Quality of randomized controlled trials of new generation antidepressants and antipsychotics identified in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI): a literature and telephone interview study

Effects of Trazodone on Sleep: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Sleep problems and insomnia are common, challenging to treat, and transcend specific diagnoses. Although trazodone is a popular choice, robust meta-analytic evidence is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the efficacy and safety of trazodone for sleep disturbances, reflecting recent updates in insomnia diagnosis and treatment.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, APA PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) up to 1 May 2024, for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing trazodone with placebo and reporting sleep-related outcomes. The minimum pharmacotherapy duration was 5 days. Included were all RCTs regardless of blinding (open-label or single- or double-blind), while quasi-randomized studies were excluded. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials assessed bias. Analyses used a random-effects model on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. Risk ratio (RR) was used for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes. When different units or scales were used, Hedge's adjusted g standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated. Subgroup and preplanned sensitivity analyses explored heterogeneity and evaluated findings' strength and consistency.

RESULTS

In total, 44 RCTs with 3935 participants were included. Trazodone did not significantly impact subjective total sleep time (TST) [WMD = 0.73 min, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 24.62; 26.07, p = 0.96] but improved sleep quality (SQ) (SMD = - 0.58, 95% CI - 0.87; - 0.28, p < 0.01) and secondary outcomes. These included the number of nocturnal awakenings (SMD = - 0.57, 95% CI - 0.85; - 0.30], p < 0.01), nocturnal time awake after sleep onset (WMD = - 13.47 min, 95% CI - 23.09; - 3.86], p < 0.01), objective TST by polysomnography (WMD = 27.98 min, 95% CI 4.02; 51.95, p = 0.02), and sleep efficiency (WMD = 3.32, 95% CI 0.53; 1.57, p = 0.02). Tolerability issues included more dropouts owing to adverse effects (RR = 2.30, 95% CI 1.45; 3.64, p < 0.01), any sleep-related adverse effects (RR = 3.67, 95% CI 1.07; 12.47, p = 0.04), more adverse effects in general (RR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.03; 1.33, p = 0.02), and more sleep-related adverse effects (RR = 4.31, 95% CI 2.29; 8.13, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Trazodone extends total sleep time but does not affect perceived sleep duration. It may improve sleep quality and continuity but has minor effects on sleep latency, efficiency, and daytime impairment. Trazodone is associated with adverse effects, necessitating a careful risk-benefit assessment. Limited data restrict generalizability, underscoring the need for more research.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number,CRD42022383121.

Haloperidol (oral) versus olanzapine (oral) for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is often a severe and disabling psychiatric disorder. Antipsychotics remain the mainstay of psychotropic treatment for people with psychosis. In limited resource and humanitarian contexts, it is key to have several options for beneficial, low-cost antipsychotics, which require minimal monitoring. We wanted to compare oral haloperidol, as one of the most available antipsychotics in these settings, with a second-generation antipsychotic, olanzapine.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical benefits and harms of haloperidol compared to olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia study-based register of trials, which is based on monthly searches of CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and WHO ICTRP. We screened the references of all included studies. We contacted relevant authors of trials for additional information where clarification was required or where data were incomplete. The register was last searched on 14 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing haloperidol with olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in global state, relapse, clinically important change in mental state, extrapyramidal side effects, weight increase, clinically important change in quality of life and leaving the study early due to adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently evaluated and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB or NNTH) with 95% CI. For continuous data, we estimated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. For all included studies, we assessed risk of bias (RoB 1) and we used the GRADE approach to create a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 68 studies randomising 9132 participants. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in clinically important change in global state (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02; 6 studies, 3078 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in relapse (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.02; 7 studies, 1499 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in overall mental state compared to olanzapine (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.81; 13 studies, 1210 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every eight people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this improvement. The evidence suggests that haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects compared to olanzapine (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.28 to 5.02; 14 studies, 3290 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every three people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one additional person would experience extrapyramidal side effects. For weight gain, the evidence suggests that there may be a large reduction in the risk with haloperidol compared to olanzapine (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; 18 studies, 4302 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 10 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience weight increase. A single study suggests that haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in quality of life compared to olanzapine (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 828 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every nine people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience clinically important improvement in quality of life. Haloperidol may result in an increase in the incidence of leaving the study early due to adverse effects compared to olanzapine (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.47; 21 studies, 5047 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 22 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this outcome. Thirty otherwise relevant studies and several endpoints from 14 included studies could not be evaluated due to inconsistencies and poor transparency of several parameters. Furthermore, even within studies that were included, it was often not possible to use data for the same reasons. Risk of bias differed substantially for different outcomes and the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The most common risks of bias leading to downgrading of the evidence were blinding (performance bias) and selective reporting (reporting bias).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low to very low for the main outcomes in this review, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in terms of clinically important global state and relapse. Olanzapine may result in a slightly greater overall clinically important change in mental state and in a clinically important change in quality of life. Different side effect profiles were noted: haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects and olanzapine in a large increase in weight gain. The drug of choice needs to take into account side effect profiles and the preferences of the individual. These findings and the recent inclusion of olanzapine alongside haloperidol in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines should increase the likelihood of it becoming more easily available in low- and middle- income countries, thereby improving choice and providing a greater ability to respond to side effects for people with lived experience of schizophrenia. There is a need for additional research using appropriate and equivalent dosages of these drugs. Some of this research needs to be done in low- and middle-income settings and should actively seek to account for factors relevant to these. Research on antipsychotics needs to be person-centred and prioritise factors that are of interest to people with lived experience of schizophrenia.

Single-arm meta-analysis of drug response in placebo-controlled versus active-controlled antipsychotic drug trials in schizophrenia

Antipsychotic drug efficacy may vary in placebo-controlled and active-controlled trials. The study aims to investigate the performance of antipsychotics in these two different study designs using single-arm meta-analysis. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing second-generation antipsychotics with placebo or other antipsychotics from our previous systematic reviews and updated the results with the search on Cochrane Schizophrenia Group register until March 06, 2022. The outcomes were the differences in the change of overall, positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, and the difference in study discontinuation between placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials. Random-effects single-arm meta-analysis and subgroup test were conducted to examine the differences in each outcome. A total of 208 RCTs (n = 42,159) were included in the analysis. Of these, 85 trials with 17,056 participants were placebo-controlled, while the remaining were head-to-head trials. Antipsychotics in head-to-head trials demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in overall symptoms (MC -23.58; 95 % CI -25.33, -21.83) compared to antipsychotics in placebo-controlled trials (MC -16.74; 95 % CI -17.80, -15.69; p < 0.0001). Similar findings were observed for positive symptoms, negative symptoms, study discontinuation and sensitivity analyses. Notably, when assessing antipsychotics individually, the same antipsychotic consistently demonstrated superior performance in head-to-head trials compared to placebo-controlled trials. In conclusion, antipsychotics in head-to-head trials presented a considerable efficacy superiority compared to those in placebo-controlled trials. Moreover, the efficacy of the same antipsychotics varied depending on the study design. Future trials should carefully consider the methodology and employ strategies to mitigate the potential for overestimation or underestimation of treatment efficacy.

Non-invasive brain stimulation for treatment-resistant schizophrenia: protocol of a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is a promising intervention for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. However, there are multiple available techniques and a comprehensive synthesis of evidence is lacking. Thus, we will conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of NIBS techniques as an add-on to antipsychotics for treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

METHODS

We will include single- and double-blind randomized-controlled trials (RCT) comparing any NIBS technique with each other or with a control intervention as an add-on to antipsychotics in adult patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. We will exclude studies focusing on predominant negative symptoms, maintenance treatment, and single sessions. The primary outcome will be a change in overall symptoms, and secondary outcomes will be a change in symptom domains, cognitive performance, quality of life, functioning, response, dropouts, and side effects. We will search for eligible studies in previous reviews, multiple electronic databases and clinical trial registries from inception onwards. At least two independent reviewers will perform the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We will measure the treatment differences using standardized mean difference (SMD) and odds ratio (OR) for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. We will conduct pairwise and network meta-analysis within a frequentist framework using a random-effects model, except for rare event outcomes where we will use a fixed-effects Mantel-Haenszel method. We will investigate potential sources of heterogeneity in subgroup analyses. Reporting bias will be assessed with funnel plots and the Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) tool. The certainty in the evidence will be evaluated using the Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA) approach.

DISCUSSION

Our network meta-analysis would provide an up-to-date synthesis of the evidence from all available RCTs on the comparative efficacy and safety of NIBS for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. This information could guide evidence-based clinical practice and improve the outcomes of patients.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO-ID CRD42023410645.

A network meta-analysis of efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of antipsychotics in treatment-resistant schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

Clozapine is considered as the standard treatment for this subgroup, but the evidence is not unequivocal. There are several potential alternatives being used because of the possible adverse effects of clozapine. We aimed to examine the efficacy and adverse events of different antipsychotics in treatment-resistant schizophrenia by performing a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group register for randomized-controlled trials (up to March 06, 2022) and MEDLINE (up to January 20, 2023). We included blinded and open studies and participants with a broad definition of treatment resistance. The primary outcome was overall symptoms of schizophrenia; secondary outcomes were response to treatment, positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, discontinuation, side effects, quality of life, and functioning. The study was registered in Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/9nf2y/ ).

RESULTS

We included 60 studies involving 6838 participants in the network meta-analysis. In the primary outcome, clozapine and olanzapine were more efficacious than risperidone, haloperidol, fluphenazine, sertindole, chlorpromazine, and quetiapine (range of mean SMDs, - 0.11 to - 0.48). The difference between clozapine and olanzapine was trivial and uncertain (SMD - 0.05, 95% CI, - 0.21 to 0.11). The result of other efficacy outcomes as well as subgroup and sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analysis. Clozapine and olanzapine were associated with more weight gain, and clozapine was associated with more sedation events compared to many other antipsychotics.

CONCLUSIONS

Clozapine remains the gold standard for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Olanzapine seems to be second-best and could be tried before switching to clozapine.

Efficacy, acceptability and side-effects of oral versus long-acting- injectables antipsychotics: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

Long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) are primarily used for relapse prevention, but in some settings and situations, they may also be useful for acute treatment of schizophrenia. We conducted a systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), focusing on adult patients in the acute phase of schizophrenia. Interventions were risperidone, paliperidone, aripiprazole, olanzapine, and placebo, administered either orally or as LAI. We synthesized data on overall symptoms, complemented by 17 other efficacy and tolerability outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed with the Confidence-in-Network-Meta-Analysis-framework (CINeMA). We included 115 RCTs with 25,550 participants. All drugs were significantly more efficacious than placebo with the following standardized mean differences and their 95 % confidence intervals: olanzapine LAI -0.66 [-1.00; -0.33], risperidone LAI -0.59[-0.73;-0.46], olanzapine oral -0.55[-0.62;-0.48], aripiprazole LAI -0.54[-0.71; -0.37], risperidone oral -0.48[-0.55;-0.41], paliperidone oral -0.47[-0.58;-0.37], paliperidone LAI -0.45[-0.57;-0.33], aripiprazole oral -0.40[-0.50; -0.31]. There were no significant efficacy differences between LAIs and oral formulations. Sensitivity analyses of the primary outcome overall symptoms largely confirmed these findings. Moreover, some side effects were less frequent under LAIs than under their oral counterparts. Confidence in the evidence was moderate for most comparisons. LAIs are efficacious for acute schizophrenia and may have some benefits compared to oral formulations in terms of side effects. These findings assist clinicians with insights to weigh the risks and benefits between oral and injectable agents when treating patients in the acute phase.

Cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis: The end of the line or time for a new approach?

PURPOSE

Following its introduction in the early 1990s, cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis (CBTp) has been evaluated in a large number of clinical trials and is now established as a recommended treatment in the UK National Health Service and elsewhere in the world. Meta-analyses, however, indicate modest effects compared to treatment as usual or comparison therapies such as supportive counselling. Here, we seek to identify factors impacting the effectiveness of CBTp, and avenues for future psychotherapy research that may improve outcomes.

METHOD

We outline two recent umbrella reviews and discuss factors likely to impact the effectiveness of CBTp.

RESULTS

Modest effect sizes from meta-analyses mask heterogeneous outcomes, with some people benefiting and others possibly being harmed by therapy. Common factors such as the therapeutic alliance play an important role in determining outcomes but have been largely neglected by CBTp researchers. There is also the promise of improving outcomes by identifying and targeting the psychological mechanisms that either maintain psychotic symptoms (e.g. worry) or are causally implicated (e.g. trauma).

CONCLUSIONS

It is unlikely that everyone with psychosis will be equally responsive to the same therapeutic protocols. We need a new, personalised psychotherapy approach to CBTp research and practice, and can learn from research for anxiety and depression examining predictors of therapeutic response to inform treatment decisions. Precision psychological therapies informed by a combination of individual characteristics, common factors and a focus on specific mechanisms will require new research strategies and are likely to lead to improved outcomes for people with psychosis.

Are the results of open randomised controlled trials comparing antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia biased? Exploratory meta- and subgroup analysis

A recent meta-epidemiological study did not reveal major differences between the results of blinded and open randomised-controlled trials (RCTs). Fewer patients may consent to double-blind RCTs than to open RCTs, compromising generalisability, making this question very important. However, the issue has not been addressed in schizophrenia. We used a database of randomised, acute-phase antipsychotic drug trials. Whenever at least one open and one blinded RCT was available for a comparison of two drugs, we contrasted the results by random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup tests. The primary outcome was overall symptoms as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, supplemented by seven secondary efficacy and side-effect outcomes. We also examined whether open RCTs were biased in favour of more recently introduced antipsychotics, less efficacious or more prone to side-effects antipsychotics, and pharmaceutical sponsors. 183 RCTs (155 blinded and 28 open) with 34715 participants comparing two active drugs were available. The results did not suggest general differences between open and blinded RCTs, which examined two active drugs. Only 12 out of 122 subgroup tests had a p-value below 0.1, four below 0.05, and if a Bonferroni correction for multiple tests had been applied, only one would have been significant. There were some exceptions which, however, did not always confirm the originally hypothesized direction of bias. Due to the relatively small number of open RCTs, our analysis is exploratory, but this fundamental question should be given more scientific attention. Currently, open RCTs should be excluded from meta-analyses, at least in sensitivity analyses.

Long-Acting Injectable Second-Generation Antipsychotics vs Placebo and Their Oral Formulations in Acute Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized-Controlled-Trials

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

Long-acting injectable antipsychotic drugs (LAIs) are mainly used for relapse prevention but could also be advantageous for acutely ill patients with schizophrenia.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled-trials (RCTs) comparing the second-generation long-acting injectable antipsychotics (SGA-LAIs) olanzapine, risperidone, paliperidone, and aripiprazole with placebo or their oral counterparts in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia. We analyzed 23 efficacy and tolerability outcomes, with the primary outcome being overall symptoms of schizophrenia. The results were obtained through random effects, pairwise meta-analyses, and subgroup tests. The study quality was assessed using the Cochrane-Risk-of-Bias-Tool version-1.

STUDY RESULTS

Sixty-six studies with 16 457 participants were included in the analysis. Eleven studies compared second-generation long-acting injectable antipsychotics (SGA-LAIs) with a placebo, 54 compared second-generation oral antipsychotics (SGA-orals) with a placebo, and one compared an SGA-LAI (aripiprazole) with its oral formulation. All 4 SGA-LAIs reduced overall symptoms more than placebo, with mean standardized differences of -0.66 (95% CI: -0.90; -0.43) for olanzapine, -0.64 (-0.80; -0.48) for aripiprazole, -0.62 (-0.76; -0.48) for risperidone and -0.42 (-0.53; -0.31) for paliperidone. The side-effect profiles of the LAIs corresponded to the patterns known from the oral formulations. In subgroup tests compared to placebo, some side effects were less pronounced under LAIs than under their oral formulations.

CONCLUSIONS

SGA-LAIs effectively treat acute schizophrenia. Some side effects may be less frequent than under oral drugs, but due to the indirect nature of the comparisons, this finding must be confirmed by RCTs comparing LAIs and orals head-to-head.

Adjunctive agents to antipsychotics in schizophrenia: a systematic umbrella review and recommendations for amino acids, hormonal therapies and anti-inflammatory drugs

QUESTION

This umbrella review and guidelines aimed to provide evidence to support the rational choice of selected adjunctive therapies for schizophrenia.

STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP)-grading recommendations, 63 randomised control trials (RCTs) (of which 4219 unique participants have completed the RCTs) and 29 meta-analyses were analysed.

FINDINGS

Provisional recommendations (WFSBP-grade 1) could be made for two molecules in augmentation to antipsychotics: (1) N-acetyl-cysteine (NAC, 1200-3600 mg/day, for >12 consecutive weeks) in improving negative symptoms, general psychopathology (positive and negative syndrome scale for schizophrenia (PANSS) general psychopathology factor (G)-G subscale), with the RCTs with the longer duration showing the most robust findings; (2) polyunsaturated fatty acids (3000 mg/day of eicosapentaenoic acid, for >12 weeks) in improving general psychopathology. Weaker recommendations (ie, WFSBP-grade 2) could be drawn for sarcosine (2 g/day) and minocycline (200-300 mg/day) for improving negative symptoms in chronic schizophrenia (not early schizophrenia), and NAC for improving positive symptoms and cognition. Weak recommendations are not ready for clinical practice. There is provisional evidence that oestrogens and raloxifene are effective in some patients, but further research is needed to determine their benefit/risk ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this umbrella review should be interpreted with caution as the number of RCTs included in the meta-analyses was generally small and the effect sizes were weak or medium. For NAC, two RCTs with low risk of bias have provided conflicting results and the WFSBP-grade recommendation included also the results of meta-analyses. These drugs could be provisionally prescribed for patients for whom no other treatments have been effective, but they should be discontinued if they prove ineffective.

Second-generation antipsychotics and seizures - a systematic review and meta-analysis of serious adverse events in randomized controlled trials

Seizures are suspected to be side effects of antipsychotics. To examine a possible causal relationship, we compared the risk of seizures on second-generation antipsychotics to the risk on placebo in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) across diagnostic groups. The primary outcome was any seizure reported as International Conference on Harmonisation-Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP)-defined serious adverse event (SAEs). The risk ratio (RR) with antipsychotics versus placebo was synthesized in a pairwise common effects Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis. For 314 of 597 idenitified placebo-controlled RCTs information about all SAEs could be retrieved from publications, original investigators, pharmaceutical companies and the European Medical Agency. In those, 37 seizures occurred in 42,600 participants on antipsychotics (0.09%) and 28 in 25,042 participants on placebo (0.11%). The meta-analytic results (RR 0,68; 95% Confidence Interval 0.41-1.12) indicated a reduced risk on antipsychotics with a confidence interval including no difference (i.e. RR=1). Neither in sensitivity analyses (excluding events in the safety-follow-up of trials or first-generation antipsychotics; using odds ratios) nor in subgroup analyses (on specific antipsychotics, drug combinations, diagnostic categories, age groups, and study duration) there was evidence for an increased risk on antipsychotics, except for some weak indications of an increased risk on antipsychotics in older and/or demented participants (RRs 1.11 and 1.48, respectively, but with 95% CIs of 0.35-3.49 and 0.41-5.26 including no difference and subgroup tests with p=0.54 and p=0.66 not indicating differences between age groups or diagnostic categories). Consequently, there are no indications that second-generation antipsychotics cause seizures in middle-aged adults and children in most diagnostic groups; rather our results provide some weak evidence for a protective effect. However, there was no data on SAEs available for clozapine, for which observational studies provide the strongest associations with increased seizure rates, and for older and/or demented patients a small additional risk on antipsychotics cannot be excluded.

Assessment of redundant randomized clinical trials among patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Redundant clinical trials waste resources and unnecessarily put patients at risk for harm. The objectives of the study were to assess redundant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in mainland China or the USA among patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and estimate the harm to patients enrolled in redundant RCTs.

METHODS

We searched bibliographic databases for eligible RCTs comparing a routine therapy with a placebo or no treatment among patients with STEMI in mainland China or the United States. The routine therapy for STEMI included reperfusion (percutaneous coronary intervention or fibrinolytic therapy), P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors, statins, and anticoagulants. Redundant RCTs were defined as those initiated or continued recruiting new patients 1 year after the experimental intervention was established as routine therapy in clinical practice guidelines. Cumulative meta-analyses were conducted to confirm the efficacy of these routine therapies. The primary outcome was the number of extra major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) attributable to the deprivation of routine therapies among patients in the control groups of redundant RCTs-that is, the number of extra MACEs that could have been prevented had these patients received routine therapy.

RESULTS

Nine hundred eighty-three eligible RCTs conducted in mainland China were identified, of which 775 (78.8%) were redundant. None of the five eligible RCTs conducted in the United States were redundant. All redundant RCTs have reiterated the benefits of routine therapies for patients with STEMI, while none were cited by the 2019 clinical practice guideline for the management of STEMI. The 18,819 patients in the control groups of redundant RCTs experienced 3305 (95% CI: 3169-3441) extra MACEs, including 1091 (1014-1165) deaths, 576 (519-633) recurrent myocardial infarctions, 31 (19-42) revascularizations, 39 (23-54) strokes, 744 (679-810) heart failures, and 823 (754-893) patients with recurrent or exacerbated angina pectoris. Cumulative meta-analyses confirmed the efficacy of the routine therapies among patients in mainland China and supported using practice guidelines to define redundant RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

Redundant RCTs conducted in mainland China have resulted in unnecessary MACEs among patients with STEMI. While the reasons behind redundant RCTs need to be further investigated, these results suggest potential research waste and violation of research ethics.

Efficacy of clozapine compared with other second-generation antipsychotic drugs in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia: protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines recommend clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. However, meta-analysis of aggregate data (AD) did not demonstrate higher efficacy of clozapine compared with other second-generation antipsychotics but found substantial heterogeneity between trials and variation between participants in treatment effects. Therefore, we will conduct an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to estimate the efficacy of clozapine compared with other second-generation antipsychotics while accounting for potentially important effect modifiers.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In a systematic review, two reviewers will independently search Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's trial register (without restrictions in date, language or state of publication) and related reviews. We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in participants with treatment-resistant schizophrenia comparing clozapine with other second-generation antipsychotics for at least 6 weeks. We will apply no restrictions in age, gender, origin, ethnicity or setting, but exclude open-label studies, studies from China, experimental studies and phase II of cross-over trials. IPD will be requested from trial authors and cross-check against published results. AD will be extracted in duplicate. Risk of bias will be assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 tool.The primary outcome will be overall symptoms of schizophrenia.We will synthesise results using random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression methods in a 3-level Bayesian model. The model combines IPD with AD when IPD is not available for all studies, and include participant, intervention and study design characteristics as potential effect modifiers. The effect size measures will be mean difference (or standardised mean difference when different scales were used). Confidence in the evidence will be assessed using GRADE.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This project has been approved by the ethics commission of the Technical University of Munich (#612/21 S-NP). The results will be published open-access in a peer-review journal and a plain-language version of the results will be disseminated.If we need to amend this protocol, we will describe the change and give the rationale in a specific section in the resulting publication 'Changes with respect to the protocol'.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (#CRD42021254986).

Metabolic side effects in persons with schizophrenia during mid- to long-term treatment with antipsychotics: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Metabolic side effects of antipsychotic drugs can have serious health consequences and may increase mortality. Although persons with schizophrenia often take these drugs for a long time, their mid- to long-term metabolic effects have been studied little so far. This study aimed to evaluate the mid- to long-term metabolic side effects of 31 antipsychotics in persons with schizophrenia by applying a random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (up to April 27, 2020) and PubMed (up to June 14, 2021). We included published and unpublished, open and blinded randomized controlled trials with a study duration >13 weeks which compared any antipsychotic in any form of administration with another antipsychotic or with placebo in participants diagnosed with schizophrenia. The primary outcome was weight gain measured in kilograms. Secondary outcomes included "number of participants with weight gain", fasting glucose, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides. We identified 137 eligible trials (with 35,007 participants) on 31 antipsychotics, with a median follow-up of 45 weeks. Chlorpromazine produced the most weight gain (mean difference to placebo: 5.13 kg, 95% credible interval, CrI: 1.98 to 8.30), followed by clozapine (4.21 kg, 95% CrI: 3.03 to 5.42), olanzapine (3.82 kg, 95% CrI: 3.15 to 4.50), and zotepine (3.87 kg, 95% CrI: 2.14 to 5.58). The findings did not substantially change in sensitivity and network meta-regression analyses, although enriched design, drug company sponsorship, and the use of observed case instead of intention-to-treat data modified the mean difference in weight gain to some extent. Antipsychotics with more weight gain were often also among the drugs with worse outcome in fasting glucose and lipid parameters. The confidence in the evidence ranged from low to moderate. In conclusion, antipsychotic drugs differ in their propensity to induce metabolic side effects in mid- to long-term treatment. Given that schizophrenia is often a chronic disorder, these findings should be given more consideration than short-term data in drug choice.

Efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions in schizophrenia: systematic overview and quality appraisal of the meta-analytic evidence

Psychosocial interventions are recommended in schizophrenia and first-episode psychosis/early psychosis (EP). Nevertheless, literature is heterogeneous and often contradictory. We conducted an umbrella review of (network) meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychosocial interventions vs treatment as usual (TAU)/active interventions(ACTIVE)/MIXED controls. Primary outcome was total symptoms (TS); secondary outcomes were positive/negative/depressive symptoms (PS/NS/DS), cognition, functioning, relapse, hospitalization, quality of life (QoL), treatment discontinuation. Standardized mean difference (SMD)/odds ratio (OR)/risk ratio (RR) vs TAU/ACTIVE/MIXED were summarized at end-of-treatment (EoT)/follow-up (FU). Quality was rated as high/medium/low (AMSTAR-PLUS). Eighty-three meta-analyses were included (RCTs = 1246; n = 84,925). Against TAU, regarding TS, Early Intervention Services (EIS) were superior EoT/FU in EP (SMD = -0.32/-0.21), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in schizophrenia EoT/FU (SMD = -0.38/-0.19). Regarding secondary outcomes, in EP, EIS were superior for all outcomes EoT except cognition, and at FU for PS/NS/QoL, specific family interventions (FI-s) prevented relapse EoT; in schizophrenia, superiority emerged EoT for CBT for PS/NS/relapse/functioning/QoL; psychoeducation (EDU)/any FI for relapse; cognitive remediation therapy (CRT) for cognition/functioning; and hallucination-focused integrative treatment for PS. Against ACTIVE, in EP, mixed family interventions (FI-m) were superior at FU regarding TS (SMD = -0.61) and for functioning/relapse among secondary outcomes. In schizophrenia, regarding TS, mindfulness and social skills training (SST) were superior EoT, CBT at FU; regarding secondary outcomes superiority emerged at EoT for computerized cognitive drill-and-practice training for PS/DS, CRT for cognition/functioning, EDU for relapse, individual placement and support (IPS) for employment; and at FU CBT for PS/NS. Against MIXED, in schizophrenia, CRT/EDU were superior for TS EoT (d = -0.14/SMD = -0.33), CRT regarding secondary outcomes EoT for DS/social functioning, both EoT/FU for NS/cognition/global functioning; compensatory cognitive interventions for PS/functioning EoT/FU and NS EoT; CBT for PS at FU, and EDU/SST for relapse EoT. In conclusion, mental health services should consider prioritizing EIS/any FI in EP and CBT/CRT/any FI/IPS for schizophrenia, but other interventions may be helpful for specific outcomes.

The response of subgroups of patients with schizophrenia to different antipsychotic drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As comparatively few trials in subgroups of patients with schizophrenia have been done, clinicians need to know whether they can rely on the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the general population of patients with schizophrenia. We aimed to compare the efficacy and side-effects of antipsychotic drugs in different subgroups.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register (from database inception to April 27, 2020), and PubMed (from April 1, 2020 to June 14, 2021). We excluded studies in patients with stable schizophrenia (ie, relapse prevention studies), studies with a high risk of bias, and studies from mainland China due to quality concerns concerning allocation and masking methods. We included single-blind RCTs or better that assessed one or more of 16 second-generation and 18 first-generation antipsychotics in the general population of patients with schizophrenia or in one or more of the subgroups: children and adolescents (age range as defined in the original studies), patients with a first episode, patients with predominant or prominent negative symptoms, patients with comorbid substance use, patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, or older patients (age range as defined in the original studies). Two authors independently screened the results of the search, retrieved full-text articles, and checked the inclusion criteria. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline, all parameters were extracted in duplicate. The primary outcome was change in overall symptoms. We compared drug efficacy between subgroups, by sex, schizoaffective disorder versus schizophrenia, and study origin using random-effects, inverse variance meta-analyses and random-effects subgroup tests, and meta-regression.

FINDINGS

We included 537 RCTs with 76 382 participants, 26 627 (34·9%) women, 49 755 (65·1%) men, mean age 37·3 years (range of means 7·9-80·2; ethnicity data not available). 412 RCTs included patients in the general population of patients with schizophrenia, 42 included patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, 25 included children and adolescents, 20 included patients with their first episode, 20 included patients with predominant or prominent negative symptoms, 13 included patients with comorbid substance use, and 11 included older patients. Of 507 random-effects subgroup tests done, 46 (9%) showed a significant difference (p<0·05) between subgroups, but there was no clear indication as to which drug should be used in which subgroup.

INTERPRETATION

The effects of antipsychotics in various patient subgroups were usually similar to those in the general population of patients with schizophrenia, but comparably few studies contributed to the subgroups, in particular in terms of side-effects. If the evidence for treatment in a given subgroup is small, guideline makers and clinicians should consider using the results in the much better studied group of the general population of patients with schizophrenia.

FUNDING

German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung; FKZ 01KG1508).

Oxycodone for cancer-related pain

BACKGROUND

Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all people, neither are they well tolerated by all people. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for adults with cancer pain. This is an updated Cochrane review previously published in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone by any route of administration for pain in adults with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), and PsycINFO (Ovid) to November 2021. We also searched four trial registries, checked the bibliographic references of relevant studies, and contacted the authors of the included studies. We applied no language, date, or publication status restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (parallel-group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults by examining pain intensity/relief, adverse events, quality of life, and participant preference.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently sifted the search, extracted data and assessed the included studies using standard Cochrane methodology. We meta-analysed pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, and pain relief and adverse events using the Mantel-Haenszel method, or summarised these data narratively along with the quality of life and participant preference data. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update, we identified 19 new studies (1836 participants) for inclusion. In total, we included 42 studies which enrolled/randomised 4485 participants, with 3945 of these analysed for efficacy and 4176 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons. Controlled-release (CR; typically taken every 12 hours) oxycodone versus immediate-release (IR; taken every 4-6 hours) oxycodone Pooled analysis of three of the four studies comparing CR oxycodone to IR oxycodone suggest that there is little to no difference between CR and IR oxycodone in pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.1 to 0.34; n = 319; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on adverse events, including constipation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.54), nausea (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28), and vomiting (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15) (very low-certainty evidence). There were no data available for quality of life or participant preference, however, three studies suggested that treatment acceptability may be similar between groups (low-certainty evidence). CR oxycodone versus CR morphine The majority of the 24 studies comparing CR oxycodone to CR morphine reported either pain intensity (continuous variable), pain relief (dichotomous variable), or both. Pooled analysis indicated that pain intensity may be lower (better) after treatment with CR morphine than CR oxycodone (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.27; n = 882 in 7 studies; low-certainty evidence). This SMD is equivalent to a difference of 0.27 points on the Brief Pain Inventory scale (0-10 numerical rating scale), which is not clinically significant. Pooled analyses also suggested that there may be little to no difference in the proportion of participants achieving complete or significant pain relief (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10; n = 1249 in 13 studies; low-certainty evidence). The RR for constipation (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86) may be lower after treatment with CR oxycodone than after CR morphine. Pooled analyses showed that, for most of the adverse events, the CIs were wide, including no effect as well as potential benefit and harm: drowsiness/somnolence (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05), nausea (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.12), and vomiting (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.04) (low or very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain about the treatment effects on treatment acceptability and participant preference. Other comparisons The remaining studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability. The certainty of this evidence base was limited by the high or unclear risk of bias of the studies and by imprecision due to low or very low event rates or participant numbers for many outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions have not changed since the previous version of this review (in 2017). We found low-certainty evidence that there may be little to no difference in pain intensity, pain relief and adverse events between oxycodone and other strong opioids including morphine, commonly considered the gold standard strong opioid. Although we identified a benefit for pain relief in favour of CR morphine over CR oxycodone, this was not clinically significant and did not persist following sensitivity analysis and so we do not consider this important. However, we found that constipation and hallucinations occurred less often with CR oxycodone than with CR morphine; but the certainty of this evidence was either very low or the finding did not persist following sensitivity analysis, so these findings should be treated with utmost caution. Our conclusions are consistent with other reviews and suggest that, while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis, it seems unlikely that larger head-to-head studies of oxycodone versus morphine are justified, although well-designed trials comparing oxycodone to other strong analgesics may well be useful. For clinical purposes, oxycodone or morphine can be used as first-line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain in adults.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 32 oral and long-acting injectable antipsychotics for the maintenance treatment of adults with schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a common, severe, and usually chronic disorder. Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs can prevent relapse but also causes side-effects. We aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of antipsychotics as maintenance treatment for non-treatment resistant patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched, without language restrictions, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's specialised register between database inception and April 27, 2020, PubMed from April 1, 2020, to Jan 15, 2021, and the lists of included studies from related systematic reviews. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs; ≥12 weeks of follow-up) that recruited adult participants with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder with stable symptoms who were treated with antipsychotics (monotherapy; oral or long-acting injectable) or placebo. We excluded RCTs of participants with specific comorbidities or treatment resistance. In duplicate, two authors independently selected eligible RCTs and extracted aggregate data. The primary outcome was the number of participants who relapsed and was analysed by random-effects, Bayesian network meta-analyses. The study was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42016049022.

FINDINGS

We identified 4157 references through our search, from which 501 references on 127 RCTs of 32 antipsychotics (comprising 18 152 participants) were included. 100 studies including 16 812 participants and 30 antipsychotics contributed to our network meta-analysis of the primary outcome. All antipsychotics had risk ratios (RRs) less than 1·00 when compared with placebo for relapse prevention and almost all had 95% credible intervals (CrIs) excluding no effect. RRs ranged from 0·20 (95% CrI 0·05-0·41) for paliperidone oral to 0·65 (0·16-1·14) for cariprazine oral (moderate-to-low confidence in estimates). Generally, we interpret that there was no clear evidence for the superiority of specific antipsychotics in terms of relapse prevention because most comparisons between antipsychotics included a probability of no difference.

INTERPRETATION

As we found no clear differences between antipsychotics for relapse prevention, we conclude that the choice of antipsychotic for maintenance treatment should be guided mainly by their tolerability.

FUNDING

The German Ministry of Education and Research and Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

Antipsychotic-Induced Weight Gain: Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Weight gain is among the most important side-effects of antipsychotics. It is, however, unclear whether it is associated with antipsychotic doses. We aimed to fill this gap with a dose-response meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched multiple electronic databases (last update search June 2021) for all fixed-dose studies that investigated 16 second-generation antipsychotics and haloperidol in adults with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia or with negative symptoms. We estimated the dose-response curves by conducting random-effects dose-response meta-analyses. We used the restricted cubic spline to model the dose-response relationship. The primary outcome was mean weight gain in kg from baseline to endpoint, the secondary outcome was the number of patients with clinically important weight gain.

FINDINGS

Ninety-seven studies with 333 dose arms (36 326 participants) provided data for meta-analyses. Most studies were short-term with median duration of 6 weeks (range 4 to 26 weeks). In patients with acute exacerbation, amisulpride, aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, haloperidol, lumateperone, and lurasidone produced mild weight gain in comparison to placebo (mean difference at any dose≤1 kg), while more significant weight gain was observed by all other drugs. For most drugs, dose-response curves showed an initial dose-related increase in weight which plateaued at higher doses, while for others there was no plateau and some even had bell-shaped curves, meaning less weight gain to be associated with higher doses.

INTERPRETATION

Second-generation antipsychotics do not only differ in their propensity to produce weight gain, but also in the shapes of their dose-response curves. This information is important for dosing decisions in clinical practice.

Examination of Dosing of Antipsychotic Drugs for Relapse Prevention in Patients With Stable Schizophrenia: A Meta-analysis

Importance

The doses of antipsychotic drugs needed for relapse prevention in schizophrenia is a debated issue.

Objective

To examine dose-response findings in a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Data Sources

Studies were identified through the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (March 9, 2020), PubMed (January 1, 2021), and previous reviews. First authors and/or pharmaceutical companies were contacted for additional information.

Study Selection

Two reviewers independently selected randomized clinical trials that compared fixed doses of a second-generation antipsychotic, haloperidol, or fluphenazine for relapse prevention in patients with stable schizophrenia.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline, all parameters in duplicate were extracted and frequentist dose-response random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Study-defined relapse (primary outcome), rehospitalization, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total score reduction from baseline, all-cause discontinuation, and dropouts due to adverse events.

Results

Evidence from 72 dose arms from 26 studies with 4776 participants was analyzed. The efficacy-related dose-response curves had a hyperbolic shape meaning that the probability to relapse decreased rapidly with doses of up to 5-mg/d risperidone equivalent (relative relapse risk, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31-0.57; standardized mean difference for Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score reduction, -0.55; 95% CI, -0.68 to -0.41), but flattened thereafter. In contrast, dropouts due to adverse events continued to increase beyond this dose (relative risk at 5 mg/d, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.87-2.55; relative risk at 15 mg/d, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.49-4.62). In a subgroup analysis of patients in remission, a plateau was reached earlier, at approximately 2.5-mg/d risperidone equivalent.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that doses higher than approximately 5-mg/d risperidone equivalent may provide limited additional benefit for relapse prevention but more adverse events. For patients in remission or who are receiving high-potency first-generation antipsychotics, doses as low as 2.5-mg/d risperidone equivalent may be sufficient. However, caution is needed at this low dose end when further decreases of dose may be accompanied by a disproportionally higher relapse risk. Moreover, the observations are averages, and factors such as slow or rapid metabolism, age, illness stage, comorbidities, and drug-drug interactions suggest that individual patients will often need higher or lower doses.

Examining Side Effect Variability of Antipsychotic Treatment in Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders: A Meta-analysis of Variance

Side effects of antipsychotic drugs play a key role in nonadherence of treatment in schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD). While clinical observations suggest that side effect variability between patients may be considerable, statistical evidence is required to confirm this. Here, we hypothesized to find larger side effect variability under treatment compared with control. We included double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with a diagnosis of SSD treated with 1 out of 14 antipsychotics. Standard deviations of the pre-post treatment differences of weight gain, prolactin levels, and corrected QT (QTc) times were extracted. The outcome measure was the variability ratio of treatment to control for individual antipsychotic drugs and the overall variability ratio of treatment to control across RCTs. Individual variability ratios were weighted by the inverse-variance method and entered into a random-effects model. We included N = 16 578 patients for weight gain, N = 16 633 patients for prolactin levels, and N = 10 384 patients for QTc time. Variability ratios (VR) were significantly increased for weight gain (VR = 1.08; 95% CI: 1.02-1.14; P = .004) and prolactin levels (VR = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.17-1.62; P < .001) but did not reach significance for QTc time (VR = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.98-1.12; P = 0.135). We found marked differences between individual antipsychotics and increased variability in side effects in patients under treatment with antipsychotics suggesting that subgroups of patients or individual patients may benefit from treatment allocation through stratified or personalized medicine.

Metabolic side effects of antipsychotic drugs in individuals with schizophrenia during medium- to long-term treatment: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs and especially the newer compounds are known to cause metabolic side effects. However, a comprehensive comparison of the different substances regarding their propensity to cause metabolic side effects in medium- to long-term treatment of schizophrenia is lacking.

METHODS

We will conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which participants received either placebo or an antipsychotic (i.e. placebo-controlled trials and head-to-head comparisons of drugs). We will include studies in individuals with schizophrenia or related disorders (such as schizophreniform or schizoaffective disorders) at any stage of the disease (acute episode; maintenance phase). We will include studies with a duration of more than 3 months (medium- to long-term treatment). The primary outcome will be the change in body weight. Secondary outcomes will be the further metabolic parameters: fastening glucose, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and triglycerides. We will search for eligible studies (independent of the publication status) in Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is compiled by regular searches in trial registries and multiple electronic databases from their inception onwards including MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Additionally, we will search previously published systematic reviews and websites of pharmaceutical companies for eligible studies. At least two reviewers will independently conduct the process of study selection and data extraction. We will use the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool to evaluate the risk of bias in studies. We will conduct random-effects NMA within a Bayesian framework to synthesize all evidence for each outcome. We will conduct sensitivity and subgroup analyses to assess the robustness of the findings and to explore heterogeneity. The confidence in the results will be evaluated using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review and network meta-analysis will provide a synthesis of the existing evidence from RCTs how antipsychotic drugs differ in terms of metabolic side effects during medium- to long-term treatment. The findings have the potential to influence the choice of antipsychotic medication made by individuals with schizophrenia and their physicians.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020175414.

Psychiatric disorders in China: strengths and challenges of contemporary research and clinical services

China accounts for 17% of the global disease burden attributable to mental, neurological and substance use disorders. As a country undergoing profound societal change, China faces growing challenges to reduce the disease burden caused by psychiatric disorders. In this review, we aim to present an overview of progress in neuroscience research and clinical services for psychiatric disorders in China during the past three decades, analysing contributing factors and potential challenges to the field development. We first review studies in the epidemiological, genetic and neuroimaging fields as examples to illustrate a growing contribution of studies from China to the neuroscience research. Next, we introduce large-scale, open-access imaging genetic cohorts and recently initiated brain banks in China as platforms to study healthy brain functions and brain disorders. Then, we show progress in clinical services, including an integration of hospital and community-based healthcare systems and early intervention schemes. We finally discuss opportunities and existing challenges: achievements in research and clinical services are indispensable to the growing funding investment and continued engagement in international collaborations. The unique aspect of traditional Chinese medicine may provide insights to develop a novel treatment for psychiatric disorders. Yet obstacles still remain to promote research quality and to provide ubiquitous clinical services to vulnerable populations. Taken together, we expect to see a sustained advancement in psychiatric research and healthcare system in China. These achievements will contribute to the global efforts to realize good physical, mental and social well-being for all individuals.

Short-acting intramuscular second-generation antipsychotic drugs for acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psychomotor agitation is a common condition in patients with psychotic disorders. One treatment possibility is intramuscular (IM) second-generation antipsychotics. Yet their efficacy in this formulation and for this aim is unclear. This network meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of short-acting IM second-generation antipsychotic drugs, haloperidol and placebo in patients with diagnosis of schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like disorders that present acute agitation.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, PubMed, BIOSIS, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP up to November 2018 and PubMed until March 2020. Study selection and outcome extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted to compare the different IM second-generation antipsychotics among themselves and with IM haloperidol and placebo. The primary outcome was the number of responders at 2 h after the first injection. Responders at 24 h were also analysed.

RESULTS

10 studies with 1964 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Ziprasidone, olanzapine, aripiprazole and haloperidol were more efficacious than placebo in calming patients at 2 h after administration. Furthermore, olanzapine was superior to aripiprazole. The results at 24 h confirmed the superiority of aripiprazole, olanzapine and haloperidol over placebo, while for ziprasidone no data were available.

CONCLUSIONS

All second-generation antipsychotics available as intramuscular medications were effective in reducing agitation in people with schizophrenia. Olanzapine was somewhat more efficacious than aripiprazole.

Characteristics and definitions of ultra-treatment-resistant schizophrenia - A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to characterize ultra-treatment-resistant Schizophrenia also known as clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (CRS) patients across clozapine combination and augmentation trials through demographic and clinical baseline data. Furthermore, we investigated the variability and consistency in CRS definitions between studies.

METHODS

Systematic searches of articles indexed in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and PsycINFO were conducted in March 2020. 1541 randomized and non-randomized clinical trials investigating pharmacological and non-pharmacological clozapine add-on strategies were screened and a total of 71 studies were included. The primary outcome was the overall symptom score at baseline, measured with Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total scores.

RESULTS

Data from 2731 patients were extracted. Patients were overall moderately ill with a mean PANSS total score at baseline of 79.16 (±7.52), a mean duration of illness of 14.64 (±4.14) years with a mean clozapine dose of 436.94 (±87.47) mg/day. Illness severity data were relatively homogenous among patients independently of the augmentation strategy involved, although stark geographical differences were found. Overall, studies showed a large heterogeneity of CRS definitions and insufficient guidelines implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

This first meta-analysis characterizing CRS patients and comparing CRS definitions revealed a lack of consistent implementation of a CRS definition from guidelines into clinical trials, compromising the replicability of the results and their applicability in clinical practice. We offer a new score modeled on a best practice definition to help future trials increase their reliability.

Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of 32 Oral Antipsychotics for the Acute Treatment of Adults With Multi-Episode Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

(Reprinted with permission from the Lancet 2019; 394: 939-51).

How well do elderly patients with major depressive disorder respond to antidepressants: a systematic review and single-group meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Depression is one of the leading causes of the global burden of disease, and it has particularly negative consequences for elderly patients. Antidepressants are the most frequently used treatment. We present the first single-group meta-analysis examining: 1) the response rates of elderly patients to antidepressants, and 2) the determinants of antidepressants response in this population.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases for randomized controlled trials on antidepressants in the elderly with major depressive disorder above 65 years (last search: December 2017). Response was defined as 50% improvement on validated rating scales. We extracted response rates from studies and imputed the missing ones with a validated method. Data were pooled in a single-group meta-analysis. Additionally, several potential moderators of response to antidepressants were examined by subgroup and meta-regression analyses.

RESULTS

We included 44 studies with a total of 6373 participants receiving antidepressants. On average, 50.7% of the patients reached a reduction of at least 50% on the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses revealed a better response to treatment for patients in antidepressant-controlled trials compared to placebo-controlled trials. Mean age, study duration, percentage of woman, severity of illness at baseline, dose of antidepressants in fluoxetine equivalents, year of publication, setting (in- or out-patients), antidepressant groups (SSRI, TCA, SSNRI, α2-antagonist, SNRI, MAO-inhibitor), ITT (intention-to-treat) analysis vs completer analysis, sponsorship and overall risk of bias were not significant moderators of response.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest an improvement in symptoms can be found in about 50% of the elderly with major depressive disorder treated with antidepressants.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 32 oral antipsychotics for the acute treatment of adults with multi-episode schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders in adults worldwide. Antipsychotic drugs are its treatment of choice, but there is controversy about which agent should be used. We aimed to compare and rank antipsychotics by quantifying information from randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

We did a network meta-analysis of placebo-controlled and head-to-head randomised controlled trials and compared 32 antipsychotics. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, BIOSIS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to Jan 8, 2019. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We included randomised controlled trials in adults with acute symptoms of schizophrenia or related disorders. We excluded studies in patients with treatment resistance, first episode, predominant negative or depressive symptoms, concomitant medical illnesses, and relapse-prevention studies. Our primary outcome was change in overall symptoms measured with standardised rating scales. We also extracted data for eight efficacy and eight safety outcomes. Differences in the findings of the studies were explored in metaregressions and sensitivity analyses. Effect size measures were standardised mean differences, mean differences, or risk ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014014919.

FINDINGS

We identified 54 417 citations and included 402 studies with data for 53 463 participants. Effect size estimates suggested all antipsychotics reduced overall symptoms more than placebo (although not statistically significant for six drugs), with standardised mean differences ranging from -0·89 (95% CrI -1·08 to -0·71) for clozapine to -0·03 (-0·59 to 0·52) for levomepromazine (40 815 participants). Standardised mean differences compared with placebo for reduction of positive symptoms (31 179 participants) varied from -0·69 (95% CrI -0·86 to -0·52) for amisulpride to -0·17 (-0·31 to -0·04) for brexpiprazole, for negative symptoms (32 015 participants) from -0·62 (-0·84 to -0·39; clozapine) to -0·10 (-0·45 to 0·25; flupentixol), for depressive symptoms (19 683 participants) from -0·90 (-1·36 to -0·44; sulpiride) to 0·04 (-0·39 to 0·47; flupentixol). Risk ratios compared with placebo for all-cause discontinuation (42 672 participants) ranged from 0·52 (0·12 to 0·95; clopenthixol) to 1·15 (0·36 to 1·47; pimozide), for sedation (30 770 participants) from 0·92 (0·17 to 2·03; pimozide) to 10·20 (4·72 to 29·41; zuclopenthixol), for use of antiparkinson medication (24 911 participants) from 0·46 (0·19 to 0·88; clozapine) to 6·14 (4·81 to 6·55; pimozide). Mean differences compared to placebo for weight gain (28 317 participants) ranged from -0·16 kg (-0·73 to 0·40; ziprasidone) to 3·21 kg (2·10 to 4·31; zotepine), for prolactin elevation (21 569 participants) from -77·05 ng/mL (-120·23 to -33·54; clozapine) to 48·51 ng/mL (43·52 to 53·51; paliperidone) and for QTc prolongation (15 467 participants) from -2·21 ms (-4·54 to 0·15; lurasidone) to 23·90 ms (20·56 to 27·33; sertindole). Conclusions for the primary outcome did not substantially change after adjusting for possible effect moderators or in sensitivity analyses (eg, when excluding placebo-controlled studies). The confidence in evidence was often low or very low.

INTERPRETATION

There are some efficacy differences between antipsychotics, but most of them are gradual rather than discrete. Differences in side-effects are more marked. These findings will aid clinicians in balancing risks versus benefits of those drugs available in their countries. They should consider the importance of each outcome, the patients' medical problems, and preferences.

FUNDING

German Ministry of Education and Research and National Institute for Health Research.

Second-generation antipsychotic drugs and short-term somatic serious adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs might cause acutely occurring, serious side-effects and thus contribute to the increased physical morbidity and mortality observed in patients with severe mental health disorders. We examined this hypothesis by doing a meta-analysis of International Conference on Harmonisation-Good Clinical Practice-defined serious adverse events occurring in placebo-controlled trials of antipsychotics.

METHODS

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing second-generation antipsychotics with placebo. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for trials published in any language from database inception up until Jan 27, 2017. Trials were included without limitations in population (diagnostic category, age, sex, ethnicity), dosing regimen, blinding status, duration, or publication year. Only psychological studies lasting less than 1 day and trials done in mainland China were excluded. We contacted pharmaceutical companies, drug regulatory authorities, and study investigators for additional data. The primary outcome was the number of patients with at least one somatic serious adverse event. We estimated minimum and maximum numbers of patients with the outcome in each study group and synthesised the results with odds ratios (ORs) in a common-effects meta-analysis. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016033930.

FINDINGS

We identified 597 RCTs, comprising 108 664 participants, that met the inclusion criteria. 314 trials (67 642 participants) with details on individual serious adverse events available constituted the main dataset for meta-analysis. 88% of these were 13 weeks (approximately 3 months) or shorter in duration (median 6 weeks, IQR 4-9). At least one somatic serious adverse event occurred in 698 (1·63%) to 862 (2·02%) of 42 600 patients on antipsychotics, and in 343 (1·37%) to 419 (1·67%) of 25 042 patients on placebo. The odds ratios (ORs) were 1·24 (95% CI 1·08-1·42) and 1·24 (1·10-1·41) based on the minimum and maximum estimate, respectively. In predefined subgroup analyses we found evidence suggesting a larger effect in older patients (>65 years; OR 1·56, 95% CI 1·22-1·98; 1·58, 1·25-1·99) as compared with adults (18-65 years; 1·09, 0·91-1·29; 1·10, 0·95-1·28); likewise in children or adolescents (<18 years) although the evidence was more uncertain (1·49, 0·81-2·75; 1·54, 0·85-2·77). Of 597 included RCTs, 30 (5%), 358 (60%), and 209 (35%) were rated at high, moderate, or low risk of bias, respectively. τ² was zero for both analyses of the primary outcome (minimum estimate, maximum estimate). A Bayesian sensitivity analysis using external information on heterogeneity gave similar results.

INTERPRETATION

We found evidence that antipsychotics cause short-term somatic serious adverse events on top of somatic serious adverse events occurring independent of treatment. This effect appears to be mainly driven by results in older patients. Hence, clinicians should be aware that antipsychotics are potentially toxic, particularly when treating patients sharing risk factors with the older population.

FUNDING

German Ministry of Education and Research.

Traditional Chinese medicine for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: Protocol for a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a universal chronic nonspecific intestinal inflammatory disease of unknown etiology. Although 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) is used as a first-line treatment for mild-to-moderate UC, some patients do not react well to it. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) plays a complementary role in the management of UC. A large number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that TCM has a significant effect in the treatment of mild-to-moderate UC. However, due to the diversity of TCM treatments, its relative effectiveness and safety remains unclear. Therefore, we aim to compare the effectiveness and safety of TCM for mild-to-moderate UC by implementing a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) and provide a reference for clinical treatment.

METHODS

According to the Cochrane Handbook, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CHKD-CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Literature database (CBM), and WANFANG database will be searched. Related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared one TCM intervention with another or with 5-ASA (placebo) for mild-to-moderate UC from inceptions to February 2019 will be included. Two authors will screen the literature and extract data independently based on predesigned rules, and evaluate the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Both classical pair-wise meta-analysis and Bayesian NMA will be conducted using R-3.4.4 and WinBUGS-1.4.3 software. The ranking probabilities for all interventions will be estimated and the hierarchy of each intervention will be summarized as surface under the cumulative ranking curve. The consistency within network will be evaluated with Cochrane Q statistic and net-heat plot. The quality of evidence will be assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

The study results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal publication or conference presentation.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings will provide a systematic evidence-based medical evidence of TCM interventions in the treatment of UC and help clinical practitioners, UC patients, and policy-makers make more informed choices in the decision-making.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval and informed consent are not required since this is a protocol for a network meta-analysis based on published studies. The findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal publication or conference presentation.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019133962.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants in the long-term treatment of major depression: protocol for a systematic review and networkmeta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacotherapy plays an important role in the treatment of major depression. At the initiation of antidepressant treatment, both improvement of symptoms in the short term and relapse prevention in the long term should be taken into account. However, there is insufficient evidence regarding the efficacy and the acceptability of continuation/maintenance treatments and the relative efficacy/acceptability of antidepressants.

OBJECTIVE

We will conduct a pairwise meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) to examine the relative efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants in the long-term treatment of major depression.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will include double-blind randomised controlled trials comparing any of the following antidepressants, which we included in our previous NMA of the acute treatment for major depression, with placebo or with another active drug for long-term treatment of major depression: agomelatine, amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, clomipramine, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, venlafaxine, vilazodone and vortioxetine. Our primary outcomes will be sustained response and all-cause dropouts. We will include four types of designs that are used to investigate long-term treatment. We will conduct two main analyses. First, we will conduct a pairwise meta-analysis comparing all antidepressants versus placebo to investigate whether continuing antidepressants after achieving a positive response in the acute-phase treatment is beneficial and/or safe. Second, we will conduct an NMA to examine the comparative efficacy and acceptability of the drugs. We will use a novel approach that will combine the results of acute-phase treatment NMA with long-term treatment studies to include all related designs in the NMA. We will ensure the validity of combining different designs and our new approach by checking the distribution of important effect modifiers and consistency of network.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study did not require ethical approval. We will disseminate our findings by publishing results in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018114561; Pre-results.