Antipsychotic augmentation vs. monotherapy in schizophrenia: systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis.

Antipsychotic polypharmacy in schizophrenia is much debated, since it is common and costly with unclear evidence for its efficacy and safety. We conducted a systematic literature search and a random effects meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing augmentation with a second antipsychotic vs. continued antipsychotic monotherapy in schizophrenia. Co-primary outcomes were total symptom reduction and study-defined response. Antipsychotic augmentation was superior to monotherapy regarding total symptom reduction (16 studies, N=694, standardized mean difference, SMD=-0.53, 95% CI: -0.87 to -0.19, p=0.002). However, superiority was only apparent in open-label and low-quality trials (both p<0.001), but not in double-blind and high-quality ones (p=0.120 and 0.226, respectively). Study-defined response was similar between antipsychotic augmentation and monotherapy (14 studies, N=938, risk ratio = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.42, p=0.061), being clearly non-significant in double-blind and high-quality studies (both p=0.990). Findings were replicated in clozapine and non-clozapine augmentation studies. No differences emerged regarding all-cause/specific-cause discontinuation, global clinical impression, as well as positive, general and depressive symptoms. Negative symptoms improved more with augmentation treatment (18 studies, N=931, SMD=-0.38, 95% CI: -0.63 to -0.13, p<0.003), but only in studies augmenting with aripiprazole (8 studies, N=532, SMD=-0.41, 95% CI: -0.79 to -0.03, p=0.036). Few adverse effect differences emerged: D2 antagonist augmentation was associated with less insomnia (p=0.028), but more prolactin elevation (p=0.015), while aripiprazole augmentation was associated with reduced prolactin levels (p<0.001) and body weight (p=0.030). These data suggest that the common practice of antipsychotic augmentation in schizophrenia lacks double-blind/high-quality evidence for efficacy, except for negative symptom reduction with aripiprazole augmentation.

Safety and tolerability of antipsychotic co-treatment in patients with schizophrenia: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Antipsychotic co-treatment is common in schizophrenia, despite lacking evidence for its efficacy and safety. Areas: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed/PsycInfo/CJN/WangFan/CBM without language restrictions from database inception until 05/25/2015 for randomized trials comparing antipsychotic monotherapy with antipsychotic co-treatment in ≥20 adults with schizophrenia reporting meta-analyzable adverse events (AEs) data. Meta-analyzing 67 studies (n=4,861, duration=10.3±5.2 weeks), antipsychotic co-treatment was similar to monotherapy regarding intolerability-related discontinuation (risk ratio (RR)=0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.53-1.33, p=0.455). While incidence of ≥1 AE was lower with antipsychotic co-treatment (RR=0.77, 95%CI=0.66-0.90, p=0.001), these results were solely driven by open-label and efficacy-focused studies. Adjunctive D2-antagonists lead to less nausea (RR=0.220, 95%CI=0.06-0.87, p=0.030) and insomnia (RR=0.26, 95%CI=0.08-0.86, p=0.028), but higher prolactin (SMD=2.20, 95%CI=0.43-3.96, p=0.015). Conversely, adjunctive partial D2-agonists (aripiprazole=100%) resulted in lower electrocardiogram abnormalities (RR=0.43, 95%CI=0.25-0.73, p=0.002), constipation (RR=0.45, 95%CI=0.25-0.79, p=0.006), drooling/hypersalivation (RR=0.14, 95%CI=0.07-0.29, p<0.001), prolactin (SMD=-1.77, 95%CI=-2.38, -1.15, p<0.001), total and LDL-cholesterol (SMD=-0.33, 95%CI=-0.55, -0.11, p=0.003; SMD=-0.33, 95%CI=-0.54, -0.10, p=0.004). EXPERT OPINION: No double-blind evidence for altered AE burden associated with antipsychotic co-treatment was found. However, AEs were insufficiently and incompletely reported and follow-up duration was modest. Adjunctive partial D2-agonists might be beneficial for counteracting several AEs. High-quality, long-term studies that comprehensively assess AEs are needed.

Antipsychotic Use Trends in Youth With Autism Spectrum Disorder and/or Intellectual Disability: A Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Although irritability and aggression are relevant treatment targets in autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) and intellectual disability (ID) that may prompt antipsychotic use, antipsychotic prescribing patterns in such youth have not been systematically reviewed. METHOD: We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE/PsycInfo until March 2015 for studies reporting data on the frequency of youth diagnosed with ASDs and/or ID among antipsychotic-treated youth, as well as antipsychotic use in youth with ASD/ID, conducting a meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis of potential moderators, including publication year, study time point, country, setting, sample size, age, sex, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: A total of 39 studies were meta-analyzed (n = 365,449, age = 11.4 ± 6.2 years, males = 70.0% ± 10.0%). Among 27 studies (n = 273,139, age = 11.9 ± 8.0 years, males = 67.0% ± 12.9%) reporting on antipsychotic-treated youth, 9.5% (95% CI = 7.8%-11.5%) were diagnosed with ASD/ID. In 20 studies (n = 209,756) reporting data separately for ASD, 7.9% (95% CI = 6.2%-9.9%) had an ASD diagnosis. In 5 longitudinal studies, the proportion of antipsychotic-treated youth with ASD did not change significantly from 1996 to 2011 (6.7% to 5.8%, odds ratio = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.8-1.0, p =.17). However, later study time point moderated greater ASD/ID proportions (ß = 0.12, p < .00001). In 13 studies (n = 96,688, age = 9.8 ± 1.2 years, males = 78.6% ± 2.0%) reporting on antipsychotic use in ASD samples, 17.5% (95% CI = 13.7%-22.1%) received antipsychotics. Again, later study time point moderated higher antipsychotic use among patients with ASD (ß = 0.10, p = .004). CONCLUSION: Almost 1 in 10 antipsychotic-treated youth were diagnosed with ASD and/or ID, and 1 in 6 youth with ASD received antipsychotics. Both proportions increased in later years; however, clinical reasons and outcomes of antipsychotic use in ASD/ID require further study.

The Drowning Index: implementation in drowning, mechanical asphyxia, and acute myocardial infarct cases.

Drowning is a diagnosis of exclusion based on circumstantial and autopsy correlation. Sugimura proposed a threshold value of 14.1 for the Drowning Index (DI), the ratio of lung and pleural fluid to spleen weight, as a surrogate marker to diagnose drowning. We questioned the use of DI in diagnosing drowning. We compared DI between three groups--drowning, mechanical asphyxia, and myocardial infarct--seen at Broward MEO from 2008 to 2009. Only 9.4% of 53 drownings exceeded the DI threshold of 14.1, while 30% of 10 mechanical asphyxias and 40% of 10 myocardial infarcts had DI >14.1. Sensitivity for the DI test was <10% and specificity 60-70%. Median DI values for all groups were <10. Mann-Whitney U-test was not statistically significant between groups. The DI is neither sensitive nor specific and lacks any utility in the diagnosis of drowning.