Summary 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.
Summary Background Relapse prevention with antipsychotic drugs compared with placebo in patients with schizophrenia has not been sufficiently addressed by previous systematic reviews. We aimed to ...assess the association between such drugs and various outcomes in patients with schizophrenia to resolve controversial issues. Methods We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's specialised register for reports published before Nov 11, 2008; and PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for those before June 8, 2011. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and searched the reference lists of included studies and previous reviews. Randomised trials of patients with schizophrenia continued on or withdrawn from any antipsychotic drug regimen after stabilisation were eligible. Our primary outcome was relapse between 7 and 12 months. We also examined safety and various functional outcomes. We used the random effects model and verified results for the primary outcome with a fixed effects model. Heterogeneity was investigated with subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Findings We identified 116 suitable reports from 65 trials, with data for 6493 patients. Antipsychotic drugs significantly reduced relapse rates at 1 year (drugs 27% vs placebo 64%; risk ratio RR 0·40, 95% CI 0·33–0·49; number needed to treat to benefit NNTB 3, 95% CI 2–3). Fewer patients given antipsychotic drugs than placebo were readmitted (10% vs 26%; RR 0·38, 95% CI 0·27–0·55; NNTB 5, 4–9), but less than a third of relapsed patients had to be admitted. Limited evidence suggested better quality of life (standardised mean difference −0·62, 95% CI −1·15 to −0·09) and fewer aggressive acts (2% vs 12%; RR 0·27, 95% CI 0·15–0·52; NNTB 11, 6–100) with antipsychotic drugs than with placebo. Employment data were scarce and too few deaths were reported to allow significant differences to be identified. More patients given antipsychotic drugs than placebo gained weight (10% vs 6%; RR 2·07, 95% CI 2·31–3·25), had movement disorders (16% vs 9%; 1·55, 1·25–1·93), and experienced sedation (13% vs 9%; 1·50, 1·22–1·84). Substantial heterogeneity in size of effect was recorded. In subgroup analyses, number of episodes, whether patients were in remission, abrupt or gradual withdrawal of treatment, length of stability before trial entry, first-generation or second-generation drugs, and allocation concealment method did not significantly affect relapse risk. Depot preparations reduced relapse (RR 0·31, 95% CI 0·21–0·41) more than did oral drugs (0·46, 0·37–0·57; p=0·03); depot haloperidol (RR 0·14, 95% CI 0·04–0·55) and fluphenazine (0·23, 0·14–0·39) had the greatest effects. The effects of antipsychotic drugs were greater in two unblinded trials (0·26, 0·17–0·39) than in most blinded studies (0·42, 0·35–0·51; p= 0·03). In a meta-regression, the difference between drug and placebo decreased with study length. Interpretation Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs benefits patients with schizophrenia. The advantages of these drugs must be weighed against their side-effects. Future studies should focus on outcomes of social participation and clarify the long-term morbidity and mortality of these drugs. Funding German Ministry of Education and Research.
Abstract Objective The metabolic side effects of second-generation antipsychotics (SGA) are serious and have not been compared head to head in a meta-analysis. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies ...comparing the metabolic side effects of the following SGAs head-to-head: amisulpride, aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, sertindole, ziprasidone, zotepine. Method We searched the register of the Cochrane schizophrenia group (last search May 2007), supplemented by MEDLINE and EMBASE (last search January 2009) for randomized, blinded studies comparing the above mentioned SGA in the treatment of schizophrenia or related disorders. At least three reviewers extracted the data independently. The primary outcome was weight change. We also assessed changes of cholesterol and glucose. The results were combined in a meta-analysis. Results We included 48 studies with 105 relevant arms. Olanzapine produced more weight gain than all other second-generation antipsychotics except for clozapine where no difference was found. Clozapine produced more weight gain than risperidone, risperidone more than amisulpride, and sertindole more than risperidone. Olanzapine produced more cholesterol increase than aripiprazole, risperidone and ziprasidone. (No differences with amisulpride, clozapine and quetiapine were found). Quetiapine produced more cholesterol increase than risperidone and ziprasidone. Olanzapine produced more increase in glucose than amisulpride, aripiprazole, quetiapine, risperidone and ziprasidone; no difference was found with clozapine. Conclusions Some SGAs lead to substantially more metabolic side effects than other SGAs. When choosing an SGA for an individual patient these side effects with their potential cause of secondary diseases must be weighed against efficacy and characteristics of the individual patient.
Objective: While all second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are promoted for having a low risk of extrapyramidal side effects (EPS), clinical observations suggest differences between the various ...agents. Nevertheless, this question has never been examined in a systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons. Methods: We searched the register of the Cochrane schizophrenia group (last search May 2007), supplemented by MEDLINE (last search July 2009) for randomized, blinded studies comparing the following SGAs in the treatment of schizophrenia or related disorders: amisulpride, aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, sertindole, ziprasidone, and zotepine. At least 3 reviewers extracted the data independently. The primary outcome was "use of antiparkinson medication." The results were combined in a meta-analysis. Results: We included 54 studies with 116 arms. Risperidone was associated with more use of antiparkinson medication than clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, and ziprasidone. Ziprasidone showed more use of antiparkinson medication than olanzapine and quetiapine and zotepine more than clozapine. There was no significant difference between amisulpride and its comparators (olanzapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone). Quetiapine showed significantly less use of antiparkinson medication than the 3 other SGAs it was compared with (olanzapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone). Scale-derived data (Barnes Akathisia Scale and Simpson Angus Scale) were limited. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that there are differences between the SGAs in their ability to induce EPS that clinicians consider warrant treatment with antimuscarinic drugs. Even though the differences were relatively small, they might be important for individual patients and should be taken into account in drug choice.
The clearest advantage of new generation, atypical antipsychotics is a reduced risk of extrapyramidal side-effects (EPS), compared with conventional compounds. These findings might have been biased ...by the use of the high-potency antipsychotic haloperidol as a comparator in most of the trials. We aimed to establish whether the new drugs induce fewer EPS than low-potency conventional antipsychotics.
We did a meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials in which new generation antipsychotics had been compared with low-potency (equivalent or less potent than chlorpromazine) conventional drugs. We included studies that met quality criteria A or B in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook, and assessed quality with the Jadad scale. The primary outcome of interest was the number of patients who had at least one EPS. We used risk differences and 95% CIs as measures of effect size.
We identified 31 studies with a total of 2320 participants. Of the new generation drugs, only clozapine was associated with significantly fewer EPS (RD=-0.15, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.4, p=0.008) and higher efficacy than low-potency conventional drugs. Reduced frequency of EPS seen with olanzapine was of borderline significance (-0.15, -0.31 to -0.01, p=0.07). Only one inconclusive trial of amisulpride, quetiapine, and risperidone and no investigations of ziprasidone and sertindole were identified, but some evidence indicates that zotepine and remoxipride do not lead to fewer EPS than low-potency antipsychotics. Mean doses less than 600 mg/day of chlorpromazine or its equivalent had no higher risk of EPS than new generation drugs. As a group, new generation drugs were moderately more efficacious than low-potency antipsychotics, largely irrespective of the comparator doses used.
Optimum doses of low-potency conventional antipsychotics might not induce more EPS than new generation drugs. Potential advantages in efficacy of the new generation drugs should be a factor in clinical treatment decisions to use these rather than conventional drugs.
In many countries of the industrialised world second generation ("atypical") antipsychotics have become the first line drug treatment for people with schizophrenia. The question as to whether, and if ...so how much, the effects of the various second generation antipsychotics differ is a matter of debate. In this review we examined how the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine differs from that of other second generation antipsychotics.
To evaluate the effects of olanzapine compared to other atypical antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis.
1. Electronic searching We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (April 2007) which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO.2. Reference searching We inspected the reference of all identified studies for more trials.3. Personal contact We contacted the first author of each included study for missing information.4. Drug companies We contacted the manufacturers of all atypical antipsychotics included for additional data.
We included all randomised trials that used at least single-blind (rater-blind) design, comparing oral olanzapine with oral forms of amisulpride, aripiprazole, clozapine, quetiapine, risperidone, sertindole, ziprasidone or zotepine in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis.
We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random effects model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a random effects model.
The review currently includes 50 studies and 9476 participants which provided data for six comparisons (olanzapine compared to amisulpride, aripiprazole, clozapine, quetiapine, risperidone or ziprasidone). The overall attrition from the included studies was considerable (49.2%) leaving the interpretation of results problematic.Olanzapine improved the general mental state (PANSS total score) more than aripiprazole (2 RCTs, n=794, WMD -4.96 CI -8.06 to -1.85), quetiapine (10 RCTs, n=1449, WMD -3.66 CI -5.39 to -1.93), risperidone (15 RCTs, n=2390, WMD -1.94 CI -3.31 to -0.58) and ziprasidone (4 RCTs, n=1291, WMD -8.32 CI -10.99 to -5.64), but not more than amisulpride or clozapine. This somewhat better efficacy was confirmed by fewer participants in the olanzapine groups leaving the studies early due to inefficacy of treatment compared to quetiapine (8 RCTs, n=1563, RR 0.56 CI 0.44 to 0.70, NNT 11 CI 6 to 50), risperidone (14 RCTs, n=2744, RR 0.78 CI 0.62 to 0.98, NNT 50 CI 17 to 100) and ziprasidone (5 RCTs, n=1937, RR 0.64 CI 0.51 to 0.79, NNT 17, CI 11 to 33).Fewer participants in the olanzapine group than in the quetiapine (2 RCTs, n=876, RR 0.56 CI 0.41 to 0.77, NNT 11 CI 7 to 25) and ziprasidone (2 RCTs, n=766, RR 0.65 CI 0.45 to 0.93, NNT 17 CI 9 to 100) treatment groups, but not in the clozapine group (1 RCT, n=980, RR 1.28 CI 1.02 to 1.61, NNH not estimable), had to be re-hospitalised in the trials.Except for clozapine, all comparators induced less weight gain than olanzapine (olanzapine compared to amisulpride: 3 RCTs, n=671, WMD 2.11kg CI 1.29kg to 2.94kg; aripiprazole: 1 RCT, n=90, WMD 5.60kg CI 2.15kg to 9.05kg; quetiapine: 7 RCTs, n=1173, WMD 2.68kg CI 1.10kg to 4.26kg; risperidone: 13 RCTs, n=2116, WMD 2.61kg CI 1.48kg to 3.74kg; ziprasidone: 5 RCTs, n=1659, WMD 3.82kg CI 2.96kg to 4.69kg). Associated problems such as glucose and cholesterol increase were usually also more frequent in the olanzapine group.Other differences in adverse effects were less well documented. Nevertheless, olanzapine may be associated with slightly more extrapyramidal side effects than quetiapine (use of antiparkinson medication (6 RCTs, n=1090, RR 2.05 CI 1.26 to 3.32, NNH 25 CI 14 to 100), but less than risperidone (use of antiparkinson medication 13 RCTs, n=2599, RR 0.78 CI 0.65 to 0.95, NNH 17 CI 9 to 100) and ziprasidone (use of antiparkinson medication 4 RCTs, n=1732, RR 0.70 CI 0.50 to 0.97, NNH not estimable). It may also increase prolactin somewhat more than aripiprazole, clozapine and quetiapine, but clearly less so than risperidone (6 RCTs, n=1291, WMD -22.84 CI -27.98 to -17.69).
Olanzapine may be a somewhat more efficacious drug than some other second generation antipsychotic drugs. This small superiority in efficacy needs to be weighed against a larger weight gain and associated metabolic problems than most other second generation antipsychotic drugs, except clozapine. These conclusions are tentative due to the large number of people leaving the studies early which possibly limits the validity of the findings. Further large, well-designed trials are necessary to establish the relative effects of different second generation antipsychotic drugs.
Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common condition with a lifetime prevalence of 15% to 18%, which leads to considerable suffering and disability. Some antipsychotics have been reported to induce ...remission in major depression, when added to an antidepressant.
To evaluate the effects of second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) drugs (alone or augmentation) compared with placebo or antidepressants for people with MDD or dysthymia.
The Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group's controlled trial registers (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) were searched up to 21 July 2010. The author team ran complementary searches on clinicaltrials.gov and contacted key authors and drug companies.
We included all randomised, double-blind trials comparing oral SGA treatment (alone or augmentation) with other forms of pharmaceutical treatment or placebo in people with MDD or dysthymia.
We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis, and for continuous data the mean difference (MD), based on a random-effects model. We presented each comparison separately; we did not perform a pooled data analysis.
We included 28 trials with 8487 participants on five SGAs: amisulpride, aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone.Three studies (1092 participants) provided data on aripiprazole augmentation in MDD. All efficacy data (response n = 1092, three RCTs, OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.63), (MADRS n = 1077, three RCTs, MD -3.04; 95% CI -4.09 to -2) indicated a benefit for aripiprazole but more side effects (weight gain, EPS) .Seven trials (1754 participants) reported data on olanzapine. Compared to placebo fewer people discontinued treatment due to inefficacy; compared to antidepressants there were no efficacy differences, olanzapine augmentation showed symptom reduction (MADRS n = 808, five RCTs, MD -2.84; 95% CI -5.48 to -0.20), but also more weight or prolactin increase.Quetiapine data are based on seven trials (3414 participants). Compared to placebo, quetiapine monotherapy (response n = 1342, three RCTs, OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.66) and quetiapine augmentation (response n = 937, two RCTs, OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.90) showed symptom reduction, but quetiapine induced more sedation.Four trials (637 participants) presented data on risperidone augmentation, response data were better for risperidone (n = 371, two RCTs, OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.89) but augmentation showed more prolactin increase and weight gain.Five studies (1313 participants) presented data on amisulpride treatment for dysthymia. There were some beneficial effects compared to placebo or antidepressants but tolerability was worse.
Quetiapine was more effective than placebo treatment. Aripiprazole and quetiapine and partly also olanzapine and risperidone augmentation showed beneficial effects compared to placebo. Some evidence indicated beneficial effects of low-dose amisulpride for dysthymic people. Most SGAs showed worse tolerability.
Despite the widespread use of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the clinical meaning of its total score and cut-off values used to define treatment response are unclear.
To link the BPRS to ...Clinical Global Impression (CGI) ratings.
Equipercentile linking of BPRS and CGI ratings from seven drug trials in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia (n=1979).
'Mildly ill' according to the CGI approximately corresponded to a BPRS total score of 31, 'moderately ill'to a BPRS score of 41 and'markedly ill'to a BPRS score of 53.'Minimally improved'according to the CGI score was associated with percentage BPRS reductions of 24, 27 and 30% at weeks 1, 2 and 4, respectively. The corresponding numbers for a CGI rating of 'much improved' were 44, 53 and 58%.
The results provide a clearer understanding of how to interpret BPRS total and percentage reduction scores in clinical trials with patients acutely ill with schizophrenia who are experiencing positive symptoms.
Compliance with antipsychotic medication is a major issue in schizophrenia treatment, and noncompliance with antipsychotic treatment is closely related to relapse and rehospitalization. An enhanced ...involvement of patients with schizophrenia in treatment decisions ("shared decision making") is expected to improve long-term compliance and reduce rehospitalizations. The aim of the present analysis was to study whether shared decision making (SDM) in antipsychotic drug choice would influence long-term outcome.
From February 2003 to January 2004, psychiatric state hospital inpatients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia (ICD-10; N = 107) were recruited for the trial using a cluster-randomized controlled design. An SDM program on antipsychotic drug choice consisting of a decision aid and a planning talk between patient and physician was compared with routine care with respect to long-term compliance and rehospitalizations (6-month and 18-month follow-up).
On the whole, we found high rates of noncompliance and rehospitalization. There were no differences between intervention and control groups in the univariate analyses. However, when controlling for confounding factors in a multivariate analysis, there was a positive trend (p = .08) that patients in the SDM intervention had fewer rehospitalizations. Additionally, a higher desire of the patient for autonomy and better knowledge at discharge were associated with higher hospitalization rates.
The intervention studied showed a positive trend but no clear beneficial effect on long-term outcomes. A more thorough implementation of SDM (e.g., iterative administration of decision aid) might yield larger effects. Those patients with higher participation preferences are at higher risk for poor treatment outcomes and therefore require special attention. Strategies to match these patients' needs might improve compliance and long-term outcomes.
To understand what given scores of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) mean from a clinical point of view is important for the translation ...of research results into practice. We therefore (a) compared the absolute change of the BPRS/PANSS with the Clinical Global Impressions Ratings (CGI) -improvement score and the change of the CGI severity score, (b) analyzed whether the severity of illness at baseline had an impact on the latter association, and (c) attempted to replicate previous BPRS findings using a completely different data set based upon the PANSS-derived BPRS. The method used was equipercentile linking of BPRS and CGI ratings from 14 drug trials in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia (n=5970). An absolute reduction of the BPRS/PANSS by approximately 10/15 points corresponded to a CGI change of 'minimally improved' and to a change of the CGI severity score by one severity step. However, the latter associations depended on the severity of symptoms at baseline. Less severely ill patients required less BPRS/PANSS total score reduction to achieve the same CGI-improvement score than more severely ill patients. This effect of initial severity was attenuated using percentage rather than absolute BPRS/PANSS reduction scores. The linking analysis between the absolute BPRS/PANSS reduction and the CGI may have an implication for the interpretation of efficacy differences found in clinical trials, and for sample size estimations. Clinicians seem to base CGI ratings on relative change rather than on absolute change of symptoms.
PDF
