Residual effects of medications for sleep disorders on driving performance: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: NMA driving and hypnotics.

Sleep medications often carry residual effects potentially affecting driving safety, warranting network meta-analysis (NMA). PubMed/EMBASE/TRID/Clinicaltrials.gov/WHO-ICTRP/WebOfScience were inquired for randomized controlled trials of hypnotic driving studies in persons with insomnia and healthy subjects up to 05/28/2023, considering the vehicle's standard deviation of lateral position - SDLP (Standardized Mean Difference/SMD) and driving impairment rates on the first morning (co-primary outcomes) and endpoint. Risk-of-bias, global/local inconsistencies were measured, and CINeMA was used to assess the confidence in the evidence. Of 4,805 identified records, 26 cross-over RCTs were included in the systematic review, of which 22 entered the NMA, focusing on healthy subjects only. After a single administration, most molecules paralleled the placebo, outperforming zopiclone regarding SDLP. In contrast, ramelteon 8 mg, daridorexant 100 mg, zolpidem 10 mg bedtime, zolpidem middle-of-the-night 10 mg and 20 mg, mirtazapine 15-30 mg, and triazolam 0.5 mg performed significantly worse than placebo. Lemborexant 2.5-5 mg, suvorexant 15-20 mg, and zolpidem 3.5 mg middle-of-the-night associated with lower impairment than zopiclone. Repeated administration (maximum follow-up time of ten days) caused fewer residual effects than acute ones, except for flurazepam. Heterogeneity and inconsistency were negligible. Confidence in the evidence was low/very low. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the main analyses. Most FDA-approved hypnotics overlapped placebo at in-label doses, outperforming zopiclone. Repeated administration for 15 days or less reduced residual effects, warranting further research on the matter.

Nutraceuticals and phytoceuticals in the treatment of schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: Sub-optimal response in schizophrenia is frequent, warranting augmentation strategies over treatment-as-usual (TAU). Methods: We assessed nutraceuticals/phytoceutical augmentation strategies via network meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials in schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder were identified via the following databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Change (Standardized Mean Difference=SMD) in total symptomatology and acceptability (Risk Ratio=RR) were co-primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were positive, negative, cognitive, and depressive symptom changes, general psychopathology, tolerability, and response rates. We conducted subset analyses by disease phase and sensitivity analyses by risk of bias and assessed global/local inconsistency, publication bias, risk of bias, and confidence in the evidence. Results: The systematic review included 49 records documenting 50 studies (n=2,384) documenting 22 interventions. Citicoline (SMD=-1.05,95%CI=-1.85; -.24), L-lysine (SMD=-1.04,95%CI=-1.84;-.25), N-acetylcysteine (SMD=-.87,95%CI=-1.27;-.47) and sarcosine (SMD=-.5,95%CI=-.87-.13) outperformed placebo for total symptomatology. High heterogeneity (tau2=.10, I2=55.9%) and global inconsistency (Q=40.79, df=18, p=.002) emerged without publication bias (Egger's test, p=.42). Sarcosine improved negative symptoms (SMD=-.65, 95%CI=-1.10; -.19). N-acetylcysteine improved negative symptoms (SMD=-.90, 95%CI=-1.42; -.39)/general psychopathology (SMD=-.76, 95%CI=-1.39; -.13). No compound improved total symptomatology within acute phase studies (k=7, n=422). Sarcosine (SMD=-1.26,95%CI=-1.91; -.60), citicoline (SMD=-1.05,95%CI=-1.65;-.44), and N-acetylcysteine (SMD=-.55,95%CI=-.92,-.19) outperformed placebo augmentation in clinically stable participants. Sensitivity analyses removing high-risk-of-bias studies confirmed overall findings in all phases and clinically stable samples. In contrast, the acute phase analysis restricted to low risk-of-bias studies showed a superior effect vs. placebo for N-acetylcysteine (SMD=-1.10,95%CI=-1.75,-.45), L-lysine (SMD=-1.05,95%CI=-1.55,-.19), omega-3 fatty acids (SMD=-.83,95%CI=-1.31,-.34) and withania somnifera (SMD=-.71,95%CI=-1.21,-.22). Citicoline (SMD=-1.05,95%CI=-1.86,-.23), L-lysine (SMD=-1.04,95%CI=-1.84,-.24), N-acetylcysteine (SMD=-.89,95%CI=-1.35,-.43) and sarcosine (SMD=-.61,95%CI=-1.02,-.21) outperformed placebo augmentation of TAU ("any phase"). Drop-out due to any cause or adverse events did not differ between nutraceutical/phytoceutical vs. placebo+TAU. Conclusions: Sarcosine, citicoline, and N-acetylcysteine are promising augmentation interventions in stable patients with schizophrenia, yet the quality of evidence is low to very low. Further high-quality trials in acute phases/specific outcomes/difficult-to-treat schizophrenia are warranted.

Insomnia and related mental health conditions: Essential neurobiological underpinnings towards reduced polypharmacy utilization rates.

Insomnia represents a significant public health burden, with a 10% prevalence in the general population. Reduced sleep affects social and working functioning, productivity, and patient's quality of life, leading to a total of $100 billion per year in direct and indirect healthcare costs. Primary insomnia is unrelated to any other mental or medical illness; secondary insomnia co-occurs with other underlying medical, iatrogenic, or mental conditions. Epidemiological studies found a 40-50% comorbidity prevalence between insomnia and psychiatric disorders, suggesting a high relevance of mental health in insomniacs. Sleep disturbances also worsen the outcomes of several psychiatric disorders, leading to more severe psychopathology and incomplete remission, plausibly contributing to treatment-resistant conditions. Insomnia and psychiatric disorder coexistence can lead to polypharmacy, namely, the concurrent use of two or more medications in the same patient, regardless of their purpose or rationale. Polypharmacy increases the risk of using unnecessary drugs, the likelihood of drug interactions and adverse events, and reduces the patient's compliance due to regimen complexity. The workup of insomnia must consider the patient's sleep habits and inquire about any medical and mental concurrent conditions that must be handled to allow insomnia to be remitted adequately. Monotherapy or limited polypharmacy should be preferred, especially in case of multiple comorbidities, promoting multipurpose molecules with sedative properties and with bedtime administration. Also, non-pharmacological interventions for insomnia, such as sleep hygiene, relaxation training and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy may be useful in secondary insomnia to confront behaviors and thoughts contributing to insomnia and help optimizing the pharmacotherapy. However, insomnia therapy should always be patient-tailored, considering drug indications, contraindications, and pharmacokinetics, besides insomnia phenotype, clinical picture, patient preferences, and side effect profile.

Pharmacological interventions for antipsychotic-related sialorrhea: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Antipsychotic-induced sialorrhea carries a significant burden, but evidence-based treatment guidance is incomplete, warranting network meta-analysis (NMA) of pharmacological interventions for antipsychotic-related sialorrhea. PubMed Central/PsycInfo/Cochrane Central database/Clinicaltrials.gov/WHO-ICTRP and the Chinese Electronic Journal Database (Qikan.cqvip.com) were searched for published/unpublished RCTs of antipsychotic-induced sialorrhea (any definition) in adults, up to 06/12/2023. We assessed global/local inconsistencies, publication bias, risk of bias (RoB2), and confidence in the evidence, conducting subgroup/sensitivity analyses. Co-primary efficacy outcomes were changes in saliva production (standardized mean difference/SMD) and study-defined response (risk ratios/RRs). The acceptability outcome was all-cause discontinuation (RR). Primary nodes were molecules; the mechanism of action (MoA) was secondary. Thirty-four RCTs entered a systematic review, 33 NMA (n = 1958). All interventions were for clozapine-induced sialorrhea in subjects with mental disorders. Regarding individual agents and response, metoclopramide (RR = 3.11, 95% C.I. = 1.39-6.98), cyproheptadine, (RR = 2.76, 95% C.I. = 2.00-3.82), sulpiride (RR = 2.49, 95% C.I. = 1.65-3.77), propantheline (RR = 2.39, 95% C.I. = 1.97-2.90), diphenhydramine (RR = 2.32, 95% C.I. = 1.88-2.86), benzhexol (RR = 2.32, 95% C.I. = 1.59-3.38), doxepin (RR = 2.30, 95% C.I. = 1.85-2.88), amisulpride (RR = 2.23, 95% C.I. = 1.30-3.81), chlorpheniramine (RR = 2.20, 95% C.I. = 1.67-2.89), amitriptyline (RR = 2.09, 95% C.I. = 1.34-3.26), atropine, (RR = 2.03, 95% C.I. = 1.22-3.38), and astemizole, (RR = 1.70, 95% C.I. = 1.28-2.26) outperformed placebo, but not glycopyrrolate or ipratropium. Across secondary nodes (k = 28, n = 1821), antimuscarinics (RR = 2.26, 95% C.I. = 1.91-2.68), benzamides (RR = 2.23, 95% C.I. = 1.75-3.10), TCAs (RR = 2.23, 95% C.I. = 1.83-2.72), and antihistamines (RR = 2.18, 95% C.I. = 1.83-2.59) outperformed placebo. In head-to-head comparisons, astemizole and ipratropium were outperformed by several interventions. All secondary nodes, except benzamides, outperformed the placebo on the continuous efficacy outcome. For nocturnal sialorrhea, neither benzamides nor atropine outperformed the placebo. Active interventions did not differ significantly from placebo regarding constipation or sleepiness/drowsiness. Low-confidence findings prompt caution in the interpretation of the results. Considering primary nodes' co-primary efficacy outcomes and head-to-head comparisons, efficacy for sialorrhea is most consistent for the following agents, decreasing from metoclopramide through cyproheptadine, sulpiride, propantheline, diphenhydramine, benzhexol, doxepin, amisulpride, chlorpheniramine, to amitriptyline, and atropine (the latter not for nocturnal sialorrhea). Shared decision-making with the patient should guide treatment decisions regarding clozapine-related sialorrhea.

The efficacy, safety, and adverse events of azapirones in anxiety disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Azapirones have been proposed as anxiety and mood modulators. We assessed azapirones' viability in anxiety disorders via systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis, inquiring PubMed/MEDLINE/CENTRAL/WHO-ICTRP/WebOfScience/VIP up-to 05/01/2023. We conducted sensitivity, and subgroup analyses assessing heterogeneity, publication bias, risk of bias, and confidence in the evidence within the GRADE framework. Symptom reduction (mean difference/MD), study-defined response (risk ratios/RRs), and acceptability were co-primary outcomes. Adverse events and withdrawal were secondary. Seventy studies were included. In generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), azapirones largely outperformed placebo (MD=-4.91, 95%C.I.[-5.91, -3.90], Hedges'g -1.37 [-1.02, -0.73]), k = 22, n = 2,567; RR=1.64, 95%C.I.[1.45, 1.86], k = 9, n = 1,346). While azapirones overlapped benzodiazepines in symptom reduction (MD=-0.12, 95%C.I.[-0.70, 0.45], k = 34, n = 3,160), they were slightly outperformed in response rate (RR=0.94, 95%C.I.[0.90, 0.99], k = 18, n = 2,423). Azapirones overlapped SRIs (MD=0.09, 95%C.I.[-0.49, 0.67], k = 8, n = 747; RR=0.97, 95%C.I.[0.89, 1.07], k = 7, n = 737). Confidence in estimates was high/moderate vs. placebo, moderate/low vs. benzodiazepine, very-low vs. SRIs. Azapirones failed to outperform the placebo in panic and social anxiety disorders. Azapirones overlapped placebo and SRIs in drop-out rates, while they showed higher treatment discontinuation rates than benzodiazepines (RR=1.33, 95%C.I.[1.16, 1.53], k = 23, n = 2,768). Azapirones caused less sedation/fatigue/drowsiness/weakness/cognitive issues than benzodiazepines, resembling placebo. They caused more nausea and dizziness than placebo, more headache and nausea than benzodiazepines, and less nausea and xerostomia than SRIs. Azapirones proved effective and relatively well-tolerated for GAD. They should be preferred over benzodiazepines, especially in the long-term, considering their lower sedation and addiction potential, representing a potential SRI alternative. Further research is warranted to prove efficacy in panic and social anxiety.

Psychopharmacology of eating disorders: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The concurrent assessment of weight and affective psychopathology outcomes relevant to the psychopharmacology of major eating disorders (EDs), namely anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), and binge eating disorder (BED), warrants systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were inquired from inception through August 31st, 2022, for RCTs documenting any psychopharmacological intervention for EDs diagnosed according to validated criteria and reporting weight and psychopathology changes. Adopted keywords were: "anorexia nervosa," "bulimia nervosa," "binge eating disorder," "antidepressant," "antipsychotic," and "mood stabilizer." No language restriction applied. RESULTS: 5122 records were identified, and 203 full-texts were reviewed. Sixty-two studies entered the qualitative synthesis (AN = 22, BN = 23, BED = 17), of which 22 entered the meta-analysis (AN = 9, BN = 10, BED = 3). Concerning BMI increase in AN, olanzapine outperformed placebo (Hedges'g = 0.283, 95%C·I. = 0.051-0.515, I2 = 0 %; p = .017), whereas fluoxetine failed (Hedges'g = 0.351, 95%C.I. = -0.248 to 0.95, I2 = 63.37 %; p = .251). Fluoxetine not significantly changed weight (Hedges'g = 0.147, 95%C.I. = -0.157-0.451, I2 = 0 %; p = .343), reducing binging (Hedges'g = 0.203, 95%C.I. = 0.007-0.399, I2 = 0 %; p = .042), and purging episodes (Hedges'g = 0.328, 95%C.I. = -0.061-0.717, I2 = 58.97 %; p = .099) in BN. Lisdexamfetamine reduced weight (Hedges'g = 0.259, 95%C.I. = 0.071-0.446, I2 = 0 %; p = .007) and binging (Hedges'g = 0.571, 95%C.I. = 0.282-0.860, I2 = 53.84 %; p < .001) in BED. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size, short duration, and lack of reliable operational definitions affect most of the included sponsored RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of different drugs varies across different EDs, warranting additional primary studies recording broad psychopathological and cardiometabolic outcomes besides weight, especially against established psychotherapy interventions.

Efficacy and safety of selegiline across different psychiatric disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis of oral and transdermal formulations.

Selegiline is an irreversible, selective type-B monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) approved for Parkison's disease-oral and major depressive disorder-transdermal formulation) resulting in non-selective MAOI activity at oral doses≥20 mg/day. The present systematic review and meta-analysis appraises the evidence of different formulations/dosages of selegiline across different psychiatric conditions. We inquired PubMed/MEDLINE/Cochrane-Central/WHO-ICTRP/Clarivate-WebOfScience and the Chinese-Electronic-Journal Database from inception to 10/26/2022 for selegiline trials involving psychiatric patients. Random-effects meta-analyses assessed heterogeneity, publication/risk biases, and confidence in the evidence, followed by sensitivity, subgroup, and meta-regression analyses. Co-primary outcomes were: changes in symptom score (standardized mean difference=SMD) and author-defined response (risk ratios=RRs). RRs of adverse events and all-cause discontinuation were secondary and acceptability outcomes, respectively. Systematic-review included 42 studies; meta-analysis, 23. Selegiline outperformed placebo in depressive symptom reduction (SMD=-0.96, 95%C.I.=-1.78, -0.14, k = 10, n = 1,308), depression (RR=1.61, 95%C.I.=1.20, 2.15, k = 9, n = 1,238) and atypical-depression response (RR=2.23, 95%C.I.=1.35, 3.68, k = 3, n = 136). Selegiline failed to outperform the placebo in negative (k = 4) or positive symptoms of schizophrenia (k = 4), attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms reduction (k = 2), and smoking abstinence rate (k = 4). Selegiline did not differ from methylphenidate and ADHD scores (k = 2). No significant difference emerged in acceptability, incident diarrhea, headache, dizziness, and nausea RRs, in contrast to xerostomia (RR=1.58, 95%C.I. =1.03, 2.43, k = 6, n = 1,134), insomnia (RR=1.61, 95%C.I.=1.19, 2.17, k = 10, n = 1,768), and application-site reaction for transdermal formulation (RR=1.81, 95%C.I.=1.40, 2.33, k = 6, n = 1,662). Confidence in findings was low/very-low for most outcomes; moderate for depressive symptoms reduction (transdermal). Selegiline proved effective, safe, and well-tolerated for depressive disorders, yet further evidence is warranted about specific psychiatric disorders.