Efficacy and safety profiles of mood stabilizers and antipsychotics for bipolar depression: a systematic review

Antipsychotic agents in anxiety disorders: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Although not approved for the treatment of anxiety disorders (except trifluoperazine) there is ongoing off-label, unapproved use of first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for anxiety disorders. There have been systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the use of antipsychotics in anxiety disorders, most of which focused on SGAs.

OBJECTIVE

The specific aims of this umbrella review are to: (1) Evaluate the evidence of efficacy of FGAs and SGAs in anxiety disorders as an adjunctive treatment to traditional antidepressant treatments and other nonantipsychotic medications; (2) Compare monotherapy with antipsychotics to first-line treatments for anxiety disorders in terms of effectiveness, risks, and side effects. The review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021237436).

METHODS

An initial search was undertaken to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses from inception until 2020, with an updated search completed August 2021 and January 2023. The searches were conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), APA PsycInfo (Ovid), CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), and the Cochrane Library through hand searches of references of included articles. Review quality was measured using the AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) scale.

RESULTS

The original and updated searches yielded 1796 and 3744 articles respectively, of which 45 were eligible. After final review, 25 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in the analysis. Most of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses were deemed low-quality through AMSTAR-2 with only one review being deemed high-quality. In evaluating the monotherapies with antipsychotics compared with first-line treatments for anxiety disorder there was insufficient evidence due to flawed study designs (such as problems with randomization) and small sample sizes within studies. There was limited evidence suggesting efficacy of antipsychotic agents in anxiety disorders other than quetiapine in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).

CONCLUSIONS

This umbrella review indicates a lack of high-quality studies of antipsychotics in anxiety disorders outside of the use of quetiapine in GAD. Although potentially effective for anxiety disorders, FGAs and SGAs may have risks and side effects that outweigh their efficacy, although there were limited data. Further long-term and larger-scale studies of antipsychotics in anxiety disorders are needed.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar depression in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bipolar depression constitutes a major public health problem due to its substantial burden of disease. Although pharmacological interventions are available, guidelines required updated evidence synthesis to improve their current recommendations. In order to inform evidence-based prescribing, we investigated the comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar depression.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological interventions with each other or placebo in adults with acute bipolar depression (type I, type II, or not otherwise specified), excluding those with substance misuse, unipolar depression, or schizophrenia, in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, CINAHL, and LILACS from database inception up to April 13, 2023. Criteria for eligibility were a duration of 2-16 weeks with masked outcome assessments, and we included combination, add-on design, and monotherapy studies. The co-primary outcomes were depressive symptoms, examined with standardised mean differences (SMDs), and manic switch, examined with odds ratios (ORs). We also investigated dropouts due to any reason, inefficacy, adverse events, and important side-effects as secondary outcomes. The confidence in the evidence was evaluated using Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020171726.

RESULTS

We analysed data from 101 randomised controlled trials covering 20 081 participants, 8063 men (41·7%) and 11 263 women (58·3%; sex not available in four studies), mean age 41·0 years (range of means 28·7-53·6 years), and 68 medications and placebo. Ethnicity data were not available. With moderate confidence in the evidence, olanzapine plus fluoxetine, quetiapine, olanzapine, lurasidone, lumateperone, cariprazine, and lamotrigine were more efficacious than placebo in reducing depressive symptoms, with SMDs ranging from 0·41 (95% CI 0·19-0·64) for olanzapine plus fluoxetine to 0·16 (0·03-0·29) for lamotrigine. Several other drugs might also be efficacious, but the confidence in the evidence was very low to low. Antidepressants as a class seem to be efficacious, but had a higher risk for manic switch compared to antipsychotics. Medications differed in their side-effect profiles.

INTERPRETATION

This is, to our knowledge, the largest network meta-analysis of pharmacotherapy for bipolar depression to date. Olanzapine plus fluoxetine, quetiapine, olanzapine, lurasidone, lumateperone, cariprazine, and lamotrigine were found to be more efficacious than placebo in adults with acute bipolar depression, with good confidence in the evidence, and to differ in their side-effect profiles. These findings can inform evidence-based care and the development of treatment guidelines internationally.

FUNDING

None.