Neurocognitive deficits in depression: a systematic review of cognitive impairment in the acute and remitted state.

Previous research suggests a broad range of deficits in major depressive disorder. Our goal was to update the current assumptions and investigate the extent of cognitive impairment in depression in the acute and remitted state. A systematic review of the existing literature between 2009 and 2019 assessing the risk of bias within the included studies was performed. Of the 42 articles reviewed, an unclear risk of bias was shown overall. The risk of bias mainly concerned the sample selection, inadequate remedial measures, as well as the lack of blinding the assessors. In the acute phase, we found strong support for impairment in processing speed, learning, and memory. Follow-up studies and direct comparisons revealed less pronounced deficits in remission, however, deficits were still present in attention, learning and memory, and working memory. A positive correlation between the number of episodes and cognitive deficits as well as depression severity and cognitive deficits was reported. The results also demonstrate a resemblance between the cognitive profiles in bipolar disorder and depression. Comparisons of depression with schizophrenia led to unclear results, at times suggesting an overlap in cognitive performance. The main findings support the global deficit hypothesis and align with results from prior meta-analyses and reviews. Recommendations for future research are also presented.

Sex differences in pharmacological treatment of major depressive disorder: results from the AMSP pharmacovigilance program from 2001 to 2017.

Data on drug prescription for outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) suggest women are more likely to be treated with psychotropic drugs, while data on sex differences regarding pharmacological treatment of psychiatric inpatients are currently not available. Drug utilization data from the program "Drug Safety in Psychiatry" (German: Arzneimittelsicherheit in der Psychiatrie, AMSP) of 44,418 psychiatric inpatients with MDD were analyzed for sex differences between 2001 and 2017. Sex differences were analyzed using relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Time trends were analyzed by comparing the first (2001-2003) with the last time period (2015-2017). In general, men and women were equally likely to use psychotropic drugs. Monotherapy was more common in men. Women were more likely to utilize ≥ 4 psychotropic drugs. Antidepressant drugs (ADDs) were the most prescribed drug class. Men had a higher utilization of noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.12-1.19), especially mirtazapine (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.12-1.19), but also of other ADDs such as bupropion (RR 1.50; 95% CI 1.35-1.68). Males had a slightly higher utilization of second-generation antipsychotic drugs (RR 1.06; 95% CI 1.03-1.09) and were less often treated with low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.83-0.90). Tranquilizing (e.g., benzodiazepines; RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.86-0.92) and hypnotic drugs (e.g., Z-drugs; RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.81-0.89) were less utilized in the treatment of male patients. Not all sex differences were stable over time. More sex differences were detectable in 2015-2017 than in 2001-2003. Findings suggest that certain psychotropic drugs are preferred in the treatment of men vs. women, however, sex differences found in this study are not as large as in ambulatory settings. To make evidence-based sex-specific recommendations in the treatment of MDD, differences in drug response and tolerability need to be further researched.

Severe parkinsonism under treatment with antipsychotic drugs.

The aim of the study was to assess rates of severe parkinsonism related to different antipsychotic drugs (APDs) using data from an observational pharmacovigilance programme in German-speaking countries-Arzneimittelsicherheit in der Psychiatrie (AMSP). Data on APD utilization and reports of severe APD-induced parkinsonism were collected in 99 psychiatric hospitals in Austria, Germany and Switzerland during the period 2001-2016. Of 340,099 patients under surveillance, 245,958 patients were treated with APDs for the main indications of schizophrenic disorders, depression, mania and organic mental disorders. A total of 200 events of severe APD-induced parkinsonism were identified (0.08%). First-generation low-potency APDs were significantly less often implicated (0.02%) than second-generation APDs (0.07%) and first-generation high-potency APDs (0.16%). Among the second-generation APDs, amisulpride and risperidone ranked highest. The phenothiazines were associated with significantly lower rates of severe parkinsonism (0.02%) than those of the butyrophenones (0.11%) and thioxanthenes (0.12%). In 71 cases (35.5%), more than 1 drug was considered responsible for the induction of severe parkinsonism. In 44 patients (22.0%), the symptoms were extremely severe, leading to complete immobility and/or massive complications such as pneumonia and severe injuries due to falls. Higher age (> 60 years) was associated with significantly higher rates of severe parkinsonism, as were the diagnoses of schizophrenic disorder or mania. The large number of patients included in the present survey allows for the comparison of severe parkinsonism rates related to different APD classes and single APDs. The first-generation low-potency APDs had significantly reduced risk of severe parkinsonism compared not only to high potency but also to second-generation APDs.

Use and safety of antiepileptic drugs in psychiatric inpatients-data from the AMSP study.

The psychiatric utilization patterns and risks of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were assessed by using data from the drug safety programme Arzneimittelsicherheit in der Psychiatrie over the time period 1993-2013. In a total of 432,215 patients, the main indications for AED use were acute mania, schizoaffective disorder, and schizophrenic and organic psychoses. Valproic acid (VPA) was the most common substance across all of those groups, reaching administration rates of up to 50% since 2005, at which time carbamazepine (CBZ) administration consistently dropped below a rate of 10%. Lamotrigine (LTG) and pregabalin (PGB) increased in relevance after 2005 and 2010, respectively (with administration rates of up to 9%), whereas oxcarbazepine (OXC) was least prevalent (<3%). The mean rates of severe adverse drug reactions (ADRs) ranged from 6 cases per 1000 patients treated (VPA) to 19/1000 (OXC) and were significantly lower with treatment with VPA compared to OXC and CBZ. Hyponatremia was the leading ADR during treatment with OXC; severe allergic skin reactions were most often observed during treatment with CBZ and LTG, and severe oedema was most common during treatment with PGB. Severe hyponatremia induced by OXC was observed significantly more often in female patients than in male patients.

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.

Perphenazine versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between the various first-generation antipsychotics, however, low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs are sometimes perceived as less efficacious than high-potency first-generation compounds by clinicians, and they also seem to differ in their side effects. OBJECTIVES: To review the effects of high-potency, first-generation perphenazine compared with low-potency, first-generation antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (October 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing perphenazine with first-generation, low-potency antipsychotic drugs 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 (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis and using a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: The review currently includes four relevant randomised trials with 365 participants. The size of the included studies was between 42 and 158 participants with a study length between one and four months. Overall, the methods of sequence generation and allocation concealment were poorly reported. Most studies were rated as low risk of bias in terms of blinding. Overall, attrition bias in the studies was high.The effects of perphenazine and low-potency antipsychotic drugs seemed to be similar in terms of the primary outcome - response to treatment (perphenazine 58%, low-potency antipsychotics 59%, 2 RCTs, n = 138, RR 0.97 CI 0.74 to 1.26 - moderate quality of evidence). There was also no clear evidence of a difference in acceptability of treatment with the number of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason, however results were imprecise (perphenazine 30%, low-potency antipsychotics 28%, 3 RCTs, n = 323, RR 0.78 CI 0.35 to 1.76, very low quality of evidence).There were low numbers of studies available for the outcomes experiencing at least one adverse effect (perphenazine 33%, low-potency antipsychotics 47%, 2 RCTs, n = 165, RR 0.83 CI 0.36 to 1.95, low quality evidence) and experiencing at least one movement disorder (perphenazine 22%, low-potency first-generation antipsychotics 0%, 1 RCT, n = 69, RR 15.62 CI 0.94 to 260.49, low quality evidence), and the confidence intervals for the estimated effects did not exclude important differences. Akathisia was more frequent in the perphenazine group (perphenazine 25%, low-potency antipsychotics 22%, 2 RCTs, n = 227, RR 9.45 CI 1.69 to 52.88), whereas severe toxicity was less so (perphenazine 42%, low-potency antipsychotics 69%, 1 RCT, n = 96, RR 0.61 CI 0.41 to 0.89).There were three deaths in the low-potency group by four months but the difference between groups was not significant (perphenazine 0%, low-potency antipsychotics 2%, 1 RCT, n = 96, RR 0.14 CI 0.01 to 2.69, moderate quality evidence). No data were available for our prespecified outcomes of interest sedation or quality of life. Data were not available for other outcomes such as relapse, service use, costs and satisfaction with care.The event rates reported quote simple aggregates and are not based on the RRs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results do not show a superiority in efficacy of high-potency perphenazine compared with low-potency first-generation antipsychotics. There is some evidence that perphenazine is more likely to cause akathisia and less likely to cause severe toxicity, but most adverse effect results were equivocal. The number of studies as well as the quality of studies is low, with quality of evidence for the main outcomes ranging from moderate to very low, so more randomised evidence would be needed for conclusions to be made.

Fluphenazine versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between any other antipsychotic compounds, however, low-potency antipsychotic drugs are often perceived as less efficacious than high-potency compounds by clinicians, and they also seem to differ in their side effects. This review examined the effects of the high-potency antipsychotic fluphenazine compared to those of low-potency antipsychotics. OBJECTIVES: To review the effects of fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (November 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fluphenazine with first-generation low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: The review currently includes seven randomised trials and 1567 participants that compared fluphenazine with low-potency antipsychotic drugs. The size of the included studies was between 40 and 438 participants. Overall, sequence generation, allocation procedures and blinding were poorly reported. Fluphenazine was not significantly different from low-potency antipsychotic drugs in terms of response to treatment (fluphenazine 55%, low-potency drug 55%, 2 RCTs, n = 105, RR 1.06 CI 0.75 to 1.50, moderate quality evidence). There was also no significant difference in acceptability of treatment with equivocal numbers of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason (fluphenazine 36%, low-potency antipsychotics 36%, 6 RCTs, n = 1532, RR 1.00 CI 0.88 to 1.14, moderate quality evidence). There was no significant difference between fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics for numbers experiencing at least one adverse effect (fluphenazine 70%, low-potency antipsychotics 88%, 1 RCT, n = 65, RR 0.79 CI 0.58 to 1.07, moderate quality evidence). However, at least one movement disorder occurred significantly more frequently in the fluphenazine group (fluphenazine 15%, low-potency antipsychotics 10%, 3 RCTs, n = 971, RR 2.11 CI 1.41 to 3.15, low quality of evidence). In contrast, low-potency antipsychotics produced significantly more sedation (fluphenazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 64%, 1 RCT, n = 65, RR 0.31 CI 0.13 to 0.77, high quality evidence). No data were available for the outcomes of death and quality of life. The results of the primary outcome were robust in a number of subgroup and sensitivity analyses.Adverse effects such as akathisia (fluphenazine 15%, low-potency antipsychotics 6%, 5 RCTs, n = 1209, RR 2.28 CI 1.58 to 3.28); dystonia (fluphenazine 5%, low-potency antipsychotics 2%, 4 RCTs, n = 1309, RR 2.66 CI 1.25 to 5.64); loss of associated movement (fluphenazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 2%, 1 RCT, n = 338, RR 11.15 CI 3.95 to 31.47); rigor (fluphenazine 27%, low-potency antipsychotics 12%, 2 RCTs, n = 403, RR 2.18 CI 1.20 to 3.97); and tremor (fluphenazine 15%, low-potency antipsychotics 6%, 2 RCTs, n = 403, RR 2.53 CI 1.37 to 4.68) occurred significantly more frequently in the fluphenazine group.For other adverse effects such as dizziness (fluphenazine 8%, low-potency antipsychotics 17%, 4 RCTs, n = 1051, RR 0.49 CI 0.32 to 0.73); drowsiness (fluphenazine 18%, low-potency antipsychotics 25%, 3 RCTs, n = 986, RR 0.67 CI 0.53 to 0.86); dry mouth (fluphenazine 11%, low-potency antipsychotics 18%, 4 RCTs, n = 1051, RR 0.63 CI 0.45 to 0.89); nausea (fluphenazine 4%, low-potency antipsychotics 15%, 3 RCTs, n = 986, RR 0.25 CI 0.14 to 0.45); and vomiting (fluphenazine 3%, low-potency antipsychotics 8%, 3 RCTs, n = 986, RR 0.36 CI 0.18 to 0.72) results favoured fluphenazine with significantly more events occurring in the low-potency antipsychotic group for these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results do not show a clear difference in efficacy between fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics. The number of included studies was low and their quality moderate. Therefore, further studies would be needed to draw firm conclusions about the relative effects of fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics.

Flupenthixol versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between antipsychotic drugs, however, low-potency antipsychotic drugs are sometimes perceived as less efficacious than high-potency compounds by clinicians, and they also seem to differ in their side effects. OBJECTIVES: To review the effects in clinical response of flupenthixol and low-potency antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared flupenthixol with first-generation low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) based on a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: The review currently includes one randomised trial from mainland China with 153 participants that lasted two months and compared flupenthixol with chlorpromazine. The exact methods of sequence generation and allocation concealment were not reported, and medication was provided in an open manner. There were no data on the outcomes that we had a priori selected for a 'Summary of findings' table.There was no significant difference between flupenthixol and chlorpromazine in the participants' general mental state at endpoint as measured by the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total score (1 randomised controlled trial (RCT), n = 153, MD 2.20 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.25 to 5.65). Chlorpromazine was associated with significantly less dizziness (1 RCT, n = 153, MD 0.12 95% CI 0.01 to 0.23); dystonia (1 RCT, n = 153, MD 0.29 95% CI 0.13 to 0.45); unsteady gait (1 RCT, n = 153, MD 0.46 95% CI 0.28 to 0.64); reduced facial expression (1 RCT, n = 153, MD 0.27 95% CI 0.09 to 0.45); restlessness (1 RCT, n = 153, MD 0.69 95% CI 0.45 to 0.93); rigidity (elbow) (1 RCT, n = 153, MD 0.48 95% CI 0.28 to 0.68); and tremor (1 RCT, n = 153, MD 0.56 95% CI 0.34 to 0.78). Chlorpromazine produced more dryness of mouth than flupenthixol (1 RCT, n = 153, MD -0.14 95% CI -0.25 to -0.03). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base of flupenthixol versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotics is currently restricted to one randomised comparison with chlorpromazine. The few reported data do not suggest a difference in efficacy, but flupenthixol appeared to produce more movement disorders and dizziness, while chlorpromazine was associated with the anticholinergic side effect - dryness of mouth. More trials are needed to make conclusions about the relative effects of flupenthixol and low-potency antipsychotics.

Trifluoperazine versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between any other antipsychotic compounds, however, low-potency antipsychotic drugs are often perceived as less efficacious than high-potency compounds by clinicians, and they also seem to differ in their side-effects. OBJECTIVES: To review the effects in response to treatment of trifluoperazine and low-potency antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (November 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised trials comparing trifluoperazine with first-generation low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: The review currently includes seven randomised trials involving 422 participants that compared trifluoperazine with low-potency antipsychotic drugs. The size of the included studies was between 20 and 157 participants with a study length between four and 52 weeks. Overall, sequence generation, allocation procedures and blinding were poorly reported. Trifluoperazine was not significantly different from low-potency antipsychotic drugs in terms of response to treatment (trifluoperazine 26%, low-potency drug 27%, 3 RCTs, n = 120, RR 0.96 CI 0.59 to 1.56, moderate quality evidence). There was also no significant difference in acceptability of treatment with equivocal number of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason (trifluoperazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 16%, 3 RCTs, n = 239, RR 1.25, CI 0.72 to 2.17,low quality evidence). There was no significant difference in numbers with at least one adverse effect (trifluoperazine 60%, low-potency antipsychotics 38%, 1 RCT, n = 60, RR 1.60, CI 0.94 to 2.74, moderate quality evidence). However, at least one movement disorder was significantly more frequent in the trifluoperazine group (trifluoperazine 23%, low-potency antipsychotics 13%, 2 RCTs, n = 123, RR 2.08 CI 0.78 to 5.55, very low quality evidence) as well as incoordination (trifluoperazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 5%, 1 RCT, n = 60, RR 7.00, CI 1.60 to 30.66) and rigor (trifluoperazine 45%, low-potency antipsychotics 10%, 1 RCT, n = 60, RR 4.50, CI 1.58 to 12.84). No data were available for other outcomes of interest death, sedation and quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results did not show a difference in efficacy between trifluoperazine and low-potency antipsychotics. Trifluoperazine produced more movement disorders. The number of randomised studies as well as their quality is low, the quality of evidence for outcomes of interest ranged from moderate to very low quality, so more, newer studies would be needed for conclusions about the relative effects of trifluoperazine and low-potency antipsychotics.

Haloperidol versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between antipsychotic compounds, however, low-potency antipsychotic drugs are often clinically perceived as less efficacious than high-potency compounds, and they also seem to differ in their side-effects. OBJECTIVES: To review the effects in clinical response of haloperidol and low-potency antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised trials comparing haloperidol with first-generation low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), again based on a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: The review currently includes 17 randomised trials and 877 participants. The size of the included studies was between 16 and 109 participants. All studies were short-term with a study length between two and 12 weeks. Overall, sequence generation, allocation procedures and blinding were poorly reported. We found no clear evidence that haloperidol was superior to low-potency antipsychotic drugs in terms of clinical response (haloperidol 40%, low-potency drug 36%, 14 RCTs, n = 574, RR 1.11, CI 0.86 to 1.44 lowquality evidence). There was also no clear evidence of benefit for either group in acceptability of treatment with equivocal difference in the number of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason (haloperidol 13%, low-potency antipsychotics 17%, 11 RCTs, n = 408, RR 0.82, CI 0.38 to 1.77, low quality evidence). Similar equivocal results were found between groups for experiencing at least one adverse effect (haloperidol 70%, low-potency antipsychotics 35%, 5 RCTs n = 158, RR 1.97, CI 0.69 to 5.66, very low quality evidence ). More participants from the low-potency drug group experienced sedation (haloperidol 14%, low-potency antipsychotics 41%, 2 RCTs, n = 44, RR 0.30, CI 0.11 to 0.82, moderate quality evidence), orthostasis problems (haloperidol 25%, low-potency antipsychotics 71%, 1 RCT, n = 41, RR 0.35, CI 0.16 to 0.78) and weight gain (haloperidol 5%, low-potency antipsychotics 29%, 3 RCTs, n = 88, RR 0.22, CI 0.06 to 0.81). In contrast, the outcome 'at least one movement disorder' was more frequent in the haloperidol group (haloperidol 72%, low-potency antipsychotics 41%, 5 RCTs, n = 170, RR 1.64, CI 1.22 to 2.21, low quality evidence). No data were available for death or quality of life. The results of the primary outcome were robust in several subgroup and sensitivity analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results do not clearly show a superiority in efficacy of haloperidol compared with low-potency antipsychotics. Differences in adverse events were found for movement disorders, which were more frequent in the haloperidol group, and orthostatic problems, sedation and weight gain, which were more frequent in the low-potency antipsychotic group. The quality of studies was low, and the quality of evidence for the main outcomes of interest varied from moderate to very low, so more newer studies would be needed in order to draw a definite conclusion about whether or not haloperidol is superior or inferior to low-potency antipsychotics.

Understanding effect size: an international online survey among psychiatrists, psychologists, physicians from other medical specialities, dentists and other health professionals.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Various ways exist to display the effectiveness of medical treatment options. This study examined various psychiatric, medical and allied professionals' understanding and perceived usefulness of eight effect size indices for presenting both dichotomous and continuous outcome data. METHODS: We surveyed 1316 participants from 13 countries using an online questionnaire. We presented hypothetical treatment effects of interventions versus placebo concerning chronic pain using eight different effect size measures. For each index, the participants had to judge the magnitude of the shown effect, to indicate how certain they felt about their own answer and how useful they found the given effect size index. FINDINGS: Overall, 762 (57.9%) participants fully completed the questionnaire. In terms of understanding, the best results emerged when both the control event rate (CER) and the experimental event rate (EER) were presented. The difference in minimal importance difference units (MID unit) was understood worst. Respondents also found CER and EER to be the most useful presentation approach while they rated MID unit as the least useful. Confidence in the risk ratio ranked high, even though it was rather poorly understood. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: For dichotomous outcomes, presenting the effects in terms of the CER and EER could lead to the most correct interpretation. Relative measures including the risk ratio must be supplemented with absolute measures such as the CER and EER. Effects on continuous outcomes were better understood through standardised mean differences than mean differences. These can also be supplemented by dichotomised CER and EER.

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).

Neurocognitive Deficits in First-Episode and Chronic Psychotic Disorders: A Systematic Review from 2009 to 2022.

Cognitive impairment in patients suffering from schizophrenia spectrum disorders has been discussed as a strong predictor for multiple disease outcome variables, such as response to psychotherapy, stable relationships, employment, and longevity. However, the consistency and severity of cognitive deficits across multiple domains in individuals with first-episode and chronic psychotic disorders is still undetermined. We provide a comprehensive overview of primary research from the years 2009 to 2022. Based on a Cochrane risk assessment, a systematic synthesis of 51 out of 3669 original studies was performed. Impairment of cognitive functioning in patients diagnosed with first-episode psychotic disorders compared with healthy controls was predicted to occur in all assessed cognitive domains. Few overall changes were predicted for chronically affected patients relative to those in the first-episode stage, in line with previous longitudinal studies. Our research outcomes support the hypothesis of a global decrease in cognitive functioning in patients diagnosed with psychotic disorders, i.e., the occurrence of cognitive deficits in multiple cognitive domains including executive functioning, memory, working memory, psychomotor speed, and attention. Only mild increases in the frequency of cognitive impairment across studies were observed at the chronically affected stage relative to the first-episode stage. Our results confirm and extend the outcomes from prior reviews and meta-analyses. Recommendations for psychotherapeutic interventions are provided, considering the broad cognitive impairment already observed at the stage of the first episode. Based on the risk of bias assessment, we also make specific suggestions concerning the quality of future original studies.

The relationship between blood-brain barrier dysfunction and neurocognitive impairments in first-episode psychosis: findings from a retrospective chart analysis.

BACKGROUND: Even before the onset of psychotic symptoms, individuals with schizophrenia display cognitive impairments. Simultaneously, increasing amounts of individuals exhibit dysfunction of the blood-brain barrier (BBB). However, the impact of BBB dysfunction on neurocognitive impairment in people with first-episode psychosis has not yet been investigated. AIMS: To advance understanding of said relationship, we considered one of the largest first-episode psychosis cohorts with cerebrospinal fluid parameters available, and investigated whether BBB dysfunction is related to working memory, working speed and attention. METHOD: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 121 in-patients diagnosed with a first episode of a schizophrenia spectrum disorder. Patients underwent neurocognitive testing and a lumbar puncture within routine clinical care. To define BBB dysfunction, albumin cerebrospinal fluid/serum quotients, immunoglobulin G ratios and oligoclonal band types were evaluated, and gender-specific differences investigated. Neurocognitive functioning was assessed by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Test of Attentional Performance and Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status. We performed simple and multiple linear regression analyses to interpret associations of interest. RESULTS: Of those tested, 16% showed an alteration in albumin quotients and 12% had an oligoclonal band type indicating BBB dysfunction. Notably, male patients were more likely to have an increased albumin quotient and a higher immunoglobulin G ratio than female patients. We found no significant association between BBB dysfunction and neurocognitive assessments. CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesised relationship between BBB and neurocognitive impairments was not detectable in our retrospective cohort. Further cerebrospinal fluid-based studies with a longitudinal assessment of cognitive functioning and disease trajectory are urgently needed.

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

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that antipsychotic drugs differ in their effect on the cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia. So far, there is no comprehensive systematic review available that would enable providers and patients to make informed choices regarding this important aspect of treatment. With a large number of substances available, conventional pairwise meta-analyses will not be sufficient to inform this choice. To fill this gap, we will conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA), integrating direct and indirect comparisons from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to rank antipsychotics according to their effect on cognitive functioning. METHODS: In our NMA, we will include RCTs in patients with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses comparing one antipsychotic agent with another antipsychotic agent or placebo that measures cognitive function. We will include studies on patients of every age group, in any phase of illness (e.g., acute or stable, first episode or chronic schizophrenia, in- or outpatients) with an intervention time of at least 3 weeks. The primary outcome will be the composite score of cognitive functioning, preferentially measured with the test battery developed by the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) initiative. The secondary outcomes include the seven cognitive domains that the composite score is composed of, as well as functioning and quality of life. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted by at least two independent reviewers. We will use the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2 to determine the risk of bias in studies, and we will evaluate the confidence in the results using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). We will perform NMA using R (package netmeta). We will conduct subgroup and sensitivity analyses to explore the heterogeneity and assess the robustness of our findings. DISCUSSION: This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to inform evidence-based antipsychotic treatment choice for cognitive deficits in schizophrenia patients by analyzing existing RCTs on this subject. The results have the potential to support patients' and physicians' decision-making processes based on the latest available evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022312483.

Atypical dyskinesias under treatment with antipsychotic drugs: Report from the AMSP multicenter drug safety project.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe atypical dyskinesias (AtypDs) occurring during treatment with antipsychotic drugs (APDs). AtypDs are dyskinesias showing either an unusual temporal relationship between onset of treatment and start of the adverse drug reaction (ADR) or an unusual presentation of clinical symptoms. METHODS: Data on the utilisation of APDs and reports of severe APD-induced AtypDs were collected using data from the observational pharmacovigilance programme - 'Arzneimittelsicherheit in der Psychiatrie (English: drug safety in psychiatry)' (AMSP) - from 1993 to 2016. RESULTS: A total of 495,615 patients were monitored, of which 333,175 were treated with APDs. Sixty-seven cases (0.020%) of severe AtypDs under treatment with APDs were registered. The diagnoses of schizophrenic disorders as well as organic mental disorders were related to significantly higher rates of AtypDs. Second-generation antipsychotic drugs (SGAs) showed slightly higher rates of AtypDs (0.024%) than high-potency (0.011%) or low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs (FGAs; 0.006%). In 41 cases (61.2%), two or more drugs were found to cause AtypDs. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that AtypDs are rare ADRs. SGAs may have a higher risk for the occurrence of AtypDs than FGAs. Clinicians should be aware of this ADR and patients should be monitored and examined carefully.

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

BACKGROUND: The magnitude of the superiority of antipsychotics over placebo is debated. One reason is that the effect-size index which is usually used in meta-analyses is in standard deviation units. Many other indices, some of which are more intuitive, exist. METHODS: We explain the formulae, advantages, and limitations of 13 effect-size indices: Mean Difference (MD), Standardized-Mean-Difference (SMD), Correlation Coefficient, Ratio-of-Means (RoM, endpoint and change data), Improvement Fraction (IF), Drug-Response Fraction (DRF), Minimally-Clinically-Important-Difference-Units (MCIDU), Number-Needed-to-Treat-derived from SMD (NNT), Odds Ratio (OR), Relative Risk (RR), and Risk Difference (RD) derived from SMD, Drug-response and Placebo-response in percent. We applied these indices to meta-analyses comparing antipsychotic drugs with placebo for acute schizophrenia. RESULTS: The difference of all antipsychotics pooled vs placebo (105 trials with 22741 participants) was: MD 9.4 (95% CI 8.4,10.2) PANSS points, SMD 0.47 (0.42,0.51), Correlation coefficient 0.23 (0.21,0.25), RoM endpoint 0.83 (0.81,0.85), RoM change 1.94 (1.84,2.02), IF (%) 49 (46,51), DRF (%) 94 (84,102), MCIDU 0.63 (0.56,0.68), NNT 5 (5,6), OR 2.34 (2.14, 2.52), RR 1.67 (1.59,1.73), RD 20% (18-22), and 50% (48, 52) improved on drug compared to 30% on placebo. Results of individual drugs compared to placebo are presented, as well. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together these indices show a substantial, but not a large superiority of antipsychotics compared to placebo. The general chronicity of the patients in the trials must be considered. Future meta-analyses should report other effect size indices in addition to the Standardized-Mean-Difference, in particular percentage responders in the drug and placebo groups. They can be easily derived and would enhance the interpretation of research findings.

Time trends in pharmacological treatment of major depressive disorder: Results from the AMSP Pharmacovigilance Program from 2001-2017.

BACKGROUND: Currently available data on the prescription practice among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) reflect the outpatient setting. This is the first study to provide information on time trends of psychotropic drug utilization in psychiatric inpatients. METHOD: Data stems from German-speaking psychiatric hospitals collected by the program "Drug Safety in Psychiatry" (Arzneimittelsicherheit in der Psychiatrie, AMSP) between 2001 and 2017. 44,418 psychiatric inpatients with MDD were included. Time trends in drug utilization were analyzed by comparing the first (2001-2003) and last time point (2015-2017) using risk ratios (RR). RESULTS: Antidepressant drugs (ADD) were the most used psychotropic drug class with utilization decreasing slightly from 2001-2003 (89.7%) to 2015-2017 (85.5%). Use of tricyclic ADDs showed the greatest decline (RR 0.35), while use of selective serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (RR 1.72) and "other ADDs" increased the most. Use of antipsychotic drugs (APD), especially second-generation antipsychotic drugs (RR 1.46), increased. Use of tranquilizing (RR 0.71) and hypnotic drugs (RR 0.43) both decreased. Most patients were treated with more than one psychotropic drug, most often ADD + APD, which was utilized more often in 2015-2017 (51.1%) than in 2001-2003 (45.1%; RR 1.13). Combination of two ADDs increased from 2001-2003 (24.5%) to 2015-2017 (33.0%; RR 1.35). LIMITATIONS: The cross-sectional design does not allow conclusions to be drawn about causal relationship of findings. Further, only certain clinical and sociodemographic data was available. CONCLUSION: Treatment of MDD has shown significant changes from 2001 to 2017.

Severe drug-induced liver injury in patients under treatment with antipsychotic drugs: Data from the AMSP study.

OBJECTIVES: Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) has been associated with various antipsychotic drugs (APDs). Comparative studies between individual APDs are largely not available. METHODS: Antipsychotic drug utilisation data and reports of severe antipsychotic DILI were assessed by using data from an observational pharmacovigilance programme-Arzneimittelsicherheit in der Psychiatrie (AMSP)-during the period 1993-2016. RESULTS: Of the 333,175 patients treated with APDs, a total of 246 (0.07%) events of severe DILI were identified. Phenothiazines were associated with significantly higher rates of severe DILI (0.03%, 95% CI = 0.02-0.04) than thioxanthenes (0.01%, 95% CI = 0.00-0.02) or butyrophenones (0.01%, 95% CI = 0.00-0.01). Among individual drugs, olanzapine (0.12%, 95% CI = 0.10-0.16), perazine (0.09%, 95% CI = 0.05-0.15) and clozapine (0.09%, 95% CI = 0.10-0.12 ranked highest. In 78 cases (31.7%), combination therapies with antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs or with two or more APDs were considered responsible. Male sex and a diagnosis of mania were associated with significantly higher rates of severe DILI while older patients (≥65 years old) were significantly less often affected. CONCLUSIONS: In the present analysis of a representative psychiatric inpatient cohort, olanzapine, perazine, and clozapine were the most common individual APDs associated with severe DILI.

Second-generation versus first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Because of the debate about whether second-generation antipsychotic drugs are better than first-generation antipsychotic drugs, we did a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare the effects of these two types of drugs in patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: We compared nine second-generation antipsychotic drugs with first-generation drugs for overall efficacy (main outcome), positive, negative and depressive symptoms, relapse, quality of life, extrapyramidal side-effects, weight gain, and sedation. FINDINGS: We included 150 double-blind, mostly short-term, studies, with 21 533 participants. We excluded open studies because they systematically favoured second-generation drugs. Four of these drugs were better than first-generation antipsychotic drugs for overall efficacy, with small to medium effect sizes (amisulpride -0.31 [95% CI -0.44 to -0.19, p<0.0001], clozapine -0.52 [-0.75 to -0.29, p<0.0001], olanzapine -0.28 [-0.38 to -0.18, p<0.0001], and risperidone -0.13 [-0.22 to -0.05, p=0.002]). The other second-generation drugs were not more efficacious than the first-generation drugs, even for negative symptoms. Therefore efficacy on negative symptoms cannot be a core component of atypicality. Second-generation antipsychotic drugs induced fewer extrapyramidal side-effects than did haloperidol (even at low doses). Only a few have been shown to induce fewer extrapyramidal side-effects than low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs. With the exception of aripiprazole and ziprasidone, second-generation antipsychotic drugs induced more weight gain, in various degrees, than did haloperidol but not than low-potency first-generation drugs. The second-generation drugs also differed in their sedating properties. We did not note any consistent effects of moderator variables, such as industry sponsorship, comparator dose, or prophylactic antiparkinsonian medication. INTERPRETATION: Second-generation antipsychotic drugs differ in many properties and are not a homogeneous class. This meta-analysis provides data for individualised treatment based on efficacy, side-effects, and cost.