Association of symptom severity and cerebrospinal fluid alterations in recent onset psychosis in schizophrenia-spectrum disorders - An individual patient data meta-analysis.

Neuroinflammation and blood-cerebrospinal fluid barrier (BCB) disruption could be key elements in schizophrenia-spectrum disorders(SSDs) etiology and symptom modulation. We present the largest two-stage individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis, investigating the association of BCB disruption and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) alterations with symptom severity in first-episode psychosis (FEP) and recent onset psychotic disorder (ROP) individuals, with a focus on sex-related differences. Data was collected from PubMed and EMBASE databases. FEP, ROP and high-risk syndromes for psychosis IPD were included if routine basic CSF-diagnostics were reported. Risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated. Random-effects meta-analyses and mixed-effects linear regression models were employed to assess the impact of BCB alterations on symptom severity. Published (6 studies) and unpublished IPD from n = 531 individuals was included in the analyses. CSF was altered in 38.8 % of individuals. No significant differences in symptom severity were found between individuals with and without CSF alterations (SMD = -0.17, 95 %CI -0.55-0.22, p = 0.341). However, males with elevated CSF/serum albumin ratios or any CSF alteration had significantly higher positive symptom scores than those without alterations (SMD = 0.34, 95 %CI 0.05-0.64, p = 0.037 and SMD = 0.29, 95 %CI 0.17-0.41p = 0.005, respectively). Mixed-effects and simple regression models showed no association (p > 0.1) between CSF parameters and symptomatic outcomes. No interaction between sex and CSF parameters was found (p > 0.1). BCB disruption appears highly prevalent in early psychosis and could be involved in positive symptoms severity in males, indicating potential difficult-to-treat states. This work highlights the need for considering BCB breakdownand sex-related differences in SSDs clinical trials and treatment strategies.

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.

Sharing information across patient subgroups to draw conclusions from sparse treatment networks.

Network meta-analysis (NMA) usually provides estimates of the relative effects with the highest possible precision. However, sparse networks with few available studies and limited direct evidence can arise, threatening the robustness and reliability of NMA estimates. In these cases, the limited amount of available information can hamper the formal evaluation of the underlying NMA assumptions of transitivity and consistency. In addition, NMA estimates from sparse networks are expected to be imprecise and possibly biased as they rely on large-sample approximations that are invalid in the absence of sufficient data. We propose a Bayesian framework that allows sharing of information between two networks that pertain to different population subgroups. Specifically, we use the results from a subgroup with a lot of direct evidence (a dense network) to construct informative priors for the relative effects in the target subgroup (a sparse network). This is a two-stage approach where at the first stage, we extrapolate the results of the dense network to those expected from the sparse network. This takes place by using a modified hierarchical NMA model where we add a location parameter that shifts the distribution of the relative effects to make them applicable to the target population. At the second stage, these extrapolated results are used as prior information for the sparse network. We illustrate our approach through a motivating example of psychiatric patients. Our approach results in more precise and robust estimates of the relative effects and can adequately inform clinical practice in presence of sparse networks.

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.

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.

Prescribing Z-drugs in Greece: an analysis of the national prescription database from 2018 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: The Z-drugs are indicated for the short-treatment of insomnia, but they are associated with abuse, dependence and side-effects. There are only sparse data about Z-drug prescribing in Greece. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Greek prescription database, considering prescriptions for the available Z-drugs in Greece, i.e., zolpidem and zopiclone, during the period from 01.10.2018 to 01.10.2021 in order to examine the prevalence, monthly number and characteristics of Z-drug prescriptions in Greece. RESULTS: There were 1,229,842 prescriptions for Z-drugs (zolpidem: 89.7%) during the investigated period from 2018 to 2021, which corresponded to 156,554 patients (73.1% ≥ 65 years, 64.5% female). More than half of the patients (65.8%) had more than one prescription with a median number of 8, interquartile range IQR [3, 17], prescriptions during the three-year study period. Most patients (76.1%) were prescribed by medical specialties other than psychiatrists and neurologists, despite a considerable frequency of psychiatric comorbidities (53.7%). About half of patients with anxiety/depression were not prescribed anxiolytics or antidepressants, a practice more frequently observed among medical specialties other than psychiatrists and neurologists. The average annual prevalence of at least one prescription for Z-drugs in the Greek population during 2019-2020 was approximately 0.9% (higher in females and older adults). The monthly number of prescriptions was relatively stable with a median number of 334.2 IQR [310.4; 351.6] prescriptions per 100,000 persons. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable number of patients are prescribed Z-drugs in Greece, more often older adults, females and patients with psychiatric comorbidities. The prescribing physicians were in the majority (70%) internists and general practitioners, while psychiatrists (10.9%) and neurologists (6.1%) accounted for a smaller proportion. Due to the limitations inherent to medical claims databases, further research is warranted in order to elucidate the potential abuse and misuse of Z-drugs.

Informing the development of a decision aid: Expectations and wishes from service users and psychiatrists towards a decision aid for antipsychotics in the inpatient setting.

OBJECTIVES: Decision aids (DAs) are promising tools to foster evidence-based shared decision-making between practitioners and service users. Nevertheless, it is still obscure how an evidence-based DA for people with severe mental illness, especially psychosis, should look in an inpatient treatment setting to be useful and feasible. Therefore, we conducted focus groups with psychiatrists and service users to collect and assess their expectations and wishes regarding an evidence-based DA. From these findings, we derived immediate recommendations for the future development of DAs. METHODS: We held two group interviews with service users (n = 8) and three group interviews with psychiatrists (n = 10). We used an open, large-scale topic guide. First, we presented data from a current meta-analysis on antipsychotics to the interviewees and, in a second step, asked for their expectations and wishes towards a DA that integrates these data. RESULTS: Our thematic analysis revealed six key themes addressed by the respondents: (1) general considerations on the importance and usefulness of such a DA, (2) critical comments on psychiatry and psychopharmacotherapy, (3) communicative prerequisites for the use of a DA, (4) form and content of the DA, (5) data input, data processing and output as well as (6) application of the DA and possible obstacles. CONCLUSIONS: Participants identified several important features for the development of DAs for selecting antipsychotics in inpatient psychiatric treatment. The digital format was met with the greatest approval. Especially the adaptability to different needs, users and psychopathologies and the possibility to outsource information dissemination via app seemed to be a decisive convincing argument. Further research is required to test specific features of DAs to be developed in clinical settings.

Evidence-based Shared-Decision-Making Assistant (SDM-assistant) for choosing antipsychotics: protocol of a cluster-randomized trial in hospitalized patients with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Choosing an antipsychotic medication is an important medical decision in the treatment of schizophrenia. This decision requires risk-benefit assessments of antipsychotics, and thus, shared-decision making between physician and patients is strongly encouraged. Although the efficacy and side-effect profiles of antipsychotics are well-established, there is no clear framework for the communication of the evidence between physicians and patients. For this reason, we developed an evidence-based shared-decision making assistant (SDM-assistant) that presents high-quality evidence from network meta-analysis on the efficacy and side-effect profile of antipsychotics and can be used as a basis for shared-decision making between physicians and patients when selecting antipsychotic medications. METHODS: The planned matched-pair cluster-randomised trial will be conducted in acute psychiatric wards (n = 14 wards planned) and will include adult inpatients with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders (N = 252 participants planned). On the intervention wards, patients and their treating physicians will use the SDM-assistant, whenever a decision on choosing an antipsychotic is warranted. On the control wards, antipsychotics will be chosen according to treatment-as-usual. The primary outcome will be patients' perceived involvement in the decision-making during the inpatient stay as measured with the SDM-Q-9. We will also assess therapeutic alliance, symptom severity, side-effects, treatment satisfaction, adherence, quality of life, functioning and rehospitalizations as secondary outcomes. Outcomes could be analysed at discharge and at follow-up after three months from discharge. The analysis will be conducted per-protocol using mixed-effects linear regression models for continuous outcomes and logistic regression models using generalised estimating equations for dichotomous outcomes. Barriers and facilitators in the implementation of the intervention will also be examined using a qualitative content analysis. DISCUSSION: This is the first trial to examine a decision assistant specifically designed to facilitate shared-decision making for choosing antipsychotic medications, i.e., SDM-assistant, in acutely ill inpatients with schizophrenia. If the intervention can be successfully implemented, SDM-assistant could advance evidence-based medicine in schizophrenia by putting medical evidence on antipsychotics into the context of patient preferences and values. This could subsequently lead to a higher involvement of the patients in decision-making and better therapy decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (ID: DRKS00027316 , registration date 26.01.2022).

Antipsychotic polypharmacy reduction versus polypharmacy continuation for people with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, different antipsychotics can be combined in the treatment of people with schizophrenia (polypharmacy). This strategy can aim at increasing efficacy, but might also increase the adverse effects due to drug-drug interactions. Reducing polypharmacy by withdrawing one or more antipsychotics may reduce this problem, but must be done carefully, in order to maintain efficacy. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects and safety of reducing antipsychotic polypharmacy compared to maintaining people with schizophrenia on the same number of antipsychotics. SEARCH METHODS: On 10 February 2021, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and WHO ICTRP. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared reduction in the number of antipsychotics to continuation of the current number of antipsychotics. We included adults with schizophrenia or related disorders who were receiving more than one antipsychotic and were stabilised on their current treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all the identified references for inclusion, and all the full papers. We contacted study authors if we needed any further information. Two review authors independently extracted the data, assessed the risk of bias using RoB 2 and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The primary outcomes were: quality of life assessed as number of participants with clinically important change in quality of life; service use assessed as number of participants readmitted to hospital and adverse effects assessed with number of participants leaving the study early due to adverse effects. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with 319 participants. Study duration ranged from three months to one year. All studies compared polypharmacy continuation with two antipsychotics to polypharmacy reduction to one antipsychotic.  We assessed the risk of bias of results as being of some concern or at high risk of bias. A lower number of participants left the study early due to any reason in the polypharmacy continuation group (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.68; I2 = 0%; 5 RCTs, n = 319; low-certainty evidence), and a lower number of participants left the study early due to inefficacy (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.65; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, n = 201).  Polypharmacy continuation resulted in more severe negative symptoms (MD 3.30, 95% CI 1.51 to 5.09; 1 RCT, n = 35). There was no clear difference between polypharmacy reduction and polypharmacy continuation on readmission to hospital, leaving the study early due to adverse effects, functioning, global state, general mental state and positive symptoms, number of participants with at least one adverse effect, weight gain and other specific adverse effects, mortality and cognition. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low or low across measured outcomes. No studies reported quality of life, days in hospital, relapse, depressive symptoms, behaviour and satisfaction with care. Due to lack of data, it was not possible to perform some planned sensitivity analyses, including one controlling for increasing the dose of the remaining antipsychotic. As a result, we do not know if the observed results might be influenced by adjustment of dose of remaining antipsychotic compound. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review summarises the latest evidence on polypharmacy continuation compared with polypharmacy reduction. Our results show that polypharmacy continuation might be associated with a lower number of participants leaving the study early, especially due to  inefficacy. However, the evidence is of low and very low certainty and the data analyses based on few study only, so that it is not possible to draw strong conclusions based on the results of the present review. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to investigate this important topic.

Antipsychotic dose reduction compared to dose continuation for people with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic drugs are the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia, yet they are associated with diverse and potentially dose-related side effects which can reduce quality of life. For this reason, the lowest possible doses of antipsychotics are generally recommended, but higher doses are often used in clinical practice. It is still unclear if and how antipsychotic doses could be reduced safely in order to minimise the adverse-effect burden without increasing the risk of relapse. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of reducing antipsychotic dose compared to continuing the current dose for people with schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted a systematic search on 10 February 2021 at the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and WHO ICTRP. We also inspected the reference lists of included studies and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any dose reduction against continuation in people with schizophrenia or related disorders who were stabilised on their current antipsychotic treatment.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently screened relevant records for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies, and assessed the risk of bias using RoB 2. We contacted study authors for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcomes were clinically important change in quality of life,  rehospitalisations and dropouts due to adverse effects; key secondary outcomes were clinically important change in functioning, relapse, dropouts for any reason, and at least one adverse effect. We also examined scales measuring symptoms, quality of life, and functioning as well as a comprehensive list of specific adverse effects. We pooled outcomes at the endpoint preferably closest to one year. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs, of which 22 studies provided data with 2635 participants (average age 38.4 years old). The median study sample size was 60 participants (ranging from 18 to 466 participants) and length was 37 weeks (ranging from 12 weeks to 2 years). There were variations in the dose reduction strategies in terms of speed of reduction (i.e. gradual in about half of the studies (within 2 to 16 weeks) and abrupt in the other half), and in terms of degree of reduction (i.e. median planned reduction of 66% of the dose up to complete withdrawal in three studies). We assessed risk of bias across outcomes predominantly as some concerns or high risk.  No study reported data on the number of participants with a clinically important change in quality of life or functioning, and only eight studies reported continuous data on scales measuring quality of life or functioning. There was no difference between dose reduction and continuation on scales measuring quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.15, 6 RCTs, n = 719, I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence) and scales measuring functioning (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.17, 6 RCTs, n = 966, I2 = 0%, high certainty evidence). Dose reduction in comparison to continuation may increase the risk of rehospitalisation based on data from eight studies with estimable effect sizes; however, the 95% CI does not exclude the possibility of no difference (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.81, 8 RCTs, n = 1413, I2 = 59% (moderate heterogeneity), very low certainty evidence). Similarly, dose reduction increased the risk of relapse based on data from 20 studies (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.06, 20 RCTs, n = 2481, I2 = 70% (substantial heterogeneity), low certainty evidence).   More participants in the dose reduction group in comparison to the continuation group left the study early due to adverse effects (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.49, 6 RCTs with estimable effect sizes, n = 1079, I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence) and for any reason (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.81, 12 RCTs, n = 1551, I2 = 48% (moderate heterogeneity), moderate certainty evidence). Lastly, there was no difference between the dose reduction and continuation groups in the number of participants with at least one adverse effect based on data from four studies with estimable effect sizes (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.12, 5 RCTs, n = 998 (4 RCTs, n = 980 with estimable effect sizes), I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review synthesised the latest evidence on the reduction of antipsychotic doses for stable individuals with schizophrenia. There was no difference between dose reduction and continuation groups in quality of life, functioning, and number of participants with at least one adverse effect. However, there was a higher risk for relapse and dropouts, and potentially for rehospitalisations, with dose reduction. Of note, the majority of the trials focused on relapse prevention rather potential beneficial outcomes on quality of life, functioning, and adverse effects, and in some studies there was rapid and substantial reduction of doses. Further well-designed RCTs are therefore needed to provide more definitive answers.

Disease-modifying agents for multiple sclerosis and the risk for reporting cancer: A disproportionality analysis using the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System database.

AIM: While the efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is established, little is known about their long-term safety. Cancer-risk after DMT use remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate whether the prescription of DMTs for patients with MS increases the risk of reporting cancer. METHODS: Data from the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System were extracted from 2004 to 2020. After data cleaning, the crude and adjusted reported odds ratios (cROR and aROR) for cancer were calculated for DMTs with Interferon beta-1a as the reference drug. Sensitivity analyses investigated the group of reports with multiple registered DMTs, the effect of indication restriction and the results when using the rest of the DMTs as reference. RESULTS: For malignant tumours, aROR (95% confidence interval [CI]) values were Cladribine 0.46 (0.18-0.95), Dimethyl fumarate 0.30 (0.27-0.34), Fingolimod 0.61 (0.53-0.70), Glatiramer 0.50 (0.43-0.58), Alemtuzumab 0.84 (0.64-1.08), Interferon beta-1b 0.49 (0.42-0.56), Natalizumab 0.36 (0.34-0.39), Ocrelizumab 0.48 (0.29-0.74), Peginterferon beta-1a 0.35 (0.26-0.48), Siponimod 0.89 (0.47-1.54) and Teriflunomide 0.25(0.21-0.30) adjusted to age, gender and concomitant medications. In the sensitivity analysis, when the rest of the drugs were used as a reference, Interferon beta-1a and Peginterferon beta-1a had aROR (95% CI) 2.60 (2.47-2.74, P < .001) and Alemtuzumab had aROR 1.47 (1.13-1.88, I = .003). CONCLUSIONS: No safety signal for increased cancer risk was detected among the approved DMTs. A potential safety signal detected in the sensitivity analysis concerning Interferon beta-1a and Alemtuzumab requires further evaluation with more robust evidence.

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.

Levetiracetam as preventive treatment in adults with migraine: an up-to-date systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate current evidence on the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam as migraine prophylaxis in adult patients suffering from migraine attacks. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and International Web of Science were searched (last search in August 2018) for studies investigating levetiracetam for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Both randomized and non-randomized trials were eligible. Efficacy was the primary outcome, but tolerability was also investigated. The study is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42018088900. RESULTS: Nine studies, enrolling 215 patients, were included. Levetiracetam decreased the frequency of attacks with headache in all studies, with a pooled mean difference of -3.02 (95% CI: -4.59 to -1.45; I2 = 0%), -4.65(-7 to -2.3; I2 = 0%), and -5.71 (-8.60 to -2.82; I2 = 0%) at 1, 3, and 6 months compared with baseline. Three randomized controlled trials were included, and levetiracetam was superior to placebo in two but was inferior to sodium valproate in reducing headache frequency. Similar results were found in the other indices of efficacy, and levetiracetam was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Levetiracetam may be a relatively safe and efficacious treatment for the prophylaxis of migraine based on limited evidence, most from uncontrolled studies. Further evidence from randomized controlled trials is necessary.

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.

Detecting a potential safety signal of antidepressants and type 2 diabetes: a pharmacovigilance-pharmacodynamic study.

AIMS: Recent data suggest that antidepressants are associated with incident diabetes but the possible pharmacological mechanism is still questioned. The aim of the present study was to evaluate antidepressant's risk for reporting diabetes using disproportionality analysis of the FDA adverse events spontaneous reporting system (FAERS) database and to investigate possible receptor/transporter mechanisms involved. METHODS: Data from 2004 to 2017 were analysed using OpenVigil2 and adjusted reporting odds ratio (aROR) for reporting diabetes was calculated for 22 antidepressants. Events included in the narrow scope of the SMQ 'hyperglycaemia/new-onset diabetes mellitus' were defined as cases and all the other events as non-cases. The pharmacodynamic profile was extracted using the PDSP and IUPHAR/BPS databases and the occupancy on receptors (serotonin, alpha adrenoreceptors, dopamine, muscarinic, histamine) and transporters (SERT, NET, DAT) was estimated. The relationship between aROR for diabetes and receptor occupancy was investigated with Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) and univariate linear regression. RESULTS: Six antidepressants were associated with diabetes: nortriptyline with aROR [95% CI] of 2.01 [1.41-2.87], doxepin 1.97 [1.31-2.97], imipramine 1.82 [1.09-3.06], sertraline 1.47 [1.29-1.68], mirtazapine 1.33 [1.04-1.69] and amitriptyline 1.31 [1.09-1.59]. Strong positive correlation coefficients between occupancy and aROR for diabetes were identified for the receptors M1 , M3 , M4 , M5 and H1 . CONCLUSION: Most of the tricyclic antidepressants, mirtazapine and sertraline seem to be associated with reporting diabetes in FAERS. Higher degrees of occupancy on muscarinic receptors and H1 may be a plausible pharmacological mechanism. Further clinical assessment and pharmacovigilance data is needed to validate this potential safety signal.

Nogo receptor complex expression dynamics in the inflammatory foci of central nervous system experimental autoimmune demyelination.

BACKGROUND: Nogo-A and its putative receptor NgR are considered to be among the inhibitors of axonal regeneration in the CNS. However, few studies so far have addressed the issue of local NgR complex multilateral localization within inflammation in an MS mouse model of autoimmune demyelination. METHODS: Chronic experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) was induced in C57BL/6 mice. Analyses were performed on acute (days 18-22) and chronic (day 50) time points and compared to controls. The temporal and spatial expression of the Nogo receptor complex (NgR and coreceptors) was studied at the spinal cord using epifluorescent and confocal microscopy or real-time PCR. Data are expressed as cells/mm2, as mean % ± SEM, or as arbitrary units of integrated density. RESULTS: Animals developed a moderate to severe EAE without mortality, followed by a progressive, chronic clinical course. NgR complex spatial expression varied during the main time points of EAE. NgR with coreceptors LINGO-1 and TROY was increased in the spinal cord in the acute phase whereas LINGO-1 and p75 signal seemed to be dominant in the chronic phase, respectively. NgR was detected on gray matter NeuN+ neurons of the spinal cord, within the white matter inflammatory foci (14.2 ± 4.3 % NgR+ inflammatory cells), and found to be colocalized with GAP-43+ axonal growth cones while no ß-TubIII+, SMI-32+, or APP+ axons were found as NgR+. Among the NgR+ inflammatory cells, 75.6 ± 9.0 % were microglial/macrophages (lectin+), 49.6 ± 14.2 % expressed CD68 (phagocytic ED1+ cells), and no cells were Mac-3+. Of these macrophages/monocytes, only Arginase-1+/NgR+ but not iNOS+/NgR+ were present in lesions both in acute and chronic phases. CONCLUSIONS: Our data describe in detail the expression of the Nogo receptor complex within the autoimmune inflammatory foci and suggest a possible immune action for NgR apart from the established inhibitory one on axonal growth. Its expression by inflammatory macrophages/monocytes could signify a possible role of these cells on axonal guidance and clearance of the lesioned area during inflammatory demyelination.

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.