Microgen images/Science Photo Library The result that benzodiazepines were the most effective treatments for the short term was not surprising; unfortunately, no data were available for the long-term ...treatment, but we should keep in mind the well recognised potential for misuse and dependence.3 Moreover, this class of psychotropic drugs was shown to cause more side-effects than placebo at the study endpoint.2 Except for zaleplon, the so-called Z-drugs—namely, zopiclone, eszopiclone, and zolpidem—were shown to be effective for insomnia disorder and, although initially thought a safe alternative to benzodiazepines, were also not free from safety concerns2 and seem to share a similar risk of misuse and dependence.3 Dual orexin receptor antagonists constitute a newer class of sleep drugs that includes daridorexant, lemborexant, seltorexant, and suvorexant. A recently published comprehensive overview of systematic reviews compared the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for insomnia disorder.6 This study confirmed that CBT is a first-line treatment because of its consistent and robust evidence of effectiveness across many outcomes, as well as the fact that it is expected to have few or no major side-effects. ...pharmacological interventions for insomnia could be considered as second-line treatments.6 De Crescenzo and colleagues,2 have succeeded in depicting all available evidence in sleep medications for insomnia disorder; they concluded that eszopiclone and lemborexant had the best profile, although might cause substantial adverse events. In future research, other sources of evidence, especially about the side-effect profiles of these medications, should be considered. ...trials with a duration longer than 3 months that directly compare active drug treatments and non-pharmacological interventions are warranted to provide clear answers to clinicians and patients.
In treatment-resistant schizophrenia, clozapine is considered the standard treatment. However, clozapine use has restrictions owing to its many adverse effects. Moreover, an increasing number of ...randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of other antipsychotics have been published.
To integrate all the randomized evidence from the available antipsychotics used for treatment-resistant schizophrenia by performing a network meta-analysis.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis, PsycINFO, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Trial Registry, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched up to June 30, 2014.
At least 2 independent reviewers selected published and unpublished single- and double-blind RCTs in treatment-resistant schizophrenia (any study-defined criterion) that compared any antipsychotic (at any dose and in any form of administration) with another antipsychotic or placebo.
At least 2 independent reviewers extracted all data into standard forms and assessed the quality of all included trials with the Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool. Data were pooled using a random-effects model in a Bayesian setting.
The primary outcome was efficacy as measured by overall change in symptoms of schizophrenia. Secondary outcomes included change in positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, categorical response to treatment, dropouts for any reason and for inefficacy of treatment, and important adverse events.
Forty blinded RCTs with 5172 unique participants (71.5% men; mean SD age, 38.8 3.7 years) were included in the analysis. Few significant differences were found in all outcomes. In the primary outcome (reported as standardized mean difference; 95% credible interval), olanzapine was more effective than quetiapine (-0.29; -0.56 to -0.02), haloperidol (-0. 29; -0.44 to -0.13), and sertindole (-0.46; -0.80 to -0.06); clozapine was more effective than haloperidol (-0.22; -0.38 to -0.07) and sertindole (-0.40; -0.74 to -0.04); and risperidone was more effective than sertindole (-0.32; -0.63 to -0.01). A pattern of superiority for olanzapine, clozapine, and risperidone was seen in other efficacy outcomes, but results were not consistent and effect sizes were usually small. In addition, relatively few RCTs were available for antipsychotics other than clozapine, haloperidol, olanzapine, and risperidone. The most surprising finding was that clozapine was not significantly better than most other drugs.
Insufficient evidence exists on which antipsychotic is more efficacious for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, and blinded RCTs-in contrast to unblinded, randomized effectiveness studies-provide little evidence of the superiority of clozapine compared with other second-generation antipsychotics. Future clozapine studies with high doses and patients with extremely treatment-refractory schizophrenia might be most promising to change the current evidence.
Abstract
Objective
An important clinical question is how many patients with acute schizophrenia do not respond to antipsychotics despite being treated for adequate time and with an effective dose. ...However, up to date, the exact extent of the phenomenon remains unclear.
Methods
We calculated the nonresponse and nonremission percentages using individual patient data from 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Six thousand two hundred twenty-one patients were assigned to one antipsychotic (amisulpride, flupenthixol, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone) at an adequate dose; the response was assessed at 4–6 weeks. As various definitions of nonresponse have been used in the literature, we applied 4 different cut-offs covering the whole range of percent Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)/Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) reduction (≤0%, <25%, <50%, <75%).For symptomatic remission, we used the definition proposed by Andreasen without employing the time criterion.
Results
The overall nonresponse for the cut-off of ≤0% PANSS/BPRS reduction was 19.8% (18.8%–20.8%); for the cut-off of <25% reduction it was 43% (41.7%–44.3%); for the cut-off of <50% reduction it was 66.5% (65.3%–67.8%); and for the cut-off of <75% reduction it was 87% (86%–87.9%). The overall percentage of no symptomatic remission was 66.9% (65.7%–68.1%). Earlier onset of illness, lower baseline severity and the antipsychotic used were significantly associated with higher nonresponse percentages.
Conclusions
Nonresponse and nonremission percentages were notably high. Nevertheless, the patients in our analysis could represent a negative selection since they came from short-term RCTs and could have been treated before study inclusion; thus, further response may not have been observed. Observational studies on this important question are needed.
The authors examined the safety and efficacy of antidepressants added to antipsychotic drugs in the treatment of schizophrenia.
Multiple databases and previous publications were searched through June ...2015 to identify all randomized controlled trials of any add-on antidepressants compared with placebo or no-treatment in schizophrenia. Depressive and negative symptoms (primary outcomes), overall symptoms, positive symptoms, side effects, exacerbation of psychosis, and responder rates were examined. Subgroup, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were performed, as well as investigations of publication bias and risk of bias.
Eighty-two randomized controlled trials with a total of 3,608 participants were included. Add-on antidepressants appeared more efficacious than controls for depressive symptoms (standardized mean difference: -0.25, 95% CI=-0.38 to -0.12), negative symptoms (standardized mean difference: -0.30, 95% CI=-0.44 to -0.16), overall symptoms (standardized mean difference: -0.24, 95% CI=-0.39 to -0.09), positive symptoms (standardized mean difference: -0.17, 95% CI=-0.33 to -0.01), quality of life (standardized mean difference: -0.32, 95% CI=-0.57 to -0.06), and responder rate (risk ratio: 1.52, 95% CI=1.29 to 1.78; number-needed-to-treat-to-benefit: 5, 95% CI=4 to 7). The effects on depressive and negative symptoms appeared more pronounced when minimum thresholds of these symptoms were inclusion criteria (standardized mean difference: -0.34, 95% CI=-0.58 to -0.09 and standardized mean difference: -0.58, 95% CI=-0.94 to -0.21, respectively). There were no significant differences between antidepressants and controls in terms of exacerbation of psychosis, premature discontinuation, and the number of participants with at least one adverse event. More patients taking add-on antidepressants suffered from abdominal pain, constipation, dizziness, and dry mouth.
Analysis of primary outcomes (depressive and negative symptoms) suggests small, beneficial effects of adjunctive antidepressants. It would appear that this augmentation can be accomplished with a low risk of exacerbation of psychosis and adverse effects. However, secondary and subgroup analyses should be interpreted cautiously and considered exploratory.
Haloperidol is worldwide one of the most frequently used antipsychotic drugs with a very high market share. Previous narrative, unsystematic reviews found no differences in terms of efficacy between ...the various first-generation ("conventional", "typical") antipsychotic agents. This established the unproven psychopharmacological assumption of a comparable efficacy between the first-generation antipsychotic compounds codified in textbooks and treatment guidelines. Because this assumption contrasts with the clinical impression, a high-quality systematic review appeared highly necessary.
To compare the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of haloperidol with other first-generation antipsychotics in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis.
In October 2011 and July 2012, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. To identify further relevant publications, we screened the references of all included studies and contacted the manufacturers of haloperidol for further relevant trials and missing information on identified studies. Furthermore, we contacted the corresponding authors of all included trials for missing data.
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral haloperidol with another oral first-generation antipsychotic drug (with the exception of the low-potency antipsychotics chlorpromazine, chlorprothixene, levopromazine, mesoridazine, perazine, prochlorpromazine, and thioridazine) in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis. Clinically important response to treatment was defined as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were global state, mental state, behaviour, overall acceptability (measured by the number of participants leaving the study early due to any reason), overall efficacy (attrition due to inefficacy of treatment), overall tolerability (attrition due to adverse events), and specific adverse effects.
At least two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using The Cochrane Collaboration`s 'Risk of bias' tool.We analysed dichotomous outcomes with risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes with mean differences (MD), both with the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). All analyses were based on a random-effects model and we preferably used data on an intention-to-treat basis where possible.
The systematic review currently includes 63 randomised trials with 3675 participants. Bromperidol (n = 9), loxapine (n = 7), and trifluoperazine (n = 6) were the most frequently administered antipsychotics comparator to haloperidol. The included studies were published between 1962 and 1993, were characterised by small sample sizes (mean: 58 participants, range from 18 to 206) and the predefined outcomes were often incompletely reported. All results for the main outcomes were based on very low or low quality data. In many trials the mechanism of randomisation, allocation, and blinding was frequently not reported. In short-term studies (up to 12 weeks), there was no clear evidence of a difference between haloperidol and the pooled group of the other first-generation antipsychotic agents in terms of the primary outcome "clinically important response to treatment" (40 RCTs, n = 2132, RR 0.93 CI 0.87 to 1.00). In the medium-term trials, haloperidol may be less effective than the other first-generation antipsychotic group but this evidence is based on only one trial (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.51 CI 0.37 to 0.69).Based on limited evidence, haloperidol alleviated more positive symptoms of schizophrenia than the other antipsychotic drugs. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in global state, other mental state outcomes, behaviour, leaving the study early due to any reason, due to inefficacy, as well as due to adverse effects. The only statistically significant difference in specific side effects was that haloperidol produced less akathisia in the medium term.
The findings of the meta-analytic calculations support the statements of previous narrative, unsystematic reviews suggesting comparable efficacy of first-generation antipsychotics. In efficacy-related outcomes, there was no clear evidence of a difference between the prototypal drug haloperidol and other, mainly high-potency first-generation antipsychotics. Additionally, we demonstrated that haloperidol is characterised by a similar risk profile compared to the other first-generation antipsychotic compounds. The only statistically significant difference in specific side effects was that haloperidol produced less akathisia in the medium term. The results were limited by the low methodological quality in many of the included original studies. Data for the main results were low or very low quality. Therefore, future clinical trials with high methodological quality are required.
The Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) is the gold standard to assess manic symptoms of bipolar disorder, yet the clinical meaning of scores is unknown. To clinically understand and interpret YMRS ...scores, we examined linkages between the total and change scores of YMRS with the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) ratings.
Individual participant data (N=2,988) from eight randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were included. Data were collected at baseline and subsequent visits. Spearman's correlation coefficients ρ were computed, and equipercentile linking was implemented.
A YMRS score of 6 points corresponded approximately to 'borderline mentally ill,' 12 points to 'mildly ill,' 20 points to 'moderately ill,' 30 points to 'markedly ill,' 40 points to 'severely ill,' and 52 points to 'among the most extremely ill' patients on the CGI-S. A reduction of CGI-S by one point as well as 'minimally improved' on the CGI-I corresponded approximately to an absolute decrease of 4 to 8 YMRS points or a 21% to 29% reduction of YMRS baseline score whereas a reduction of CGI-S by two points and 'much improved' on the CGI-I corresponded to an absolute decrease of 10 to 15 points or a 42% to 53% reduction of YMRS baseline score.
The current study findings offer clinicians meaningful cutoff values to interpret YMRS scores. Moreover, these values contribute to the definition of treatment targets, response, remission, and entry criteria in mania trials.
How long clinicians should wait before considering an antipsychotic ineffective and changing treatment in schizophrenia is an unresolved clinical question. Guidelines differ substantially in this ...regard. The authors conducted a diagnostic test meta-analysis using mostly individual patient data to assess whether lack of improvement at week 2 predicts later nonresponse.
The search included EMBASE, MEDLINE, BIOSIS, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and reference lists of relevant articles, supplemented by requests to authors of all relevant studies. The main outcome was prediction of nonresponse, defined as <50% reduction in total score on either the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) (corresponding to at least much improved) from baseline to endpoint (4-12 weeks), by <20% PANSS or BPRS improvement (corresponding to less than minimally improved) at week 2. Secondary outcomes were absent cross-sectional symptomatic remission and <20% PANSS or BPRS reduction at endpoint. Potential moderator variables were examined by meta-regression.
In 34 studies (N=9,460) a <20% PANSS or BPRS reduction at week 2 predicted nonresponse at endpoint with a specificity of 86% and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 90%. Using data for observed cases (specificity=86%, PPV=85%) or lack of remission (specificity=77%, PPV=88%) yielded similar results. Conversely, using the definition of <20% reduction at endpoint yielded worse results (specificity=70%, PPV=55%). The test specificity was significantly moderated by a trial duration of <6 weeks, higher baseline illness severity, and shorter illness duration.
Patients not even minimally improved by week 2 of antipsychotic treatment are unlikely to respond later and may benefit from a treatment change.
Antipsychotic drugs are the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia, yet they are associated with diverse and potentially dose-related side effects which can reduce quality of life. For this reason, the ...lowest possible doses of antipsychotics are generally recommended, but higher doses are often used in clinical practice. It is still unclear if and how antipsychotic doses could be reduced safely in order to minimise the adverse-effect burden without increasing the risk of relapse.
To assess the efficacy and safety of reducing antipsychotic dose compared to continuing the current dose for people with schizophrenia.
We conducted a systematic search on 10 February 2021 at the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and WHO ICTRP. We also inspected the reference lists of included studies and previous reviews.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any dose reduction against continuation in people with schizophrenia or related disorders who were stabilised on their current antipsychotic treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently screened relevant records for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies, and assessed the risk of bias using RoB 2. We contacted study authors for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcomes were clinically important change in quality of life, rehospitalisations and dropouts due to adverse effects; key secondary outcomes were clinically important change in functioning, relapse, dropouts for any reason, and at least one adverse effect. We also examined scales measuring symptoms, quality of life, and functioning as well as a comprehensive list of specific adverse effects. We pooled outcomes at the endpoint preferably closest to one year. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
We included 25 RCTs, of which 22 studies provided data with 2635 participants (average age 38.4 years old). The median study sample size was 60 participants (ranging from 18 to 466 participants) and length was 37 weeks (ranging from 12 weeks to 2 years). There were variations in the dose reduction strategies in terms of speed of reduction (i.e. gradual in about half of the studies (within 2 to 16 weeks) and abrupt in the other half), and in terms of degree of reduction (i.e. median planned reduction of 66% of the dose up to complete withdrawal in three studies). We assessed risk of bias across outcomes predominantly as some concerns or high risk. No study reported data on the number of participants with a clinically important change in quality of life or functioning, and only eight studies reported continuous data on scales measuring quality of life or functioning. There was no difference between dose reduction and continuation on scales measuring quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.15, 6 RCTs, n = 719, I
= 0%, moderate certainty evidence) and scales measuring functioning (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.17, 6 RCTs, n = 966, I
= 0%, high certainty evidence). Dose reduction in comparison to continuation may increase the risk of rehospitalisation based on data from eight studies with estimable effect sizes; however, the 95% CI does not exclude the possibility of no difference (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.81, 8 RCTs, n = 1413, I
= 59% (moderate heterogeneity), very low certainty evidence). Similarly, dose reduction increased the risk of relapse based on data from 20 studies (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.06, 20 RCTs, n = 2481, I
= 70% (substantial heterogeneity), low certainty evidence). More participants in the dose reduction group in comparison to the continuation group left the study early due to adverse effects (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.49, 6 RCTs with estimable effect sizes, n = 1079, I
= 0%, moderate certainty evidence) and for any reason (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.81, 12 RCTs, n = 1551, I
= 48% (moderate heterogeneity), moderate certainty evidence). Lastly, there was no difference between the dose reduction and continuation groups in the number of participants with at least one adverse effect based on data from four studies with estimable effect sizes (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.12, 5 RCTs, n = 998 (4 RCTs, n = 980 with estimable effect sizes), I
= 0%, moderate certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review synthesised the latest evidence on the reduction of antipsychotic doses for stable individuals with schizophrenia. There was no difference between dose reduction and continuation groups in quality of life, functioning, and number of participants with at least one adverse effect. However, there was a higher risk for relapse and dropouts, and potentially for rehospitalisations, with dose reduction. Of note, the majority of the trials focused on relapse prevention rather potential beneficial outcomes on quality of life, functioning, and adverse effects, and in some studies there was rapid and substantial reduction of doses. Further well-designed RCTs are therefore needed to provide more definitive answers.
In clinical practice, different antipsychotics can be combined in the treatment of people with schizophrenia (polypharmacy). This strategy can aim at increasing efficacy, but might also increase the ...adverse effects due to drug-drug interactions. Reducing polypharmacy by withdrawing one or more antipsychotics may reduce this problem, but must be done carefully, in order to maintain efficacy.
To examine the effects and safety of reducing antipsychotic polypharmacy compared to maintaining people with schizophrenia on the same number of antipsychotics.
On 10 February 2021, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and WHO ICTRP.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared reduction in the number of antipsychotics to continuation of the current number of antipsychotics. We included adults with schizophrenia or related disorders who were receiving more than one antipsychotic and were stabilised on their current treatment.
Two review authors independently screened all the identified references for inclusion, and all the full papers. We contacted study authors if we needed any further information. Two review authors independently extracted the data, assessed the risk of bias using RoB 2 and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The primary outcomes were: quality of life assessed as number of participants with clinically important change in quality of life; service use assessed as number of participants readmitted to hospital and adverse effects assessed with number of participants leaving the study early due to adverse effects.
We included five RCTs with 319 participants. Study duration ranged from three months to one year. All studies compared polypharmacy continuation with two antipsychotics to polypharmacy reduction to one antipsychotic. We assessed the risk of bias of results as being of some concern or at high risk of bias. A lower number of participants left the study early due to any reason in the polypharmacy continuation group (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.68; I
= 0%; 5 RCTs, n = 319; low-certainty evidence), and a lower number of participants left the study early due to inefficacy (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.65; I
= 0%; 3 RCTs, n = 201). Polypharmacy continuation resulted in more severe negative symptoms (MD 3.30, 95% CI 1.51 to 5.09; 1 RCT, n = 35). There was no clear difference between polypharmacy reduction and polypharmacy continuation on readmission to hospital, leaving the study early due to adverse effects, functioning, global state, general mental state and positive symptoms, number of participants with at least one adverse effect, weight gain and other specific adverse effects, mortality and cognition. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low or low across measured outcomes. No studies reported quality of life, days in hospital, relapse, depressive symptoms, behaviour and satisfaction with care. Due to lack of data, it was not possible to perform some planned sensitivity analyses, including one controlling for increasing the dose of the remaining antipsychotic. As a result, we do not know if the observed results might be influenced by adjustment of dose of remaining antipsychotic compound.
This review summarises the latest evidence on polypharmacy continuation compared with polypharmacy reduction. Our results show that polypharmacy continuation might be associated with a lower number of participants leaving the study early, especially due to inefficacy. However, the evidence is of low and very low certainty and the data analyses based on few study only, so that it is not possible to draw strong conclusions based on the results of the present review. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to investigate this important topic.
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is highly intertwined with sleep disturbances throughout its whole natural history. Sleep consists of a major compound of the functionality of the glymphatic system, as the ...synchronized slow-wave activity during NREM facilitates cerebrospinal and interstitial long-distance mixing.
The present study undertakes a scoping review of research on the involvement of the glymphatic system in AD-related sleep disturbances.
we searched Medline, Embase, PsychInfo and HEAL-link databases, without limitations on date and language, along with reference lists of relevant reviews and all included studies. We included in vivo, in vitro and post-mortem studies examining glymphatic implications of sleep disturbances in human populations with AD spectrum pathology. A thematic synthesis of evidence based on the extracted content was applied and presented in a narrative way.
In total, 70 original research articles were included and were grouped as following: a) Protein aggregation and toxicity, after sleep deprivation, along with its effects on sleep architecture, b) Glymphatic Sequalae in SDB, yielding potential glymphatic markers c) Circadian Dysregulation, d) Possible Interventions.
this review sought to provide insight into the role of sleep disturbances in AD pathogenesis, in the context of the glymphatic disruption.
PDF
