Is cognitive behavioral therapy more effective than pharmacotherapy for binge spectrum disorders? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Binge spectrum disorders are prevalent worldwide. Psychiatric and medical comorbidities are common, and societal costs are significant. Evidence-based treatment remains underutilized. Cognitive behavioral therapy is the recommended first-line treatment, but pharmacotherapy may be easier to access. INTERVENTIONS: Meta-analytic evidence directly comparing cognitive behavioral therapy with pharmacotherapy is lacking. We aimed to compare the effects of cognitive behavioral therapy interventions with any pharmacological treatment for binge spectrum disorders. We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and reference lists for randomized controlled trials comparing cognitive behavioral therapy with any pharmacotherapy for bulimia nervosa/binge eating disorder and performed pairwise meta-analytic evaluations. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes are remission and frequency of binges. Secondary outcomes are frequency of purges, response, eating disorder psychopathology, weight/body mass index, depression, anxiety, quality of life and dropouts. RESULTS: Eleven randomized controlled trials comparing cognitive behavioral therapy with fluoxetine/imipramine/desipramine/methylphenidate/sibutramine were identified (N = 531). Cognitive behavioral therapy was superior to antidepressants in terms of remission, frequency of binges and eating disorder psychopathology. There were no statistically significant differences for any of the individual cognitive behavioral therapy vs drug comparisons in terms of response/depression/anxiety/weight/quality of life/dropouts. Cognitive behavioral therapy was not superior to sibutramine/methylphenidate for the primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Data are scarce, comparisons underpowered and, considering the inherent methodological limitations of psychotherapy trials, questions arise regarding the presumed superiority of cognitive behavioral therapy. Further research is needed.

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.

Linkage of Young Mania Rating Scale to Clinical Global Impression Scale to Enhance Utility in Clinical Practice and Research Trials.

INTRODUCTION: The Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) is the gold standard to assess manic symptoms of bipolar disorder, yet the clinical meaning of scores is unknown. To clinically understand and interpret YMRS scores, we examined linkages between the total and change scores of YMRS with the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) ratings. METHODS: Individual participant data (N=2,988) from eight randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were included. Data were collected at baseline and subsequent visits. Spearman's correlation coefficients ρ were computed, and equipercentile linking was implemented. RESULTS: A YMRS score of 6 points corresponded approximately to 'borderline mentally ill,' 12 points to 'mildly ill,' 20 points to 'moderately ill,' 30 points to 'markedly ill,' 40 points to 'severely ill,' and 52 points to 'among the most extremely ill' patients on the CGI-S. A reduction of CGI-S by one point as well as 'minimally improved' on the CGI-I corresponded approximately to an absolute decrease of 4 to 8 YMRS points or a 21% to 29% reduction of YMRS baseline score whereas a reduction of CGI-S by two points and 'much improved' on the CGI-I corresponded to an absolute decrease of 10 to 15 points or a 42% to 53% reduction of YMRS baseline score. DISCUSSION: The current study findings offer clinicians meaningful cutoff values to interpret YMRS scores. Moreover, these values contribute to the definition of treatment targets, response, remission, and entry criteria in mania trials.

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.

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.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: The effect of vitamin E supplementation in adult patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Νon-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is estimated to be the most common cause of end-stage liver disease in the next years. Vitamin E has shown beneficial effects as a possible "scavenger" of oxidative stress products, which play a major role in pathogenesis of the disease. The purpose of the present meta-analysis is to investigate the effects of vitamin E supplementation in biochemical and histological parameters in adult patients with NAFLD. METHODS: Literature search was performed in major electronic databases (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Embase) up to June 2020 for randomized clinical trials, which examined vitamin E versus placebo treatment in adults with NAFLD. Changes in liver enzymes were considered as primary outcomes while changes in histological, biochemical, and metabolic parameters as secondary. Quality of evidence was assessed through risk of bias according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in qualitative analysis and seven in quantitative analysis. Vitamin E reduced the values of liver enzymes compared with placebo (-7.37 IU/L, 95% confidence interval: -10.11 to -4.64 for alanine aminotransferase, and -5.71 IU/L, 95% confidence interval: -9.49 to -1.93 for aspartate aminotransferase). Additionally, vitamin E improved statistically significantly liver pathology in every individual histological parameter as well as low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, fasting blood glucose, and serum leptin values. CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin E can improve biochemical and histological characteristics of NAFLD patients, especially of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis patients. The results indicate that vitamin E could be a promising choice and be considered as a treatment option in patients with NAFLD.

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.

Increasing antipsychotic dose for non response in schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Many people with schizophrenia do not reach a satisfactory clinical response with a standard dose of an initially prescribed antipsychotic drug. In such cases, clinicians face the dilemma of increasing the antipsychotic dose in order to enhance antipsychotic efficacy. OBJECTIVES: To examine the efficacy of increasing antipsychotic dose compared to keeping the same dose in the treatment of people with schizophrenia who have not responded (as defined in the individual studies) to an initial antipsychotic drug trial. We also examine the adverse effects associated with such a procedure. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (10 June 2014, 6 October 2015, and 30 March 2017). We examined references of all included studies for further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs), reporting useable data, comparing increasing the antipsychotic dose rather than maintaining the original dose for people with schizophrenia who do not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently extracted data . We analysed dichotomous data using relative risks (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean differences (MD) and their 95% CI. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: Ten relevant RCTs with 675 participants are included in this review. All trials were double blind except one single blind. All studies had a run-in phase to confirm they did not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment. The trials were published between 1980 and 2016. In most studies the methods of randomisation, allocation and blinding were poorly reported. In addition sample sizes were often small, limiting the overall quality of the evidence. Overall, no clear difference was found between groups in terms of the number of participants who showed clinically relevant response (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.40, 9 RCTs, N = 533, low-quality evidence), or left the study early due to adverse effects (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.52 to 5.07, very low quality evidence), or due to any reason (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90, 5 RCTs, N = 353, low-quality evidence). Similarly, no clear difference was found in general mental state as measured by PANSS total score change (MD -1.44, 95% CI -6.85 to 3.97, 3 RCTs, N = 258, very low quality evidence). At least one adverse effect was equivocal between groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.50, 2 RCTs, N = 191, very low quality evidence). Data were not reported for time in hospital or quality-of-life outcomes. Finally, subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not show any effect on the primary outcome but these analyses were clearly underpowered. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current data do not show any clear differences between increasing or maintaining the antipsychotic dose for people with schizophrenia who do not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment. Adverse effect reporting was limited and poor. There is an urgent need for further trials in order to determine the optional treatment strategy in such cases.

Increasing antipsychotic dose versus switching antipsychotic for non response in schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Many people with schizophrenia do not respond to an initially prescribed antipsychotic drug. In such cases, one treatment strategy could be to increase the antipsychotic dose; and another strategy could be to switch to a different antipsychotic drug. OBJECTIVES: To examine the efficacy of increasing the antipsychotic dose versus switching the antipsychotic drug in the treatment of non-responsive people with schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (10 June 2014, 6 October 2015, and 30 March 2017). We examined references of all included studies for further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing increasing the antipsychotic dose versus switching to a different antipsychotic drug for people with schizophrenia who have not responded to their initial antipsychotic treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data using relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We analysed continuous data using mean differences (MD) and their 95% CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We include one RCT with relevant data on 29 participants in this review. The trial had a parallel design and was double-blind, but blinding procedures were not described. The trial included people who were non-responsive to fluphenazine 20 mg/day administered for 4 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned to continuing treatment with fluphenazine 20 mg/day, increasing the dose to fluphenazine 80 mg/day or switching to haloperidol 20 mg/day for four additional weeks. Data were reported only for 47 out of 58 initially randomised participants. The trial was published in 1993. The fact that only one RCT with a small sample size (N = 29) was included in the analysis limits the quality of the evidence. Overall, no clear difference was found between groups in terms of the three available outcomes: global state (number of participants with clinically relevant response (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.17 to 15.99, very low quality evidence); general mental state (endpoint score, BPRS total) (MD 2.00, 95% CI -4.20 to 8.20, very low quality evidence); and negative symptoms (endpoint score, SANS) (MD 3.40, 95% CI -12.56 to 19.36). No data were reported for leaving the study early, adverse effects, time in hospital, quality of life, satisfaction with care and functioning. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is extremely limited evidence and no clear conclusions can be drawn. There is an urgent need for further trials in order to determine the optimal treatment strategy for people with schizophrenia who do not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment.

Combining randomized and non-randomized evidence in network meta-analysis.

Non-randomized studies aim to reveal whether or not interventions are effective in real-life clinical practice, and there is a growing interest in including such evidence in the decision-making process. We evaluate existing methodologies and present new approaches to using non-randomized evidence in a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) when the aim is to assess relative treatment effects. We first discuss how to assess compatibility between the two types of evidence. We then present and compare an array of alternative methods that allow the inclusion of non-randomized studies in a network meta-analysis of RCTs: the naïve data synthesis, the design-adjusted synthesis, the use of non-randomized evidence as prior information and the use of three-level hierarchical models. We apply some of the methods in two previously published clinical examples comparing percutaneous interventions for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis and antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia. We discuss in depth the advantages and limitations of each method, and we conclude that the inclusion of real-world evidence from non-randomized studies has the potential to corroborate findings from RCTs, increase precision and enhance the decision-making process. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Α Markov model for longitudinal studies with incomplete dichotomous outcomes.

Missing outcome data constitute a serious threat to the validity and precision of inferences from randomized controlled trials. In this paper, we propose the use of a multistate Markov model for the analysis of incomplete individual patient data for a dichotomous outcome reported over a period of time. The model accounts for patients dropping out of the study and also for patients relapsing. The time of each observation is accounted for, and the model allows the estimation of time-dependent relative treatment effects. We apply our methods to data from a study comparing the effectiveness of 2 pharmacological treatments for schizophrenia. The model jointly estimates the relative efficacy and the dropout rate and also allows for a wide range of clinically interesting inferences to be made. Assumptions about the missingness mechanism and the unobserved outcomes of patients dropping out can be incorporated into the analysis. The presented method constitutes a viable candidate for analyzing longitudinal, incomplete binary data.

Recent meta-analyses neglect previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses about the same topic: a systematic examination.

BACKGROUND: As the number of systematic reviews is growing rapidly, we systematically investigate whether meta-analyses published in leading medical journals present an outline of available evidence by referring to previous meta-analyses and systematic reviews. METHODS: We searched PubMed for recent meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high impact factor journals. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified with electronic searches of keywords and by searching reference sections. We analyzed the number of meta-analyses and systematic reviews that were cited, described and discussed in each recent meta-analysis. Moreover, we investigated publication characteristics that potentially influence the referencing practices. RESULTS: We identified 52 recent meta-analyses and 242 previous meta-analyses on the same topics. Of these, 66% of identified previous meta-analyses were cited, 36% described, and only 20% discussed by recent meta-analyses. The probability of citing a previous meta-analysis was positively associated with its publication in a journal with a higher impact factor (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 2.10) and more recent publication year (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.37). Additionally, the probability of a previous study being described by the recent meta-analysis was inversely associated with the concordance of results (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.17 to 0.88), and the probability of being discussed was increased for previous studies that employed meta-analytic methods (odds ratio, 32.36; 95% confidence interval, 2.00 to 522.85). CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analyses on pharmacological treatments do not consistently refer to and discuss findings of previous meta-analyses on the same topic. Such neglect can lead to research waste and be confusing for readers. Journals should make the discussion of related meta-analyses mandatory.

Haloperidol versus first-generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

BACKGROUND: Haloperidol is worldwide one of the most frequently used antipsychotic drugs with a very high market share. Previous narrative, unsystematic reviews found no differences in terms of efficacy between the various first-generation ("conventional", "typical") antipsychotic agents. This established the unproven psychopharmacological assumption of a comparable efficacy between the first-generation antipsychotic compounds codified in textbooks and treatment guidelines. Because this assumption contrasts with the clinical impression, a high-quality systematic review appeared highly necessary. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of haloperidol with other first-generation antipsychotics in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis. SEARCH METHODS: In October 2011 and July 2012, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. To identify further relevant publications, we screened the references of all included studies and contacted the manufacturers of haloperidol for further relevant trials and missing information on identified studies. Furthermore, we contacted the corresponding authors of all included trials for missing data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral haloperidol with another oral first-generation antipsychotic drug (with the exception of the low-potency antipsychotics chlorpromazine, chlorprothixene, levopromazine, mesoridazine, perazine, prochlorpromazine, and thioridazine) in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis. Clinically important response to treatment was defined as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were global state, mental state, behaviour, overall acceptability (measured by the number of participants leaving the study early due to any reason), overall efficacy (attrition due to inefficacy of treatment), overall tolerability (attrition due to adverse events), and specific adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using The Cochrane Collaboration`s 'Risk of bias' tool.We analysed dichotomous outcomes with risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes with mean differences (MD), both with the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). All analyses were based on a random-effects model and we preferably used data on an intention-to-treat basis where possible. MAIN RESULTS: The systematic review currently includes 63 randomised trials with 3675 participants. Bromperidol (n = 9), loxapine (n = 7), and trifluoperazine (n = 6) were the most frequently administered antipsychotics comparator to haloperidol. The included studies were published between 1962 and 1993, were characterised by small sample sizes (mean: 58 participants, range from 18 to 206) and the predefined outcomes were often incompletely reported. All results for the main outcomes were based on very low or low quality data. In many trials the mechanism of randomisation, allocation, and blinding was frequently not reported. In short-term studies (up to 12 weeks), there was no clear evidence of a difference between haloperidol and the pooled group of the other first-generation antipsychotic agents in terms of the primary outcome "clinically important response to treatment" (40 RCTs, n = 2132, RR 0.93 CI 0.87 to 1.00). In the medium-term trials, haloperidol may be less effective than the other first-generation antipsychotic group but this evidence is based on only one trial (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.51 CI 0.37 to 0.69).Based on limited evidence, haloperidol alleviated more positive symptoms of schizophrenia than the other antipsychotic drugs. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in global state, other mental state outcomes, behaviour, leaving the study early due to any reason, due to inefficacy, as well as due to adverse effects. The only statistically significant difference in specific side effects was that haloperidol produced less akathisia in the medium term. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the meta-analytic calculations support the statements of previous narrative, unsystematic reviews suggesting comparable efficacy of first-generation antipsychotics. In efficacy-related outcomes, there was no clear evidence of a difference between the prototypal drug haloperidol and other, mainly high-potency first-generation antipsychotics. Additionally, we demonstrated that haloperidol is characterised by a similar risk profile compared to the other first-generation antipsychotic compounds. The only statistically significant difference in specific side effects was that haloperidol produced less akathisia in the medium term. The results were limited by the low methodological quality in many of the included original studies. Data for the main results were low or very low quality. Therefore, future clinical trials with high methodological quality are required.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 15 antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The question of which antipsychotic drug should be preferred for the treatment of schizophrenia is controversial, and conventional pairwise meta-analyses cannot provide a hierarchy based on the randomised evidence. We aimed to integrate the available evidence to create hierarchies of the comparative efficacy, risk of all-cause discontinuation, and major side-effects of antipsychotic drugs. METHODS: We did a Bayesian-framework, multiple-treatments meta-analysis (which uses both direct and indirect comparisons) of randomised controlled trials to compare 15 antipsychotic drugs and placebo in the acute treatment of schizophrenia. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's specialised register, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov for reports published up to Sept 1, 2012. Search results were supplemented by reports from the US Food and Drug Administration website and by data requested from pharmaceutical companies. Blinded, randomised controlled trials of patients with schizophrenia or related disorders were eligible. We excluded trials done in patients with predominant negative symptoms, concomitant medical illness, or treatment resistance, and those done in stable patients. Data for seven outcomes were independently extracted by two reviewers. The primary outcome was efficacy, as measured by mean overall change in symptoms. We also examined all-cause discontinuation, weight gain, extrapyramidal side-effects, prolactin increase, QTc prolongation, and sedation. FINDINGS: We identified 212 suitable trials, with data for 43 049 participants. All drugs were significantly more effective than placebo. The standardised mean differences with 95% credible intervals were: clozapine 0·88, 0·73-1·03; amisulpride 0·66, 0·53-0·78; olanzapine 0·59, 0·53-0·65; risperidone 0·56, 0·50-0·63; paliperidone 0·50, 0·39-0·60; zotepine 0·49, 0·31-0·66; haloperidol 0·45, 0·39-0·51; quetiapine 0·44, 0·35-0·52; aripiprazole 0·43, 0·34-0·52; sertindole 0·39, 0·26-0·52; ziprasidone 0·39, 0·30-0·49; chlorpromazine 0·38, 0·23-0·54; asenapine 0·38, 0·25-0·51; lurasidone 0·33, 0·21-0·45; and iloperidone 0·33, 0·22-0·43. Odds ratios compared with placebo for all-cause discontinuation ranged from 0·43 for the best drug (amisulpride) to 0·80 for the worst drug (haloperidol); for extrapyramidal side-effects 0·30 (clozapine) to 4·76 (haloperidol); and for sedation 1·42 (amisulpride) to 8·82 (clozapine). Standardised mean differences compared with placebo for weight gain varied from -0·09 for the best drug (haloperidol) to -0·74 for the worst drug (olanzapine), for prolactin increase 0·22 (aripiprazole) to -1·30 (paliperidone), and for QTc prolongation 0·10 (lurasidone) to -0·90 (sertindole). Efficacy outcomes did not change substantially after removal of placebo or haloperidol groups, or when dose, percentage of withdrawals, extent of blinding, pharmaceutical industry sponsorship, study duration, chronicity, and year of publication were accounted for in meta-regressions and sensitivity analyses. INTERPRETATION: Antipsychotics differed substantially in side-effects, and small but robust differences were seen in efficacy. Our findings challenge the straightforward classification of antipsychotics into first-generation and second-generation groupings. Rather, hierarchies in the different domains should help clinicians to adapt the choice of antipsychotic drug to the needs of individual patients. These findings should be considered by mental health policy makers and in the revision of clinical practice guidelines. FUNDING: None.

Effects of Trazodone on Sleep: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Sleep problems and insomnia are common, challenging to treat, and transcend specific diagnoses. Although trazodone is a popular choice, robust meta-analytic evidence is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the efficacy and safety of trazodone for sleep disturbances, reflecting recent updates in insomnia diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, APA PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) up to 1 May 2024, for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing trazodone with placebo and reporting sleep-related outcomes. The minimum pharmacotherapy duration was 5 days. Included were all RCTs regardless of blinding (open-label or single- or double-blind), while quasi-randomized studies were excluded. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials assessed bias. Analyses used a random-effects model on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. Risk ratio (RR) was used for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes. When different units or scales were used, Hedge's adjusted g standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated. Subgroup and preplanned sensitivity analyses explored heterogeneity and evaluated findings' strength and consistency. RESULTS: In total, 44 RCTs with 3935 participants were included. Trazodone did not significantly impact subjective total sleep time (TST) [WMD = 0.73 min, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 24.62; 26.07, p = 0.96] but improved sleep quality (SQ) (SMD = - 0.58, 95% CI - 0.87; - 0.28, p < 0.01) and secondary outcomes. These included the number of nocturnal awakenings (SMD = - 0.57, 95% CI - 0.85; - 0.30], p < 0.01), nocturnal time awake after sleep onset (WMD = - 13.47 min, 95% CI - 23.09; - 3.86], p < 0.01), objective TST by polysomnography (WMD = 27.98 min, 95% CI 4.02; 51.95, p = 0.02), and sleep efficiency (WMD = 3.32, 95% CI 0.53; 1.57, p = 0.02). Tolerability issues included more dropouts owing to adverse effects (RR = 2.30, 95% CI 1.45; 3.64, p < 0.01), any sleep-related adverse effects (RR = 3.67, 95% CI 1.07; 12.47, p = 0.04), more adverse effects in general (RR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.03; 1.33, p = 0.02), and more sleep-related adverse effects (RR = 4.31, 95% CI 2.29; 8.13, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Trazodone extends total sleep time but does not affect perceived sleep duration. It may improve sleep quality and continuity but has minor effects on sleep latency, efficiency, and daytime impairment. Trazodone is associated with adverse effects, necessitating a careful risk-benefit assessment. Limited data restrict generalizability, underscoring the need for more research. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number,CRD42022383121.

Effects of Antidepressants on Sleep in Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: An Overview of Reviews.

Antidepressants are a commonly used, easily accessible, and overall safe treatment option for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The present review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in treating sleep disturbances in patients with PTSD. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched (July 2022) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the treatment of PTSD. Moreover, PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for individual trials investigating the antidepressant treatment of PTSD (up to September 2022), and reference lists of all possibly relevant identified studies were screened. Sleep-related outcomes, i.e., total sleep time, sleep quality, dreams/ nightmares, insomnia, and somnolence, were extracted independently by at least two reviewers. Metaanalytic evaluations were performed wherever possible. 39 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified; data from pooled analyses, reviews, and observational studies were used for antidepressants with a weak evidence base or when their findings were deemed important. Overall, scarce data exist on the effects of antidepressants on sleep outcomes among patients with PTSD. Some evidence may support the use of amitriptyline, nefazodone, paroxetine, and sertraline for improving sleep in patients with PTSD. Τhere was a meta-analytical trend indicating improvement of nightmares with fluoxetine, less insomnia with amitriptyline and more with brofaromine, as well as more somnolence with paroxetine vs. placebo, respectively. However, data from more than 1 RCT with a considerable number of patients were only available for paroxetine. Evidence is insufficient to draw safe conclusions. More and better-designed RCTs, with consistent reporting of sleep-related outcomes, are needed.

Antidepressants compared to placebo for people with binge eating disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Binge eating disorder (BED) is the most prevalent eating disorder. Treatment options include pharmacotherapy as well as psychotherapy, with the latter recommended as a first-line option. However, the use of psychotherapeutic interventions poses several challenges. Antidepressants are easily accessible, but they lack robust evidence-base. This systematic review aims to comprehensively examine the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for the treatment of BED. Five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antidepressants vs. placebo in BED until 23/11/2023. Pairwise meta-analytic evaluations were performed. The primary outcomes were remission and binge eating frequency. Secondary outcomes were response to treatment, eating psychopathology, depression, anxiety, body weight, Body Mass Index (BMI), all-cause discontinuation, discontinuation due to adverse effects and total adverse events. Sixteen RCTs with a total of 984 participants were meta-analysed. Antidepressants were more effective than placebo in achieving remission (RR: 1.39, 95 % CI: 1.04 to 1.86) and in reducing binge eating episodes (SMD: -0.29, 95 % CI: -0.51 to -0.06). Similarly, in the secondary outcomes of response and depression, antidepressants demonstrated superiority over placebo. Antidepressants appear to be effective in reducing symptoms of BED. Small samples and effect sizes hinder the generalizability and clinical utility of these results. There is a lack of follow-up findings regarding the maintenance of effects. There is a pressing need for more RCTs examining antidepressants and other types of pharmacotherapy. Future research should include larger number of participants and increase the duration of follow-up.

Pharmacotherapy for sleep disturbances in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD): A network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbances are an important symptom dimension of post-traumatic-stress-disorder (PTSD). There is no meta-analytic evidence examining the effects of all types of pharmacotherapy on sleep outcomes among patients with PTSD. METHODS: Medline/Embase/PsychInfo/CENTRAL/clinicaltrials.gov/ICTRP, reference lists of published reviews and all included studies were searched for Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) examining any pharmacotherapy vs. placebo or any other drug among patients with PTSD. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: total sleep time, nightmares, sleep quality. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: sleep onset latency, number of nocturnal awakenings, time spent awake following sleep onset, dropouts due to sleep-related adverse-effects, insomnia/somnolence/vivid-dreams as adverse-effects. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: 99 RCTs with 10,481 participants were included. Prazosin may be the most effective treatment for insomnia (SMD = -0.88, 95%CI = [-1.22;-0.54], nightmares (SMD = -0.44, 95%CI = [-0.84;-0.04]) and poor sleep quality (SMD = -0.55, 95%CI = [-1.01;-0.10]). Evidence is scarce and indicates lack of efficacy for SSRIs, Mirtazapine, z-drugs and benzodiazepines, which are widely used in daily practice. Risperidone and Quetiapine carry a high risk of causing somnolence without having a clear therapeutic benefit. Hydroxyzine, Trazodone, Nabilone, Paroxetine and MDMA-assisted psychotherapy may be promising options, but more research is needed. CONCLUSIONS: Underpowered individual comparisons and very-low to moderate confidence in effect estimates hinder the generalisability of the results. More RCTs, specifically reporting on sleep-related outcomes, are urgently needed.