Amisulpride versus olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenia in Indian patients: randomized controlled trial

Adverse effects of antipsychotics on sleep in patients with schizophrenia. Systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse effects on sleep in patients with schizophrenia receiving antipsychotic treatment.

Methods

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Central, Embase, Toxline, Ebsco, Virtual Health Library, Web of Science, SpringerLink, and in Database of abstracts of Reviews of Effects of Randomized Clinical Trials to identify eligible studies published from January 1990 to October 2021. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using the CONSORT list, and the Cochrane bias tool. Network meta-analysis was performed using the Bayesian random-effects model, with multivariate meta-regression to assess the association of interest.

Results

87 randomized clinical trials were identified that met the inclusion criteria, and 70 articles were included in the network meta-analysis. Regarding the methodological quality of the studies, 47 had a low or moderate bias risk. The most common adverse effects on sleep reported in the studies were insomnia, somnolence, and sedation. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that ziprasidone was associated with an increased risk of insomnia (OR, 1.56; 95% credible interval CrI, 1.18-2.06). Several of the included antipsychotics were associated with a significantly increased risk of somnolence; haloperidol (OR, 1.90; 95% CrI, 1.12-3.22), lurasidone (OR, 2.25; 95% CrI, 1.28-3.97) and ziprasidone (OR, 1.79; 95% CrI, 1.06-3.02) had the narrowest confidence intervals. In addition, perphenazine (OR, 5.33; 95% CrI, 1.92-14.83), haloperidol (OR, 2.61; 95% CrI, 1.14-5.99), and risperidone (OR, 2.41; 95% CrI, 1.21-4.80) were associated with an increased risk of sedation compared with placebo, and other antipsychotics did not differ. According to the SUCRAs for insomnia, chlorpromazine was ranked as the lowest risk of insomnia (57%), followed by clozapine (20%), while flupentixol (26 %) and perospirone (22.5%) were associated with a lower risk of somnolence. On the other hand, amisulpride (89.9%) was the safest option to reduce the risk of sedation.

Discussion

Insomnia, sedation, and somnolence were the most frequent adverse effects on sleep among the different antipsychotics administered. The evidence shows that chlorpromazine, clozapine, flupentixol, perospirone, and amisulpride had favorable safety profiles. In contrast, ziprasidone, perphenazine, haloperidol, and risperidone were the least safe for sleep.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017078052, identifier: PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017078052.

Comparative efficacy and safety between amisulpride and olanzapine in schizophrenia treatment and a cost analysis in China: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and cost-minimization analysis

BACKGROUND

Amisulpride was introduced into China in 2010 as a second-generation atypical antipsychotic, while olanzapine has been on the market since 1999 as one of the leading treatments for schizophrenia in China. Since more Chinese patients are gaining access to amisulpride, the study aims to compare the efficacy, safety, and costs between amisulpride and olanzapine for schizophrenia treatment in China.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and WanFang database were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to July 2018. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was utilized to assess the quality of included studies. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of amisulpride and olanzapine, followed by a cost-minimization analysis using local drug and medical costs reported in China.

RESULTS

Twenty RCTs with 2000 patients were included in the systematic review. There were no significant differences between amisulpride and olanzapine on efficacy measures based on scores from the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity or Improvement. For safety outcomes, amisulpride was associated with lower fasting blood glucose and less abnormal liver functions as well as significantly lower risks of weight gain, constipation, and somnolence; olanzapine was associated with significantly lower risks of insomnia and lactation/amenorrhea/sexual hormone disorder. No significant differences were found in risks of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), tremor, akathisia, abnormal corrected QT interval. Cost-minimization analysis showed that amisulpride was likely to be a cost-saving alternative in China, with potential savings of 1358 Chinese Yuan (CNY) per patient for a three-month schizophrenia treatment compared with olanzapine.

CONCLUSION

As the first meta-analysis and cost-minimization analysis comparing the efficacy, safety and cost of amisulpride and olanzapine within a Chinese setting, the study suggests that amisulpride may be an effective, well-tolerated, and cost-saving antipsychotic drug alternative in China.

Prescribing Practice in Inpatients Versus Outpatients With Schizophrenia Initiating Treatment With Second-Generation Antipsychotics: A Naturalistic Follow-Up Study

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to investigate whether the choice and dosage of antipsychotic medication differ between patients with schizophrenia starting treatment in an inpatient or outpatient unit. In addition, we investigated whether the reason for the introduction of new antipsychotic medication had an impact on the treatment setting and whether the use of benzodiazepines differed between inpatients and outpatients.

METHOD

From October 1997 to September 2010, patients with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder according to the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision aged between 18 and 65 years were allocated to a naturalistic drug-monitoring program when starting treatment with a second-generation antipsychotic drug. Psychopathological symptoms were rated at baseline and after 1, 2, 4, and 8 weeks of treatment using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. Inpatients and outpatients were compared with regard to the use of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines. To compare different drugs, chlorpromazine and diazepam equivalents were calculated.

RESULTS

Lack of efficacy and side effects were the main reasons for initiating new antipsychotic medication. Combined evaluation of all antipsychotic compounds by meta-analysis resulted in a significant effect of the treatment setting, with inpatients receiving higher doses than outpatients. In addition, inpatients were prescribed benzodiazepines more often and in higher doses than outpatients.

CONCLUSIONS

Both antipsychotics and benzodiazepines were prescribed at higher doses in an inpatient setting. Moreover, benzodiazepines were prescribed more frequently to inpatients. Accordingly, the treatment setting needs to be taken into consideration in treatment recommendations for schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

Systematic Literature Review of the Methods Used to Compare Newer Second-Generation Agents for the Management of Schizophrenia: A focus on Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

The challenges of comparative effectiveness to support health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are important considerations in the choices of antipsychotic medications for the treatment of schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to assess the study methods used and outcomes reported in the published literature to address the question of comparative effectiveness of newer antipsychotic agents and the adequacy and availability of evidence to support HTA agencies.

DATA SOURCE

A systematic search of the PubMed database from 1 January 2009 to 30 September 2013 was conducted to identify studies evaluating new atypical antipsychotics reporting on comparative effectiveness.

STUDY SELECTION

The systematic review comprised of studies on schizophrenia patients where at least two drugs were being compared and at least one treatment group received one of the following second-generation antipsychotics: risperidone, olanzapine, aripiprazole, paliperidone, asenapine, iloperidone, lurasidone, and quetiapine. The included studies were also required to have an efficacy, safety or economic outcome, such as Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score, weight gain, resource utilization, or costs.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Two reviewers (BW and GK) independently applied the inclusion criteria. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by consensus, referring to the original sources. Information on the methodology and outcomes was collected for each included study. This included study description, head-to-head drug comparison, patient population, study methodology, statistical methods, reported outcomes, study support, and journal type.

RESULTS

A total of 198 studies were identified from electronic search methods. The largest category of studies was randomized controlled trials [RCTs] (N = 73; 36.9%), which were largely directed at the regulatory endpoint. Fewer studies were undertaken for HTA-purposes cohort studies (N = 53; 26.8%), meta-analyses (N = 32; 16.2%), economic studies (N = 14; 7.1%), and cross-sectional studies (N = 13; 6.6%). Direct head-to-head comparisons preferred by HTA were dominated by the comparison involving olanzapine and risperidone, representing 149 (75.3%) and 119 (60.1%) studies, respectively. RCTs, which are the primary study type for regulatory submissions, showed a lack of bias. Studies aimed at HTA were not as well performed. Cohort studies suffered from bias in the selection of comparison groups, lack of control for confounders, and differential dropout rates. As a group, cross-sectional studies scored poorly for bias, with a primary failure to identify a representative sample. Economic studies showed highly variable bias, with bias in the representation of effectiveness data, model assumptions without validation, and lack of sensitivity analyses.

LIMITATIONS

One limitation of this systematic review is that it only included studies from 2009 to 2013, potentially excluding some earlier comparator studies, particularly those involving first-generation antipsychotics.

CONCLUSIONS

This review of comparative effectiveness studies of second-generation antipsychotic agents for schizophrenic patients revealed a wide range of study types, study methodologies, and outcomes. For traditional efficacy outcomes and select safety outcomes, there is strong evidence from many well-conducted studies; however, there are fewer studies of types preferred by HTA with limited head-to-head comparisons and a higher risk of bias in the execution of these studies.

Do negative symptoms of schizophrenia change over time? A meta-analysis of longitudinal data

BACKGROUND

Negative symptoms are a core component of schizophrenia which can severely impact quality of life and functional outcomes. These symptoms are understood to be highly stable but this has not been tested in a meta-analysis, despite the wealth of longitudinal data available.

METHOD

A systematic review of the literature was conducted, with eligible studies pooled into a random-effects meta-analysis. Planned meta-regressions were conducted to evaluate the impact of factors known to induce secondary negative symptoms, in addition to other possible sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

The main analysis included 89 samples from 41 studies, totalling 5944 participants. Negative symptoms were found to significantly reduce in all treatment interventions, including in placebo and treatment as usual conditions, with a medium effect size (ES) present across all study conditions (ES = 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.56-0.77, I(2) = 94.0%). In a multivariate meta-regression, only the type of scale used was found to significantly influence negative symptom change. No difference in outcome was found between studies that excluded patients with a high level of positive or depressive symptoms, compared to those that did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Negative symptoms were found to reduce in almost all schizophrenia outpatient samples. A reduction was found across all conditions, with effect sizes ranging from small to large depending upon the condition type. These findings challenge the convention that negative symptoms are highly stable and suggest that they may improve to a greater extent than what has previously been assumed.

Almost all antipsychotics result in weight gain: a meta-analysis

Introduction

Antipsychotics (AP) induce weight gain. However, reviews and meta-analyses generally are restricted to second generation antipsychotics (SGA) and do not stratify for duration of AP use. It is hypothesised that patients gain more weight if duration of AP use is longer.

Method

A meta-analysis was conducted of clinical trials of AP that reported weight change. Outcome measures were body weight change, change in BMI and clinically relevant weight change (7% weight gain or loss). Duration of AP-use was stratified as follows: ≤6 weeks, 6–16 weeks, 16–38 weeks and >38 weeks. Forest plots stratified by AP as well as by duration of use were generated and results were summarised in figures.

Results

307 articles met inclusion criteria. The majority were AP switch studies. Almost all AP showed a degree of weight gain after prolonged use, except for amisulpride, aripiprazole and ziprasidone, for which prolonged exposure resulted in negligible weight change. The level of weight gain per AP varied from discrete to severe. Contrary to expectations, switch of AP did not result in weight loss for amisulpride, aripiprazole or ziprasidone. In AP-naive patients, weight gain was much more pronounced for all AP.

Conclusion

Given prolonged exposure, virtually all AP are associated with weight gain. The rational of switching AP to achieve weight reduction may be overrated. In AP-naive patients, weight gain is more pronounced.

Comparing tolerability of olanzapine in schizophrenia and affective disorders: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine is prescribed for a number of psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia, bipolar mania, and unipolar and bipolar depression. Olanzapine treatment is associated with tolerability issues such as metabolic adverse effects (e.g. weight gain, increase in blood glucose, triglycerides and total cholesterol levels), extrapyramidal symptoms [EPS] (e.g. parkinsonism, akathisia, tardive dyskinesia) and sedative adverse effects. Metabolic issues lead to some long-term consequences, which include cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus, and these complications cause high rates of mortality and morbidity among patients with severe mental illnesses. The expanded indications of olanzapine in psychiatry suggest a need to investigate whether there is a difference in the incidence and severity of adverse effects related to category diagnosis. Are the adverse effects expressed differently according to phenotype? Unfortunately, there are no reported studies that investigated these differences in adverse effects associated with olanzapine treatment in psychiatric patients with different phenotypes.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present meta-analysis is to separately examine olanzapine-induced cardiometabolic adverse effects and EPS in patients with schizophrenia and affective disorders.

DATA SOURCES

A search of computerized literature databases PsycINFO (1967-2010), PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE (1980-2010) and the clinicaltrials.gov website for randomized clinical trials was conducted. A manual search of reference lists of published review articles was carried out to gather further data.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials were included in our study if (i) they assessed olanzapine adverse effects (metabolic or extrapyramidal) in adult patients with schizophrenia or affective disorders; and (ii) they administered oral olanzapine as monotherapy during study.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently screened abstracts for choosing articles and one reviewer extracted relevant data on the basis of predetermined exclusion and inclusion criteria. It should be mentioned that for the affective disorders group we could only find articles related to bipolar disorder.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Thirty-three studies (4831 patients) that address olanzapine monotherapy treatment of adults with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder were included in the analysis. The primary outcomes were metabolic adverse effects (changes in weight, blood glucose, low-density lipoprotein, total cholesterol and triglyceride levels). The secondary outcomes of our study were assessing the incidence of some EPS (parkinsonism, akathisia and use of antiparkinson medication). The tolerability outcomes were calculated separately for the schizophrenia and bipolar disorder groups and were combined in a meta-analysis. Tolerability outcomes show that olanzapine contributes to weight gain and elevates blood triglycerides, glucose and total cholesterol levels in both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder patients. However, olanzapine treatment produced significantly more weight gain in schizophrenia patients than in bipolar disorder patients. In addition, increases in blood glucose, total cholesterol and triglyceride levels were higher in the schizophrenia group compared with the bipolar disorder group, even though these differences were not statistically significant. Based on our results, the incidence of parkinsonism was significantly higher in the schizophrenia group than in the bipolar disorder group. Subgroup analysis and logistic regression were used to assess the influence of treatment duration, dose, industry sponsorship, age and sex ratio on tolerability outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that schizophrenia patients may be more vulnerable to olanzapine-induced weight gain. The findings may be explained by considering the fact that in addition to genetic disposition for metabolic syndrome in schizophrenia patients, they have an especially high incidence of lifestyle risk factors for CVD, such as poor diet, lack of exercise, stress and smoking. It might be that an antipsychotic induces severity of adverse effect according to the phenotype.

World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) Guidelines for Biological Treatment of Schizophrenia, part 1: update 2012 on the acute treatment of schizophrenia and the management of treatment resistance

These updated guidelines are based on a first edition of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry Guidelines for Biological Treatment of Schizophrenia published in 2005. For this 2012 revision, all available publications pertaining to the biological treatment of schizophrenia were reviewed systematically to allow for an evidence-based update. These guidelines provide evidence-based practice recommendations that are clinically and scientifically meaningful and these guidelines are intended to be used by all physicians diagnosing and treating people suffering from schizophrenia. Based on the first version of these guidelines, a systematic review of the MEDLINE/PUBMED database and the Cochrane Library, in addition to data extraction from national treatment guidelines, has been performed for this update. The identified literature was evaluated with respect to the strength of evidence for its efficacy and then categorised into six levels of evidence (A-F; Bandelow et al. 2008b, World J Biol Psychiatry 9:242). This first part of the updated guidelines covers the general descriptions of antipsychotics and their side effects, the biological treatment of acute schizophrenia and the management of treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

Amisulpride versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

In many countries of the industrialised world second generation (atypical) antipsychotics have become first line drug treatments for people with schizophrenia. The question as to whether, and if so how much, the effects of the various second generation antipsychotics differ is a matter of debate. In this review we examine how the efficacy and tolerability of amisulpride differs from that of other second generation antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of amisulpride compared with other atypical antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (April 2007) which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, at least single-blind, trials comparing oral amisulpride with oral forms of aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, sertindole, ziprasidone or zotepine in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For continuous data we calculated weighted mean differences (MD), for dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random effects model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes ten short to medium term trials with 1549 participants on three comparisons: amisulpride versus olanzapine, risperidone and ziprasidone. The overall attrition rate was considerable (34.7%) with no significant difference between groups. Amisulpride was similarly effective as olanzapine and risperidone and more effective than ziprasidone (leaving the study early due to inefficacy: n=123, 1 RCT, RR 0.21 CI 0.05 to 0.94, NNT 8 CI 5 to 50). Amisulpride induced less weight gain than risperidone (n=585, 3 RCTs, MD -0.99 CI -1.61 to -0.37) or olanzapine (n=671, 3 RCTs, MD -2.11 CI -2.94 to -1.29). Olanzapine was also associated with a higher increase of glucose (n=406, 2 RCTs, MD -7.30 CI -7.62 to -6.99). There was no difference in terms of cardiac effects and extra pyramidal symptoms (EPS) compared with olanzapine (akathisia: n= 587, 2 RCTs, RR 0.66 CI 0.36 to 1.21), compared with risperidone (akathisia: n=586, 3 RCTs, RR 0.80 CI 0.58 to 1.11) and compared with ziprasidone (akathisia: n=123, 1 RCT, RR 0.63, CI 0.11 to 3.67).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little randomised evidence comparing amisulpride with other second generation antipsychotic drugs. We could only find trials comparing amisulpride with olanzapine, risperidone and ziprasidone. We found amisulpride may be somewhat more effective than ziprasidone, and more tolerable in terms of weight gain and other associated problems than olanzapine and risperidone. These data, however, are based on only ten short to medium term studies and therefore too limited to allow for firm conclusions.