Sex differences in effectiveness and adverse effects of mood stabilizers and antipsychotics: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Psychiatric disorders differ in their prevalence, symptom profiles, and disease courses in men and women. However, sex differences in psychiatric disorders have not received enough attention to guide treatment recommendations. This systematic review aims to summarize sex differences in the treatment responses and adverse effects of mood stabilizers and antipsychotics transdiagnostically.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA 2020 statement (CRD42020212478). A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus databases. Studies comparing mood stabilizer or antipsychotic treatment outcomes in men and women were included. JBI critical appraisal checklists were used to assess bias risk.

RESULTS

Out of 4866 records, 129 reports (14 on mood stabilizers, 115 on antipsychotics) with varying designs were included. Sample sizes ranged from 17 to 22,774 participants (median = 147). The most common psychiatric diagnoses were schizophrenia spectrum (n = 109, 84.5 %) and bipolar disorders (n = 38, 29.5 %). Only four studies explored sex differences in mood stabilizer treatment response. In 40 articles on antipsychotic treatment response, 18 indicated no sex difference, while 16 showed females had better outcomes. Women had more adverse effects with both mood stabilizers and antipsychotics. The risk of bias was low in 84 (65.1 %) of studies.

LIMITATIONS

Substantial heterogeneity among the studies precluded performing a meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Number of studies focusing on sex differences in treatment outcomes of mood stabilizers is limited. Women may respond better to antipsychotics than men, but also experience more side effects. The impact of pharmacokinetics on sex differences warrants more attention.

Aripiprazole as First-Line Therapy for Late-Life Depression: A Case Note Review

BACKGROUND

Aripiprazole, structurally considered a third-generation antipsychotic agent, is an effective adjuvant strategy for managing treatment-resistant depression. It has been used successfully as an add-on agent in late-life depression (LLD), but there are no controlled trials on its use as first-line therapy, either alone or in combination with an antidepressant.

METHODS

This is a case note review of aripiprazole prescribed to outpatients with LLD as a first-line therapy either in combination with an antidepressant or as a monotherapy. The local ethics committee approved the audit. Case notes of subjects with Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores of ≥11 and with at least 1 follow-up visit were included in the review. Remission was defined as the first occurrence of achieving a Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score of <10.

RESULTS

Case notes of 54 subjects (mean age, 68.6 ± 6.9 years) were included, 52 of whom had unipolar depression. Aripiprazole alone was prescribed in 21 subjects, and with an antidepressant in the remaining subjects. The overall remission rate was 59% over 21 weeks, and in the remitted subjects (n = 32), the cumulative remission rate increased from 22% at week 2 to 82% at week 10. No subject discontinued treatment because of poor tolerability or serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Aripiprazole was found to be an effective first-line antidepressant in LLD. The remission rates in the present study were considerably higher than the published literature on antidepressant monotherapy in fresh episodes of LLD. This warrants controlled trials of aripiprazole as a first-line antidepressant for this disease entity.

Getting to precision psychopharmacology: Combining clinical and genetic information to predict fat gain from aripiprazole

INTRODUCTION

All atypical antipsychotics are associated with some degree of weight gain. We applied a novel statistical approach to identify moderators of aripiprazole-induced fat gain using clinical and genetic data from a randomized clinical trial (RCT) of treatment resistant depression in older adults.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adults aged ≥60 years with non-response to a prospective trial of venlafaxine were randomized to 12 weeks of aripiprazole augmentation (n = 91) or placebo (n = 90). Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) measured adiposity at baseline and 12 weeks. Independent moderators of total body fat gain were used to generate two combined multiple moderators, one including clinical data alone and one including both clinical and genetic data to characterize individuals who gained fat during aripiprazole augmentation.

RESULTS

The value of the combined genetic + clinical multiple moderator (M_cg) was 0.57 [95% CI 0.46, 0.68] (effect size: 0.57), compared to the combined clinical moderator (M_c) value of 0.49 [0.34, 0.63] (effect size: 0.49). Individuals who gained adiposity in this study were more likely to be female and younger in age, have lower weight, fasting glucose and lipids at baseline and positive for the HTR2C polymorphism.

DISCUSSION

These results demonstrate a combined multiple moderator approach, including both clinical and genetic moderators, can be applied to existing clinical trial data to understand adverse treatment effects. This method allowed for more specific characterization of individuals at risk for the outcome of interest. Further work is needed to identify additional genetic moderators and to validate the approach.

Using a patient-centered approach to benefit-harm assessment in treatment decision-making: a case study in uveitis

BACKGROUND

Synthesizing evidence from comparative effectiveness trials can be difficult because multiple outcomes of different importance are to be considered. The goal of this study was to demonstrate an approach to conducting quantitative benefit-harm assessment that considers patient preferences.

METHODS

We conducted a benefit-harm assessment using data from the Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment Trial that compared corticosteroid implant versus systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppression in non-infectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis. We focused on clinical outcomes considered important to patients, including visual acuity, development of cataracts/glaucoma, need for eye surgery, prescription-requiring hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and infections. Patient preferences elicited in a recent survey were then incorporated into our assessment of the benefit-harm balance.

RESULTS

Benefit-harm metrics were calculated for each time point that summarized the numbers of outcomes, caused or prevented by implant therapy versus systemic therapy if 1000 patients were treated. The benefit-harm metric was -129 (95% confidence interval: -242 to -14), -317 (-436 to -196), -390 (-514 to -264), and -526 (-687 to -368) at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months follow up, respectively, suggesting that systemic therapy may have a better benefit-harm balance. However, measures of quality of life for patients treated with implant therapy were found to be better than patients treated with systemic therapy over the same time period.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of benefit-harm assessment were different from the prospectively collected quality of life data during trial follow up. Future studies should explore the reasons for such discrepancies and the strength and weakness of each method to assess treatment benefits and harms.

Aripiprazole: a clinical review of its use for the treatment of anxiety disorders and anxiety as a comorbidity in mental illness

BACKGROUND

Although anxiety disorders are common, optimal treatment is elusive. More than half of anxiety patients treated with an adequate course of antidepressants fail to fully improve: treatment resistance, residual symptoms, and recurrence/relapse remain a challenge. Recently, atypical antipsychotics have been considered for treatment-resistant anxiety disorders. This review will explore the available data for the role of aripiprazole in the treatment of anxiety.

METHODS

PubMed and conference abstracts were searched for randomized, double-blind studies that investigated the efficacy of aripiprazole in anxiety; its efficacy in bipolar disorder and depression was also explored for comparison.

RESULTS

A number of studies have shown atypical antipsychotics to be effective in anxiety, and currently available data suggest that aripiprazole augmentation in patients with anxiety disorders is likely as effective as other atypical antipsychotic drugs. Although there have been no randomized, controlled trials, aripiprazole has been found to be effective in treating anxiety disorders in two open-label trials. This combined with the larger data base demonstrating its utility in bipolar disorder and depression, its safety profile and its unique mechanism of action, make aripiprazole for anxiety an intriguing avenue of exploration.

LIMITATIONS

Data from large randomized, controlled trials on the use of atypical antipsychotics for anxiety in general, and aripiprazole in particular, are currently lacking.

CONCLUSION

The results of open-label trials of aripiprazole in anxiety provide enough support to warrant its further study. This, combined with a larger data base demonstrating its utility in bipolar disorder and depression, its safety profile and its unique mechanism of action, make aripiprazole for anxiety an intriguing avenue of exploration.