not always confirm the originally hypothesized direction of bias. Due to the relatively small number of open RCTs, our analysis is exploratory, but this fundamental question should be given more scientific attention. Currently, open RCTs should be excluded from meta-analyses, at least in sensitivity analyses.

Efficacy and effectiveness of antipsychotics in schizophrenia: network meta-analyses combining evidence from randomised controlled trials and real-world data

BACKGROUND

There is debate about the generalisability of results from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to real-world settings. Studying outcomes of treatments for schizophrenia can shed light on this issue and inform treatment guidelines. We therefore compared the efficacy and effectiveness of antipsychotics for relapse prevention in schizophrenia and estimated overall treatment effects using all available RCT and real-world evidence.

METHODS

We conducted network meta-analyses using individual participant data from Swedish and Finnish national registries and aggregate data from RCTs. The target population was adults (age >18 and <65 years) with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder with stabilised symptoms. We analysed each registry separately to obtain hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for relapse within 6 months post-antipsychotic initiation as our main outcome. Interventions studied were antipsychotics, no antipsychotic use, and placebo. We compared HRs versus a reference drug (oral haloperidol) between registries, and between registry individuals who would be eligible and ineligible for RCTs, using the ratio of HRs. We synthesised evidence using network meta-analysis and compared results from our network meta-analysis of real-world data with our network meta-analysis of RCT data, including oral versus long-acting injectable (LAI) formulations. Finally, we conducted a joint real-world and RCT network meta-analysis.

FINDINGS

We included 90 469 individuals from the Swedish and Finnish registries (mean age 45·9 [SD 14·6] years; 43 025 [47·5%] women and 47 467 [52·5%] men, ethnicity data unavailable) and 10 091 individuals from 30 RCTs (mean age 39·6 years [SD 11·7]; 3724 [36·9%] women and 6367 [63·1%] men, 6022 White [59·7%]). We found good agreement in effectiveness of antipsychotics between Swedish and Finnish registries (HR ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·88-1·08). Drug effectiveness versus no antipsychotic was larger in RCT-eligible than RCT-ineligible individuals (HR ratio 1·40 [1·24-1·59]). Efficacy versus placebo in RCTs was larger than effectiveness versus no antipsychotic in real-world (HR ratio 2·58 [2·02-3·30]). We found no evidence of differences between effectiveness and efficacy for between-drug comparisons (HR ratio vs oral haloperidol 1·17 [0·83-1·65], where HR ratio >1 means superior effectiveness in real-world to RCTs), except for LAI versus oral comparisons (HR ratio 0·73 [0·53-0·99], indicating superior effectiveness in real-world data relative to RCTs). The real-world network meta-analysis showed clozapine was most effective, followed by olanzapine LAI. The RCT network meta-analysis exhibited heterogeneity and inconsistency. The joint real-world and RCT network meta-analysis identified olanzapine as the most efficacious antipsychotic amongst those present in both RCTs and the real world registries.

INTERPRETATION

LAI antipsychotics perform slightly better in the real world than according to RCTs. Otherwise, RCT evidence was in line with real-world evidence for most between-drug comparisons, but RCTs might overestimate effectiveness of antipsychotics observed in routine care settings. Our results further the understanding of the generalisability of RCT findings to clinical practice and can inform preferential prescribing guidelines.

FUNDING

None.

Long-Acting Injectable Second-Generation Antipsychotics vs Placebo and Their Oral Formulations in Acute Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized-Controlled-Trials

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

Long-acting injectable antipsychotic drugs (LAIs) are mainly used for relapse prevention but could also be advantageous for acutely ill patients with schizophrenia.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled-trials (RCTs) comparing the second-generation long-acting injectable antipsychotics (SGA-LAIs) olanzapine, risperidone, paliperidone, and aripiprazole with placebo or their oral counterparts in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia. We analyzed 23 efficacy and tolerability outcomes, with the primary outcome being overall symptoms of schizophrenia. The results were obtained through random effects, pairwise meta-analyses, and subgroup tests. The study quality was assessed using the Cochrane-Risk-of-Bias-Tool version-1.

STUDY RESULTS

Sixty-six studies with 16 457 participants were included in the analysis. Eleven studies compared second-generation long-acting injectable antipsychotics (SGA-LAIs) with a placebo, 54 compared second-generation oral antipsychotics (SGA-orals) with a placebo, and one compared an SGA-LAI (aripiprazole) with its oral formulation. All 4 SGA-LAIs reduced overall symptoms more than placebo, with mean standardized differences of -0.66 (95% CI: -0.90; -0.43) for olanzapine, -0.64 (-0.80; -0.48) for aripiprazole, -0.62 (-0.76; -0.48) for risperidone and -0.42 (-0.53; -0.31) for paliperidone. The side-effect profiles of the LAIs corresponded to the patterns known from the oral formulations. In subgroup tests compared to placebo, some side effects were less pronounced under LAIs than under their oral formulations.

CONCLUSIONS

SGA-LAIs effectively treat acute schizophrenia. Some side effects may be less frequent than under oral drugs, but due to the indirect nature of the comparisons, this finding must be confirmed by RCTs comparing LAIs and orals head-to-head.

Relapse in clinically stable adult patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder: evidence-based criteria derived by equipercentile linking and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on defining relapse in schizophrenia, and scale-derived criteria with unclear clinical relevance are widely used. We aimed to develop an evidence-based scale-derived set of criteria to define relapse in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

METHODS

We searched the Yale University Open Data Access (YODA) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in clinically stable adults with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, and obtained individual participant data on Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S), Personal and Social Performance (PSP), and Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS). Our main outcomes were PANSS-derived criteria based on worsening in PANSS total score. We examined their relevance using equipercentile linking with CGI-S and functioning scales, and their test-performance in defining relapse with diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis against CGI-S worsening (≥1-point increase together with a score ≥4 points) and psychiatric hospitalisation.

FINDINGS

Based on data from seven RCTs (2354 participants; 1348 men [57·3%] and 1006 women [42·7%], mean age of 39·5 years [SD 12·0, range 17-89]; 303 Asian [12.9%], 255 Black [10.8%], 1665 White [70.7%], and other or unspecified 131 [5.6%]), an increase of 12 points or more in PANSS total (range 30-210 points) corresponded to clinically important deterioration in global severity of illness (≥1 point increase in CGI-S, range 1-7) and functioning (≥10 points decline in PSP or SOFAS, range 1-100). The interpretation of percentage changes varied importantly across different baseline scores. An increase of 12 points or more in PANSS total had good sensitivity and specificity using CGI-S as reference standard (sensitivity 82·1% [95% CI 77·1-86·4], specificity 86·9% [82·9-90·3]), as well as good sensitivity but lower specificity compared to hospitalisation (sensitivity 81·7% [74·1-87·7], specificity 69·2% [60·5-76·9]). Requiring either an increase in PANSS total or in specific items for positive and disorganization symptoms further improved test-performance. Cutoffs for situations where high sensitivity or specificity is needed are presented.

INTERPRETATION

An increase of either 12 points or more in the PANSS total score, or worsening of specific positive and disorganisation symptom items could be a reasonable evidence-based definition of relapse in schizophrenia, potentially linking symptoms used to define remission and relapse. Percentage changes should not be used to define relapse because their interpretation depends on baseline scores.

FUNDING

German Research Foundation (grant number: 428509362).

Estimating and visualising the trade-off between benefits and harms on multiple clinical outcomes in network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The relative treatment effects estimated from network meta-analysis can be employed to rank treatments from the most preferable to the least preferable option. These treatment hierarchies are typically based on ranking metrics calculated from a single outcome. Some approaches have been proposed in the literature to account for multiple outcomes and individual preferences, such as the coverage area inside a spie chart, that, however, does not account for a trade-off between efficacy and safety outcomes. We present the net-benefit standardised area within a spie chart, [Formula: see text] to explore the changes in treatment performance with different trade-offs between benefits and harms, according to a particular set of preferences.

METHODS

We combine the standardised areas within spie charts for efficacy and safety/acceptability outcomes with a value λ specifying the trade-off between benefits and harms. We derive absolute probabilities and convert outcomes on a scale between 0 and 1 for inclusion in the spie chart.

RESULTS

We illustrate how the treatments in three published network meta-analyses perform as the trade-off λ varies. The decrease of the [Formula: see text] quantity appears more pronounced for some drugs, e.g. haloperidol. Changes in treatment performance seem more frequent when SUCRA is employed as outcome measures in the spie charts.

CONCLUSIONS

[Formula: see text] should not be interpreted as a ranking metric but it is a simple approach that could help identify which treatment is preferable when multiple outcomes are of interest and trading-off between benefits and harms is important.

Antidepressant and antipsychotic side-effects and personalised prescribing: a systematic review and digital tool development

BACKGROUND

Side-effects of psychiatric medication impair quality of life and functioning. Furthermore, they contribute to morbidity, mortality, stigma, and poor treatment concordance resulting in relapse of psychiatric illness. Guidelines recommend discussing side-effects with patients when making treatment decisions, but a synthesis of antidepressant and antipsychotic side-effects to guide this process is missing, and considering all side-effects is a complex, multidimensional process. We aimed to create comprehensive databases of antipsychotic and antidepressant side-effects, and a digital tool to support database navigation.

METHODS

To create the databases, we did an umbrella review of Embase, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE from database inception to June 26, 2023. We included meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials examining antipsychotic monotherapy in the treatment of schizophrenia or antidepressant monotherapy in the treatment of major depressive disorder. We included meta-analyses in adults (aged ≥18 years) that assessed drugs with a common comparator. The search was complemented by a review of national and international guidelines and consensus statements for the treatment of major depressive disorder and schizophrenia in adults. Effect sizes for antipsychotic and antidepressant side-effects were extracted from meta-analyses examining the largest number of drugs. In cases of incomplete meta-analytic coverage, data were imputed on the basis of guideline-derived ordinal rankings or, if imputation was not possible, ordinal scores were extracted. Both meta-analytic and ordinal outcomes were normalised to provide values between 0 and 1. We then constructed a digital tool, the Psymatik Treatment Optimizer, to combine the side-effect databases with side-effect concerns of an individual user, to enable users to select side-effects of concern and the relative degree of concern for each side-effect. Concern weightings and the side-effect databases are synthesised via a multicriteria decision analysis method (technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal situation, or TOPSIS).

FINDINGS

Of 3724 citations, 14 articles containing 68 meta-analyses of individual side-effects met inclusion criteria. After review of 19 guidelines, seven provided ordinal data. Antipsychotic data were extracted from five studies (11 meta-analyses, n=65 594 patients) and four guidelines, and antidepressant data were extracted from three guidelines. The resultant databases included data on 32 antipsychotics (14 side-effects) and 37 antidepressants (nine side-effects). The databases highlighted the clinical dilemma associated with balancing side-effects, with avoidance of one side-effect (eg, weight gain for antipsychotics) increasing the risk of others (eg, akathisia). To aid with this dilemma, the Psymatik Treatment Optimizer synthesises the side-effect databases with individual user-defined concern weights. After computing up to 5851 pairwise comparisons for antidepressants and 5142 pairwise comparisons for antipsychotics, Psymatik ranks treatments in order of preference for the individual user, with the output presented in a heatmap.

INTERPRETATION

By facilitating collaborative, personalised, and evidence-based prescribing decisions, the side-effect databases and digital application supports care delivery that is consistent with international regulatory guidance for the treatment of schizophrenia and depression, and it therefore has promise for informing psychiatric practice and improving outcomes.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health and Care Research, Maudsley Charity, Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council.

Antipsychotic dose, dopamine D2 receptor occupancy and extrapyramidal side-effects: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

Antipsychotic drugs differ in their propensity to cause extrapyramidal side-effects (EPS), but their dose-effects are unclear. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. We searched multiple electronic databases up to 20.02.2023 for fixed-dose studies investigating 16 second-generation antipsychotics and haloperidol (all formulations and administration routes) in adults with acute exacerbations of schizophrenia. The primary outcome was the number of participants receiving antiparkinsonian medication, and if not available, the number of participants with extrapyramidal side-effects (EPS) and the mean scores of EPS rating scales were used as proxies. The effect-size was odds ratio (ORs) compared with placebo. One-stage random-effects dose-response meta-analyses with restricted cubic splines were conducted to estimate the dose-response curves. We also examined the relationship between dopamine D2 receptor (D2R) occupancy and ORs by estimating occupancies from administrated doses. We included data from 110 studies with 382 dose arms (37193 participants). Most studies were short-term with median duration of 6 weeks (range 3-26 weeks). Almost all antipsychotics were associated with dose-dependent EPS with varied degrees and the maximum ORs ranged from OR = 1.57 95%CI [0.97, 2.56] for aripiprazole to OR = 7.56 95%CI [3.16, 18.08] for haloperidol at 30 mg/d. Exceptions were quetiapine and sertindole with negligible risks across all doses. There was very low quality of findings for cariprazine, iloperidone, and zotepine, and no data for clozapine. The D2R occupancy curves showed that the risk increased substantially when D2R occupancy exceeded 75-85%, except for D2R partial agonists that had smaller ORs albeit high D2R occupancies. In conclusion, we found that the risk of EPS increases with rising doses and differs substantially in magnitude among antipsychotics, yet exceptions were quetiapine and sertindole with negligible risks. Our data provided additional insights into the current D2R therapeutic window for EPS.

A network meta-analysis of efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of antipsychotics in treatment-resistant schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

Clozapine is considered as the standard treatment for this subgroup, but the evidence is not unequivocal. There are several potential alternatives being used because of the possible adverse effects of clozapine. We aimed to examine the efficacy and adverse events of different antipsychotics in treatment-resistant schizophrenia by performing a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group register for randomized-controlled trials (up to March 06, 2022) and MEDLINE (up to January 20, 2023). We included blinded and open studies and participants with a broad definition of treatment resistance. The primary outcome was overall symptoms of schizophrenia; secondary outcomes were response to treatment, positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, discontinuation, side effects, quality of life, and functioning. The study was registered in Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/9nf2y/ ).

RESULTS

We included 60 studies involving 6838 participants in the network meta-analysis. In the primary outcome, clozapine and olanzapine were more efficacious than risperidone, haloperidol, fluphenazine, sertindole, chlorpromazine, and quetiapine (range of mean SMDs, - 0.11 to - 0.48). The difference between clozapine and olanzapine was trivial and uncertain (SMD - 0.05, 95% CI, - 0.21 to 0.11). The result of other efficacy outcomes as well as subgroup and sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analysis. Clozapine and olanzapine were associated with more weight gain, and clozapine was associated with more sedation events compared to many other antipsychotics.

CONCLUSIONS

Clozapine remains the gold standard for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Olanzapine seems to be second-best and could be tried before switching to clozapine.

Antipsychotic-induced akathisia in adults with acute schizophrenia: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

Antipsychotic-induced akathisia is severely distressing. We aimed to investigate relationships between antipsychotic doses and akathisia risk. We searched for randomised controlled trials that investigated monotherapy of 17 antipsychotics in adults with acute schizophrenia until 06 March 2022. The primary outcome was the number of participants with akathisia, which was analysed with odds ratios (ORs). We applied one-stage random-effects dose-response meta-analyses using restricted cubic splines to model the dose-response relationships. We included 98 studies (343 dose arms, 34,225 participants), most of which were short-term and had low-to-moderate risk of bias. We obtained data on all antipsychotics except clozapine and zotepine. In patients with acute exacerbations of chronic schizophrenia, from moderate to high certainty of evidence, our analysis showed that sertindole and quetiapine carried negligible risks for akathisia across examined doses (flat curves), while most of the other antipsychotics had their risks increase initially with increasing doses and then either plateaued (hyperbolic curves) or continued to rise (monotonic curves), with maximum ORs ranging from 1.76 with 95% Confidence Intervals [1.24, 2.52] for risperidone at 5.4 mg/day to OR 11.92 [5.18, 27.43] for lurasidone at 240 mg/day. We found limited or no data on akathisia risk in patients with predominant negative symptoms, first-episode schizophrenia, or elderly patients. In conclusion, liability of akathisia varies between antipsychotics and is dose-related. The dose-response curves for akathisia in most antipsychotics are either monotonic or hyperbolic, indicating that higher doses carry a greater or equal risk compared to lower doses.

Long-term efficacy of antipsychotic drugs in initially acutely ill adults with schizophrenia: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Most acute phase antipsychotic drug trials in schizophrenia last only a few weeks, but patients must usually take these drugs much longer. We examined the long-term efficacy of antipsychotic drugs in acutely ill patients using network meta-analysis. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group register up to March 6, 2022 for randomized, blinded trials of at least 6-month duration on all second-generation and 18 first-generation antipsychotics. The primary outcome was change in overall symptoms of schizophrenia; secondary outcomes were all-cause discontinuation; change in positive, negative and depressive symptoms; quality of life, social functioning, weight gain, antiparkinson medication use, akathisia, serum prolactin level, QTc prolongation, and sedation. Confidence in the results was assessed by the CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) framework. We included 45 studies with 11,238 participants. In terms of overall symptoms, olanzapine was on average more efficacious than ziprasidone (standardized mean difference, SMD=0.37, 95% CI: 0.26-0.49), asenapine (SMD=0.33, 95% CI: 0.21-0.45), iloperidone (SMD=0.32, 95% CI: 0.15-0.49), paliperidone (SMD=0.28, 95% CI: 0.11-0.44), haloperidol (SMD=0.27, 95% CI: 0.14-0.39), quetiapine (SMD=0.25, 95% CI: 0.12-0.38), aripiprazole (SMD=0.16, 95% CI: 0.04-0.28) and risperidone (SMD=0.12, 95% CI: 0.03-0.21). The 95% CIs for olanzapine versus aripiprazole and risperidone included the possibility of trivial effects. The differences between olanzapine and lurasidone, amisulpride, perphenazine, clozapine and zotepine were either small or uncertain. These results were robust in sensitivity analyses and in line with other efficacy outcomes and all-cause discontinuation. Concerning weight gain, the impact of olanzapine was higher than all other antipsychotics, with a mean difference ranging from -4.58 kg (95% CI: -5.33 to -3.83) compared to ziprasidone to -2.30 kg (95% CI: -3.35 to -1.25) compared to amisulpride. Our data suggest that olanzapine is more efficacious than a number of other antipsychotic drugs in the longer term, but its efficacy must be weighed against its side effect profile.

Antipsychotic drugs and their effects on cognitive function: protocol for a systematic review, pairwise, and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that antipsychotic drugs differ in their effect on the cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia. So far, there is no comprehensive systematic review available that would enable providers and patients to make informed choices regarding this important aspect of treatment. With a large number of substances available, conventional pairwise meta-analyses will not be sufficient to inform this choice. To fill this gap, we will conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA), integrating direct and indirect comparisons from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to rank antipsychotics according to their effect on cognitive functioning.

METHODS

In our NMA, we will include RCTs in patients with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses comparing one antipsychotic agent with another antipsychotic agent or placebo that measures cognitive function. We will include studies on patients of every age group, in any phase of illness (e.g., acute or stable, first episode or chronic schizophrenia, in- or outpatients) with an intervention time of at least 3 weeks. The primary outcome will be the composite score of cognitive functioning, preferentially measured with the test battery developed by the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) initiative. The secondary outcomes include the seven cognitive domains that the composite score is composed of, as well as functioning and quality of life. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted by at least two independent reviewers. We will use the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2 to determine the risk of bias in studies, and we will evaluate the confidence in the results using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). We will perform NMA using R (package netmeta). We will conduct subgroup and sensitivity analyses to explore the heterogeneity and assess the robustness of our findings.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to inform evidence-based antipsychotic treatment choice for cognitive deficits in schizophrenia patients by analyzing existing RCTs on this subject. The results have the potential to support patients' and physicians' decision-making processes based on the latest available evidence.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022312483.

Predicting psychotic relapse following randomised discontinuation of paliperidone in individuals with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder: an individual participant data analysis

BACKGROUND

Predicting relapse for individuals with psychotic disorders is not well established, especially after discontinuation of antipsychotic treatment. We aimed to identify general prognostic factors of relapse for all participants (irrespective of treatment continuation or discontinuation) and specific predictors of relapse for treatment discontinuation, using machine learning.

METHODS

For this individual participant data analysis, we searched the Yale University Open Data Access Project's database for placebo-controlled, randomised antipsychotic discontinuation trials with participants with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (aged ≥18 years). We included studies in which participants were treated with any antipsychotic study drug and randomly assigned to continue the same antipsychotic drug or to discontinue it and receive placebo. We assessed 36 prespecified baseline variables at randomisation to predict time to relapse, using univariate and multivariate proportional hazard regression models (including multivariate treatment group by variable interactions) with machine learning to categorise the variables as general prognostic factors of relapse, specific predictors of relapse, or both.

FINDINGS

We identified 414 trials, of which five trials with 700 participants (304 [43%] women and 396 [57%] men) were eligible for the continuation group and 692 participants (292 [42%] women and 400 [58%] men) were eligible for the discontinuation group (median age 37 [IQR 28-47] years for continuation group and 38 [28-47] years for discontinuation group). Out of the 36 baseline variables, general prognostic factors of increased risk of relapse for all participants were drug-positive urine; paranoid, disorganised, and undifferentiated types of schizophrenia (lower risk for schizoaffective disorder); psychiatric and neurological adverse events; higher severity of akathisia (ie, difficulty or inability to sit still); antipsychotic discontinuation; lower social performance; younger age; lower glomerular filtration rate; benzodiazepine comedication (lower risk for anti-epileptic comedication). Out of the 36 baseline variables, predictors of increased risk specifically after antipsychotic discontinuation were increased prolactin concentration, higher number of hospitalisations, and smoking. Both prognostic factors and predictors with increased risk after discontinuation were oral antipsychotic treatment (lower risk for long-acting injectables), higher last dosage of the antipsychotic study drug, shorter duration of antipsychotic treatment, and higher score on the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) severity scale The predictive performance (concordance index) for participants who were not used to train the model was 0·707 (chance level is 0·5).

INTERPRETATION

Routinely available general prognostic factors of psychotic relapse and predictors specific for treatment discontinuation could be used to support personalised treatment. Abrupt discontinuation of higher dosages of oral antipsychotics, especially for individuals with recurring hospitalisations, higher scores on the CGI severity scale, and increased prolactin concentrations, should be avoided to reduce the risk of relapse.

FUNDING

German Research Foundation and Berlin Institute of Health.

Second-generation antipsychotics and seizures - a systematic review and meta-analysis of serious adverse events in randomized controlled trials

Seizures are suspected to be side effects of antipsychotics. To examine a possible causal relationship, we compared the risk of seizures on second-generation antipsychotics to the risk on placebo in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) across diagnostic groups. The primary outcome was any seizure reported as International Conference on Harmonisation-Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP)-defined serious adverse event (SAEs). The risk ratio (RR) with antipsychotics versus placebo was synthesized in a pairwise common effects Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis. For 314 of 597 idenitified placebo-controlled RCTs information about all SAEs could be retrieved from publications, original investigators, pharmaceutical companies and the European Medical Agency. In those, 37 seizures occurred in 42,600 participants on antipsychotics (0.09%) and 28 in 25,042 participants on placebo (0.11%). The meta-analytic results (RR 0,68; 95% Confidence Interval 0.41-1.12) indicated a reduced risk on antipsychotics with a confidence interval including no difference (i.e. RR=1). Neither in sensitivity analyses (excluding events in the safety-follow-up of trials or first-generation antipsychotics; using odds ratios) nor in subgroup analyses (on specific antipsychotics, drug combinations, diagnostic categories, age groups, and study duration) there was evidence for an increased risk on antipsychotics, except for some weak indications of an increased risk on antipsychotics in older and/or demented participants (RRs 1.11 and 1.48, respectively, but with 95% CIs of 0.35-3.49 and 0.41-5.26 including no difference and subgroup tests with p=0.54 and p=0.66 not indicating differences between age groups or diagnostic categories). Consequently, there are no indications that second-generation antipsychotics cause seizures in middle-aged adults and children in most diagnostic groups; rather our results provide some weak evidence for a protective effect. However, there was no data on SAEs available for clozapine, for which observational studies provide the strongest associations with increased seizure rates, and for older and/or demented patients a small additional risk on antipsychotics cannot be excluded.

Efficacy of clozapine compared with other second-generation antipsychotic drugs in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia: protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines recommend clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. However, meta-analysis of aggregate data (AD) did not demonstrate higher efficacy of clozapine compared with other second-generation antipsychotics but found substantial heterogeneity between trials and variation between participants in treatment effects. Therefore, we will conduct an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to estimate the efficacy of clozapine compared with other second-generation antipsychotics while accounting for potentially important effect modifiers.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In a systematic review, two reviewers will independently search Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's trial register (without restrictions in date, language or state of publication) and related reviews. We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in participants with treatment-resistant schizophrenia comparing clozapine with other second-generation antipsychotics for at least 6 weeks. We will apply no restrictions in age, gender, origin, ethnicity or setting, but exclude open-label studies, studies from China, experimental studies and phase II of cross-over trials. IPD will be requested from trial authors and cross-check against published results. AD will be extracted in duplicate. Risk of bias will be assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 tool.The primary outcome will be overall symptoms of schizophrenia.We will synthesise results using random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression methods in a 3-level Bayesian model. The model combines IPD with AD when IPD is not available for all studies, and include participant, intervention and study design characteristics as potential effect modifiers. The effect size measures will be mean difference (or standardised mean difference when different scales were used). Confidence in the evidence will be assessed using GRADE.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This project has been approved by the ethics commission of the Technical University of Munich (#612/21 S-NP). The results will be published open-access in a peer-review journal and a plain-language version of the results will be disseminated.If we need to amend this protocol, we will describe the change and give the rationale in a specific section in the resulting publication 'Changes with respect to the protocol'.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (#CRD42021254986).

Crossroads of methodological choices in research synthesis: insights from two network meta-analyses on preventing relapse in schizophrenia

In recent years, network meta-analyses have been increasingly carried out to inform clinical guidelines and policy. This approach is under constant development, and a broad consensus on how to carry out several of its methodological and statistical steps is still lacking. Therefore, different working groups might often make different methodological choices based on their clinical and research experience, with possible advantages and shortcomings. In this contribution, we will critically assess two network meta-analyses on the topic of pharmacological prevention of relapse in schizophrenia, carried out by two different research groups. We will highlight the implications of different methodological choices on the analysis results and their clinical-epidemiological interpretation. Moreover, we will discuss some of the most relevant technical issues of network meta-analyses for which there is not a broad methodological agreement, including the assessment of transitivity.

The response of subgroups of patients with schizophrenia to different antipsychotic drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As comparatively few trials in subgroups of patients with schizophrenia have been done, clinicians need to know whether they can rely on the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the general population of patients with schizophrenia. We aimed to compare the efficacy and side-effects of antipsychotic drugs in different subgroups.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register (from database inception to April 27, 2020), and PubMed (from April 1, 2020 to June 14, 2021). We excluded studies in patients with stable schizophrenia (ie, relapse prevention studies), studies with a high risk of bias, and studies from mainland China due to quality concerns concerning allocation and masking methods. We included single-blind RCTs or better that assessed one or more of 16 second-generation and 18 first-generation antipsychotics in the general population of patients with schizophrenia or in one or more of the subgroups: children and adolescents (age range as defined in the original studies), patients with a first episode, patients with predominant or prominent negative symptoms, patients with comorbid substance use, patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, or older patients (age range as defined in the original studies). Two authors independently screened the results of the search, retrieved full-text articles, and checked the inclusion criteria. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline, all parameters were extracted in duplicate. The primary outcome was change in overall symptoms. We compared drug efficacy between subgroups, by sex, schizoaffective disorder versus schizophrenia, and study origin using random-effects, inverse variance meta-analyses and random-effects subgroup tests, and meta-regression.

FINDINGS

We included 537 RCTs with 76 382 participants, 26 627 (34·9%) women, 49 755 (65·1%) men, mean age 37·3 years (range of means 7·9-80·2; ethnicity data not available). 412 RCTs included patients in the general population of patients with schizophrenia, 42 included patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, 25 included children and adolescents, 20 included patients with their first episode, 20 included patients with predominant or prominent negative symptoms, 13 included patients with comorbid substance use, and 11 included older patients. Of 507 random-effects subgroup tests done, 46 (9%) showed a significant difference (p<0·05) between subgroups, but there was no clear indication as to which drug should be used in which subgroup.

INTERPRETATION

The effects of antipsychotics in various patient subgroups were usually similar to those in the general population of patients with schizophrenia, but comparably few studies contributed to the subgroups, in particular in terms of side-effects. If the evidence for treatment in a given subgroup is small, guideline makers and clinicians should consider using the results in the much better studied group of the general population of patients with schizophrenia.

FUNDING

German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung; FKZ 01KG1508).

Maintenance Treatment With Antipsychotic Drugs in Schizophrenia: A Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Antipsychotic drugs are the mainstay of treatment of schizophrenia, and are known to reduce acute symptoms of the disorder. An original version of the current review, published in 2012, examined whether antipsychotics are effective for relapse prevention, compared to withdrawing these agents for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses, based on evidence from randomized trials. The current report of the update of the review is focused on some newly investigated outcomes: rates of remission and recovery, change in social functioning and in quality of life. The updated review included 75 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 1959 to 2017, involving 9145 participants. Although some potential sources of bias limited the overall quality, the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs for maintenance treatment in schizophrenia was clear and robust to a series of sensitivity analyses. Antipsychotic drugs were more effective than placebo in preventing relapse at 1 year (drug 24% versus placebo 61%, 30 RCTs, n = 4249, RR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.32 to 0.45) and in reducing hospitalization (drug 7% versus placebo 18%, 21 RCTs, n = 3558, RR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.32 to 0.57). Quality of life appeared to be better in drug-treated participants (7 RCTs, n = 1573, SMD = -0.32, 95% CI = -0.57 to -0.07); the same for social functioning (15 RCTs, n = 3588, SMD = -0.43, 95% CI = -0.53 to -0.34). Although based on data from fewer studies, maintenance treatment apparently increased the possibility to achieve remission of symptoms (drug 53%, placebo 31%; 7 RCTs, 867 participants; RR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.20 to 2.48) and to sustain it over 6 months (drug 36%, placebo 26%; 8 RCTs, 1807 participants; RR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.19). There were no data on recovery. Antipsychotic drugs as a group were associated with more participants experiencing side effects such as movement disorders (e.g., at least one movement disorder: drug 14% versus placebo 8%, 29 RCTs, n = 5276, RR 1.52, 95% CI = 1.25 to 1.85) and weight gain (drug 9% versus placebo 6%, 19 RCTs, n = 4767, RR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.21 to 2.35, NNTH = 25, 95% CI = 20 to 50). For people with schizophrenia, the evidence suggests that maintenance on antipsychotic drugs does not only prevent relapses and rehospitalizations, but that patients also benefit in terms of quality of life, functioning and sustained remission. These positive effects must be weighed against the backdrop of the adverse effects of antipsychotics.

Pharmacological and dietary-supplement treatments for autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

There is still no approved medication for the core symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This network meta-analysis investigated pharmacological and dietary-supplement treatments for ASD.

Methods

We searched for randomized-controlled-trials (RCTs) with a minimum duration of seven days in ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, WHO-ICTRP (from inception up to July 8, 2018), CENTRAL and PubMed (up to November 3, 2021). The co-primary outcomes were core symptoms (social-communication difficulties-SCD, repetitive behaviors-RB, overall core symptoms-OCS) measured by validated scales and standardized-mean-differences (SMDs). Associated symptoms, e.g., irritability/aggression and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms, dropouts and important side-effects, were investigated as secondary outcomes. Studies in children/adolescents and adults were analyzed separately in random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses.

Results

We analyzed data for 41 drugs and 17 dietary-supplements, from 125 RCTs (n = 7450 participants) in children/adolescents and 18 RCTs (n = 1104) in adults. The following medications could improve at least one core symptom domain in comparison with placebo: aripiprazole (k = 6 studies in analysis, SCD: SMD = 0.27 95% CI [0.09, 0.44], RB: 0.48 [0.26, 0.70]), atomoxetine (k = 3, RB:0.49 [0.18, 0.80]), bumetanide (k = 4, RB: 0.35 [0.09, 0.62], OCS: 0.61 [0.31, 0.91]), and risperidone (k = 4, SCM: 0.31 [0.06, 0.55], RB: 0.60 [0.29, 0.90]; k = 3, OCS: 1.18 [0.75, 1.61]) in children/adolescents; fluoxetine (k = 1, RB: 1.20 [0.45, 1.96]), fluvoxamine (k = 1, RB: 1.04 [0.27, 1.81]), oxytocin (k = 6, RB:0.41 [0.16, 0.66]) and risperidone (k = 1, RB: 0.97 [0.21,1.74]) in adults. There were some indications of improvement by carnosine, haloperidol, folinic acid, guanfacine, omega-3-fatty-acids, probiotics, sulforaphane, tideglusib and valproate, yet imprecise and not robust. Confidence in these estimates was very low or low, except moderate for oxytocin. Medications differed substantially in improving associated symptoms, and in their side-effect profiles.

Limitations

Most of the studies were inadequately powered (sample sizes of 20–80 participants), with short duration (8–13 weeks), and about a third focused on associated symptoms. Networks were mainly star-shaped, and there were indications of reporting bias. There was no optimal rating scale measuring change in core symptoms.

Conclusions

Some medications could improve core symptoms, although this could be likely secondary to the improvement of associated symptoms. Evidence on their efficacy and safety is preliminary; therefore, routine prescription of medications for the core symptoms cannot be recommended.

Trial registration PROSPERO-ID CRD42019125317.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13229-022-00488-4.

Adverse events after antipsychotic discontinuation: an individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Adverse events can occur after antipsychotic discontinuation but evidence from antipsychotic drug trials is scarce. We aimed to estimate the occurrence of adverse events after discontinuing antipsychotics.

METHODS

For this two-stage individual participant data meta-analysis, we searched the Yale University Open Data Access Project's database for randomised controlled trials of antipsychotics from database inception until May 6, 2021. We included placebo-controlled antipsychotic randomised controlled trials with individual participant data of participants (aged ≥ 18 years, of any sex and ethnicity) with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or bipolar disorder. Studies were excluded if treatment with antidepressants, lithium, or antiepileptic drugs was initiated as additive therapy at the start of the placebo phase. Starting from the screening or washout phase, we divided participants who were randomised to placebo into two groups: the discontinuation group (participants who discontinued prestudy antipsychotics at the start of the screening or washout phase) and control group (participants who did not take prestudy antipsychotics for at least 4 weeks before the start of the screening or washout phase). Participants were excluded from the discontinuation and control groups if they discontinued prestudy treatment with antidepressants, lithium, or antiepileptic drugs up to 4 weeks before baseline, received an antipsychotic as a tolerability test, or received a long-acting injection of an antipsychotic within 12 weeks before baseline. In the discontinuation group, individuals were excluded if they discontinued prestudy antipsychotic treatment more than 3 days before, or any day after, the start of screening or washout phase. The prespecified primary outcome was occurrence of at least one new somatic adverse event with an onset within 4 weeks after the start of the screening or washout phase. We implemented a generalised linear model that accounted for potential confounders, to estimate the effect of antipsychotic discontinuation. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021224350).

FINDINGS

We identified 409 records of which 18 were eligible and included in the analysis. From these 18 studies, 692 individuals (242 [35·0%] women and 450 [65·0%] men) were eligible for the discontinuation group and 935 individuals (339 [36·3%] women and 596 [63·7%] men) were eligible for the control group (median age in both groups: 39 years [IQR 30-47]). New somatic adverse events occurred in 295 (43%) individuals in the discontinuation group and 293 (31%) individuals in the control group (OR 1·74; 95% CI 1·27-2·39; τ²=0·15; moderate strength of evidence). New psychiatric adverse events were also more frequent in the discontinuation group than the control group (OR 2·01; 95% CI 1·38-2·94). Longer duration of treatment before discontinuation (OR for doubling the duration of treatment: 1·08; 95% CI 1·01-1·14) was associated with a higher probability of new somatic adverse events after antipsychotic discontinuation, and tapered discontinuation (compared with abrupt discontinuation: 0·54; 0·32-0·91) and no history of somatic illness (compared with history of somatic illness: 0·63; 0·43-0·91) were associated with lower probabilities of new somatic adverse events after antipsychotic discontinuation. The risk of bias was moderate in 13 (72·2%) studies and serious in five (27·8%) studies.

INTERPRETATION

We detected moderate evidence of emerging somatic adverse events after discontinuation of first-generation and second-generation antipsychotics, particularly after discontinuation of longer durations of treatment. Tapered discontinuation can mitigate the risk of emerging somatic adverse events after antipsychotic discontinuation. These findings have implications for the safety of treatment discontinuation and could be used for tailored treatment planning.

FUNDING

German Research Foundation.

Representation and Outcomes of Individuals With Schizophrenia Seen in Everyday Practice Who Are Ineligible for Randomized Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

Most evidence about efficacy and safety of antipsychotics in schizophrenia spectrum disorders relies on randomized clinical trials (RCTs). However, owing to their strict eligibility criteria, RCTs represent only a part of the real-world population (ie, unselected patients seen in everyday clinical practice), which may result in an efficacy-effectiveness gap.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the proportion of real-world individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders who would be ineligible for participation in RCTs, and to explore whether clinical outcomes differ between eligible and ineligible individuals.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This study applied eligibility criteria typically used in RCTs for relapse prevention in schizophrenia spectrum disorders to real-world populations. Individuals with diagnoses of schizophrenia spectrum disorders recorded in national patient registries in Finland and Sweden were identified. Individuals who had used antipsychotics continuously for 12 weeks in outpatient care were selected. Individuals were followed up for up to 1 year while they were receiving maintenance treatment with any second-generation antipsychotic (excluding clozapine). Follow-up was censored at treatment discontinuation, initiation of add-on antipsychotics, death, and end of database linkage.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Proportions of RCT-ineligible individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders owing to any and specific RCT exclusion criteria. The risk of hospitalization due to psychosis within 1-year follow-up in ineligible vs eligible persons were compared using hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% CIs.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) age in the Finnish cohort (n = 17 801) was 47.5 (13.8) years and 8972 (50.4%) were women; the mean (SD) age in the Swedish cohort (n = 7458) was 44.8 (12.5) years and 3344 (44.8%) were women. A total of 20 060 individuals (79%) with schizophrenia spectrum disorders would be ineligible for RCTs (Finnish cohort: 14 221 of 17 801 [79.9%]; Swedish cohort: 5839 of 7458 [78.3%]). Most frequent reasons for ineligibility were serious somatic comorbidities and concomitant antidepressant/mood stabilizer use. Risks of hospitalization due to psychosis was higher among ineligible than eligible individuals (Finnish cohort: 18.4% vs 17.2%; HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.04-1.24]; Swedish cohort: 20.1% vs 14.8%; HR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.28-1.92]). The largest risks of hospitalization due to psychosis were observed in individuals ineligible owing to treatment resistance, tardive dyskinesia, and history of suicide attempts. Finally, with more ineligibility criteria met, larger risks of hospitalization due to psychosis were observed in both countries.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

RCTs may represent only about a fifth of real-world individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Underrepresented (ineligible) patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders have moderately higher risks of admission due to psychosis while receiving maintenance treatment than RCT-eligible patients. These findings set the stage for future studies targeting real-world populations currently not represented by RCTs.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 32 oral and long-acting injectable antipsychotics for the maintenance treatment of adults with schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a common, severe, and usually chronic disorder. Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs can prevent relapse but also causes side-effects. We aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of antipsychotics as maintenance treatment for non-treatment resistant patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched, without language restrictions, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's specialised register between database inception and April 27, 2020, PubMed from April 1, 2020, to Jan 15, 2021, and the lists of included studies from related systematic reviews. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs; ≥12 weeks of follow-up) that recruited adult participants with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder with stable symptoms who were treated with antipsychotics (monotherapy; oral or long-acting injectable) or placebo. We excluded RCTs of participants with specific comorbidities or treatment resistance. In duplicate, two authors independently selected eligible RCTs and extracted aggregate data. The primary outcome was the number of participants who relapsed and was analysed by random-effects, Bayesian network meta-analyses. The study was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42016049022.

FINDINGS

We identified 4157 references through our search, from which 501 references on 127 RCTs of 32 antipsychotics (comprising 18 152 participants) were included. 100 studies including 16 812 participants and 30 antipsychotics contributed to our network meta-analysis of the primary outcome. All antipsychotics had risk ratios (RRs) less than 1·00 when compared with placebo for relapse prevention and almost all had 95% credible intervals (CrIs) excluding no effect. RRs ranged from 0·20 (95% CrI 0·05-0·41) for paliperidone oral to 0·65 (0·16-1·14) for cariprazine oral (moderate-to-low confidence in estimates). Generally, we interpret that there was no clear evidence for the superiority of specific antipsychotics in terms of relapse prevention because most comparisons between antipsychotics included a probability of no difference.

INTERPRETATION

As we found no clear differences between antipsychotics for relapse prevention, we conclude that the choice of antipsychotic for maintenance treatment should be guided mainly by their tolerability.

FUNDING

The German Ministry of Education and Research and Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

Antipsychotic-Induced Weight Gain: Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Weight gain is among the most important side-effects of antipsychotics. It is, however, unclear whether it is associated with antipsychotic doses. We aimed to fill this gap with a dose-response meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched multiple electronic databases (last update search June 2021) for all fixed-dose studies that investigated 16 second-generation antipsychotics and haloperidol in adults with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia or with negative symptoms. We estimated the dose-response curves by conducting random-effects dose-response meta-analyses. We used the restricted cubic spline to model the dose-response relationship. The primary outcome was mean weight gain in kg from baseline to endpoint, the secondary outcome was the number of patients with clinically important weight gain.

FINDINGS

Ninety-seven studies with 333 dose arms (36 326 participants) provided data for meta-analyses. Most studies were short-term with median duration of 6 weeks (range 4 to 26 weeks). In patients with acute exacerbation, amisulpride, aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, haloperidol, lumateperone, and lurasidone produced mild weight gain in comparison to placebo (mean difference at any dose≤1 kg), while more significant weight gain was observed by all other drugs. For most drugs, dose-response curves showed an initial dose-related increase in weight which plateaued at higher doses, while for others there was no plateau and some even had bell-shaped curves, meaning less weight gain to be associated with higher doses.

INTERPRETATION

Second-generation antipsychotics do not only differ in their propensity to produce weight gain, but also in the shapes of their dose-response curves. This information is important for dosing decisions in clinical practice.

Effects of antipsychotics on heart rate in treatment of schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotics are the treatment of choice in the therapy of schizophrenia. These drugs can be associated with changes in heart rate, but this question has never been examined systematically.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to analyse changes in heart rate during treatment with antipsychotics using the frequency of tachycardia and bradycardia events.

DESIGN

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we included all randomized controlled trials for the acute treatment of schizophrenia comparing antipsychotics head-to-head or with placebo.

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, BIOSIS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov (last search June 2021). Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We conducted pairwise meta-analyses using a random-effects model. Outcomes were tachycardia and bradycardia events.

RESULTS

We found 469 trials meeting the inclusion criteria. Seventy-seven studies with 16,907 participants provided data on tachycardia or bradycardia events. We found no significant differences between antipsychotics and placebo or between antipsychotics for bradycardia events based on sparse data. Antipsychotics had a higher risk for tachycardia events compared with placebo [N = 37, n = 7827, risk ratio (RR) = 1.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.40-2.41], with large differences between the individual substances (iloperidone RR = 14.05, chlorpromazine RR = 4.84, loxapine RR = 4.52, risperidone RR = 3.38, quetiapine RR = 2.64, paliperidone RR = 1.65). Some head-to-head comparisons were also significantly different: olanzapine versus haloperidol RR = 2.87, chlorpromazine versus thiothixene RR = 2.92, quetiapine versus lurasidone RR = 3.22, risperidone versus aripiprazole RR = 4.37, iloperidone versus ziprasidone RR = 4.65).

CONCLUSION

Many studies do not report data for cardiac outcomes, but the available evidence indicates that treatment with antipsychotics raises the risk for tachycardia. Therefore, especially patients with cardiac risk factors should be monitored closely during antipsychotic treatment.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42014014919.

Examination of Dosing of Antipsychotic Drugs for Relapse Prevention in Patients With Stable Schizophrenia: A Meta-analysis

Importance

The doses of antipsychotic drugs needed for relapse prevention in schizophrenia is a debated issue.

Objective

To examine dose-response findings in a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Data Sources

Studies were identified through the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (March 9, 2020), PubMed (January 1, 2021), and previous reviews. First authors and/or pharmaceutical companies were contacted for additional information.

Study Selection

Two reviewers independently selected randomized clinical trials that compared fixed doses of a second-generation antipsychotic, haloperidol, or fluphenazine for relapse prevention in patients with stable schizophrenia.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline, all parameters in duplicate were extracted and frequentist dose-response random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Study-defined relapse (primary outcome), rehospitalization, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total score reduction from baseline, all-cause discontinuation, and dropouts due to adverse events.

Results

Evidence from 72 dose arms from 26 studies with 4776 participants was analyzed. The efficacy-related dose-response curves had a hyperbolic shape meaning that the probability to relapse decreased rapidly with doses of up to 5-mg/d risperidone equivalent (relative relapse risk, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31-0.57; standardized mean difference for Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score reduction, -0.55; 95% CI, -0.68 to -0.41), but flattened thereafter. In contrast, dropouts due to adverse events continued to increase beyond this dose (relative risk at 5 mg/d, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.87-2.55; relative risk at 15 mg/d, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.49-4.62). In a subgroup analysis of patients in remission, a plateau was reached earlier, at approximately 2.5-mg/d risperidone equivalent.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that doses higher than approximately 5-mg/d risperidone equivalent may provide limited additional benefit for relapse prevention but more adverse events. For patients in remission or who are receiving high-potency first-generation antipsychotics, doses as low as 2.5-mg/d risperidone equivalent may be sufficient. However, caution is needed at this low dose end when further decreases of dose may be accompanied by a disproportionally higher relapse risk. Moreover, the observations are averages, and factors such as slow or rapid metabolism, age, illness stage, comorbidities, and drug-drug interactions suggest that individual patients will often need higher or lower doses.

Psychosocial and psychological interventions for relapse prevention in schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many psychosocial and psychological interventions are used in patients with schizophrenia, but their comparative efficacy in the prevention of relapse is not known. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of psychosocial and psychological interventions for relapse prevention in schizophrenia.

METHODS

To conduct this systematic review and network meta-analysis we searched for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that investigated psychosocial or psychological interventions aimed at preventing relapse in patients with schizophrenia. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, BIOSIS, Cochrane Library, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to Jan 20, 2020, and searched PubMed up to April 14, 2020. We included open and masked studies done in adults with schizophrenia or related disorders. We excluded studies in which all patients were acutely ill, had a concomitant medical or psychiatric disorder, or were prodromal or "at risk of psychosis". Study selection and data extraction were done by two reviewers independently based on published and unpublished reports, and by contacting study authors. Data were extracted about efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of the interventions; potential effect moderators; and study quality and characteristics. The primary outcome was relapse measured with operationalised criteria or psychiatric hospital admissions. We did random-effects network meta-analysis to calculate odds ratios (ORs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019147884.

FINDINGS

We identified 27 765 studies through the database search and 330 through references of previous reviews and studies. We screened 28 000 records after duplicates were removed. 24 406 records were excluded by title and abstract screening and 3594 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. 3350 articles were then excluded for a variety of reasons, and 244 full-text articles corresponding to 85 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Of these, 72 studies with 10 364 participants (3939 females and 5716 males with sex indicated) were included in the network meta-analysis. The randomised controlled trials included compared 20 psychological interventions given mainly as add-on to antipsychotics. Ethnicity data were not available. Family interventions (OR 0·35, 95% CI 0·24-0·52), relapse prevention programmes (OR 0·33, 0·14-0·79), cognitive behavioural therapy (OR 0·45, 0·27-0·75), family psychoeducation (OR 0·56, 0·39-0·82), integrated interventions (OR 0·62, 0·44-0·87), and patient psychoeducation (OR 0·63, 0·42-0·94) reduced relapse more than treatment as usual at 1 year. The confidence in the estimates ranged from moderate to very low. We found no indication of publication bias.

INTERPRETATION

We found robust benefits in reducing the risk of relapse for family interventions, family psychoeducation, and cognitive behavioral therapy. These treatments should be the first psychosocial interventions to be considered in the long-term treatment for patients with schizophrenia.

FUNDING

German Ministry for Education and Research.

How Efficacious Are Antipsychotic Drugs for Schizophrenia? An Interpretation Based on 13 Effect Size Indices

BACKGROUND

The magnitude of the superiority of antipsychotics over placebo is debated. One reason is that the effect-size index which is usually used in meta-analyses is in standard deviation units. Many other indices, some of which are more intuitive, exist.

METHODS

We explain the formulae, advantages, and limitations of 13 effect-size indices: Mean Difference (MD), Standardized-Mean-Difference (SMD), Correlation Coefficient, Ratio-of-Means (RoM, endpoint and change data), Improvement Fraction (IF), Drug-Response Fraction (DRF), Minimally-Clinically-Important-Difference-Units (MCIDU), Number-Needed-to-Treat-derived from SMD (NNT), Odds Ratio (OR), Relative Risk (RR), and Risk Difference (RD) derived from SMD, Drug-response and Placebo-response in percent. We applied these indices to meta-analyses comparing antipsychotic drugs with placebo for acute schizophrenia.

RESULTS

The difference of all antipsychotics pooled vs placebo (105 trials with 22741 participants) was: MD 9.4 (95% CI 8.4,10.2) PANSS points, SMD 0.47 (0.42,0.51), Correlation coefficient 0.23 (0.21,0.25), RoM endpoint 0.83 (0.81,0.85), RoM change 1.94 (1.84,2.02), IF (%) 49 (46,51), DRF (%) 94 (84,102), MCIDU 0.63 (0.56,0.68), NNT 5 (5,6), OR 2.34 (2.14, 2.52), RR 1.67 (1.59,1.73), RD 20% (18-22), and 50% (48, 52) improved on drug compared to 30% on placebo. Results of individual drugs compared to placebo are presented, as well.

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together these indices show a substantial, but not a large superiority of antipsychotics compared to placebo. The general chronicity of the patients in the trials must be considered. Future meta-analyses should report other effect size indices in addition to the Standardized-Mean-Difference, in particular percentage responders in the drug and placebo groups. They can be easily derived and would enhance the interpretation of research findings.

Metabolic side effects of antipsychotic drugs in individuals with schizophrenia during medium- to long-term treatment: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs and especially the newer compounds are known to cause metabolic side effects. However, a comprehensive comparison of the different substances regarding their propensity to cause metabolic side effects in medium- to long-term treatment of schizophrenia is lacking.

METHODS

We will conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which participants received either placebo or an antipsychotic (i.e. placebo-controlled trials and head-to-head comparisons of drugs). We will include studies in individuals with schizophrenia or related disorders (such as schizophreniform or schizoaffective disorders) at any stage of the disease (acute episode; maintenance phase). We will include studies with a duration of more than 3 months (medium- to long-term treatment). The primary outcome will be the change in body weight. Secondary outcomes will be the further metabolic parameters: fastening glucose, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and triglycerides. We will search for eligible studies (independent of the publication status) in Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is compiled by regular searches in trial registries and multiple electronic databases from their inception onwards including MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Additionally, we will search previously published systematic reviews and websites of pharmaceutical companies for eligible studies. At least two reviewers will independently conduct the process of study selection and data extraction. We will use the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool to evaluate the risk of bias in studies. We will conduct random-effects NMA within a Bayesian framework to synthesize all evidence for each outcome. We will conduct sensitivity and subgroup analyses to assess the robustness of the findings and to explore heterogeneity. The confidence in the results will be evaluated using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review and network meta-analysis will provide a synthesis of the existing evidence from RCTs how antipsychotic drugs differ in terms of metabolic side effects during medium- to long-term treatment. The findings have the potential to influence the choice of antipsychotic medication made by individuals with schizophrenia and their physicians.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020175414.

Short-acting intramuscular second-generation antipsychotic drugs for acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psychomotor agitation is a common condition in patients with psychotic disorders. One treatment possibility is intramuscular (IM) second-generation antipsychotics. Yet their efficacy in this formulation and for this aim is unclear. This network meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of short-acting IM second-generation antipsychotic drugs, haloperidol and placebo in patients with diagnosis of schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like disorders that present acute agitation.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, PubMed, BIOSIS, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP up to November 2018 and PubMed until March 2020. Study selection and outcome extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted to compare the different IM second-generation antipsychotics among themselves and with IM haloperidol and placebo. The primary outcome was the number of responders at 2 h after the first injection. Responders at 24 h were also analysed.

RESULTS

10 studies with 1964 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Ziprasidone, olanzapine, aripiprazole and haloperidol were more efficacious than placebo in calming patients at 2 h after administration. Furthermore, olanzapine was superior to aripiprazole. The results at 24 h confirmed the superiority of aripiprazole, olanzapine and haloperidol over placebo, while for ziprasidone no data were available.

CONCLUSIONS

All second-generation antipsychotics available as intramuscular medications were effective in reducing agitation in people with schizophrenia. Olanzapine was somewhat more efficacious than aripiprazole.

Antipsychotic drugs v. barbiturates or benzodiazepines used as active placebos for schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Comparisons of antipsychotics with placebo can be biased by unblinding due to side effects. Therefore, this meta-analysis compared the efficacy of antipsychotics for acute schizophrenia in trials using barbiturates or benzodiazepines as active placebos.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in acute schizophrenia with at least 3 weeks duration and comparing any antipsychotic with barbiturates or benzodiazepines were eligible. ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, WHO-ICTRP as well as previous reviews were searched up to 9 January 2018. Two separate meta-analyses, one for barbiturates and one for benzodiazepines, were conducted using random-effects models. The primary outcome was response to treatment, and mean values of schizophrenia rating scales and dropouts were analyzed as secondary outcomes. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018086263).

RESULTS

Seven barbiturate-RCTs (number of participants n = 1736), and two benzodiazepine-RCTs (n = 76) were included in the analysis. The studies were published between 1960 and 1968 and involved mainly chronically ill patients. More patients on antipsychotics in comparison to barbiturates achieved a 'good' response (36.2% v. 16.8%; RR 2.15; 95% CI 1.36-3.41; I2 = 48.9) and 'any' response (57.4% v. 27.8%; RR 2.07; 95% CI 1.35-3.18; I2 = 68.2). In a single small trial (n = 60), there was no difference between antipsychotics and benzodiazepines on 'any' response (74.7% v. 65%; RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.82-1.62).

CONCLUSIONS

Antipsychotic drugs were more efficacious than barbiturates, based on a large sample size. Response ratios were similar to those observed in placebo-controlled trials. The results on benzodiazepines were inconclusive due to the small number of studies and participants.

Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of 32 Oral Antipsychotics for the Acute Treatment of Adults With Multi-Episode Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

(Reprinted with permission from the Lancet 2019; 394: 939-51).

Placebo response in pharmacological and dietary supplement trials of autism spectrum disorder (ASD): systematic review and meta-regression analysis

Background

Placebo response in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) might dilute drug-placebo differences and hinder drug development. Therefore, this meta-analysis investigated placebo response in core symptoms.

Methods

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, WHO-ICTRP (up to July 8, 2018), and PubMed (up to July 4, 2019) for randomized pharmacological and dietary supplement placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) with a minimum of seven days of treatment. Single-group meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Standardized mean changes (SMC) of core symptoms in placebo arms were the primary outcomes and placebo positive response rates were a secondary outcome. Predictors of placebo response were investigated with meta-regression analyses. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO ID CRD42019125317.

Results

Eighty-six RCTs with 2360 participants on placebo were included in our analysis (87% in children/adolescents). The majority of trials were small, single-center with a duration of 8–12 weeks and published after 2009. Placebo response in social-communication difficulties was SMC = − 0.32, 95% CI [− 0.39, − 0.25], in repetitive behaviors − 0.23[− 0.32, − 0.15] and in scales measuring overall core symptoms − 0.36 [− 0.46, − 0.26]. Overall, 19%, 95% CI [16–22%] of participants were at least much improved with placebo. Caregiver (vs. clinician) ratings, lower risk of bias, flexible-dosing, larger sample sizes and number of sites, less recent publication year, baseline levels of irritability, and the use of a threshold of core symptoms at inclusion were associated with larger placebo response in at least a core symptom domain.

Limitations

About 40% of the trials had an apparent focus on core symptoms. Investigation of the differential impact of predictors on placebo and drug response was impeded by the use of diverse experimental interventions with essentially different mechanisms of action. An individual-participant-data meta-analysis could allow for a more fine-grained analysis and provide more informative answers.

Conclusions

Placebo response in ASD was substantial and predicted by design- and participant-related factors, which could inform the design of future trials in order to improve the detection of efficacy in core symptoms. Potential solutions could be the minimization and careful selection of study sites as well as rigorous participant enrollment and the use of measurements of change not solely dependent on caregivers.

Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

The symptoms and signs of schizophrenia have been linked to high levels of dopamine in specific areas of the brain (limbic system). Antipsychotic drugs block the transmission of dopamine in the brain and reduce the acute symptoms of the disorder. An original version of the current review, published in 2012, examined whether antipsychotic drugs are also effective for relapse prevention. This is the updated version of the aforesaid review.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of maintaining antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia compared to withdrawing these agents.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including the registries of clinical trials (12 November 2008, 10 October 2017, 3 July 2018, 11 September 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs and placebo for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD), again based on a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 75 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 9145 participants comparing antipsychotic medication with placebo. The trials were published from 1959 to 2017 and their size ranged between 14 and 420 participants. In many studies the methods of randomisation, allocation and blinding were poorly reported. However, restricting the analysis to studies at low risk of bias gave similar results. Although this and other potential sources of bias limited the overall quality, the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs for maintenance treatment in schizophrenia was clear. Antipsychotic drugs were more effective than placebo in preventing relapse at seven to 12 months (primary outcome; drug 24% versus placebo 61%, 30 RCTs, n = 4249, RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.45, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 3; high-certainty evidence). Hospitalisation was also reduced, however, the baseline risk was lower (drug 7% versus placebo 18%, 21 RCTs, n = 3558, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57, NNTB 8, 95% CI 6 to 14; high-certainty evidence). More participants in the placebo group than in the antipsychotic drug group left the studies early due to any reason (at seven to 12 months: drug 36% versus placebo 62%, 24 RCTs, n = 3951, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65, NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; high-certainty evidence) and due to inefficacy of treatment (at seven to 12 months: drug 18% versus placebo 46%, 24 RCTs, n = 3951, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.44, NNTB 3, 95% CI 3 to 4). Quality of life might be better in drug-treated participants (7 RCTs, n = 1573 SMD -0.32, 95% CI to -0.57 to -0.07; low-certainty evidence); probably the same for social functioning (15 RCTs, n = 3588, SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.34; moderate-certainty evidence). Underpowered data revealed no evidence of a difference between groups for the outcome 'Death due to suicide' (drug 0.04% versus placebo 0.1%, 19 RCTs, n = 4634, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.97,low-certainty evidence) and for the number of participants in employment (at 9 to 15 months, drug 39% versus placebo 34%, 3 RCTs, n = 593, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.41, low certainty evidence). Antipsychotic drugs (as a group and irrespective of duration) were associated with more participants experiencing movement disorders (e.g. at least one movement disorder: drug 14% versus placebo 8%, 29 RCTs, n = 5276, RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.85, number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 20, 95% CI 14 to 50), sedation (drug 8% versus placebo 5%, 18 RCTs, n = 4078, RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.86, NNTH 50, 95% CI not significant), and weight gain (drug 9% versus placebo 6%, 19 RCTs, n = 4767, RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.35, NNTH 25, 95% CI 20 to 50).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For people with schizophrenia, the evidence suggests that maintenance on antipsychotic drugs prevents relapse to a much greater extent than placebo for approximately up to two years of follow-up. This effect must be weighed against the adverse effects of antipsychotic drugs. Future studies should better clarify the long-term morbidity and mortality associated with these drugs.

Efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of all available treatments for insomnia in the elderly: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Symptoms of insomnia are highly prevalent in the elderly. A significant number of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions exist, but, up-to-date, their comparative efficacy and safety has not been sufficiently assessed.

METHODS

We integrated the randomized evidence from every available treatment for insomnia in the elderly (>65 years) by performing a network meta-analysis. Several electronic databases were searched up to May 25, 2019. The two primary outcomes were total sleep time and sleep quality. Data for other 6 efficacy and 8 safety outcomes were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty-three RCTs with 6832 participants (75 years old on average) were included, 43 of which examined the efficacy of one or more drugs. Ten RCTs examined the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions and were evaluated only with pairwise meta-analyses because they were disconnected from the network. The overall confidence in the evidence was very low primarily due to the small amount of data per comparison and their sparse connectedness. Several benzodiazepines, antidepressants, and z-drugs performed better in both primary outcomes, but few comparisons had data from more than one trial. The limited evidence on non-pharmacological interventions suggested that acupressure, auricular acupuncture, mindfulness-based stress reduction program, and tart cherry juice were better than their control interventions. Regarding safety, no clear differences were detected among interventions due to large uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Insufficient evidence exists on which intervention is more efficacious for elderly patients with insomnia. More RCTs, with longer duration, making more direct interventions among active treatments and presenting more outcomes are urgently needed.

How well do elderly patients with major depressive disorder respond to antidepressants: a systematic review and single-group meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Depression is one of the leading causes of the global burden of disease, and it has particularly negative consequences for elderly patients. Antidepressants are the most frequently used treatment. We present the first single-group meta-analysis examining: 1) the response rates of elderly patients to antidepressants, and 2) the determinants of antidepressants response in this population.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases for randomized controlled trials on antidepressants in the elderly with major depressive disorder above 65 years (last search: December 2017). Response was defined as 50% improvement on validated rating scales. We extracted response rates from studies and imputed the missing ones with a validated method. Data were pooled in a single-group meta-analysis. Additionally, several potential moderators of response to antidepressants were examined by subgroup and meta-regression analyses.

RESULTS

We included 44 studies with a total of 6373 participants receiving antidepressants. On average, 50.7% of the patients reached a reduction of at least 50% on the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses revealed a better response to treatment for patients in antidepressant-controlled trials compared to placebo-controlled trials. Mean age, study duration, percentage of woman, severity of illness at baseline, dose of antidepressants in fluoxetine equivalents, year of publication, setting (in- or out-patients), antidepressant groups (SSRI, TCA, SSNRI, α2-antagonist, SNRI, MAO-inhibitor), ITT (intention-to-treat) analysis vs completer analysis, sponsorship and overall risk of bias were not significant moderators of response.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest an improvement in symptoms can be found in about 50% of the elderly with major depressive disorder treated with antidepressants.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 32 oral antipsychotics for the acute treatment of adults with multi-episode schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders in adults worldwide. Antipsychotic drugs are its treatment of choice, but there is controversy about which agent should be used. We aimed to compare and rank antipsychotics by quantifying information from randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

We did a network meta-analysis of placebo-controlled and head-to-head randomised controlled trials and compared 32 antipsychotics. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, BIOSIS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to Jan 8, 2019. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We included randomised controlled trials in adults with acute symptoms of schizophrenia or related disorders. We excluded studies in patients with treatment resistance, first episode, predominant negative or depressive symptoms, concomitant medical illnesses, and relapse-prevention studies. Our primary outcome was change in overall symptoms measured with standardised rating scales. We also extracted data for eight efficacy and eight safety outcomes. Differences in the findings of the studies were explored in metaregressions and sensitivity analyses. Effect size measures were standardised mean differences, mean differences, or risk ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014014919.

FINDINGS

We identified 54 417 citations and included 402 studies with data for 53 463 participants. Effect size estimates suggested all antipsychotics reduced overall symptoms more than placebo (although not statistically significant for six drugs), with standardised mean differences ranging from -0·89 (95% CrI -1·08 to -0·71) for clozapine to -0·03 (-0·59 to 0·52) for levomepromazine (40 815 participants). Standardised mean differences compared with placebo for reduction of positive symptoms (31 179 participants) varied from -0·69 (95% CrI -0·86 to -0·52) for amisulpride to -0·17 (-0·31 to -0·04) for brexpiprazole, for negative symptoms (32 015 participants) from -0·62 (-0·84 to -0·39; clozapine) to -0·10 (-0·45 to 0·25; flupentixol), for depressive symptoms (19 683 participants) from -0·90 (-1·36 to -0·44; sulpiride) to 0·04 (-0·39 to 0·47; flupentixol). Risk ratios compared with placebo for all-cause discontinuation (42 672 participants) ranged from 0·52 (0·12 to 0·95; clopenthixol) to 1·15 (0·36 to 1·47; pimozide), for sedation (30 770 participants) from 0·92 (0·17 to 2·03; pimozide) to 10·20 (4·72 to 29·41; zuclopenthixol), for use of antiparkinson medication (24 911 participants) from 0·46 (0·19 to 0·88; clozapine) to 6·14 (4·81 to 6·55; pimozide). Mean differences compared to placebo for weight gain (28 317 participants) ranged from -0·16 kg (-0·73 to 0·40; ziprasidone) to 3·21 kg (2·10 to 4·31; zotepine), for prolactin elevation (21 569 participants) from -77·05 ng/mL (-120·23 to -33·54; clozapine) to 48·51 ng/mL (43·52 to 53·51; paliperidone) and for QTc prolongation (15 467 participants) from -2·21 ms (-4·54 to 0·15; lurasidone) to 23·90 ms (20·56 to 27·33; sertindole). Conclusions for the primary outcome did not substantially change after adjusting for possible effect moderators or in sensitivity analyses (eg, when excluding placebo-controlled studies). The confidence in evidence was often low or very low.

INTERPRETATION

There are some efficacy differences between antipsychotics, but most of them are gradual rather than discrete. Differences in side-effects are more marked. These findings will aid clinicians in balancing risks versus benefits of those drugs available in their countries. They should consider the importance of each outcome, the patients' medical problems, and preferences.

FUNDING

German Ministry of Education and Research and National Institute for Health Research.

Efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions in older patients with major depressive disorder: A systematic review, pairwise and network meta-analysis

As there is currently no comprehensive evaluation about the efficacy and safety of interventions in elderly patients with major depressive disorder, we did a systematic review and network meta-analysis about all interventions in this population. We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane common mental disorders group, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CochraneLibrary, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO registry until Dec 12, 2017 to identify all randomized controlled trials about the treatment of major depressive disorder in patients over an age of 65. The primary outcome was response defined as reduction of at least 50% on the Hamilton Depression Scale or any other validated depression scale. Secondary outcomes were remission, depressive symptoms, dropouts total, dropouts owing to inefficacy and dropouts due to adverse events, quality of life and social functioning. Additionally, we analysed 116 adverse events. We identified 129 references from 53 RCTs with 9274 participants published from 1990 to 2017. The mean participant age was 73.7 years. In terms of the primary outcome response to treatment the network-meta-analysis showed significant superiority compared to placebo for quetiapine and duloxetine; in addition, agomelatine, imipramine and vortioxetine outperformed placebo in pairwise meta-analyses, and there were also significant superiorities of several antidepressants compared to placebo in secondary efficacy outcomes. Very limited evidence suggests that competitive memory training, geriatric home treatment group and detached mindfulness condition reduce depressive symptoms. Several antidepressants and quetiapine have been shown to be efficacious in elderly patients with major depressive disorder, but due to the comparably few available data, the results are not robust. Differences in the multiple side-effects analysed should also be considered in drug choice. Although there were significant effects for some non-pharmacological treatments, the overall evidence for non-pharmacological treatments in major depressive disorder is insufficient, because it is based on a few trials with usually small sample sizes.

Second-generation antipsychotic drugs and short-term somatic serious adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs might cause acutely occurring, serious side-effects and thus contribute to the increased physical morbidity and mortality observed in patients with severe mental health disorders. We examined this hypothesis by doing a meta-analysis of International Conference on Harmonisation-Good Clinical Practice-defined serious adverse events occurring in placebo-controlled trials of antipsychotics.

METHODS

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing second-generation antipsychotics with placebo. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for trials published in any language from database inception up until Jan 27, 2017. Trials were included without limitations in population (diagnostic category, age, sex, ethnicity), dosing regimen, blinding status, duration, or publication year. Only psychological studies lasting less than 1 day and trials done in mainland China were excluded. We contacted pharmaceutical companies, drug regulatory authorities, and study investigators for additional data. The primary outcome was the number of patients with at least one somatic serious adverse event. We estimated minimum and maximum numbers of patients with the outcome in each study group and synthesised the results with odds ratios (ORs) in a common-effects meta-analysis. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016033930.

FINDINGS

We identified 597 RCTs, comprising 108 664 participants, that met the inclusion criteria. 314 trials (67 642 participants) with details on individual serious adverse events available constituted the main dataset for meta-analysis. 88% of these were 13 weeks (approximately 3 months) or shorter in duration (median 6 weeks, IQR 4-9). At least one somatic serious adverse event occurred in 698 (1·63%) to 862 (2·02%) of 42 600 patients on antipsychotics, and in 343 (1·37%) to 419 (1·67%) of 25 042 patients on placebo. The odds ratios (ORs) were 1·24 (95% CI 1·08-1·42) and 1·24 (1·10-1·41) based on the minimum and maximum estimate, respectively. In predefined subgroup analyses we found evidence suggesting a larger effect in older patients (>65 years; OR 1·56, 95% CI 1·22-1·98; 1·58, 1·25-1·99) as compared with adults (18-65 years; 1·09, 0·91-1·29; 1·10, 0·95-1·28); likewise in children or adolescents (<18 years) although the evidence was more uncertain (1·49, 0·81-2·75; 1·54, 0·85-2·77). Of 597 included RCTs, 30 (5%), 358 (60%), and 209 (35%) were rated at high, moderate, or low risk of bias, respectively. τ² was zero for both analyses of the primary outcome (minimum estimate, maximum estimate). A Bayesian sensitivity analysis using external information on heterogeneity gave similar results.

INTERPRETATION

We found evidence that antipsychotics cause short-term somatic serious adverse events on top of somatic serious adverse events occurring independent of treatment. This effect appears to be mainly driven by results in older patients. Hence, clinicians should be aware that antipsychotics are potentially toxic, particularly when treating patients sharing risk factors with the older population.

FUNDING

German Ministry of Education and Research.

Response rates in patients with schizophrenia and positive symptoms receiving cognitive behavioural therapy: a systematic review and single-group meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioural therapy has been used for schizophrenia, but to which extent it is effective is still controversial. Results of existing meta-analyses are of difficult interpretation, because they mainly present effect sizes in the form of standardized mean differences between intervention and control groups based on rating scales, which are of unclear clinical meaning. No meta-analysis has considered the number of patients responding to treatment yet. Based on this ground, we present the first meta-analysis examining the response rates of patients with schizophrenia and positive symptoms to cognitive behavioural therapy.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases for randomized controlled trials on psychological interventions of schizophrenia including patients with positive symptoms, and included for this analysis the studies on cognitive behavioural therapy (last search: January 2018). We applied a validated imputation method to calculate the number of responders from rating scales for the outcomes overall symptoms and positive symptoms, based on two criteria, at least 20% and at least 50% reduction from baseline on PANSS or BPRS total scores. Data were pooled in a single-group summary meta-analysis using R software. Additionally, several potential moderators of response to cognitive behavioural therapy were examined by subgroup and meta-regression analyses. The protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017067795).

RESULTS

We included 33 studies with a total of 1142 participants receiving cognitive behavioural therapy. On average, 44.5 and 13.2% of the patients reached a 20% (minimally improved) and 50% (much improved) reduction of overall symptoms. Similarly, 52.9 and 24.8% of the patients reached a 20%/50% reduction of positive symptoms. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses revealed a better treatment response in overall symptoms for patients that were not treatment resistant and in studies with researchers' allegiance. Of borderline significance was the better response in studies employing expert therapists and in patients that were more severely ill at baseline. Blinding of outcome assessor, number of sessions, treatment duration, age and gender were not significant moderators of response.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that adding cognitive behavioural therapy to pharmacotherapy brings about a minimal improvement in overall symptoms among 44.5% of its recipients. Several study and patients characteristics can moderate response rates.

Antipsychotic drugs for elderly patients with schizophrenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Elderly patients with schizophrenia are a particularly vulnerable group often excluded from clinical trials. Currently there is no evidence-synthesis about the efficacy and safety of antipsychotics in this subgroup. We reviewed all randomized-controlled-trials, about antipsychotics in elderly schizophrenics (last search Dec 12, 2017). Pairwise meta-analyses were conducted. The primary outcome was overall symptoms. Secondary outcomes included positive symptoms, negative symptoms, response, dropouts, quality of life, social functioning and side-effects. We included 29 references from 18 unique randomized-controlled-trials with 1225 participants published from 1958 to 2009. The definition of "elderly" was very heterogeneous across the studies (minimum age 46-65, mean age 57-73). There were evidence gaps for most drugs in many outcomes. In terms of efficacy paliperidone was associated with fewer dropouts due to inefficacy than placebo in the only placebo-controlled-trial. Olanzapine was superior to haloperidol in overall symptoms, negative symptoms and response, and it was associated with fewer dropouts than risperidone. Risperidone and haloperidol produced more prolactin increase than olanzapine, and olanzapine was associated with less use of antiparkinson medication than haloperidol. Although we found no marked differences of the effects of these drugs in the elderly, the evidence presented was based on very few usually small studies. To examine specifically whether there are differences in efficacy and side-effects in elderly, which differs in meaningful ways from the general population, studies in patients who are defined by critiera as truly geriatric, which incorporates older age together with multimorbidity and fraility dimensions, may be more informative.

Antipsychotic drugs for patients with schizophrenia and predominant or prominent negative symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Negative symptoms are the core of schizophrenia, but whether antipsychotics are efficacious for their treatment is unclear. Moreover, there is debate whether patients in relevant trials should have predominant negative symptoms or whether prominent negative symptoms are also acceptable.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed randomised, blinded antipsychotic drug trials in patients with schizophrenia and either predominant or prominent negative symptoms (last search Dec 12, 2017). Separate pairwise meta-analyses were conducted in these two populations. The primary outcome was negative symptoms. Depressive, symptoms, positive symptoms, and extrapyramidal side-effects were analysed as causes of secondary negative symptoms.

FINDINGS

We included 21 randomized-controlled trials with 3451 participants which revealed the following significant differences in the primary outcome: in patients with predominant negative symptoms amisulpride was superior to placebo (N = 4; n = 590, SMD 0.47, CI 0.23, 0.71), olanzapine was superior to haloperidol in a small trial (n = 35) and cariprazine outperformed risperidone (N = 1, n = 456, SMD - 0.29, CI - 0.48, - 0.11). In patients with prominent negative symptoms, olanzapine and quetiapine were superior to risperidone in single trials. Overall, studies in prominent negative symptoms were potentially more confounded by improvements of secondary negative symptoms.

INTERPRETATION

Amisulpride is the only antipsychotic that outperformed placebo in the treatment of predominant negative symptoms, but there was a parallel reduction of depression. Cariprazine was better than risperidone in a large trial that was well-controlled for secondary negative symptoms, but the trial was sponsored by its manufacturer. Future trials should apply scientifically developed definitions such as the deficit syndrome and the persistent negative symptoms concept.

Second-generation antipsychotic drugs and short-term mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Acutely occurring, life-threatening side-effects of antipsychotic drugs might contribute to the reduced life expectancy observed in patients with severe mental disorders. We aimed to assess this hypothesis by doing a systematic review and meta-analysis of deaths occurring in placebo-controlled trials of antipsychotic drugs.

METHODS

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we included randomised controlled trials comparing second-generation antipsychotics with placebo across several diagnostic categories. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP from inception (the last search was done on Jan 21, 2017), and contacted pharmaceutical companies and regulatory authorities for further eligible trials. We examined mortality from any cause (the primary outcome) and mortality from natural causes, suicide, and other non-natural causes. We synthesised the results with odds ratios (ORs) in a common-effects meta-analysis. We investigated the effects of age, diagnostic category, sex, study duration, antipsychotic drug used, drug dose, and polypharmacy in subgroup and meta-regression analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016033930.

FINDINGS

We identified 596 randomised controlled trials published between 1978 and 2017, comprising 108 747 participants. 352 studies (comprising 84 988 participants) with mortality data available constituted the main dataset for our meta-analysis. 207 (0·4%) deaths were reported in 53 804 patients on an antipsychotic drug and 99 (0·3%) deaths in 31 184 patients on placebo. 300 (85%) of 352 trials were 13 weeks (3 months) or shorter in duration (median 6 weeks; IQR 4-10). We found no evidence of a difference between antipsychotic drugs and placebo in mortality by any cause (OR 1·19; 95% CI 0·93-1·53), from natural causes (1·29; 0·85-1·94), from suicide (1·15; 0·47-2·81), and from other non-natural causes (1·55; 0·66-3·63). Most subgroup and meta-regression analyses did not indicate any important effect moderators. The exceptions were increased mortality in patients with dementia (OR 1·56; 95% CI 1·10-2·21), in elderly patients (1·38; 1·01-1·89), in aripiprazole-treated patients (2·20; 1·00-4·86), and in studies with a higher proportion of women (regression coefficient 0·025; 95% credible interval 0·010-0·040). However, the effects in elderly patients, aripiprazole-treated patients, and women were mainly based on the included dementia trials. For patients with schizophrenia there was no evidence of an increased mortality risk (OR 0·69; 95% CI 0·35-1·35).

INTERPRETATION

Overall, and for the main indication of schizophrenia, there is no evidence from randomised trials that antipsychotic drugs increase mortality. However, vulnerable populations (particularly patients with dementia) might be at increased risk. This meta-analysis could only address acute treatment effects leading to death in the short-term, and not long-term effects of antipsychotic drugs on mortality.

FUNDING

German Ministry of Education and Research.

Efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of antipsychotics in children and adolescents with schizophrenia: A network meta-analysis

Children and adolescents with schizophrenia are a particularly vulnerable group. Thus, we integrated all the randomized evidence from the available antipsychotics used for this subgroup by performing a network-meta-analysis and pairwise meta-analysis using a random-effects model. We searched multiple databases up to Nov 17, 2016 (final update search in PubMed: Dec 12, 2017). The primary outcome was efficacy as measured by overall change/endpoint in symptoms of schizophrenia. Secondary outcomes included positive and negative symptoms, response, dropouts, quality of life, social functioning, weight gain, sedation, prolactin, extrapyramidal side effects (EPS) and antiparkinsonian medication. Twenty-eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 3003 unique participants (58% males; mean age 14.41 years) published from 1967 to 2017 were identified. Clozapine was significantly more effective than all other analyzed antipsychotics. Nearly all antipsychotics were more efficacious compared to placebo, but ziprasidone showed no efficacy. In terms of preventing weight gain, molindone, lurasidone and ziprasidone were benign. The highest weight gain was found for clozapine, quetiapine and olanzapine. Most antipsychotics had some sedating effects. Risperidone, haloperidol, paliperidone and olanzapine were associated with prolactin increase. There were evidence gaps for some drugs and many outcomes, especially safety outcomes. Most of the comparisons are based only on one study or just on indirect evidence. Nevertheless, the available direct and indirect evidence showed that the treatment effects were similar compared to findings in adult patients with schizophrenia.

Antipsychotic drugs for the acute treatment of patients with a first episode of schizophrenia: a systematic review with pairwise and network meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

The first episode of schizophrenia is a pivotal phase of this debilitating illness. Which drug to use remains controversial without a summary of all direct or indirect comparisons of drugs. We did a systematic review with pairwise and network meta-analyses of efficacy and tolerability.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Biosis, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomised controlled trials of antipsychotics for the acute treatment of first-episode schizophrenia, published up to Nov 17, 2016. Our primary outcome was overall change in symptoms. Secondary outcomes were change in positive and negative symptoms, categorical response to treatment, study dropout for any reason and for inefficacy of treatment, use of drugs to treat parkinsonian symptoms, weight gain, sedation, increase in prolactin release, overall functioning, and quality of life. We did the meta-analyses with a random-effects model to calculate standardised mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs.

FINDINGS

We identified 19 relevant randomised controlled trials of 12 antipsychotic drugs that involved 2669 participants. 13 of the studies presented data on the primary outcome. For overall reduction of symptoms, amisulpride (SMD -0·37, 95% CI -0·61 to -0·14), olanzapine (-0·25, -0·39 to -0·12), ziprasidone (-0·25, -0·48 to -0·01), and risperidone (-0·14, -0·27 to -0·01) were significantly more efficacious than haloperidol, but the evidence was very low to moderate quality. Amisulpride was superior for reduction of symptoms to quetiapine (SMD -0·25, 95% CI -0·50 to -0·01). Olanzapine was superior to haloperidol and risperidone for reduction of negative symptoms. Several second-generation antipsychotics were superior to haloperidol in terms of all-cause discontinuation. Olanzapine was associated with at least one use of drugs to treat parkinsonian symptoms and quetiapine with less akathisia than haloperidol, aripiprazole, risperidone, and olanzapine, but, again, evidence was very low to low quality. Molindone was superior to risperidone, haloperidol, and olanzapine in terms of weight gain, and superior to risperidone in terms of increase in prolactin release.

INTERPREATION

Haloperidol seems to be a suboptimum treatment option for acute treatment of first-episode schizophrenia, but we found little difference between second-generation antipsychotics. The evidence was generally of low quality and the numbers of patients for each drug were small. Thus, the choice of treatment should be guided primarily by side-effects.

FUNDING

German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.