Cross-sectional examination of commercial milk formula industry funding of international, regional and national healthcare professional associations: protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Commercial milk formula manufacturers often emphasise their role in supporting infant and young child nutrition and breastfeeding, but their commercial goals to increase volume and profit margin of formula sales conflict with these declarations. Healthcare professional associations have an important role in healthcare worker education, shaping clinical practice. When healthcare professional associations enter into financial relationships with formula manufacturers, conflicts of interest arise, which may undermine education and practice that promotes optimal infant and young child feeding. The World Health Assembly calls on all parties to avoid such conflicts of interest, but it is uncertain how often this recommendation is followed. This protocol documents a systematic method to identify funding from the commercial milk formula industry among international, regional and national associations of healthcare professionals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using systematic search strategies in the Gale Directory Library and Google, we will identify international healthcare professional associations relevant to maternal and child health. Data regarding funding relationships with the commercial milk formula industry over the past 24 months will be extracted from the official websites or, in their absence, social media accounts by two independent analysts. The analysis will focus on the presence of conflict of interest or sponsorship policies and type of funding, such as sponsorship or payment for services. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethical approval and will use data available in the public domain. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal articles, at conferences and among the healthcare professional associations.

Delphi consensus study to develop guidelines for the management of adults with borderline personality disorder in the emergency department: a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Clinicians caring for adults with borderline personality disorder (BPD) in acute settings such as the emergency department (ED) have little evidence/guidance to base decisions on. Specific/detailed guidance for managing BPD in the ED is needed given the morbidity and mortality risks, high service utilisation, unique challenges and risk of iatrogenic interventions. The primary objective of this study is to use a consensus method to develop a guideline for managing adults with BPD in the ED. This protocol and the key questions for the guideline were developed with the advice of people with BPD and their family members/support persons. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a four-phase Delphi study of an expert panel of clinicians, researchers, adults with BPD and their family members/support persons. Various disciplines (psychiatry, psychology, emergency medicine, nursing, social work) and treatment approaches will be included in the expert panel. An online questionnaire will be developed from systematic reviews, qualitative assessments of pivotal literature, and opinions suggested by the panel (phase 1). The panel will rate their agreement on opinions for each key question covering areas of emergency care of adults with BPD using two rounds of this questionnaire (phases 2 and 3). Opinions meeting predefined thresholds for consensus will be brought to consensus meetings moderated by an independent chair (phase 4). The purpose of these meetings is to finalise the set and phrasing of the opinions for each area of emergency care. These final opinions will be the recommendations in the guideline. If there are significant differences of opinion, the guideline will present both recommendations alongside one another. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received ethics approval by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The results of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and national professional and patient/family/support associations.

Antimanic Efficacy, Tolerability, and Acceptability of Clonazepam: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

(1) Background: The use of benzodiazepines for the treatment of acute mania remains prevalent. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides an updated assessment of Clonazepam's antimanic efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability. (2) Methods: A systematic search of multiple databases and clinical trial registries was conducted, aiming to identify any controlled studies of Clonazepam vs. placebo or any other pharmacotherapy for the treatment of acute mania. Pairwise meta-analytic evaluations were performed. (3) Results: Six studies were included with a total number of 192 participants, all of which were randomized controlled trials. Clonazepam may be superior to a placebo in the acute phase of treatment and no different to Lithium and Haloperidol in terms of efficacy, both acutely and in the medium to long term. Clonazepam may be an acceptable and well-tolerated treatment for acute mania, especially when used as an augmentation strategy. Comparisons were underpowered, with minimal sample sizes and only one study per comparison in many cases, thus limiting the generalizability of our findings and hindering firm clinical conclusions. (4) Conclusions: Given the prevalence of benzodiazepine use in current practice, more and larger studies are urgently needed.

Estimating the risk reduction of isolation on COVID-19 nonhousehold transmission and severe/critical illness in nonimmune individuals: September to November 2021.

There is growing scientific interest in immunity mandates/passports (IMP) for viral diseases in light of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. IMP isolate those who remain nonimmune from various settings to reduce nonhousehold transmissions from the nonimmune and reduce severe/critical illness among the nonimmune. A major limitation in the scientific literature is that there are currently no methods to quantify how many nonimmune individuals need to be isolated to achieve these purported benefits. This paper develops a procedure for estimating the benefits of IMP using a novel variant of the number needed to treat which we call the number needed to isolate (NNI). We use data from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic to demonstrate the properties and utility of the NNI and to inform the debate about IMP. We focus on data from the European Union, United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, and Israel during the fall 2021 when the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant predominated.

Health and nutrition claims for infant formula: international cross sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: To review available health and nutrition claims for infant formula products in multiple countries and to evaluate the validity of the evidence used for substantiation of claims. DESIGN: International cross sectional survey. SETTING: Public facing and healthcare professional facing company owned or company managed formula industry websites providing information about products marketed for healthy infants delivered at full term in 15 countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 2020-22. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and type of claims made for each product and ingredient. References cited were reviewed and risk of bias was assessed for registered clinical trials using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and for systematic reviews using the Risk Of Bias in Systematic reviews tool. RESULTS: 757 infant formula products were identified, each with a median of two claims (range from 1 (Australia) to 4 (US)), and 31 types of claims across all products. Of 608 products with ≥1 claims, the most common claim types were "helps/supports development of brain and/or eyes and/or nervous system" (323 (53%) products, 13 ingredients), "strengthens/supports a healthy immune system" (239 (39%) products, 12 ingredients), and "helps/supports growth and development" (224 (37%) products, 20 ingredients). 41 groups of ingredients were associated with ≥1claims, but many claims were made without reference to a specific ingredient (307 (50%) products). The most common groups of ingredients cited in claims were long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (278 (46%) products, 9 different claims); prebiotics, probiotics, or synbiotics (225 (37%) products, 19 claims); and hydrolysed protein (120 (20%) products, 9 claims). 161/608 (26%) products with ≥1 claims provided a scientific reference to support the claim-266 unique references were cited for 24 different claim types for 161 products. The reference types most frequently cited were clinical trials (50%, 134/266) and reviews (20%, 52/266). 28% (38/134) of referenced clinical trials were registered, 14% (19/134) prospectively. 58 claims referred to 32 registered clinical trials, of which 51 claims (27 trials) related to a randomised comparison. 46 of 51 claims (90%) referenced registered clinical trial outcomes at high risk of bias, and all cited systematic reviews and pooled analyses, carried a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Most infant formula products had at least one health and nutrition claim. Multiple ingredients were claimed to achieve similar health or nutrition effects, multiple claims were made for the same ingredient type, most products did not provide scientific references to support claims, and referenced claims were not supported by robust clinical trial evidence.

Atypical Arousal Regulation in Children With Autism but Not With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder as Indicated by Pupillometric Measures of Locus Coeruleus Activity.

BACKGROUND: Atypical arousal regulation may explain slower mean reaction time (MRT) in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder compared with typical development. The locus coeruleus-norepinephrine system (LC-NE) underlies arousal regulation and adapts its activity to the utility of a task. LC-NE tonic and phasic activity are indexed by baseline pupil size (BPS) and stimulus-evoked pupillary response (SEPR). METHODS: The study assessed pupillometry in ASD (n = 31, 3 female/28 male), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (n = 28, 3 female/25 male), and typically developing control subjects (n = 31, 16 female/15 male) during a visuospatial reaction-time task that manipulates arousal by conditions with low and high task utility. We estimated linear mixed models of BPS, SEPR, and MRT in a per-trial analysis to investigate arousal regulation of task performance. RESULTS: Slower MRT occurred in the ASD group compared with the typically developing control group during low-utility conditions while controlling for dimensional ASD and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms. In low-utility conditions, BPS and SEPR were inversely related and both were associated with faster MRT. Increased ASD symptoms across groups were associated with higher BPS during low-utility conditions. Changes in BPS and SEPR between task-utility conditions were smaller in the ASD group. CONCLUSIONS: Slower visuospatial task performance in ASD is specific to low task utility. Arousal was associated with task performance and showed altered activity in ASD. Increased BPS during low-utility conditions suggested increased LC-NE tonic activity as an ASD symptom marker in children. Smaller changes in BPS and SEPR in ASD indicated attenuated LC-NE activity adaptation in response to high-utility conditions. Slower performance and atypical arousal regulation are probably associated with attenuated LC-NE activity adaptation.

Conduct and reporting of formula milk trials: systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the conduct and reporting of formula trials. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2020. REVIEW METHODS: Intervention trials comparing at least two formula products in children less than three years of age were included, but not trials of human breast milk or fortifiers of breast milk. Data were extracted in duplicate and primary outcome data were synthesised for meta-analysis with a random effects model weighted by the inverse variance method. Risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane risk of bias version 2.0, and risk of undermining breastfeeding was evaluated according to published consensus guidance. Primary outcomes of the trials included in the systematic review were identified from clinical trial registries, protocols, or trial publications. RESULTS: 22 201 titles were screened and 307 trials were identified that were published between 2006 and 2020, of which 73 (24%) trials in 13 197 children were prospectively registered. Another 111 unpublished but registered trials in 17 411 children were identified. Detailed analysis was undertaken for 125 trials (23 757 children) published since 2015. Seventeen (14%) of these recently published trials were conducted independently of formula companies, 26 (21%) were prospectively registered with a clear aim and primary outcome, and authors or sponsors shared prospective protocols for 11 (9%) trials. Risk of bias was low in five (4%) and high in 100 (80%) recently published trials, mainly because of inappropriate exclusions from analysis and selective reporting. For 68 recently published superiority trials, a pooled standardised mean difference of 0.51 (range -0.43 to 3.29) was calculated with an asymmetrical funnel plot (Egger's test P<0.001), which reduced to 0.19 after correction for asymmetry. Primary outcomes were reported by authors as favourable in 86 (69%) trials, and 115 (92%) abstract conclusions were favourable. One of 38 (3%) trials in partially breastfed infants reported adequate support for breastfeeding and 14 of 87 (16%) trials in non-breastfed infants confirmed the decision not to breastfeed was firmly established before enrolment in the trial. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that formula trials lack independence or transparency, and published outcomes are biased by selective reporting. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018091928.

Emotion recognition and mind wandering in adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or autism spectrum disorder.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in adults are often undiagnosed and overlap in psychopathology. Here we investigated the transdiagnostic traits of emotion recognition and mind wandering in a sample of 103 adults (43 with ADHD and 14 with ASD). The ability to correctly identify a facial expression of anger, fear, disgust or surprise was no different between the adults with ADHD or ASD and neurotypical (NT) adults. However, adults with ADHD or ASD were on average almost 200 ms slower in making a correct decision, suggesting a larger speed-accuracy trade-off in facial emotion recognition compared to NT adults. General processing speed was associated with excessive mind wandering in adults with ADHD, but not with ASD. The deficits in emotional processing were independent from mind wandering in both adults with ADHD or ASD. Emotional dysregulation and functional impairment scales separated adults with ADHD and ASD from the NT adults, but not from each other. When controlling for self-reported ADHD and ASD symptom severity, mind wandering in ADHD was independent from both ADHD and ASD symptom severity. In ASD, mind wandering was related to ASD but not ADHD symptom severity. Our results suggest that ASD and ADHD share a slower ability to recognize emotions, which is exacerbated by excessive mind wandering in ADHD, and by decreased processing speed in ASD.

Lateralization of attention in adults with ADHD: Evidence of pseudoneglect.

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) show pseudoneglect-preferential allocation of attention to the left visual field (LVF) and a resulting slowing of mean reaction times (MRTs) in the right visual field (RVF), characteristic of neurotypical (NT) individuals -and whether lateralization of attention is modulated by presentation speed and incentives. METHOD: Fast Task, a four-choice reaction-time task where stimuli were presented in LVF or RVF, was used to investigate differences in MRT and reaction time variability (RTV) in adults with ADHD (n = 43) and NT adults (n = 46) between a slow/no-incentive and fast/incentive condition. In the lateralization analyses, pseudoneglect was assessed based on MRT, which was calculated separately for the LVF and RVF for each condition and each study participant. RESULTS: Adults with ADHD had overall slower MRT and increased RTV relative to NT. MRT and RTV improved under the fast/incentive condition. Both groups showed RVF-slowing with no between-group or between-conditions differences in RVF-slowing. CONCLUSION: Adults with ADHD exhibited pseudoneglect, a NT pattern of lateralization of attention, which was not attenuated by presentation speed and incentives.

Guidance for the Conduct and Reporting of Clinical Trials of Breast Milk Substitutes.

Importance: Breast milk substitutes (BMS) are important nutritional products evaluated in clinical trials. Concerns have been raised about the risk of bias in BMS trials, the reliability of claims that arise from such trials, and the potential for BMS trials to undermine breastfeeding in trial participants. Existing clinical trial guidance does not fully address issues specific to BMS trials. Objectives: To establish new methodological criteria to guide the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of BMS trials and to support clinical trialists designing and undertaking BMS trials, editors and peer reviewers assessing trial reports for publication, and regulators evaluating the safety, nutritional adequacy, and efficacy of BMS products. Design, Setting, and Participants: A modified Delphi method was conducted, involving 3 rounds of anonymous questionnaires and a face-to-face consensus meeting between January 1 and October 24, 2018. Participants were 23 experts in BMS trials, BMS regulation, trial methods, breastfeeding support, infant feeding research, and medical publishing, and were affiliated with institutions across Europe, North America, and Australasia. Guidance development was supported by an industry consultation, analysis of methodological issues in a sample of published BMS trials, and consultations with BMS trial participants and a research ethics committee. Results: An initial 73 criteria, derived from the literature, were sent to the experts. The final consensus guidance contains 54 essential criteria and 4 recommended criteria. An 18-point checklist summarizes the criteria that are specific to BMS trials. Key themes emphasized in the guidance are research integrity and transparency of reporting, supporting breastfeeding in trial participants, accurate description of trial interventions, and use of valid and meaningful outcome measures. Conclusions and Relevance: Implementation of this guidance should enhance the quality and validity of BMS trials, protect BMS trial participants, and better inform the infant nutrition community about BMS products.

The key role of daytime sleepiness in cognitive functioning of adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

BACKGROUND: Adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) frequently suffer from sleep problems and report high levels of daytime sleepiness compared to neurotypical controls, which has detrimental effect on quality of life. METHODS: We evaluated daytime sleepiness in adults with ADHD compared to neurotypical controls using an observer-rated sleepiness protocol during the Sustained Attention Response Task as well as electroencephalogram (EEG) slowing, a quantitative electroencephalographic measure collected during a short period of wakeful rest. RESULTS: We found that adults with ADHD were significantly sleepier than neurotypical controls during the cognitive task and that this on-task sleepiness contributed to cognitive performance deficits usually attributed to symptoms of ADHD. EEG slowing predicted severity of ADHD symptoms and diagnostic status, and was also related to daytime sleepiness. Frontal EEG slowing as well as increased frontal delta were especially prominent in adults with ADHD. We have validated and adapted an objective observer-rated measure for assessing on-task sleepiness that will contribute to future sleep research in psychology and psychiatry. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that the cognitive performance deficits routinely attributed to ADHD and often conceptualized as cognitive endophenotypes of ADHD are largely due to on-task sleepiness and not exclusively due to ADHD symptom severity. Daytime sleepiness plays a major role in cognitive functioning of adults with ADHD.

Disconnection of drug-response and placebo-response in acute-phase antipsychotic drug trials on schizophrenia? Meta-regression analysis.

Differences in efficacy between antipsychotics and placebo in schizophrenia trials have decreased over the past decades. Previous studies have tried to identify potential explanatory factors focusing on response to placebo; however, it is still not clear which factors, if any, specifically moderate drug-response, as they may be different from those moderating placebo-response. Therefore, in this meta-regression analysis we explore whether there is an interaction between drug-response and placebo-response in terms of effect size. We systematically searched multiple electronic databases, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the US Food and Drug Administration website for randomized, placebo-controlled trials investigating the efficacy of antipsychotics in patients with acute schizophrenia (last update: October 2016). The main outcome was the change on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale or the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale score from baseline to endpoint after at least 3 weeks of treatment. Multiple patient-, design-, and drug-related potential predictors of response were analyzed by meta-regressions, as predefined in the study protocol. Overall, 167 trials with 28,102 participants were included. Publication year, the number of participants and sites, mean dose, minimum severity threshold as an inclusion criterion, chronicity, industry sponsorship, type of rating scale, diagnostic criteria, and number of medications had a different impact on drug and placebo response. By contrast, baseline severity, duration of wash-out, study duration, and study region affected drug and placebo response in a similar way without a net effect on effect sizes. No other factors had a significant effect on either drug-response or placebo-response. In conclusion, as individual moderators may have different impact on placebo-response and drug-response, it is important to consider also the specific factors influencing drug-response in order to fully understand the difference between antipsychotics and placebo. These results shed further light on the phenomenon of decreasing effect size of antipsychotics for schizophrenia over time and should help design future randomized controlled trials in the field (Prospero registration number CRD42013003342).

The effects of emotional lability, mind wandering and sleep quality on ADHD symptom severity in adults with ADHD.

Mind wandering, emotional lability and sleep quality are currently mostly independently investigated but are all interlinked and play a major role is adult attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Emotional lability is a core feature of the disorder, excessive mind wandering has recently been linked to symptoms and impairments of ADHD and poor sleep quality is experienced by a clear majority of adults with ADHD. All three phenomena lead to functional impairment in ADHD, however their relationship to each other and to ADHD symptom severity is not well understood. Here we used serial multiple mediation models to examine the influence of mind wandering, sleep quality and emotional lability on ADHD symptom severity. 81 adults diagnosed with ADHD participated in this study. We found that mind wandering and emotional lability predicted ADHD symptom severity and that mind wandering, emotional lability and sleep quality were all linked and significantly contributed to the symptomatology of adult ADHD. Mind wandering was found to lead to emotional lability which in turn lead to ADHD symptom severity; and poor sleep quality was found to exacerbate mind wandering leading to ADHD symptoms. Future research should employ objective on-task measures of mind wandering, sleepiness and emotional lability to investigate the neural basis of these impairing deficits in ADHD.

60 years of placebo-controlled antipsychotic drug trials in acute schizophrenia: Meta-regression of predictors of placebo response.

OBJECTIVE: A recent meta-regression had shown that the degree of placebo response, which has increased over the decades, is the major predictor of drug-placebo differences in antipsychotic drug trials in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia. Drug response, however, had remained stable. In the current meta-regression we explored the factors that are associated with placebo-response. METHOD: We searched multiple electronic databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and the FDA website for randomized, placebo-controlled, antipsychotic drug trials in patients with acute exacerbations of schizophrenia. The outcome was the degree of placebo response measured by the BPRS or PANSS change from baseline to endpoint. 26 patient-, design-, and drug-related potential predictors of placebo response were analyzed by univariable and multivariable meta-regressions. RESULTS: 167 double-blind randomized controlled trials with 28,102 participants were included. The mean PANSS change from baseline was 6.25 (95% CI 4.64,7.85). More recent publication year, larger study sample size, more study sites, use of the PANSS rather than the BPRS scale to measure response, shorter wash-out phases, shorter study duration, lower mean age and shorter duration of illness were associated with larger placebo response in univariable analyses. In a multivariable analysis only the number of study participants and mean participant age had an impact on placebo response. CONCLUSIONS: The degree of placebo response is moderated by a number of design and patient-related factors. These explanatory variables of placebo response are only in part identical with those that moderated drug-placebo differences.

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.

Sixty Years of Placebo-Controlled Antipsychotic Drug Trials in Acute Schizophrenia: Systematic Review, Bayesian Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression of Efficacy Predictors.

OBJECTIVE: Antipsychotic drug efficacy may have decreased over recent decades. The authors present a meta-analysis of all placebo-controlled trials in patients with acute exacerbations of schizophrenia, and they investigate which trial characteristics have changed over the years and which are moderators of drug-placebo efficacy differences. METHOD: The search included multiple electronic databases. The outcomes were overall efficacy (primary outcome); responder and dropout rates; positive, negative, and depressive symptoms; quality of life; functioning; and major side effects. Potential moderators of efficacy were analyzed by meta-regression. RESULTS: The analysis included 167 double-blind randomized controlled trials with 28,102 mainly chronic participants. The standardized mean difference (SMD) for overall efficacy was 0.47 (95% credible interval 0.42, 0.51), but accounting for small-trial effects and publication bias reduced the SMD to 0.38. At least a "minimal" response occurred in 51% of the antipsychotic group versus 30% in the placebo group, and 23% versus 14% had a "good" response. Positive symptoms (SMD 0.45) improved more than negative symptoms (SMD 0.35) and depression (SMD 0.27). Quality of life (SMD 0.35) and functioning (SMD 0.34) improved even in the short term. Antipsychotics differed substantially in side effects. Of the response predictors analyzed, 16 trial characteristics changed over the decades. However, in a multivariable meta-regression, only industry sponsorship and increasing placebo response were significant moderators of effect sizes. Drug response remained stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately twice as many patients improved with antipsychotics as with placebo, but only a minority experienced a good response. Effect sizes were reduced by industry sponsorship and increasing placebo response, not decreasing drug response. Drug development may benefit from smaller samples but better-selected patients.

Valproate for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with ordinary antipsychotic drug treatment. In these cases, various add-on medications are used, and valproate is one of these. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether:1. valproate alone is an effective treatment for schizophrenia and schizoaffective psychoses; and2. valproate augmentation of antipsychotic medication is an effective treatment for the same illnesses. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (July 2002; February 2007; July 2012; March 04, 2016). We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of relevant studies in order to identify further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials comparing valproate to antipsychotics or to placebo (or no intervention), whether as the sole agent or as an adjunct to antipsychotic medication for the treatment of people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently inspected citations and, where possible, abstracts, ordered papers, and re-inspected and quality-assessed these. At least two review authors independently extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and its 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 (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: The 2012 update search identified 19 further relevant studies, most of which were from China. Thus the review currently includes 26 studies with a total of 2184 participants. All trials examined the effectiveness of valproate as an adjunct to antipsychotics. With the exception of two studies, the studies were small, the participants and personnel were not blinded (neither was outcome assessment), and most were short-term and incompletely reported.For this update we prespecified seven main outcomes of interest: clinical response (clinically significant response, aggression/agitation), leaving the study early (acceptability of treatment, overall tolerability), adverse events (sedation, weight gain) and quality of life.Adding valproate to antipsychotic treatment resulted in more clinically significant response than adding placebo to antipsychotic drugs (14 RCTs, n = 1049, RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.47, I2 = 12%, low-quality evidence). However, this effect was removed after excluding open RCTs in a sensitivity analysis. In terms of acceptability of treatment (measured by the number of participants leaving the study early due to any reason) valproate was just as acceptable as placebo (11 RCTs, n = 951, RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.24, I2 = 55%). Also overall tolerability (measured by the number of participants leaving the study early for adverse events) between valproate and placebo was similar (6 RCTs, n = 974, RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.97, I2 = 0).Participants in the valproate group were found to be less aggressive than the control group based on the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (3 RCTs, n = 186, MD -2.55, 95% CI -3.92 to -1.19, I2 = 82%, very low-quality evidence). Participants receiving valproate more frequently experienced sedation (8 RCTs, n = 770, RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.79, I2 = 0, low-quality evidence) but were no more likely to gain weight than those receiving placebo (4 RCTs, n = 427, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.82, I2 = 0, low-quality evidence). No study reported on the important outcome of quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence, based on a number of trials, that the augmentation of antipsychotics with valproate may be effective for overall clinical response, and also for specific symptoms, especially in terms of excitement and aggression. However, this evidence was entirely based on open RCTs. Moreover, valproate was associated with a number of adverse events among which sedation and dizziness appeared significantly more frequently than in the control groups. Further randomised studies which are blinded are necessary before any clear recommendation can be made. Ideally these would focus on people with schizophrenia and aggression, on those with treatment-resistant forms of the illness and on those with schizoaffective disorders.