Relative indices of treatment effect may be constant across different definitions of response in schizophrenia trials

Effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for severe agitation in real-world emergency settings: protocol of individual-participant-data network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Severe psychomotor agitation and aggression often require immediate pharmacological intervention, but clear evidence-based recommendations for choosing among the multiple options are lacking. To address this gap, we plan a systematic review and individual-participant-data network meta-analysis to investigate their comparative effectiveness in real-world emergency settings with increased precision.

METHODS

We will include randomized controlled trials investigating intramuscular or intravenous pharmacological interventions, as monotherapy or in combination, in adults with severe psychomotor agitation irrespective of the underlying diagnosis and requiring rapid tranquilization in general or psychiatric emergency settings. We will exclude studies before 2002, those focusing on specific reasons for agitation and placebo-controlled trials to avoid concerns related to the transitivity assumption and potential selection biases. We will search for eligible studies in BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL Plus, Embase, LILACS, MEDLINE via Ovid, PubMed, ProQuest, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO-ICTRP. Individual-participant data will be requested from the study authors and harmonized into a uniform format, and aggregated data will also be extracted from the studies. At least two independent reviewers will conduct the study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment using RoB 2, and applicability evaluation using the RITES tool. The primary outcome will be the number of patients achieving adequate sedation within 30 min after treatment, with secondary outcomes including the need for additional interventions and adverse events, using odds ratios as the effect size. If enough individual-participant data will be collected, we will synthesize them in a network meta-regression model within a Bayesian framework, incorporating study- and participant-level characteristics to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. In cases where individual-participant data are unavailable, potential data availability bias will be explored, and models allowing for the inclusion of studies reporting only aggregated data will be considered. We will assess the confidence in the evidence using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approach.

DISCUSSION

This individual-participant-data network meta-analysis aims to provide a fine-tuned synthesis of the evidence on the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for severe psychomotor agitation in real-world emergency settings. The findings from this study can greatly be provided clearer evidence-based guidance on the most effective treatments.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023402365.

An evaluation of treatment response and remission definitions in adult obsessive-compulsive disorder: A systematic review and individual-patient data meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Expert consensus operationalized treatment response and remission in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) as a Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) reduction ≥35% and score ≤12 with ≤2 on Clinical Global Impressions Improvement (CGI-I) and Severity (CGI-S) scales, respectively. However, there has been scant empirical evidence supporting these definitions.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with OCD to determine optimal Y-BOCS thresholds for response and remission. We estimated pooled sensitivity/specificity for each percent reduction threshold (response) or posttreatment score (remission) to determine response and remission defined by a CGI-I and CGI-S ≤ 2, respectively.

RESULTS

Individual participant data from 25 of 94 eligible RCTs (1235 participants) were included. The optimal threshold for response was ≥30% Y-BOCS reduction and for remission was ≤15 posttreatment Y-BOCS. However, differences in sensitivity and specificity between the optimal and nearby thresholds for response and remission were small with some uncertainty demonstrated by the confidence ellipses.

CONCLUSION

While the empirically derived Y-BOCS thresholds in our meta-analysis differ from expert consensus, given the predominance of data from more recent trials of OCD, which involved more refractory participants and novel treatment modalities as opposed to first-line therapies, we recommend the continued use of the consensus definitions.

Is cognitive behavioral therapy more effective than pharmacotherapy for binge spectrum disorders? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Binge spectrum disorders are prevalent worldwide. Psychiatric and medical comorbidities are common, and societal costs are significant. Evidence-based treatment remains underutilized. Cognitive behavioral therapy is the recommended first-line treatment, but pharmacotherapy may be easier to access.

INTERVENTIONS

Meta-analytic evidence directly comparing cognitive behavioral therapy with pharmacotherapy is lacking. We aimed to compare the effects of cognitive behavioral therapy interventions with any pharmacological treatment for binge spectrum disorders. We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and reference lists for randomized controlled trials comparing cognitive behavioral therapy with any pharmacotherapy for bulimia nervosa/binge eating disorder and performed pairwise meta-analytic evaluations.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Primary outcomes are remission and frequency of binges. Secondary outcomes are frequency of purges, response, eating disorder psychopathology, weight/body mass index, depression, anxiety, quality of life and dropouts.

RESULTS

Eleven randomized controlled trials comparing cognitive behavioral therapy with fluoxetine/imipramine/desipramine/methylphenidate/sibutramine were identified (N = 531). Cognitive behavioral therapy was superior to antidepressants in terms of remission, frequency of binges and eating disorder psychopathology. There were no statistically significant differences for any of the individual cognitive behavioral therapy vs drug comparisons in terms of response/depression/anxiety/weight/quality of life/dropouts. Cognitive behavioral therapy was not superior to sibutramine/methylphenidate for the primary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Data are scarce, comparisons underpowered and, considering the inherent methodological limitations of psychotherapy trials, questions arise regarding the presumed superiority of cognitive behavioral therapy. Further research is needed.

Cognitive behavioural therapy added to standard care for first-episode and recent-onset psychosis

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) can be effective in the general population of people with schizophrenia. It is still unclear whether CBT can be effectively used in the population of people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of adding cognitive behavioural therapy to standard care for people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a systematic search on 6 March 2022 in 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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CBT added to standard care vs standard care in first-episode or recent-onset psychosis, in patients of any age.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (amongst SFM, CC, LK and IB) independently screened references for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies and assessed the risk of bias using RoB2. Study authors were contacted for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcome was general mental state measured on a validated rating scale. Secondary outcomes included other specific measures of mental state, global state, relapse, admission to hospital, functioning, leaving the study early, cognition, quality of life, satisfaction with care, self-injurious or aggressive behaviour, adverse events, and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 studies, of which 26 provided data on 2407 participants (average age 24 years). The mean sample size in the included studies was 92 participants (ranging from 19 to 444) and duration ranged between 26 and 52 weeks. When looking at the results at combined time points (mainly up to one year after start of the intervention), CBT added to standard care was associated with a greater reduction in overall symptoms of schizophrenia (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.08, 20 RCTs, n = 1508, I2 = 68%, substantial heterogeneity, low certainty of the evidence), and also with a greater reduction in positive (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.06, 22 RCTs, n = 1565, I² = 52%, moderate heterogeneity), negative (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.11, 22 RCTs, n = 1651, I² = 0%) and depressive symptoms (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.24 to -0.01, 18 RCTs, n = 1182, I² = 0%) than control. CBT added to standard care was also associated with a greater improvement in the global state (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.01, 4 RCTs, n = 329, I² = 47%, moderate heterogeneity) and in functioning (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.05, 18 RCTs, n = 1241, I² = 53%, moderate heterogeneity, moderate certainty of the evidence) than control. We did not find a difference between CBT added to standard care and control in terms of number of participants with relapse (relative risk (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.18, 7 RCTs, n = 693, I² = 48%, low certainty of the evidence), leaving the study early for any reason (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.05, 25 RCTs, n = 2242, I² = 12%, moderate certainty of the evidence), adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.97, 1 RCT, n = 43, very low certainty of the evidence) and the other investigated outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review synthesised the latest evidence on CBT added to standard care for people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis. The evidence identified by this review suggests that people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis may benefit from CBT additionally to standard care for multiple outcomes (overall, positive, negative and depressive symptoms of schizophrenia, global state and functioning). Future studies should better define this population, for which often heterogeneous definitions are used.

Cognitive behavioural therapy without medication for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) can be effective in people with schizophrenia when provided in combination with antipsychotic medication. It remains unclear whether CBT could be safely and effectively offered in the absence of concomitant antipsychotic therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of CBT for schizophrenia when administered without concomitant pharmacological treatment with antipsychotics.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a systematic search on 6 March 2022 in the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with schizophrenia comparing CBT without antipsychotics to standard care, standard care without antipsychotics, or the combination of CBT and antipsychotics.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened references for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool. We contacted study authors for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcome was general mental state measured with a validated rating scale. Key secondary outcomes were specific symptoms of schizophrenia, relapse, service use, number of participants leaving the study early, functioning, quality of life, and number of participants actually receiving antipsychotics during the trial. We also assessed behaviour, adverse effects, and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 4 studies providing data for 300 participants (average age 21.94 years). The mean sample size was 75 participants (range 61 to 90 participants). Study duration was between 26 and 39 weeks for the intervention period and 26 to 104 weeks for the follow-up period. Three studies employed a blind rater, while one study was triple-blind. All analyses included data from a maximum of three studies. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. For the primary outcome overall symptoms of schizophrenia, results showed a difference favouring CBT without antipsychotics when compared to no specific treatment at long term (> 1 year mean difference measured with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS MD) -14.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) -27.75 to -1.79, 1 RCT, n = 34). There was no difference between CBT without antipsychotics compared with antipsychotics (up to 12 months PANSS MD 3.38, 95% CI -2.38 to 9.14, 2 RCTs, n = 63) (very low-certainty evidence) or compared with CBT in combination with antipsychotics (up to 12 months standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.30, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.65, 3 RCTs, n = 125). Compared with no specific treatment, CBT without antipsychotics was associated with a reduction in overall symptoms (as described above) and negative symptoms (PANSS negative MD -4.06, 95% CI -7.50 to -0.62, 1 RCT, n = 34) at longer than 12 months. It was also associated with a lower duration of hospital stay (number of days in hospital MD -22.45, 95% CI -28.82 to -16.08, 1 RCT, n = 74) and better functioning (Personal and Social Performance Scale MD -12.42, 95% CI -22.75 to -2.09, 1 RCT, n = 40, low-certainty evidence) at up to 12 months. We did not find a difference between CBT and antipsychotics in any of the investigated outcomes, with the exception of adverse events measured with the Antipsychotic Non-Neurological Side-Effects Rating Scale (ANNSERS) at both 6 and 12 months (MD -4.94, 95% CI -8.60 to -1.28, 2 RCTs, n = 48; MD -6.96, 95% CI -11.55 to -2.37, 2 RCTs, n = 42). CBT without antipsychotics was less effective than CBT combined with antipsychotics in reducing positive symptoms at up to 12 months (SMD 0.40, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.76, 3 RCTs, n = 126). CBT without antipsychotics was associated with a lower number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event in comparison with CBT combined with antipsychotics at up to 12 months (risk ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.80, 1 RCT, n = 39, low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review is the first attempt to systematically synthesise the evidence about CBT delivered without medication to people with schizophrenia. The limited number of studies and low to very low certainty of the evidence prevented any strong conclusions. An important limitation in the available studies was that participants in the CBT without medication group (about 35% on average) received antipsychotic treatment, highlighting the challenges of this approach. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to provide additional data on the feasibility and efficacy of CBT without antipsychotics.

Relapse in clinically stable adult patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder: evidence-based criteria derived by equipercentile linking and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on defining relapse in schizophrenia, and scale-derived criteria with unclear clinical relevance are widely used. We aimed to develop an evidence-based scale-derived set of criteria to define relapse in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

METHODS

We searched the Yale University Open Data Access (YODA) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in clinically stable adults with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, and obtained individual participant data on Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S), Personal and Social Performance (PSP), and Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS). Our main outcomes were PANSS-derived criteria based on worsening in PANSS total score. We examined their relevance using equipercentile linking with CGI-S and functioning scales, and their test-performance in defining relapse with diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis against CGI-S worsening (≥1-point increase together with a score ≥4 points) and psychiatric hospitalisation.

FINDINGS

Based on data from seven RCTs (2354 participants; 1348 men [57·3%] and 1006 women [42·7%], mean age of 39·5 years [SD 12·0, range 17-89]; 303 Asian [12.9%], 255 Black [10.8%], 1665 White [70.7%], and other or unspecified 131 [5.6%]), an increase of 12 points or more in PANSS total (range 30-210 points) corresponded to clinically important deterioration in global severity of illness (≥1 point increase in CGI-S, range 1-7) and functioning (≥10 points decline in PSP or SOFAS, range 1-100). The interpretation of percentage changes varied importantly across different baseline scores. An increase of 12 points or more in PANSS total had good sensitivity and specificity using CGI-S as reference standard (sensitivity 82·1% [95% CI 77·1-86·4], specificity 86·9% [82·9-90·3]), as well as good sensitivity but lower specificity compared to hospitalisation (sensitivity 81·7% [74·1-87·7], specificity 69·2% [60·5-76·9]). Requiring either an increase in PANSS total or in specific items for positive and disorganization symptoms further improved test-performance. Cutoffs for situations where high sensitivity or specificity is needed are presented.

INTERPRETATION

An increase of either 12 points or more in the PANSS total score, or worsening of specific positive and disorganisation symptom items could be a reasonable evidence-based definition of relapse in schizophrenia, potentially linking symptoms used to define remission and relapse. Percentage changes should not be used to define relapse because their interpretation depends on baseline scores.

FUNDING

German Research Foundation (grant number: 428509362).

Magnetic seizure therapy for people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is one of the most common and disabling mental disorders. About 20% of people with schizophrenia do not respond to antipsychotics, which are the mainstay of the treatment for schizophrenia today, and need to seek other treatment options. Magnetic seizure therapy (MST) is one of the novel non-invasive brain stimulation techniques that are being investigated in recent years.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of MST for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

On 6 March 2022, 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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MST alone or plus standard care with ECT or any other interventions for people with schizophrenia.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed reference screening, study selection, data extraction and risk of bias and quality assessment in duplicate. We calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) and their 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We used the original risk of bias tool for risk of bias assessment and created a Summary of findings table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one four-week study with 79 adults in acute schizophrenia, comparing MST plus standard care to ECT plus standard care in this review. We rated the overall risk of bias as high due to high risk of bias in the domains of selective reporting and other biases (early termination and baseline imbalance) and unclear risk of bias in the domain of blinding of participants and personnel. We found that MST and ECT may not differ in improving the global state (n = 79, risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.70), overall (n = 79, mean difference (MD) -0.20, 95% CI -8.08 to 7.68), the positive symptoms (n = 79, MD 1.40, 95% CI -1.97 to 4.77) and the negative symptoms (n = 79, MD -1.00, 95% CI -3.85 to 1.85) in people with schizophrenia.  We found  that MST compared to ECT may cause less delayed memory deficit and less cognitive deterioration (n = 79, number of people with a delayed memory deficit, RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.96; n = 79, mean change in global cognitive function, MD 5.80, 95% CI 0.80 to 10.80), but also may improve more cognitive function (n = 47, number of people with any cognitive improvement, RR 3.30, 95% CI 1.29 to 8.47).  We found that there may be no difference between the two groups in terms of leaving the study early due to any reason (n = 79, RR 2.51, 95% CI 0.73 to 8.59), due to adverse effects (n = 79, RR 3.35, 95% CI 0.39 to 28.64) or due to inefficacy (n = 79, RR 2.52, 95% CI 0.11 to 60.10).  Since all findings were based on one study with high risk of bias and the confidence in the evidence was very low, we were not sure these comparable or favourable effects of MST over ECT were its true effects.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the paucity of data, we cannot draw any conclusion on the efficacy and tolerability of MST for people with schizophrenia. Well-designed RCTs are warranted to answer the question.

Placebo versus no treatment for people with schizophrenia

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To compare the effects of placebo versus no treatment in people with schizophrenia.

Evidence-based Shared-Decision-Making Assistant (SDM-assistant) for choosing antipsychotics: protocol of a cluster-randomized trial in hospitalized patients with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Choosing an antipsychotic medication is an important medical decision in the treatment of schizophrenia. This decision requires risk-benefit assessments of antipsychotics, and thus, shared-decision making between physician and patients is strongly encouraged. Although the efficacy and side-effect profiles of antipsychotics are well-established, there is no clear framework for the communication of the evidence between physicians and patients. For this reason, we developed an evidence-based shared-decision making assistant (SDM-assistant) that presents high-quality evidence from network meta-analysis on the efficacy and side-effect profile of antipsychotics and can be used as a basis for shared-decision making between physicians and patients when selecting antipsychotic medications.

METHODS

The planned matched-pair cluster-randomised trial will be conducted in acute psychiatric wards (n = 14 wards planned) and will include adult inpatients with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders (N = 252 participants planned). On the intervention wards, patients and their treating physicians will use the SDM-assistant, whenever a decision on choosing an antipsychotic is warranted. On the control wards, antipsychotics will be chosen according to treatment-as-usual. The primary outcome will be patients' perceived involvement in the decision-making during the inpatient stay as measured with the SDM-Q-9. We will also assess therapeutic alliance, symptom severity, side-effects, treatment satisfaction, adherence, quality of life, functioning and rehospitalizations as secondary outcomes. Outcomes could be analysed at discharge and at follow-up after three months from discharge. The analysis will be conducted per-protocol using mixed-effects linear regression models for continuous outcomes and logistic regression models using generalised estimating equations for dichotomous outcomes. Barriers and facilitators in the implementation of the intervention will also be examined using a qualitative content analysis.

DISCUSSION

This is the first trial to examine a decision assistant specifically designed to facilitate shared-decision making for choosing antipsychotic medications, i.e., SDM-assistant, in acutely ill inpatients with schizophrenia. If the intervention can be successfully implemented, SDM-assistant could advance evidence-based medicine in schizophrenia by putting medical evidence on antipsychotics into the context of patient preferences and values. This could subsequently lead to a higher involvement of the patients in decision-making and better therapy decisions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register (ID: DRKS00027316 , registration date 26.01.2022).

Imputing the Number of Responders from the Mean and Standard Deviation of CGI-Improvement in Clinical Trials Investigating Medications for Autism Spectrum Disorder

INTRODUCTION

Response to treatment, according to Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale, is an easily interpretable outcome in clinical trials of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Yet, the CGI-I rating is sometimes reported as a continuous outcome, and converting it to dichotomous would allow meta-analysis to incorporate more evidence.

METHODS

Clinical trials investigating medications for ASD and presenting both dichotomous and continuous CGI-I data were included. The number of patients with at least much improvement (CGI-I ≤ 2) were imputed from the CGI-I scale, assuming an underlying normal distribution of a latent continuous score using a primary threshold θ = 2.5 instead of θ = 2, which is the original cut-off in the CGI-I scale. The original and imputed values were used to calculate responder rates and odds ratios. The performance of the imputation method was investigated with a concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), linear regression, Bland-Altman plots, and subgroup differences of summary estimates obtained from random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Data from 27 studies, 58 arms, and 1428 participants were used. The imputation method using the primary threshold (θ = 2.5) had good performance for the responder rates (CCC = 0.93 95% confidence intervals [0.86, 0.96]; β of linear regression = 1.04 [0.95, 1.13]; bias and limits of agreements = 4.32% [-8.1%, 16.74%]; no subgroup differences χ2 = 1.24, p-value = 0.266) and odds ratios (CCC = 0.91 [0.86, 0.96]; β = 0.96 [0.78, 1.14]; bias = 0.09 [-0.87, 1.04]; χ2 = 0.02, p-value = 0.894). The imputation method had poorer performance when the secondary threshold (θ = 2) was used.

DISCUSSION

Assuming a normal distribution of the CGI-I scale, the number of responders could be imputed from the mean and standard deviation and used in meta-analysis. Due to the wide limits of agreement of the imputation method, sensitivity analysis excluding studies with imputed values should be performed.

Antipsychotic drugs v. barbiturates or benzodiazepines used as active placebos for schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Comparisons of antipsychotics with placebo can be biased by unblinding due to side effects. Therefore, this meta-analysis compared the efficacy of antipsychotics for acute schizophrenia in trials using barbiturates or benzodiazepines as active placebos.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in acute schizophrenia with at least 3 weeks duration and comparing any antipsychotic with barbiturates or benzodiazepines were eligible. ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, WHO-ICTRP as well as previous reviews were searched up to 9 January 2018. Two separate meta-analyses, one for barbiturates and one for benzodiazepines, were conducted using random-effects models. The primary outcome was response to treatment, and mean values of schizophrenia rating scales and dropouts were analyzed as secondary outcomes. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018086263).

RESULTS

Seven barbiturate-RCTs (number of participants n = 1736), and two benzodiazepine-RCTs (n = 76) were included in the analysis. The studies were published between 1960 and 1968 and involved mainly chronically ill patients. More patients on antipsychotics in comparison to barbiturates achieved a 'good' response (36.2% v. 16.8%; RR 2.15; 95% CI 1.36-3.41; I2 = 48.9) and 'any' response (57.4% v. 27.8%; RR 2.07; 95% CI 1.35-3.18; I2 = 68.2). In a single small trial (n = 60), there was no difference between antipsychotics and benzodiazepines on 'any' response (74.7% v. 65%; RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.82-1.62).

CONCLUSIONS

Antipsychotic drugs were more efficacious than barbiturates, based on a large sample size. Response ratios were similar to those observed in placebo-controlled trials. The results on benzodiazepines were inconclusive due to the small number of studies and participants.

Antidepressants plus benzodiazepines in major depressive disorder: a clinical dilemma with no recent answers from research

Comorbid anxiety symptoms are common in depression, and adding benzodiazepines to antidepressant treatment may seem a rational clinical solution. They also have potential to reduce the initial anxiety that may be caused by early antidepressant treatment due to their inhibitory effect via GABA-A receptor binding. This month's Cochrane Corner review examines the evidence behind combination treatment versus antidepressants alone in major depressive disorder, both in terms of the clinical and neuroscientific context. The review provides evidence that in the first 4 weeks of treatment, additional medication with a benzodiazepine may lead to greater improvements than antidepressant alone in terms of ratings of severity, response rates and remission rates, but not for measures of anxiety.

Antidepressants plus benzodiazepines for adults with major depression

BACKGROUND

Anxiety frequently coexists with depression and adding benzodiazepines to antidepressant treatment is common practice to treat people with major depression. However, more evidence is needed to determine whether this combined treatment is more effective and not any more harmful than antidepressants alone. It has been suggested that benzodiazepines may lose their efficacy with long-term administration and their chronic use carries risks of dependence.This is the 2019 updated version of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001, and previously updated in 2005. This update follows a new protocol to conform with the most recent Cochrane methodology guidelines, with the inclusion of 'Summary of findings' tables and GRADE evaluations for quality of evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of combining antidepressants with benzodiazepines compared with antidepressants alone for major depression in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO to May 2019. We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify any additional unpublished or ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials that compared combined antidepressant plus benzodiazepine treatment with antidepressants alone for adults with major depression. We excluded studies administering psychosocial therapies targeted at depression and anxiety disorders concurrently. Antidepressants had to be prescribed, on average, at or above the minimum effective dose as presented by Hansen 2009 or according to the North American or European regulations. The combination therapy had to last at least four weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies, according to the criteria of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We entered data into Review Manager 5. We used intention-to-treat data. We combined continuous outcome variables of depressive and anxiety severity using standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For dichotomous efficacy outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Regarding the primary outcome of acceptability, only overall dropout rates were available for all studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 studies published between 1978 to 2002 involving 731 participants. Six studies used tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), two studies used selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), one study used another heterocyclic antidepressant and one study used TCA or heterocyclic antidepressant.Combined therapy of benzodiazepines plus antidepressants was more effective than antidepressants alone for depressive severity in the early phase (four weeks) (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.03; 10 studies, 598 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but there was no difference between treatments in the acute phase (five to 12 weeks) (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.03; 7 studies, 347 participants; low-quality evidence) or in the continuous phase (more than 12 weeks) (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.76 to 0.35; 1 study, 50 participants; low-quality evidence). For acceptability of treatment, there was no difference in the dropouts due to any reason between combined therapy and antidepressants alone (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.07; 10 studies, 731 participants; moderate-quality evidence).For response in depression, combined therapy was more effective than antidepressants alone in the early phase (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.58; 10 studies, 731 participants), but there was no evidence of a difference in the acute phase (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.35; 7 studies, 383 participants) or in the continuous phase (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.29; 1 study, 52 participants). For remission in depression, combined therapy was more effective than antidepressants alone in the early phase (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.90, 10 studies, 731 participants), but there was no evidence of a difference in the acute phase (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.63; 7 studies, 383 participants) or in the continuous phase (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.16; 1 study, 52 participants). There was no evidence of a difference between combined therapy and antidepressants alone for anxiety severity in the early phase (SMD -0.76, 95% CI -1.67 to 0.14; 3 studies, 129 participants) or in the acute phase (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.10; 3 studies, 129 participants). No studies measured severity of insomnia. In terms of adverse effects, the dropout rates due to adverse events were lower for combined therapy than for antidepressants alone (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.90; 10 studies, 731 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, participants in the combined therapy group reported at least one adverse effect more often than participants who received antidepressants alone (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23; 7 studies, 510 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Most domains of risk of bias in the majority of the included studies were unclear. Random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding and selective outcome reporting were problematic due to insufficient details reported in most of the included studies and lack of availability of the study protocols. The greatest limitation in the quality of evidence was issues with attrition.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combined antidepressant plus benzodiazepine therapy was more effective than antidepressants alone in improving depression severity, response in depression and remission in depression in the early phase. However, these effects were not maintained in the acute or the continuous phase. Combined therapy resulted in fewer dropouts due to adverse events than antidepressants alone, but combined therapy was associated with a greater proportion of participants reporting at least one adverse effect.The moderate quality evidence of benefits of adding a benzodiazepine to an antidepressant in the early phase must be balanced judiciously against possible harms and consideration given to other alternative treatment strategies when antidepressant monotherapy may be considered inadequate. We need long-term, pragmatic randomised controlled trials to compare combination therapy against the monotherapy of antidepressant in major depression.

Increasing antipsychotic dose for non response in schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Many people with schizophrenia do not reach a satisfactory clinical response with a standard dose of an initially prescribed antipsychotic drug. In such cases, clinicians face the dilemma of increasing the antipsychotic dose in order to enhance antipsychotic efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy of increasing antipsychotic dose compared to keeping the same dose in the treatment of people with schizophrenia who have not responded (as defined in the individual studies) to an initial antipsychotic drug trial. We also examine the adverse effects associated with such a procedure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (10 June 2014, 6 October 2015, and 30 March 2017). We examined references of all included studies for further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs), reporting useable data, comparing increasing the antipsychotic dose rather than maintaining the original dose for people with schizophrenia who do not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently extracted data . We analysed dichotomous data using relative risks (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean differences (MD) and their 95% CI. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten relevant RCTs with 675 participants are included in this review. All trials were double blind except one single blind. All studies had a run-in phase to confirm they did not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment. The trials were published between 1980 and 2016. In most studies the methods of randomisation, allocation and blinding were poorly reported. In addition sample sizes were often small, limiting the overall quality of the evidence. Overall, no clear difference was found between groups in terms of the number of participants who showed clinically relevant response (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.40, 9 RCTs, N = 533, low-quality evidence), or left the study early due to adverse effects (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.52 to 5.07, very low quality evidence), or due to any reason (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90, 5 RCTs, N = 353, low-quality evidence). Similarly, no clear difference was found in general mental state as measured by PANSS total score change (MD -1.44, 95% CI -6.85 to 3.97, 3 RCTs, N = 258, very low quality evidence). At least one adverse effect was equivocal between groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.50, 2 RCTs, N = 191, very low quality evidence). Data were not reported for time in hospital or quality-of-life outcomes. Finally, subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not show any effect on the primary outcome but these analyses were clearly underpowered.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current data do not show any clear differences between increasing or maintaining the antipsychotic dose for people with schizophrenia who do not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment. Adverse effect reporting was limited and poor. There is an urgent need for further trials in order to determine the optional treatment strategy in such cases.

Increasing antipsychotic dose versus switching antipsychotic for non response in schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Many people with schizophrenia do not respond to an initially prescribed antipsychotic drug. In such cases, one treatment strategy could be to increase the antipsychotic dose; and another strategy could be to switch to a different antipsychotic drug.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy of increasing the antipsychotic dose versus switching the antipsychotic drug in the treatment of non-responsive people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (10 June 2014, 6 October 2015, and 30 March 2017). We examined references of all included studies for further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing increasing the antipsychotic dose versus switching to a different antipsychotic drug for people with schizophrenia who have not responded to their initial antipsychotic treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data using relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We analysed continuous data using mean differences (MD) and their 95% CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We include one RCT with relevant data on 29 participants in this review. The trial had a parallel design and was double-blind, but blinding procedures were not described. The trial included people who were non-responsive to fluphenazine 20 mg/day administered for 4 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned to continuing treatment with fluphenazine 20 mg/day, increasing the dose to fluphenazine 80 mg/day or switching to haloperidol 20 mg/day for four additional weeks. Data were reported only for 47 out of 58 initially randomised participants. The trial was published in 1993. The fact that only one RCT with a small sample size (N = 29) was included in the analysis limits the quality of the evidence. Overall, no clear difference was found between groups in terms of the three available outcomes: global state (number of participants with clinically relevant response (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.17 to 15.99, very low quality evidence); general mental state (endpoint score, BPRS total) (MD 2.00, 95% CI -4.20 to 8.20, very low quality evidence); and negative symptoms (endpoint score, SANS) (MD 3.40, 95% CI -12.56 to 19.36). No data were reported for leaving the study early, adverse effects, time in hospital, quality of life, satisfaction with care and functioning.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is extremely limited evidence and no clear conclusions can be drawn. There is an urgent need for further trials in order to determine the optimal treatment strategy for people with schizophrenia who do not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment.

Practising evidence-based medicine in an era of high placebo response: number needed to treat reconsidered

The number needed to treat (NNT) statistic was developed to facilitate the practice of evidence-based medicine. Placebo was assumed to be therapeutically inert when the NNT was originally conceived, but more recent data for conditions such as major depressive disorder (MDD) suggest that the placebo control condition can have considerable therapeutic effects. Complications arise because the NNT calculated from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reflects a comparison between medication plus clinical management and placebo plus clinical management, whereas, in the clinical setting, physicians choose between prescribing open medication, observing a patient over time with a supportive approach, and doing nothing. Thus, NNTs derived from clinical trials are not directly relevant to clinical decision-making, because they are based on control conditions that do not exist in standard practice. Additional difficulties may arise when using NNTs to compare alternative treatments for MDD, such as medication and psychotherapy, since these comparisons require the control conditions upon which the respective NNTs are based to be similar.Whereas pill placebo conditions include intensive clinical management and elicit expectations of improvement, attention control conditions for psychotherapy research are less well developed. Often the effects of psychotherapy are gauged against a wait-list control condition, which has substantially fewer therapeutic components than a pill placebo control condition. To improve the clinical utility of NNTs for the treatment of MDD, we advocate effectiveness studies that include treatment conditions resembling actual clinical practice, rather than using placebo-controlled RCTs for this purpose. Until such studies are performed, the effect of bias in comparing NNTs across treatments can be controlled by ensuring that the RCT control conditions upon which the NNTs are based are comparable.

Optimal Strategies for Reporting Pain in Clinical Trials and Systematic Reviews: Recommendations from an OMERACT 12 Workshop

OBJECTIVE

Pain is a patient-important outcome, but current reporting in randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews is often suboptimal, impeding clinical interpretation and decision making.

METHODS

A working group at the 2014 Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT 12) was convened to provide guidance for reporting treatment effects regarding pain for individual studies and systematic reviews.

RESULTS

For individual trials, authors should report, in addition to mean change, the proportion of patients achieving 1 or more thresholds of improvement from baseline pain (e.g., ≥ 20%, ≥ 30%, ≥ 50%), achievement of a desirable pain state (e.g., no worse than mild pain), and/or a combination of change and state. Effects on pain should be accompanied by other patient-important outcomes to facilitate interpretation. When pooling data for metaanalysis, authors should consider converting all continuous measures for pain to a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and use the established, minimally important difference (MID) of 10 mm, and the conventionally used, appreciably important differences of 20 mm, 30 mm, and 50 mm, to facilitate interpretation. Effects ≤ 0.5 units suggest a small or very small effect. To further increase interpretability, the pooled estimate on the VAS should also be transformed to a binary outcome and expressed as a relative risk and risk difference. This transformation can be achieved by calculating the probability of experiencing a treatment effect greater than the MID and the thresholds for appreciably important differences in pain reduction in the control and intervention groups.

CONCLUSION

Presentation of relative effects regarding pain will facilitate interpretation of treatment effects.

Fluphenazine versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between any other antipsychotic compounds, however, low-potency antipsychotic drugs are often perceived as less efficacious than high-potency compounds by clinicians, and they also seem to differ in their side effects. This review examined the effects of the high-potency antipsychotic fluphenazine compared to those of low-potency antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (November 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fluphenazine with first-generation low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes seven randomised trials and 1567 participants that compared fluphenazine with low-potency antipsychotic drugs. The size of the included studies was between 40 and 438 participants. Overall, sequence generation, allocation procedures and blinding were poorly reported. Fluphenazine was not significantly different from low-potency antipsychotic drugs in terms of response to treatment (fluphenazine 55%, low-potency drug 55%, 2 RCTs, n = 105, RR 1.06 CI 0.75 to 1.50, moderate quality evidence). There was also no significant difference in acceptability of treatment with equivocal numbers of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason (fluphenazine 36%, low-potency antipsychotics 36%, 6 RCTs, n = 1532, RR 1.00 CI 0.88 to 1.14, moderate quality evidence). There was no significant difference between fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics for numbers experiencing at least one adverse effect (fluphenazine 70%, low-potency antipsychotics 88%, 1 RCT, n = 65, RR 0.79 CI 0.58 to 1.07, moderate quality evidence). However, at least one movement disorder occurred significantly more frequently in the fluphenazine group (fluphenazine 15%, low-potency antipsychotics 10%, 3 RCTs, n = 971, RR 2.11 CI 1.41 to 3.15, low quality of evidence). In contrast, low-potency antipsychotics produced significantly more sedation (fluphenazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 64%, 1 RCT, n = 65, RR 0.31 CI 0.13 to 0.77, high quality evidence). No data were available for the outcomes of death and quality of life. The results of the primary outcome were robust in a number of subgroup and sensitivity analyses.Adverse effects such as akathisia (fluphenazine 15%, low-potency antipsychotics 6%, 5 RCTs, n = 1209, RR 2.28 CI 1.58 to 3.28); dystonia (fluphenazine 5%, low-potency antipsychotics 2%, 4 RCTs, n = 1309, RR 2.66 CI 1.25 to 5.64); loss of associated movement (fluphenazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 2%, 1 RCT, n = 338, RR 11.15 CI 3.95 to 31.47); rigor (fluphenazine 27%, low-potency antipsychotics 12%, 2 RCTs, n = 403, RR 2.18 CI 1.20 to 3.97); and tremor (fluphenazine 15%, low-potency antipsychotics 6%, 2 RCTs, n = 403, RR 2.53 CI 1.37 to 4.68) occurred significantly more frequently in the fluphenazine group.For other adverse effects such as dizziness (fluphenazine 8%, low-potency antipsychotics 17%, 4 RCTs, n = 1051, RR 0.49 CI 0.32 to 0.73); drowsiness (fluphenazine 18%, low-potency antipsychotics 25%, 3 RCTs, n = 986, RR 0.67 CI 0.53 to 0.86); dry mouth (fluphenazine 11%, low-potency antipsychotics 18%, 4 RCTs, n = 1051, RR 0.63 CI 0.45 to 0.89); nausea (fluphenazine 4%, low-potency antipsychotics 15%, 3 RCTs, n = 986, RR 0.25 CI 0.14 to 0.45); and vomiting (fluphenazine 3%, low-potency antipsychotics 8%, 3 RCTs, n = 986, RR 0.36 CI 0.18 to 0.72) results favoured fluphenazine with significantly more events occurring in the low-potency antipsychotic group for these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results do not show a clear difference in efficacy between fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics. The number of included studies was low and their quality moderate. Therefore, further studies would be needed to draw firm conclusions about the relative effects of fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics.

Haloperidol versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between antipsychotic compounds, however, low-potency antipsychotic drugs are often clinically perceived as less efficacious than high-potency compounds, and they also seem to differ in their side-effects.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects in clinical response of haloperidol and low-potency antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing haloperidol with first-generation low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), again based on a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 17 randomised trials and 877 participants. The size of the included studies was between 16 and 109 participants. All studies were short-term with a study length between two and 12 weeks. Overall, sequence generation, allocation procedures and blinding were poorly reported. We found no clear evidence that haloperidol was superior to low-potency antipsychotic drugs in terms of clinical response (haloperidol 40%, low-potency drug 36%, 14 RCTs, n = 574, RR 1.11, CI 0.86 to 1.44 lowquality evidence). There was also no clear evidence of benefit for either group in acceptability of treatment with equivocal difference in the number of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason (haloperidol 13%, low-potency antipsychotics 17%, 11 RCTs, n = 408, RR 0.82, CI 0.38 to 1.77, low quality evidence). Similar equivocal results were found between groups for experiencing at least one adverse effect (haloperidol 70%, low-potency antipsychotics 35%, 5 RCTs n = 158, RR 1.97, CI 0.69 to 5.66, very low quality evidence ). More participants from the low-potency drug group experienced sedation (haloperidol 14%, low-potency antipsychotics 41%, 2 RCTs, n = 44, RR 0.30, CI 0.11 to 0.82, moderate quality evidence), orthostasis problems (haloperidol 25%, low-potency antipsychotics 71%, 1 RCT, n = 41, RR 0.35, CI 0.16 to 0.78) and weight gain (haloperidol 5%, low-potency antipsychotics 29%, 3 RCTs, n = 88, RR 0.22, CI 0.06 to 0.81). In contrast, the outcome 'at least one movement disorder' was more frequent in the haloperidol group (haloperidol 72%, low-potency antipsychotics 41%, 5 RCTs, n = 170, RR 1.64, CI 1.22 to 2.21, low quality evidence). No data were available for death or quality of life. The results of the primary outcome were robust in several subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results do not clearly show a superiority in efficacy of haloperidol compared with low-potency antipsychotics. Differences in adverse events were found for movement disorders, which were more frequent in the haloperidol group, and orthostatic problems, sedation and weight gain, which were more frequent in the low-potency antipsychotic group. The quality of studies was low, and the quality of evidence for the main outcomes of interest varied from moderate to very low, so more newer studies would be needed in order to draw a definite conclusion about whether or not haloperidol is superior or inferior to low-potency antipsychotics.

Trifluoperazine versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between any other antipsychotic compounds, however, low-potency antipsychotic drugs are often perceived as less efficacious than high-potency compounds by clinicians, and they also seem to differ in their side-effects.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects in response to treatment of trifluoperazine and low-potency antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (November 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing trifluoperazine with first-generation low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes seven randomised trials involving 422 participants that compared trifluoperazine with low-potency antipsychotic drugs. The size of the included studies was between 20 and 157 participants with a study length between four and 52 weeks. Overall, sequence generation, allocation procedures and blinding were poorly reported. Trifluoperazine was not significantly different from low-potency antipsychotic drugs in terms of response to treatment (trifluoperazine 26%, low-potency drug 27%, 3 RCTs, n = 120, RR 0.96 CI 0.59 to 1.56, moderate quality evidence). There was also no significant difference in acceptability of treatment with equivocal number of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason (trifluoperazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 16%, 3 RCTs, n = 239, RR 1.25, CI 0.72 to 2.17,low quality evidence). There was no significant difference in numbers with at least one adverse effect (trifluoperazine 60%, low-potency antipsychotics 38%, 1 RCT, n = 60, RR 1.60, CI 0.94 to 2.74, moderate quality evidence). However, at least one movement disorder was significantly more frequent in the trifluoperazine group (trifluoperazine 23%, low-potency antipsychotics 13%, 2 RCTs, n = 123, RR 2.08 CI 0.78 to 5.55, very low quality evidence) as well as incoordination (trifluoperazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 5%, 1 RCT, n = 60, RR 7.00, CI 1.60 to 30.66) and rigor (trifluoperazine 45%, low-potency antipsychotics 10%, 1 RCT, n = 60, RR 4.50, CI 1.58 to 12.84). No data were available for other outcomes of interest death, sedation and quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results did not show a difference in efficacy between trifluoperazine and low-potency antipsychotics. Trifluoperazine produced more movement disorders. The number of randomised studies as well as their quality is low, the quality of evidence for outcomes of interest ranged from moderate to very low quality, so more, newer studies would be needed for conclusions about the relative effects of trifluoperazine and low-potency antipsychotics.

Chlorpromazine versus every other antipsychotic for schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis challenging the dogma of equal efficacy of antipsychotic drugs

It is one of the major psychiatric dogmas that the efficacy of all antipsychotic drugs is same. This statement originated from old, narrative reviews on first-generation antipsychotics, but this old literature has never been meta-analysed. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials on the efficacy of chlorpromazine versus any other antipsychotic in the treatment of schizophrenia. If the benchmark drug chlorpromazine were significantly more or less effective than other antipsychotics, the notion of equal efficacy would have to be rejected. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group׳s specialized register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo and reference lists of relevant articles. The primary outcome was response to treatment. We also analyzed mean values of schizophrenia rating scales at endpoint and drop-out rates. 128, mostly small, RCTs with 10667 participants were included. Chlorpromazine was compared with 43 other antipsychotics and was more efficacious than four (butaperazine, mepazine, oxypertine and reserpine) and less efficacious than other four antipsychotics (clomacran, clozapine, olanzapine and zotepine) in the primary outcome. There were no statistically significant efficacy differences between chlorpromazine and the remaining 28 antipsychotics. The most important finding was that, due to low numbers of participants (median 50, range 8-692), most comparisons were underpowered. Thus we infer that the old antipsychotic drug literature was inconclusive and the claim for equal efficacy of antipsychotics was never evidence-based. Recent meta-analyses on second-generation antipsychotics were in a better position to address this question and small, but consistent differences between drugs were found.

A 6-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, comparator referenced trial of vabicaserin in acute schizophrenia

Vabicaserin, a potent 5-HT2C receptor agonist, decreases nucleus accumbens extracellular dopamine levels in rats, without affecting striatal dopamine, indicating mesolimbic selectivity. This is the first study of efficacy, safety and tolerability of vabicaserin in adults with acute schizophrenia. Three hundred fourteen hospitalized subjects were randomized to: Vabicaserin 200 or 400 mg/day, olanzapine 15 mg/day or placebo. Central raters assessed the PANSS and CGI-S. Site raters performed the BPRS and CGI-I. Central rated PANSS Positive (PANSS-PPS) was the primary endpoint. Two hundred eighty-nine subjects were included in the mITT efficacy analysis. Vabicaserin was well tolerated with no major safety concerns. Olanzapine, but not vabicaserin, caused weight gain. Vabicaserin 200 mg/day and olanzapine demonstrated significant improvement at week 6 vs. placebo on PANSS-PSS. A non-significant decrease vs. placebo was observed for 400 mg/day. Both vabicaserin groups demonstrated significant improvement over baseline on PANSS Negative while placebo worsened. Vabicaserin 200 mg/day and olanzapine demonstrated significantly greater improvement over placebo on PANSS Total whereas 400 mg/day showed a trend toward improvement. There was no significant improvement vs. placebo for either vabicaserin group on site-rated BPRS. Vabicaserin 200 mg/day and olanzapine demonstrated significant improvement vs. placebo on CGI-I and CGI-S but not 400 mg/day vabicaserin. Vabicaserin demonstrated efficacy on primary and secondary endpoints at 200 mg/day, but not at 400 mg/day which showed a trend for efficacy. The 200 mg/day vabicaserin group achieved proof of concept using central ratings. Both vabicaserin doses were well tolerated with no significant safety signals and no weight gain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT00265551.

GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles-continuous outcomes

Presenting continuous outcomes in Summary of Findings tables presents particular challenges to interpretation. When each study uses the same outcome measure, and the units of that measure are intuitively interpretable (e.g., duration of hospitalization, duration of symptoms), presenting differences in means is usually desirable. When the natural units of the outcome measure are not easily interpretable, choosing a threshold to create a binary outcome and presenting relative and absolute effects become a more attractive alternative. When studies use different measures of the same construct, calculating summary measures requires converting to the same units of measurement for each study. The longest standing and most widely used approach is to divide the difference in means in each study by its standard deviation and present pooled results in standard deviation units (standardized mean difference). Disadvantages of this approach include vulnerability to varying degrees of heterogeneity in the underlying populations and difficulties in interpretation. Alternatives include presenting results in the units of the most popular or interpretable measure, converting to dichotomous measures and presenting relative and absolute effects, presenting the ratio of the means of intervention and control groups, and presenting the results in minimally important difference units. We outline the merits and limitations of each alternative and provide guidance for meta-analysts and guideline developers.

Pooling health-related quality of life outcomes in meta-analysis-a tutorial and review of methods for enhancing interpretability

BACKGROUND

- Meta-analyses of health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes present difficulties in interpretation when studies use different instruments to measure the same construct. Presentation of results in standard deviation units (standardized mean difference) is widely used but is limited by vulnerability to differential variability in populations enrolled and interpretational challenges.

OBJECTIVE

- The objective of this study is to identify and describe the available approaches for enhancing interpretability of meta-analyses involving HRQL outcomes.

FINDINGS

- We identified 12 approaches in three categories: Summary estimates derived from the pooled standardized mean difference: conversion to units of the most familiar instrument or to risk difference or odds ratio. These approaches remain vulnerable to differential variability in populations. Summary estimates derived from the individual trial summary statistics: conversion to units of the most familiar instrument or to ratio of means. Both are appropriate complementary approaches to measures derived from converted probabilities. Summary estimates derived from the individual trial summary statistics and established minimally important differences for all instruments: presentation in minimally important difference units or conversion to risk difference or odds ratio. Risk differences are ideal for balancing desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative interventions.

CONCLUSION

- The use of these approaches may enhance the interpretability and the usefulness of systematic reviews involving HRQL outcomes. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

How to obtain NNT from Cohen's d: comparison of two methods

BACKGROUND

In the literature we find many indices of size of treatment effect (effect size: ES). The preferred index of treatment effect in evidence-based medicine is the number needed to treat (NNT), while the most common one in the medical literature is Cohen's d when the outcome is continuous. There is confusion about how to convert Cohen's d into NNT.

METHODS

We conducted meta-analyses of individual patient data from 10 randomized controlled trials of second generation antipsychotics for schizophrenia (n = 4278) to produce Cohen's d and NNTs for various definitions of response, using cutoffs of 10% through 90% reduction on the symptom severity scale. These actual NNTs were compared with NNTs calculated from Cohen's d according to two proposed methods in the literature (Kraemer, et al., Biological Psychiatry, 2006; Furukawa, Lancet, 1999).

RESULTS

NNTs from Kraemer's method overlapped with the actual NNTs in 56%, while those based on Furukawa's method fell within the observed ranges of NNTs in 97% of the examined instances. For various definitions of response corresponding with 10% through 70% symptom reduction where we observed a non-small number of responders, the degree of agreement for the former method was at a chance level (ANOVA ICC of 0.12, p = 0.22) but that for the latter method was ANOVA ICC of 0.86 (95%CI: 0.55 to 0.95, p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Furukawa's method allows more accurate prediction of NNTs from Cohen's d. Kraemer's method gives a wrong impression that NNT is constant for a given d even when the event rate differs.