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.

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.

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND: Depression is one of the leading causes of the global burden of disease, and it has particularly negative consequences for elderly patients. Antidepressants are the most frequently used treatment. We present the first single-group meta-analysis examining: 1) the response rates of elderly patients to antidepressants, and 2) the determinants of antidepressants response in this population. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for randomized controlled trials on antidepressants in the elderly with major depressive disorder above 65 years (last search: December 2017). Response was defined as 50% improvement on validated rating scales. We extracted response rates from studies and imputed the missing ones with a validated method. Data were pooled in a single-group meta-analysis. Additionally, several potential moderators of response to antidepressants were examined by subgroup and meta-regression analyses. RESULTS: We included 44 studies with a total of 6373 participants receiving antidepressants. On average, 50.7% of the patients reached a reduction of at least 50% on the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses revealed a better response to treatment for patients in antidepressant-controlled trials compared to placebo-controlled trials. Mean age, study duration, percentage of woman, severity of illness at baseline, dose of antidepressants in fluoxetine equivalents, year of publication, setting (in- or out-patients), antidepressant groups (SSRI, TCA, SSNRI, α2-antagonist, SNRI, MAO-inhibitor), ITT (intention-to-treat) analysis vs completer analysis, sponsorship and overall risk of bias were not significant moderators of response. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest an improvement in symptoms can be found in about 50% of the elderly with major depressive disorder treated with antidepressants.

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.

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

BACKGROUND: Negative symptoms are the core of schizophrenia, but whether antipsychotics are efficacious for their treatment is unclear. Moreover, there is debate whether patients in relevant trials should have predominant negative symptoms or whether prominent negative symptoms are also acceptable. METHODS: We systematically reviewed randomised, blinded antipsychotic drug trials in patients with schizophrenia and either predominant or prominent negative symptoms (last search Dec 12, 2017). Separate pairwise meta-analyses were conducted in these two populations. The primary outcome was negative symptoms. Depressive, symptoms, positive symptoms, and extrapyramidal side-effects were analysed as causes of secondary negative symptoms. FINDINGS: We included 21 randomized-controlled trials with 3451 participants which revealed the following significant differences in the primary outcome: in patients with predominant negative symptoms amisulpride was superior to placebo (N = 4; n = 590, SMD 0.47, CI 0.23, 0.71), olanzapine was superior to haloperidol in a small trial (n = 35) and cariprazine outperformed risperidone (N = 1, n = 456, SMD - 0.29, CI - 0.48, - 0.11). In patients with prominent negative symptoms, olanzapine and quetiapine were superior to risperidone in single trials. Overall, studies in prominent negative symptoms were potentially more confounded by improvements of secondary negative symptoms. INTERPRETATION: Amisulpride is the only antipsychotic that outperformed placebo in the treatment of predominant negative symptoms, but there was a parallel reduction of depression. Cariprazine was better than risperidone in a large trial that was well-controlled for secondary negative symptoms, but the trial was sponsored by its manufacturer. Future trials should apply scientifically developed definitions such as the deficit syndrome and the persistent negative symptoms concept.

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

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy has been used for schizophrenia, but to which extent it is effective is still controversial. Results of existing meta-analyses are of difficult interpretation, because they mainly present effect sizes in the form of standardized mean differences between intervention and control groups based on rating scales, which are of unclear clinical meaning. No meta-analysis has considered the number of patients responding to treatment yet. Based on this ground, we present the first meta-analysis examining the response rates of patients with schizophrenia and positive symptoms to cognitive behavioural therapy. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for randomized controlled trials on psychological interventions of schizophrenia including patients with positive symptoms, and included for this analysis the studies on cognitive behavioural therapy (last search: January 2018). We applied a validated imputation method to calculate the number of responders from rating scales for the outcomes overall symptoms and positive symptoms, based on two criteria, at least 20% and at least 50% reduction from baseline on PANSS or BPRS total scores. Data were pooled in a single-group summary meta-analysis using R software. Additionally, several potential moderators of response to cognitive behavioural therapy were examined by subgroup and meta-regression analyses. The protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017067795). RESULTS: We included 33 studies with a total of 1142 participants receiving cognitive behavioural therapy. On average, 44.5 and 13.2% of the patients reached a 20% (minimally improved) and 50% (much improved) reduction of overall symptoms. Similarly, 52.9 and 24.8% of the patients reached a 20%/50% reduction of positive symptoms. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses revealed a better treatment response in overall symptoms for patients that were not treatment resistant and in studies with researchers' allegiance. Of borderline significance was the better response in studies employing expert therapists and in patients that were more severely ill at baseline. Blinding of outcome assessor, number of sessions, treatment duration, age and gender were not significant moderators of response. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that adding cognitive behavioural therapy to pharmacotherapy brings about a minimal improvement in overall symptoms among 44.5% of its recipients. Several study and patients characteristics can moderate response rates.

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.

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.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Long-acting injectable antipsychotic drugs (LAIs) are mainly used for relapse prevention but could also be advantageous for acutely ill patients with schizophrenia. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled-trials (RCTs) comparing the second-generation long-acting injectable antipsychotics (SGA-LAIs) olanzapine, risperidone, paliperidone, and aripiprazole with placebo or their oral counterparts in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia. We analyzed 23 efficacy and tolerability outcomes, with the primary outcome being overall symptoms of schizophrenia. The results were obtained through random effects, pairwise meta-analyses, and subgroup tests. The study quality was assessed using the Cochrane-Risk-of-Bias-Tool version-1. STUDY RESULTS: Sixty-six studies with 16 457 participants were included in the analysis. Eleven studies compared second-generation long-acting injectable antipsychotics (SGA-LAIs) with a placebo, 54 compared second-generation oral antipsychotics (SGA-orals) with a placebo, and one compared an SGA-LAI (aripiprazole) with its oral formulation. All 4 SGA-LAIs reduced overall symptoms more than placebo, with mean standardized differences of -0.66 (95% CI: -0.90; -0.43) for olanzapine, -0.64 (-0.80; -0.48) for aripiprazole, -0.62 (-0.76; -0.48) for risperidone and -0.42 (-0.53; -0.31) for paliperidone. The side-effect profiles of the LAIs corresponded to the patterns known from the oral formulations. In subgroup tests compared to placebo, some side effects were less pronounced under LAIs than under their oral formulations. CONCLUSIONS: SGA-LAIs effectively treat acute schizophrenia. Some side effects may be less frequent than under oral drugs, but due to the indirect nature of the comparisons, this finding must be confirmed by RCTs comparing LAIs and orals head-to-head.

Non-invasive brain stimulation for treatment-resistant schizophrenia: protocol of a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is a promising intervention for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. However, there are multiple available techniques and a comprehensive synthesis of evidence is lacking. Thus, we will conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of NIBS techniques as an add-on to antipsychotics for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. METHODS: We will include single- and double-blind randomized-controlled trials (RCT) comparing any NIBS technique with each other or with a control intervention as an add-on to antipsychotics in adult patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. We will exclude studies focusing on predominant negative symptoms, maintenance treatment, and single sessions. The primary outcome will be a change in overall symptoms, and secondary outcomes will be a change in symptom domains, cognitive performance, quality of life, functioning, response, dropouts, and side effects. We will search for eligible studies in previous reviews, multiple electronic databases and clinical trial registries from inception onwards. At least two independent reviewers will perform the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We will measure the treatment differences using standardized mean difference (SMD) and odds ratio (OR) for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. We will conduct pairwise and network meta-analysis within a frequentist framework using a random-effects model, except for rare event outcomes where we will use a fixed-effects Mantel-Haenszel method. We will investigate potential sources of heterogeneity in subgroup analyses. Reporting bias will be assessed with funnel plots and the Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) tool. The certainty in the evidence will be evaluated using the Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA) approach. DISCUSSION: Our network meta-analysis would provide an up-to-date synthesis of the evidence from all available RCTs on the comparative efficacy and safety of NIBS for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. This information could guide evidence-based clinical practice and improve the outcomes of patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-ID CRD42023410645.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND: There is debate about the generalisability of results from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to real-world settings. Studying outcomes of treatments for schizophrenia can shed light on this issue and inform treatment guidelines. We therefore compared the efficacy and effectiveness of antipsychotics for relapse prevention in schizophrenia and estimated overall treatment effects using all available RCT and real-world evidence. METHODS: We conducted network meta-analyses using individual participant data from Swedish and Finnish national registries and aggregate data from RCTs. The target population was adults (age >18 and <65 years) with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder with stabilised symptoms. We analysed each registry separately to obtain hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for relapse within 6 months post-antipsychotic initiation as our main outcome. Interventions studied were antipsychotics, no antipsychotic use, and placebo. We compared HRs versus a reference drug (oral haloperidol) between registries, and between registry individuals who would be eligible and ineligible for RCTs, using the ratio of HRs. We synthesised evidence using network meta-analysis and compared results from our network meta-analysis of real-world data with our network meta-analysis of RCT data, including oral versus long-acting injectable (LAI) formulations. Finally, we conducted a joint real-world and RCT network meta-analysis. FINDINGS: We included 90 469 individuals from the Swedish and Finnish registries (mean age 45·9 [SD 14·6] years; 43 025 [47·5%] women and 47 467 [52·5%] men, ethnicity data unavailable) and 10 091 individuals from 30 RCTs (mean age 39·6 years [SD 11·7]; 3724 [36·9%] women and 6367 [63·1%] men, 6022 White [59·7%]). We found good agreement in effectiveness of antipsychotics between Swedish and Finnish registries (HR ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·88-1·08). Drug effectiveness versus no antipsychotic was larger in RCT-eligible than RCT-ineligible individuals (HR ratio 1·40 [1·24-1·59]). Efficacy versus placebo in RCTs was larger than effectiveness versus no antipsychotic in real-world (HR ratio 2·58 [2·02-3·30]). We found no evidence of differences between effectiveness and efficacy for between-drug comparisons (HR ratio vs oral haloperidol 1·17 [0·83-1·65], where HR ratio >1 means superior effectiveness in real-world to RCTs), except for LAI versus oral comparisons (HR ratio 0·73 [0·53-0·99], indicating superior effectiveness in real-world data relative to RCTs). The real-world network meta-analysis showed clozapine was most effective, followed by olanzapine LAI. The RCT network meta-analysis exhibited heterogeneity and inconsistency. The joint real-world and RCT network meta-analysis identified olanzapine as the most efficacious antipsychotic amongst those present in both RCTs and the real world registries. INTERPRETATION: LAI antipsychotics perform slightly better in the real world than according to RCTs. Otherwise, RCT evidence was in line with real-world evidence for most between-drug comparisons, but RCTs might overestimate effectiveness of antipsychotics observed in routine care settings. Our results further the understanding of the generalisability of RCT findings to clinical practice and can inform preferential prescribing guidelines. FUNDING: None.

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

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on defining relapse in schizophrenia, and scale-derived criteria with unclear clinical relevance are widely used. We aimed to develop an evidence-based scale-derived set of criteria to define relapse in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. METHODS: We searched the Yale University Open Data Access (YODA) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in clinically stable adults with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, and obtained individual participant data on Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S), Personal and Social Performance (PSP), and Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS). Our main outcomes were PANSS-derived criteria based on worsening in PANSS total score. We examined their relevance using equipercentile linking with CGI-S and functioning scales, and their test-performance in defining relapse with diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis against CGI-S worsening (≥1-point increase together with a score ≥4 points) and psychiatric hospitalisation. FINDINGS: Based on data from seven RCTs (2354 participants; 1348 men [57·3%] and 1006 women [42·7%], mean age of 39·5 years [SD 12·0, range 17-89]; 303 Asian [12.9%], 255 Black [10.8%], 1665 White [70.7%], and other or unspecified 131 [5.6%]), an increase of 12 points or more in PANSS total (range 30-210 points) corresponded to clinically important deterioration in global severity of illness (≥1 point increase in CGI-S, range 1-7) and functioning (≥10 points decline in PSP or SOFAS, range 1-100). The interpretation of percentage changes varied importantly across different baseline scores. An increase of 12 points or more in PANSS total had good sensitivity and specificity using CGI-S as reference standard (sensitivity 82·1% [95% CI 77·1-86·4], specificity 86·9% [82·9-90·3]), as well as good sensitivity but lower specificity compared to hospitalisation (sensitivity 81·7% [74·1-87·7], specificity 69·2% [60·5-76·9]). Requiring either an increase in PANSS total or in specific items for positive and disorganization symptoms further improved test-performance. Cutoffs for situations where high sensitivity or specificity is needed are presented. INTERPRETATION: An increase of either 12 points or more in the PANSS total score, or worsening of specific positive and disorganisation symptom items could be a reasonable evidence-based definition of relapse in schizophrenia, potentially linking symptoms used to define remission and relapse. Percentage changes should not be used to define relapse because their interpretation depends on baseline scores. FUNDING: German Research Foundation (grant number: 428509362).

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

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