Antidepressant and antipsychotic side-effects and personalised prescribing: a systematic review and digital tool development.

BACKGROUND: Side-effects of psychiatric medication impair quality of life and functioning. Furthermore, they contribute to morbidity, mortality, stigma, and poor treatment concordance resulting in relapse of psychiatric illness. Guidelines recommend discussing side-effects with patients when making treatment decisions, but a synthesis of antidepressant and antipsychotic side-effects to guide this process is missing, and considering all side-effects is a complex, multidimensional process. We aimed to create comprehensive databases of antipsychotic and antidepressant side-effects, and a digital tool to support database navigation. METHODS: To create the databases, we did an umbrella review of Embase, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE from database inception to June 26, 2023. We included meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials examining antipsychotic monotherapy in the treatment of schizophrenia or antidepressant monotherapy in the treatment of major depressive disorder. We included meta-analyses in adults (aged ≥18 years) that assessed drugs with a common comparator. The search was complemented by a review of national and international guidelines and consensus statements for the treatment of major depressive disorder and schizophrenia in adults. Effect sizes for antipsychotic and antidepressant side-effects were extracted from meta-analyses examining the largest number of drugs. In cases of incomplete meta-analytic coverage, data were imputed on the basis of guideline-derived ordinal rankings or, if imputation was not possible, ordinal scores were extracted. Both meta-analytic and ordinal outcomes were normalised to provide values between 0 and 1. We then constructed a digital tool, the Psymatik Treatment Optimizer, to combine the side-effect databases with side-effect concerns of an individual user, to enable users to select side-effects of concern and the relative degree of concern for each side-effect. Concern weightings and the side-effect databases are synthesised via a multicriteria decision analysis method (technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal situation, or TOPSIS). FINDINGS: Of 3724 citations, 14 articles containing 68 meta-analyses of individual side-effects met inclusion criteria. After review of 19 guidelines, seven provided ordinal data. Antipsychotic data were extracted from five studies (11 meta-analyses, n=65 594 patients) and four guidelines, and antidepressant data were extracted from three guidelines. The resultant databases included data on 32 antipsychotics (14 side-effects) and 37 antidepressants (nine side-effects). The databases highlighted the clinical dilemma associated with balancing side-effects, with avoidance of one side-effect (eg, weight gain for antipsychotics) increasing the risk of others (eg, akathisia). To aid with this dilemma, the Psymatik Treatment Optimizer synthesises the side-effect databases with individual user-defined concern weights. After computing up to 5851 pairwise comparisons for antidepressants and 5142 pairwise comparisons for antipsychotics, Psymatik ranks treatments in order of preference for the individual user, with the output presented in a heatmap. INTERPRETATION: By facilitating collaborative, personalised, and evidence-based prescribing decisions, the side-effect databases and digital application supports care delivery that is consistent with international regulatory guidance for the treatment of schizophrenia and depression, and it therefore has promise for informing psychiatric practice and improving outcomes. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research, Maudsley Charity, Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council.

Long-term efficacy of antipsychotic drugs in initially acutely ill adults with schizophrenia: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Most acute phase antipsychotic drug trials in schizophrenia last only a few weeks, but patients must usually take these drugs much longer. We examined the long-term efficacy of antipsychotic drugs in acutely ill patients using network meta-analysis. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group register up to March 6, 2022 for randomized, blinded trials of at least 6-month duration on all second-generation and 18 first-generation antipsychotics. The primary outcome was change in overall symptoms of schizophrenia; secondary outcomes were all-cause discontinuation; change in positive, negative and depressive symptoms; quality of life, social functioning, weight gain, antiparkinson medication use, akathisia, serum prolactin level, QTc prolongation, and sedation. Confidence in the results was assessed by the CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) framework. We included 45 studies with 11,238 participants. In terms of overall symptoms, olanzapine was on average more efficacious than ziprasidone (standardized mean difference, SMD=0.37, 95% CI: 0.26-0.49), asenapine (SMD=0.33, 95% CI: 0.21-0.45), iloperidone (SMD=0.32, 95% CI: 0.15-0.49), paliperidone (SMD=0.28, 95% CI: 0.11-0.44), haloperidol (SMD=0.27, 95% CI: 0.14-0.39), quetiapine (SMD=0.25, 95% CI: 0.12-0.38), aripiprazole (SMD=0.16, 95% CI: 0.04-0.28) and risperidone (SMD=0.12, 95% CI: 0.03-0.21). The 95% CIs for olanzapine versus aripiprazole and risperidone included the possibility of trivial effects. The differences between olanzapine and lurasidone, amisulpride, perphenazine, clozapine and zotepine were either small or uncertain. These results were robust in sensitivity analyses and in line with other efficacy outcomes and all-cause discontinuation. Concerning weight gain, the impact of olanzapine was higher than all other antipsychotics, with a mean difference ranging from -4.58 kg (95% CI: -5.33 to -3.83) compared to ziprasidone to -2.30 kg (95% CI: -3.35 to -1.25) compared to amisulpride. Our data suggest that olanzapine is more efficacious than a number of other antipsychotic drugs in the longer term, but its efficacy must be weighed against its side effect profile.

The response of subgroups of patients with schizophrenia to different antipsychotic drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: As comparatively few trials in subgroups of patients with schizophrenia have been done, clinicians need to know whether they can rely on the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the general population of patients with schizophrenia. We aimed to compare the efficacy and side-effects of antipsychotic drugs in different subgroups. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register (from database inception to April 27, 2020), and PubMed (from April 1, 2020 to June 14, 2021). We excluded studies in patients with stable schizophrenia (ie, relapse prevention studies), studies with a high risk of bias, and studies from mainland China due to quality concerns concerning allocation and masking methods. We included single-blind RCTs or better that assessed one or more of 16 second-generation and 18 first-generation antipsychotics in the general population of patients with schizophrenia or in one or more of the subgroups: children and adolescents (age range as defined in the original studies), patients with a first episode, patients with predominant or prominent negative symptoms, patients with comorbid substance use, patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, or older patients (age range as defined in the original studies). Two authors independently screened the results of the search, retrieved full-text articles, and checked the inclusion criteria. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline, all parameters were extracted in duplicate. The primary outcome was change in overall symptoms. We compared drug efficacy between subgroups, by sex, schizoaffective disorder versus schizophrenia, and study origin using random-effects, inverse variance meta-analyses and random-effects subgroup tests, and meta-regression. FINDINGS: We included 537 RCTs with 76 382 participants, 26 627 (34·9%) women, 49 755 (65·1%) men, mean age 37·3 years (range of means 7·9-80·2; ethnicity data not available). 412 RCTs included patients in the general population of patients with schizophrenia, 42 included patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, 25 included children and adolescents, 20 included patients with their first episode, 20 included patients with predominant or prominent negative symptoms, 13 included patients with comorbid substance use, and 11 included older patients. Of 507 random-effects subgroup tests done, 46 (9%) showed a significant difference (p<0·05) between subgroups, but there was no clear indication as to which drug should be used in which subgroup. INTERPRETATION: The effects of antipsychotics in various patient subgroups were usually similar to those in the general population of patients with schizophrenia, but comparably few studies contributed to the subgroups, in particular in terms of side-effects. If the evidence for treatment in a given subgroup is small, guideline makers and clinicians should consider using the results in the much better studied group of the general population of patients with schizophrenia. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung; FKZ 01KG1508).

Effects of antipsychotics on heart rate in treatment of schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Antipsychotics are the treatment of choice in the therapy of schizophrenia. These drugs can be associated with changes in heart rate, but this question has never been examined systematically. Objective: We aimed to analyse changes in heart rate during treatment with antipsychotics using the frequency of tachycardia and bradycardia events. Design: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we included all randomized controlled trials for the acute treatment of schizophrenia comparing antipsychotics head-to-head or with placebo. Data Sources and Methods: We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, BIOSIS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov (last search June 2021). Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We conducted pairwise meta-analyses using a random-effects model. Outcomes were tachycardia and bradycardia events. Results: We found 469 trials meeting the inclusion criteria. Seventy-seven studies with 16,907 participants provided data on tachycardia or bradycardia events. We found no significant differences between antipsychotics and placebo or between antipsychotics for bradycardia events based on sparse data. Antipsychotics had a higher risk for tachycardia events compared with placebo [N = 37, n = 7827, risk ratio (RR) = 1.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.40-2.41], with large differences between the individual substances (iloperidone RR = 14.05, chlorpromazine RR = 4.84, loxapine RR = 4.52, risperidone RR = 3.38, quetiapine RR = 2.64, paliperidone RR = 1.65). Some head-to-head comparisons were also significantly different: olanzapine versus haloperidol RR = 2.87, chlorpromazine versus thiothixene RR = 2.92, quetiapine versus lurasidone RR = 3.22, risperidone versus aripiprazole RR = 4.37, iloperidone versus ziprasidone RR = 4.65). Conclusion: Many studies do not report data for cardiac outcomes, but the available evidence indicates that treatment with antipsychotics raises the risk for tachycardia. Therefore, especially patients with cardiac risk factors should be monitored closely during antipsychotic treatment. Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42014014919.

Pharmacological and dietary-supplement treatments for autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is still no approved medication for the core symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This network meta-analysis investigated pharmacological and dietary-supplement treatments for ASD. METHODS: We searched for randomized-controlled-trials (RCTs) with a minimum duration of seven days in ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, WHO-ICTRP (from inception up to July 8, 2018), CENTRAL and PubMed (up to November 3, 2021). The co-primary outcomes were core symptoms (social-communication difficulties-SCD, repetitive behaviors-RB, overall core symptoms-OCS) measured by validated scales and standardized-mean-differences (SMDs). Associated symptoms, e.g., irritability/aggression and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms, dropouts and important side-effects, were investigated as secondary outcomes. Studies in children/adolescents and adults were analyzed separately in random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses. RESULTS: We analyzed data for 41 drugs and 17 dietary-supplements, from 125 RCTs (n = 7450 participants) in children/adolescents and 18 RCTs (n = 1104) in adults. The following medications could improve at least one core symptom domain in comparison with placebo: aripiprazole (k = 6 studies in analysis, SCD: SMD = 0.27 95% CI [0.09, 0.44], RB: 0.48 [0.26, 0.70]), atomoxetine (k = 3, RB:0.49 [0.18, 0.80]), bumetanide (k = 4, RB: 0.35 [0.09, 0.62], OCS: 0.61 [0.31, 0.91]), and risperidone (k = 4, SCM: 0.31 [0.06, 0.55], RB: 0.60 [0.29, 0.90]; k = 3, OCS: 1.18 [0.75, 1.61]) in children/adolescents; fluoxetine (k = 1, RB: 1.20 [0.45, 1.96]), fluvoxamine (k = 1, RB: 1.04 [0.27, 1.81]), oxytocin (k = 6, RB:0.41 [0.16, 0.66]) and risperidone (k = 1, RB: 0.97 [0.21,1.74]) in adults. There were some indications of improvement by carnosine, haloperidol, folinic acid, guanfacine, omega-3-fatty-acids, probiotics, sulforaphane, tideglusib and valproate, yet imprecise and not robust. Confidence in these estimates was very low or low, except moderate for oxytocin. Medications differed substantially in improving associated symptoms, and in their side-effect profiles. LIMITATIONS: Most of the studies were inadequately powered (sample sizes of 20-80 participants), with short duration (8-13 weeks), and about a third focused on associated symptoms. Networks were mainly star-shaped, and there were indications of reporting bias. There was no optimal rating scale measuring change in core symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Some medications could improve core symptoms, although this could be likely secondary to the improvement of associated symptoms. Evidence on their efficacy and safety is preliminary; therefore, routine prescription of medications for the core symptoms cannot be recommended. Trial registration PROSPERO-ID CRD42019125317.

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.

The role of psycho-oncologic screenings in the detection and evaluation of depression in head and neck cancer aftercare patients.

PURPOSE: Cancer and morbidity during a therapeutic regimen can result in somatic and psychiatric impairment. We have evaluated the need of appropriate psychological screening by analyzing a large collective of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients with particularly burdensome symptoms. METHODS: HNC-aftercare patients were asked about somatic and psychological symptoms by means of standardized questionnaires of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC Q30 and QLQ-H&N35). Patients with poor well-being values on the World Health Organization-5-Well-Being Index were screened for depression by using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview, and adequate treatment was initiated, if necessary. RESULTS: Our sample consisted of 453 HNC-aftercare patients (average age 64.5 years; 72.0% male; 28.0% female). 25.1% showed abnormalities based on their WHO-5 questionnaire. A current major depressive episode was observed in 8.5% of the total study group. Patients with lip and oral cavity tumors showed the highest depression prevalence (18.9%). Time since initial HNC diagnosis showed no clear trend with regard to the number of depression cases. 50.0% of patients with a current major depressive episode consented to receiving assistance and/or therapy. Within the total study population, the most burdensome symptoms were found to be "dry mouth" (48.3%), "trouble doing strenuous activities" (46.0%), "trouble taking a long walk" (38.5%), and "worry" (35.5%). Aftercare patients with a depression diagnosis tended to have heavier symptom burdens than people without major depression. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the various cancer-related burdensome factors, prevalence levels of depression among the HNC-aftercare patients and the general population were similar. Nevertheless, since the number of diagnosed depression cases is high, the need for psychological treatment should be considered within the tumor collective. Furthermore, screening for depression should be implemented in clinical routines by using the appropriate standardized questionnaires.

Examining Side Effect Variability of Antipsychotic Treatment in Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders: A Meta-analysis of Variance.

Side effects of antipsychotic drugs play a key role in nonadherence of treatment in schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD). While clinical observations suggest that side effect variability between patients may be considerable, statistical evidence is required to confirm this. Here, we hypothesized to find larger side effect variability under treatment compared with control. We included double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with a diagnosis of SSD treated with 1 out of 14 antipsychotics. Standard deviations of the pre-post treatment differences of weight gain, prolactin levels, and corrected QT (QTc) times were extracted. The outcome measure was the variability ratio of treatment to control for individual antipsychotic drugs and the overall variability ratio of treatment to control across RCTs. Individual variability ratios were weighted by the inverse-variance method and entered into a random-effects model. We included N = 16 578 patients for weight gain, N = 16 633 patients for prolactin levels, and N = 10 384 patients for QTc time. Variability ratios (VR) were significantly increased for weight gain (VR = 1.08; 95% CI: 1.02-1.14; P = .004) and prolactin levels (VR = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.17-1.62; P < .001) but did not reach significance for QTc time (VR = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.98-1.12; P = 0.135). We found marked differences between individual antipsychotics and increased variability in side effects in patients under treatment with antipsychotics suggesting that subgroups of patients or individual patients may benefit from treatment allocation through stratified or personalized medicine.

[Clozapine in the Treatment of Schizophrenic Psychosis: Patient Characteristics and Antipsychotic Combinations in One Cohort at a Psychiatric Care Hospital]. / Clozapin in der Behandlung schizophrener Psychosen Patientencharakteristika und antipsychotische Kombinationstherapien bei einem Behandlungsjahrgang eines psychiatrischen Versorgungskrankenhauses.

BACKGROUND: In many studies, clozapine has been reported to have superior effectiveness compared to other antipsychotics. So far there is little systematic data on the practice of clozapine prescription and characteristics of patients treated. METHOD: Retrospective evaluation of all 392 treatment courses of inpatients with schizophrenic psychoses during one year. Detailed analysis of the patients treated with clozapine including the dosages and additional psychotropic medication. RESULT: Patients treated with clozapine showed a higher disease severity than patients without clozapine. They received more frequently pharmacological combination therapies, which in some cases significantly contradicted the current guideline recommendations. CONCLUSION: The results underline the pronounced disease severity of patients receiving clozapine treatment and substantiate evidence from the literature on the limited implementation of guidelines in prescribing practice. The study carried out serves as a pilot survey of a multicenter research project on the practice of prescribing clozapine in psychiatric hospitals in different German regions.

Reducing antipsychotic drugs in stable patients with chronic schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder: a randomized controlled pilot trial.

As the course of schizophrenic disorders is often chronic, treatment guidelines recommend continuous maintenance treatment to prevent relapses, but antipsychotic drugs can cause many side effects. It, therefore, seems reasonable to try to reduce doses in stable phases of the illness or even try to stop medication. We conducted a 26 weeks, randomized, rater blind, feasibility study to examine individualized antipsychotic dose reduction versus continuous maintenance treatment (Register Number: NCT02307396). We included chronic, adult patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, who were treated with any antipsychotic drug except clozapine, who had not been hospitalized in the last 3 years and who were in symptomatic remission at baseline. The primary outcome was relapse of positive symptoms. Symptom severity, social functioning and side effects were also examined as secondary outcomes. 20 patients were randomized. Relapse rates in the two groups were not significantly different. No patient had to be hospitalized. One patient in the control group dropped out. The mean reduction of antipsychotic dose in the individualized dose-reduction group was 42%, however only one patient discontinued drug completely. There were no significant differences in efficacy or safety outcomes. This randomized trial provides evidence, that reduction of antipsychotic medication in chronic stable schizophrenic patients may be feasible. The results need to be confirmed in a larger trial with a longer follow-up period.

[Delusional Misidentification Syndrom and Violent Behavior - Risk Assessment and Management]. / Wahnhafte Missidentifikation und gewalttätiges Verhalten ­ Risikoabschätzung und Management.

OBJECTIVE AND METHOD: A case series of three patients with Delusional Misidentification Syndroms (DMS) and violent behavior is presented with respect to the correlation between DMS and violence as well as to the management of such occurrences. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: DMS could be one of the reasons for violent behavior of patients with psychiatric disorders. In such case violent behavior is not just restricted to intimates and relatives but also turns on non-familiar caregivers. DMS could be a risk factor for violent behavior and should therefore be registered with help of a nuanced psychopathological exploration at the time of clinical admission and in course of treatment. Moreover risk assessment tools and safety measures (e. g. medication, monitoring) could be considered for patients with DMS.

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.

(Reprinted with permission from the Lancet 2019; 394: 939-51).

Placebo response in pharmacological and dietary supplement trials of autism spectrum disorder (ASD): systematic review and meta-regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: Placebo response in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) might dilute drug-placebo differences and hinder drug development. Therefore, this meta-analysis investigated placebo response in core symptoms. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov , CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, WHO-ICTRP (up to July 8, 2018), and PubMed (up to July 4, 2019) for randomized pharmacological and dietary supplement placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) with a minimum of seven days of treatment. Single-group meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Standardized mean changes (SMC) of core symptoms in placebo arms were the primary outcomes and placebo positive response rates were a secondary outcome. Predictors of placebo response were investigated with meta-regression analyses. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO ID CRD42019125317 . RESULTS: Eighty-six RCTs with 2360 participants on placebo were included in our analysis (87% in children/adolescents). The majority of trials were small, single-center with a duration of 8-12 weeks and published after 2009. Placebo response in social-communication difficulties was SMC = - 0.32, 95% CI [- 0.39, - 0.25], in repetitive behaviors - 0.23[- 0.32, - 0.15] and in scales measuring overall core symptoms - 0.36 [- 0.46, - 0.26]. Overall, 19%, 95% CI [16-22%] of participants were at least much improved with placebo. Caregiver (vs. clinician) ratings, lower risk of bias, flexible-dosing, larger sample sizes and number of sites, less recent publication year, baseline levels of irritability, and the use of a threshold of core symptoms at inclusion were associated with larger placebo response in at least a core symptom domain. LIMITATIONS: About 40% of the trials had an apparent focus on core symptoms. Investigation of the differential impact of predictors on placebo and drug response was impeded by the use of diverse experimental interventions with essentially different mechanisms of action. An individual-participant-data meta-analysis could allow for a more fine-grained analysis and provide more informative answers. CONCLUSIONS: Placebo response in ASD was substantial and predicted by design- and participant-related factors, which could inform the design of future trials in order to improve the detection of efficacy in core symptoms. Potential solutions could be the minimization and careful selection of study sites as well as rigorous participant enrollment and the use of measurements of change not solely dependent on caregivers.

Are Randomized Controlled Trials on Pharmacotherapy and Psychotherapy for Positive Symptoms of Schizophrenia Comparable? A Systematic Review of Patient and Study Characteristics.

BACKGROUND: We examined patient and study characteristics of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy trials to establish whether the effects of these 2 treatment strategies can be compared meaningfully. METHODS: We inspected all randomized controlled trials included in 2 recent meta-analyses on antipsychotics and psychotherapy in patients with positive symptoms of schizophrenia, searching EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Differences between psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy trials were analyzed with Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney and chi-square tests. RESULTS: Eighty studies with 18 271 participants on antipsychotic drugs and 53 studies with 4068 participants on psychotherapy were included. Psychotherapy studies included less severely ill patients (P < .0001), with a shorter duration of illness (P = .021), lasted for a longer period (P < .0001), administered the intervention as add-on to antipsychotics (P < .0001), had higher risk of bias in some domains including blinding of outcome assessment (P < .0001), and were funded publicly more frequently (P < .0001). Antipsychotic trials had larger sample sizes (P < .0001) and more study centers (P < .0001), included more males (P = .0001), inpatients (P < .0001), and slightly older patients (P = .031), more often used diagnostic operationalized criteria (P = .006), and were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. They did not differ in conflict of interest (P = .24). CONCLUSIONS: We found key differences between the 2 groups of studies that encompass higher risk of bias in psychotherapy studies and the inclusion of more severe patients in drug trials. These differences imply that study and patient characteristics should be carefully taken into account before considering a network meta-analysis. In the interest of patients, psychopharmacologists and psychotherapists should optimize their treatments rather than seeing them in competition.

Second-generation antipsychotic drugs and short-term somatic serious adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic drugs might cause acutely occurring, serious side-effects and thus contribute to the increased physical morbidity and mortality observed in patients with severe mental health disorders. We examined this hypothesis by doing a meta-analysis of International Conference on Harmonisation-Good Clinical Practice-defined serious adverse events occurring in placebo-controlled trials of antipsychotics. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing second-generation antipsychotics with placebo. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for trials published in any language from database inception up until Jan 27, 2017. Trials were included without limitations in population (diagnostic category, age, sex, ethnicity), dosing regimen, blinding status, duration, or publication year. Only psychological studies lasting less than 1 day and trials done in mainland China were excluded. We contacted pharmaceutical companies, drug regulatory authorities, and study investigators for additional data. The primary outcome was the number of patients with at least one somatic serious adverse event. We estimated minimum and maximum numbers of patients with the outcome in each study group and synthesised the results with odds ratios (ORs) in a common-effects meta-analysis. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016033930. FINDINGS: We identified 597 RCTs, comprising 108 664 participants, that met the inclusion criteria. 314 trials (67 642 participants) with details on individual serious adverse events available constituted the main dataset for meta-analysis. 88% of these were 13 weeks (approximately 3 months) or shorter in duration (median 6 weeks, IQR 4-9). At least one somatic serious adverse event occurred in 698 (1·63%) to 862 (2·02%) of 42 600 patients on antipsychotics, and in 343 (1·37%) to 419 (1·67%) of 25 042 patients on placebo. The odds ratios (ORs) were 1·24 (95% CI 1·08-1·42) and 1·24 (1·10-1·41) based on the minimum and maximum estimate, respectively. In predefined subgroup analyses we found evidence suggesting a larger effect in older patients (>65 years; OR 1·56, 95% CI 1·22-1·98; 1·58, 1·25-1·99) as compared with adults (18-65 years; 1·09, 0·91-1·29; 1·10, 0·95-1·28); likewise in children or adolescents (<18 years) although the evidence was more uncertain (1·49, 0·81-2·75; 1·54, 0·85-2·77). Of 597 included RCTs, 30 (5%), 358 (60%), and 209 (35%) were rated at high, moderate, or low risk of bias, respectively. τ2 was zero for both analyses of the primary outcome (minimum estimate, maximum estimate). A Bayesian sensitivity analysis using external information on heterogeneity gave similar results. INTERPRETATION: We found evidence that antipsychotics cause short-term somatic serious adverse events on top of somatic serious adverse events occurring independent of treatment. This effect appears to be mainly driven by results in older patients. Hence, clinicians should be aware that antipsychotics are potentially toxic, particularly when treating patients sharing risk factors with the older population. FUNDING: German Ministry of Education and Research.

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.

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).

Efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia and comorbid substance use. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Patients with schizophrenia and substance related comorbidity or substance induced psychotic disorder are difficult to treat. Although the prevalence of a comorbid substance use is approximately 40% in schizophrenia, such patients are usually excluded from clinical trials. We therefore performed a random-effects meta-analysis of all randomized controlled antipsychotic drug trials in this patient subgroup. We searched multiple databases up to May, 2018. The primary outcome was the reduction of substance user; secondary outcomes were craving, mean reduction of substance use, overall change in schizophrenia symptoms, positive and negative symptoms, response, dropouts, quality of life, social functioning, weight gain, sedation, prolactin, extrapyramidal side effects and use of antiparkinsonian medication. We identified 27 references from 19 RCTs published from 1999 to March 2017 including 1742 participants. The most frequent types of substance abuse were cannabis (8 studies) and cocaine (6 studies) use/dependence. Clozapine was superior to other antipsychotics for reduction of substance use and risperidone to olanzapine for craving. Olanzapine, clozapine and risperidone showed superiority for symptom reduction compared to some other drugs. When reported, results of side-effects followed known patterns. The evidence-base is considerable (19 RCTs), however, firm conclusions cannot be drawn due to small sample sizes of individual studies and insufficient reporting.