Terminal illness and the increased mortality risk of conventional antipsychotics in observational studies: a systematic review

Efficacy of tiapride in the treatment of psychiatric disorders: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Tiapride is an atypical antipsychotic used to treat alcohol withdrawal, aggressiveness and agitation, headache, dyskinesias, tic and Tourette's disorder. More recently, it has been proposed for the treatment of delirium and agitation in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Although its safety profile makes it suitable for use in vulnerable populations, the use of tiapride for psychiatric disorders is limited. This work aims to systematically review the available evidence on the efficacy and tolerability of tiapride in individuals with a psychiatric disorder.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, GreyLit, OpenGrey, and ProQuest up to March 2020 for randomised controlled trials focussing on the use of tiapride in the treatment of individuals with a psychiatric disorder (e.g., mood disorder, schizophrenia spectrum, substance use disorder). The Risk of Bias 2 was performed for the quality assessment of the included studies.

RESULTS

We identified 579 records. Of them, six studies (published between 1982 and 2010) were included in the review. Four studies referred to alcohol withdrawal, and two to the management of agitation in elderly patients with dementia. None of the studies reported significant differences between tiapride and other active comparators in terms of efficacy and tolerability. The overall risk of bias was moderate to high.

CONCLUSION

Tiapride may be considered as a relatively safe treatment option for selected patients with alcohol withdrawal or agitation in dementia. However, solid evidence of its efficacy in the scientific literature is lacking. High-quality trials remain necessary to fully sustain its use in clinical practice.

Antipsychotics for agitation and psychosis in people with Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia

BACKGROUND

Typical and atypical antipsychotics are widely used to treat agitation and psychosis in dementia. However, whether or not they are beneficial is uncertain. Some trials have yielded negative results and effectiveness may be outweighed by harms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of antipsychotics for the treatment of agitation and psychosis in people with Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE (Ovid Sp), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's meta-register, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Portal on 7 January 2021. Two review authors independently screened the title and abstract of the hits, and two review authors assessed the full text of studies that got through this screening.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm trials comparing the effects of antipsychotics and placebo for the treatment of agitation or psychosis in people with dementia due to Alzheimer's disease or vascular dementia, or both, irrespective of age, severity of cognitive impairment, and setting. (The majority of) participants had to have clinically significant agitation (including aggression) or psychosis or both at baseline. We excluded studies about antipsychotics that are no longer available in the USA or EU, or that are used for emergency short-term sedation. We also excluded head-to-head trials and antipsychotic withdrawal trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcomes were (1) reduction in agitation or psychosis in participants with agitation or psychosis, respectively at baseline, and (2) the number of participants with adverse events: somnolence, extrapyramidal symptoms, any adverse event, any serious adverse event (SAE), and death. Two review authors independently extracted the necessary data and assessed risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We calculated the pooled effect on agitation and psychosis for typical and atypical antipsychotics separately, and the pooled risk of adverse effects independent of the target symptom (agitation or psychosis). We used RevMan Web for the analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

The search yielded 8233 separate hits. After assessing the full-text of 35 studies, we included 24 trials that met the eligibility criteria. Six trials tested a typical antipsychotic, four for agitation and two for psychosis. Twenty trials tested an atypical antipsychotic, eight for agitation and 12 for psychosis. Two trials tested both drug types. Seventeen of 26 comparisons were performed in patients with Alzheimer's disease specifically. The other nine comparisons also included patients with vascular dementia or mixed dementia. Together, the studies included 6090 participants (12 to 652 per study). The trials were performed in institutionalised, hospitalised and community-dwelling patients, or a combination of those. For typical antipsychotics (e.g. haloperidol, thiothixene), we are uncertain whether these drugs improve agitation compared with placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.57 to -0.15, 4 studies, n = 361); very low-certainty evidence, but typical antipsychotics may improve psychosis slightly (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.03, 2studies, n= 240; low-certainty evidence) compared with placebo. These drugs probably increase the risk of somnolence (risk ratio (RR) 2.62, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.56, 3 studies, n = 466; moderate-certainty evidence) and increase extrapyramidal symptoms (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.58 to 3.23, 3 studies, n = 467; high-certainty) evidence. There was no evidence regarding the risk of any adverse event. The risks of SAEs (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.66, 1 study, n = 193) and death (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.54 to 4.00, 6 studies, n = 578) may be increased slightly, but these estimates were very imprecise, and the certainty was low. The effect estimates for haloperidol from five trials were in line with those of the drug class. Atypical antipsychotics (e.g. risperidone, olanzapine, aripiprazole, quetiapine) probably reduce agitation slightly (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.12, 7 studies, n = 1971; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably have a negligible effect on psychosis (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.03, 12 studies, n = 3364; moderate-certainty evidence). These drugs increase the risk of somnolence (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.57 to 2.39, 13 studies, n - 3878; high-certainty evidence) and are probably also associated with slightly increased risk of extrapyramidal symptoms (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.68, 15 studies, n = 4180; moderate-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.61, 15 studies, n= 4316; moderate-certainty evidence) and death (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.05, 17 studies, n= 5032; moderate-certainty evidence), although the latter estimate was imprecise. The drugs probably have a negligible effect on the risk of any adverse event (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09, 11 studies, n = 2785; moderate-certainty evidence). The findings from seven trials for risperidone were in line with those for the drug class.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence that typical antipsychotics might decrease agitation and psychosis slightly in patients with dementia. Atypical antipsychotics reduce agitation in dementia slightly, but their effect on psychosis in dementia is negligible. The apparent effectiveness of the drugs seen in daily practice may be explained by a favourable natural course of the symptoms, as observed in the placebo groups. Both drug classes increase the risk of somnolence and other adverse events. If antipsychotics are considered for sedation in patients with severe and dangerous symptoms, this should be discussed openly with the patient and legal representative.

Assessing risk of bias: a proposal for a unified framework for observational studies and randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Evidence based medicine aims to integrate scientific evidence, clinical experience, and patient values and preferences. Individual health care professionals need to appraise the evidence from randomized trials and observational studies when guidelines are not yet available. To date, tools for assessment of bias and terminologies for bias are specific for each study design. Moreover, most tools appeal only to methodological knowledge to detect bias, not to subject matter knowledge, i.e. in-depth medical knowledge about a topic. We propose a unified framework that enables the coherent assessment of bias across designs.

METHODS

Epidemiologists traditionally distinguish between three types of bias in observational studies: confounding, information bias, and selection bias. These biases result from a common cause, systematic error in the measurement or common effect of the intervention and outcome respectively. We applied this conceptual framework to randomized trials and show how it can be used to identify bias. The three sources of bias were illustrated with graphs that visually represent researchers' assumptions about the relationships between the investigated variables (causal diagrams).

RESULTS

Critical appraisal of evidence started with the definition of the research question in terms of the population of interest, the compared interventions and the main outcome. Next, we used causal diagrams to illustrate how each source of bias can lead to over- or underestimated treatment effects. Then, we discussed how randomization, blinded outcome measurement and intention-to-treat analysis minimize bias in trials. Finally, we identified study aspects that can only be appraised with subject matter knowledge, irrespective of study design.

CONCLUSIONS

The unified framework encompassed the three main sources of bias for the effect of an assigned intervention on an outcome. It facilitated the integration of methodological and subject matter knowledge in the assessment of bias. We hope that graphical diagrams will help clarify debate among professionals by reducing misunderstandings based on different terminology for bias.

Mortality Risk Associated with Haloperidol Use Compared with Other Antipsychotics: An 11-Year Population-Based Propensity-Score-Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol remains a frequently prescribed first-generation antipsychotic. However, haloperidol-associated mortality risk by all causes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and pneumonia compared with other antipsychotics is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the mortality risk associated with long-term haloperidol treatment versus that with other antipsychotics.

METHODS

We identified incident antipsychotic users from 2004 to 2014 in the Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System (CDARS), a population-based clinical database managed by the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. We included patients who were aged ≥ 18 and received antipsychotics for any indication apart from terminal illnesses or management of acute behavioural disturbance. Patients on haloperidol and other antipsychotic agents (risperidone, quetiapine, olanzapine, chlorpromazine, aripiprazole, sulpiride, amisulpride, or trifluoperazine) were matched by propensity score. Hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause mortality and death due to CVD and pneumonia were estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

In total, 136,593 users of antipsychotics were included. During a mean follow-up of 3.2 years, the incidence of all-cause mortality ranged from 186.8/1000 person-years for haloperidol to 10.4/1000 person-years for trifluoperazine. The risk of all-cause mortality was lower with non-haloperidol antipsychotics than with haloperidol, with HRs ranging from 0.68 (95% CI 0.64-0.72 [chlorpromazine]) to 0.43 (95% CI 0.36-0.53 [trifluoperazine]). Risperidone, quetiapine, sulpiride, chlorpromazine, aripiprazole, and trifluoperazine were associated with a significantly lower risk of pneumonia-related mortality. A significantly lower risk of CVD mortality was observed for risperidone, sulpiride, chlorpromazine, and quetiapine.

CONCLUSION

Haloperidol was associated with increased overall mortality when compared with other antipsychotics in long-term follow-up. Treatment with haloperidol should be carefully considered, especially in older patients and patients at risk of CVD or pneumonia, since the risk of death appears to be lower with non-haloperidol agents.

Use of haloperidol versus atypical antipsychotics and risk of in-hospital death in patients with acute myocardial infarction: cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the risk of in-hospital mortality associated with haloperidol compared with atypical antipsychotics in patients admitted to hospital with acute myocardial infarction.

DESIGN

Cohort study using a healthcare database.

SETTING

Nationwide sample of patient data from more than 700 hospitals across the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

6578 medical patients aged more than 18 years who initiated oral haloperidol or oral atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone) during a hospital admission with a primary diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction between 2003 and 2014.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

In-hospital mortality during seven days of follow-up from treatment initiation.

RESULTS

Among 6578 patients (mean age 75.2 years) treated with an oral antipsychotic drug, 1668 (25.4%) initiated haloperidol and 4910 (74.6%) initiated atypical antipsychotics. The mean time from admission to start of treatment (5.3 v 5.6 days) and length of stay (12.5 v 13.6 days) were similar, but the mean treatment duration was shorter in patients using haloperidol compared with those using atypical antipsychotics (2.4 v 3.9 days). 1:1 propensity score matching was used to adjust for confounding. In intention to treat analyses with the matched cohort, the absolute rate of death per 100 person days was 1.7 for haloperidol (129 deaths) and 1.1 for atypical antipsychotics (92 deaths) during seven days of follow-up from treatment initiation. The survival probability was 0.93 in patients using haloperidol and 0.94 in those using atypical antipsychotics at day 7, accounting for the loss of follow-up due to hospital discharge. The unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios of death were 1.51 (95% confidence interval 1.22 to 1.85) and 1.50 (1.14 to 1.96), respectively. The association was strongest during the first four days of follow-up and decreased over time. By day 5, the increased risk was no longer evident (1.12, 0.79 to 1.59). In the as-treated analyses, the unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios were 1.90 (1.43 to 2.53) and 1.93 (1.34 to 2.76), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest a small increased risk of death within seven days of initiating haloperidol compared with initiating an atypical antipsychotic in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Although residual confounding cannot be excluded, this finding deserves consideration when haloperidol is used for patients admitted to hospital with cardiac morbidity.

Increased All-Cause Mortality by Antipsychotic Drugs: Updated Review and Meta-Analysis in Dementia and General Mental Health Care

It is almost ten years since the Banerjee 2009 report established that inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotics in the elderly was occurring in the UK and such patients had an 85% increased risk of adverse events and greater mortality. This report was a critical analysis addressing the outcomes of treatment practices for dementia in UK patients and globally, aimed at reducing prescribing of antipsychotic drugs for dementia. Since 2009, many significant studies worldwide (including several more recent large retrospective studies) provide more extensive longitudinal data for the adverse impacts of antipsychotic drugs in dementia. We have used the data in these studies including from over 380,000 dementia patients, with 85,069 prescribed antipsychotic agents as well as from 359,235 non-dementia antipsychotic drug users to provide an up-dated meta-analysis. This is the first meta-analysis to include evidence from general mental health studies showing that antipsychotic drugs precipitate excessive mortality across the spectrum. Prescribing of antipsychotic drugs for dementia or for other mental health care should be avoided and alternative means sought for handling behavioral disorders of such patients.

Overexpression of Insig-2 inhibits atypical antipsychotic-induced adipogenic differentiation and lipid biosynthesis in adipose-derived stem cells

Atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) are considered to possess superior efficacy for treating both the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia; however, AAP use often causes excessive weight gain and metabolic abnormalities. Recently, several reports have demonstrated that AAPs activate sterol regulatory element-binding protein (SREBP). SREBP, SREBP cleavage-activating protein (SCAP) and insulin-induced gene (Insig) regulate downstream cholesterol and fatty acid biosynthesis. In this study, we explored the effects of clozapine, olanzapine and risperidone on SREBP signaling and downstream lipid biosynthesis genes in the early events of adipogenic differentiation in adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs). After the induction of adipogenic differentiation for 2 days, all AAPs, notably clozapine treatment for 3 and 7 days, enhanced the expression of SREBP-1 and its downstream lipid biosynthesis genes without dexamethasone and insulin supplementation. Simultaneously, protein level of SREBP-1 was significantly enhanced via inhibition of Insig-2 expression. By contrast, SREBP-1 activation was suppressed when Insig-2 expression was upregulated by transfection with Insig-2 plasmid DNA. In summary, our results indicate that AAP treatment, notably clozapine treatment, induces early-stage lipid biosynthesis in ASCs. Such abnormal lipogenesis can be reversed when Insig-2 expression was increased, suggesting that Insig/SCAP/SREBP signaling may be a therapeutic target for AAP-induced weight gain and metabolic abnormalities.

Comparative risk of death in older adults treated with antipsychotics: A population-based cohort study

Although the use of antipsychotics has been associated with an increased risk of death, data on the safety of individual substances is scarce. We thus aimed to compare the risk of death in new users of individual antipsychotics aged =>65 years and conducted a cohort study in the German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database between 2005 and 2011. Patients were followed from initiation of treatment until death, 90 days after cohort entry, end of insurance or the end of the study period. Multivariable cox regression was used to estimate confounder adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) of death for 14 individual antipsychotics compared to risperidone. In sensitivity analyses, we also applied high-dimensional propensity score (HDPS) methods to explore possible unmeasured confounding. In a cohort of 137,713 new users of antipsychotics, a higher risk of death was found for haloperidol (aHR: 1.45; 95% confidence interval: 1.35-1.55), levomepromazine (aHR: 1.34; 1.16-1.54), zuclopenthixol (aHR: 1.32; 1.02-1.72) and to a lesser extent for melperone (aHR: 1.13; 1.07-1.19) compared to risperidone. Lower risks were observed for quetiapine, prothipendyl, olanzapine, tiapride, clozapine, perazine and flupentixol. In subgroup analyses, levomepromazine and chlorprothixene were only associated with a higher risk of death in patients aged =>80 years and with dementia. The application of HDPS methods did not substantially change the results. In conclusion, our study suggests that initiation of haloperidol, levomepromazine, zuclopenthixol and chlorprothixene treatment is associated with an increased risk of death compared to risperidone and should be avoided in older patients except in palliative care when treatment alternatives are available.