Abstract/Text: 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.

Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Abstract/Text: 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.

Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Abstract/Text: 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.

Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Abstract/Text: Despite the clinical importance of polydipsia, no diagnostic criteria or severity scales that comprehensively assess this condition are available. Thus, we aimed to develop diagnostic criteria and a severity scale for polydipsia based on a systematic review and well-experienced clinicians' consensus. We performed a systematic review, identified 27 studies related to diagnostic criteria or severity classification for polydipsia, and extracted items used to assess polydipsia in these studies. Ten well-experienced clinicians-5 psychiatrists and 5 nurses-participated in the Delphi method. They evaluated 39 items extracted based on the results of the systematic review regarding (1) their necessity in diagnosing and assessing the severity of polydipsia, and (2) their relative importance rated on 7-point scale among the items included in the severity scale. The Polydipsia Diagnostic Criteria (PDC) included 4 essential items-excessive drinking, low serum sodium level or low serum osmolality, abnormal normalized diurnal weight gain, and low urine specific gravity-based on consensus reached using the Delphi method. The Polydipsia Severity Scale (PSS) included 13 items with a maximum score of 59. The first diagnostic criteria and symptom scale for polydipsia were developed based on the findings of a systematic review and well-experienced clinicians' consensus.

Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Abstract/Text: Despite the clinical importance of polydipsia, no diagnostic criteria or severity scales that comprehensively assess this condition are available. Thus, we aimed to develop diagnostic criteria and a severity scale for polydipsia based on a systematic review and well-experienced clinicians' consensus. We performed a systematic review, identified 27 studies related to diagnostic criteria or severity classification for polydipsia, and extracted items used to assess polydipsia in these studies. Ten well-experienced clinicians-5 psychiatrists and 5 nurses-participated in the Delphi method. They evaluated 39 items extracted based on the results of the systematic review regarding (1) their necessity in diagnosing and assessing the severity of polydipsia, and (2) their relative importance rated on 7-point scale among the items included in the severity scale. The Polydipsia Diagnostic Criteria (PDC) included 4 essential items-excessive drinking, low serum sodium level or low serum osmolality, abnormal normalized diurnal weight gain, and low urine specific gravity-based on consensus reached using the Delphi method. The Polydipsia Severity Scale (PSS) included 13 items with a maximum score of 59. The first diagnostic criteria and symptom scale for polydipsia were developed based on the findings of a systematic review and well-experienced clinicians' consensus.

Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Abstract/Text: UNLABELLED: Tardive dyskinesia (TD), a movement disorder associated with antipsychotics, most frequently affects the lower face and jaw muscles, but can also affect walking, breathing and use of the hands and limbs. Knowledge of TD among physicians may be limited, and the pathophysiology of TD is poorly understood. We conducted this review to summarise the current knowledge surrounding the pathophysiology of TD and present recommendations for prevention and treatment based on a literature search and roundtable discussion attended by psychiatrists in Japan. It has been suggested that dopamine hypersensitivity, damaged gamma-aminobutyric acidergic neurons and/or increased production of reactive oxygen species may contribute to development of TD. Symptoms can profoundly affect everyday life; patients who develop TD have poorer prognoses, worse health-related quality of life, greater social withdrawal and higher mortality than patients without TD. Traditional treatment options include dietary supplements, although evidence for their effectiveness is low. Among pharmaceutical interventions, there is moderate evidence that switching to the second-generation antipsychotic clozapine, which has a lower affinity for dopamine D2 receptors than other antipsychotics, may improve symptoms. Vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT-2) inhibitors, which oppose the increased dopaminergic activity associated with prolonged antipsychotic use by interfering with dopamine uptake and storage, have the strongest evidence for efficacy. VMAT-2 inhibitors are approved in the United States for the treatment of TD, and the first VMAT-2 inhibitor was approved in Japan for this indication in March 2022. Most guidelines recommend treating TD by first reducing the dose of antipsychotics or switching to clozapine or other second-generation antipsychotics, which have a lower association with TD than first-generation antipsychotics. We recommend focusing on prevention and monitoring for TD when prescribing antipsychotics, given that TD is often irreversible. Physicians should treat with antipsychotics only when necessary and at the lowest effective dose, and frequently monitor for TD symptoms.
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Plain Language Summary (In Japanese).
VISUAL SUMMARY: Visual Summary (In Japanese).

© The Author(s), 2022.

Abstract/Text: BACKGROUND: Because of the debate about whether second-generation antipsychotic drugs are better than first-generation antipsychotic drugs, we did a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare the effects of these two types of drugs in patients with schizophrenia.
METHODS: We compared nine second-generation antipsychotic drugs with first-generation drugs for overall efficacy (main outcome), positive, negative and depressive symptoms, relapse, quality of life, extrapyramidal side-effects, weight gain, and sedation.
FINDINGS: We included 150 double-blind, mostly short-term, studies, with 21 533 participants. We excluded open studies because they systematically favoured second-generation drugs. Four of these drugs were better than first-generation antipsychotic drugs for overall efficacy, with small to medium effect sizes (amisulpride -0.31 [95% CI -0.44 to -0.19, p<0.0001], clozapine -0.52 [-0.75 to -0.29, p<0.0001], olanzapine -0.28 [-0.38 to -0.18, p<0.0001], and risperidone -0.13 [-0.22 to -0.05, p=0.002]). The other second-generation drugs were not more efficacious than the first-generation drugs, even for negative symptoms. Therefore efficacy on negative symptoms cannot be a core component of atypicality. Second-generation antipsychotic drugs induced fewer extrapyramidal side-effects than did haloperidol (even at low doses). Only a few have been shown to induce fewer extrapyramidal side-effects than low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs. With the exception of aripiprazole and ziprasidone, second-generation antipsychotic drugs induced more weight gain, in various degrees, than did haloperidol but not than low-potency first-generation drugs. The second-generation drugs also differed in their sedating properties. We did not note any consistent effects of moderator variables, such as industry sponsorship, comparator dose, or prophylactic antiparkinsonian medication.
INTERPRETATION: Second-generation antipsychotic drugs differ in many properties and are not a homogeneous class. This meta-analysis provides data for individualised treatment based on efficacy, side-effects, and cost.

Abstract/Text: Tardive dyskinesia (TD) risk with D2/serotonin receptor antagonists or D2 receptor partial agonists (second-generation antipsychotics, SGAs) is considered significantly lower than with D2 antagonists (first-generation antipsychotics, FGAs). As some reports questioned this notion, we meta-analyzed randomized controlled studies (RCTs) to estimate the risk ratio (RR) and annualized rate ratio (RaR) of TD comparing SGAs vs. FGAs and SGAs vs. SGAs. Additionally, we calculated raw and annualized pooled TD rates for each antipsychotic. Data from 57 head-to-head RCTs, including 32 FGA and 86 SGA arms, were meta-analyzed, yielding 32 FGA-SGA pairs and 35 SGA-SGA pairs. The annualized TD incidence across FGA arms was 6.5% (95% CI: 5.3-7.8%) vs. 2.6% (95% CI: 2.0-3.1%) across SGA arms. TD risk and annualized rates were lower with SGAs vs. FGAs (RR=0.47, 95% CI: 0.39-0.57, p<0.0001, k=28; RaR=0.35, 95% CI: 0.28-0.45, p<0.0001, number-needed-to-treat, NNT=20). Meta-regression showed no FGA dose effect on FGA-SGA comparisons (Z=-1.03, p=0.30). FGA-SGA TD RaRs differed by SGA comparator (Q=21.8, df=7, p=0.003), with a significant advantage of olanzapine and aripiprazole over other non-clozapine SGAs in exploratory pairwise comparisons. SGA-SGA comparisons confirmed the olanzapine advantage vs. non-clozapine SGAs (RaR=0.66, 95% CI: 0.49-0.88, p=0.006, k=17, NNT=100). This meta-analysis confirms a clinically meaningfully lower TD risk with SGAs vs. FGAs, which is not driven by high dose FGA comparators, and documents significant differences with respect to this risk between individual SGAs.

© 2018 World Psychiatric Association.

Abstract/Text: BACKGROUND: Because of the debate about whether second-generation antipsychotic drugs are better than first-generation antipsychotic drugs, we did a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare the effects of these two types of drugs in patients with schizophrenia.
METHODS: We compared nine second-generation antipsychotic drugs with first-generation drugs for overall efficacy (main outcome), positive, negative and depressive symptoms, relapse, quality of life, extrapyramidal side-effects, weight gain, and sedation.
FINDINGS: We included 150 double-blind, mostly short-term, studies, with 21 533 participants. We excluded open studies because they systematically favoured second-generation drugs. Four of these drugs were better than first-generation antipsychotic drugs for overall efficacy, with small to medium effect sizes (amisulpride -0.31 [95% CI -0.44 to -0.19, p<0.0001], clozapine -0.52 [-0.75 to -0.29, p<0.0001], olanzapine -0.28 [-0.38 to -0.18, p<0.0001], and risperidone -0.13 [-0.22 to -0.05, p=0.002]). The other second-generation drugs were not more efficacious than the first-generation drugs, even for negative symptoms. Therefore efficacy on negative symptoms cannot be a core component of atypicality. Second-generation antipsychotic drugs induced fewer extrapyramidal side-effects than did haloperidol (even at low doses). Only a few have been shown to induce fewer extrapyramidal side-effects than low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs. With the exception of aripiprazole and ziprasidone, second-generation antipsychotic drugs induced more weight gain, in various degrees, than did haloperidol but not than low-potency first-generation drugs. The second-generation drugs also differed in their sedating properties. We did not note any consistent effects of moderator variables, such as industry sponsorship, comparator dose, or prophylactic antiparkinsonian medication.
INTERPRETATION: Second-generation antipsychotic drugs differ in many properties and are not a homogeneous class. This meta-analysis provides data for individualised treatment based on efficacy, side-effects, and cost.

Abstract/Text: BACKGROUND: Metabolic and cardiovascular health problems have become a major focus for clinical care and research in schizophrenia.
AIMS: To evaluate the content and quality of screening guidelines for cardiovascular risk in schizophrenia.
METHOD: Systematic review and quality assessment of guidelines/recommendations for cardiovascular risk in people with schizophrenia published between 2000 and 2010, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE).
RESULTS: The AGREE domain scores varied between the 18 identified guidelines. Most guidelines scored best on the domains 'scope and purpose' and 'clarity of presentation'. The domain 'rigour of development' was problematic in most guidelines, and the domains 'stakeholder involvement' and 'editorial independence' scored the lowest. The following measurements were recommended (in order of frequency): fasting glucose, body mass index, fasting triglycerides, fasting cholesterol, waist, high-density lipoprotein/low-density lipoprotein, blood pressure and symptoms of diabetes. In terms of interventions, most guidelines recommended advice on physical activity, diet, psychoeducation of the patient, treatment of lipid abnormalities, treatment of diabetes, referral for advice and treatment, psychoeducation of the family and smoking cessation advice. Compared across all domains and content, four European guidelines could be recommended.
CONCLUSIONS: Four of the evaluated guidelines are of good quality and should guide clinicians' screening and monitoring practices. Future guideline development could be improved by increasing its rigour and assuring user and patient involvement.

Abstract/Text: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is highly predictive of cardiovascular diseases and can have particularly deleterious health impacts in people with severe mental illness (SMI), i.e. schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or major depressive disorder. This meta-analysis aimed: a) to describe pooled frequencies of T2DM in people with SMI; b) to analyze the influence of demographic, illness and treatment variables as well as T2DM assessment methods; and c) to describe T2DM prevalence in studies directly comparing persons with each specific SMI diagnosis to general population samples. The trim and fill adjusted pooled T2DM prevalence among 438,245 people with SMI was 11.3% (95% CI: 10.0%-12.6%). In antipsychotic-naïve participants, the prevalence of T2DM was 2.9% (95% CI: 1.7%-4.8%). There were no significant diagnostic subgroup differences. A comparative meta-analysis established that multi-episode persons with SMI (N=133,470) were significantly more likely to have T2DM than matched controls (N=5,622,664): relative risk, RR=1.85, 95% CI: 1.45-2.37, p<0.001. The T2DM prevalence was consistently elevated in each of the three major diagnostic subgroups compared to matched controls. Higher T2DM prevalences were observed in women with SMI compared to men (RR=1.43, 95% CI: 1.20-1.69, p<0.001). Multi-episode (versus first-episode) status was the only significant predictor for T2DM in a multivariable meta-regression analysis (r(2) =0.52, p<0.001). The T2DM prevalence was higher in patients prescribed antipsychotics, except for aripriprazole and amisulpride. Routine screening and multidisciplinary management of T2DM is needed. T2DM risks of individual antipsychotic medications should be considered when making treatment choices.

© 2016 World Psychiatric Association.

Abstract/Text: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its components are highly predictive of cardiovascular diseases. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the prevalence of MetS and its components in people with schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, comparing subjects with different disorders and taking into account demographic variables and psychotropic medication use. The secondary aim was to compare the MetS prevalence in persons with any of the selected disorders versus matched general population controls. The pooled MetS prevalence in people with severe mental illness was 32.6% (95% CI: 30.8%-34.4%; N = 198; n = 52,678). Relative risk meta-analyses established that there was no significant difference in MetS prevalence in studies directly comparing schizophrenia versus bipolar disorder, and in those directly comparing bipolar disorder versus major depressive disorder. Only two studies directly compared people with schizophrenia and major depressive disorder, precluding meta-analytic calculations. Older age and a higher body mass index were significant moderators in the final demographic regression model (z = -3.6, p = 0.0003, r(2)  = 0.19). People treated with all individual antipsychotic medications had a significantly (p<0.001) higher MetS risk compared to antipsychotic-naïve participants. MetS risk was significantly higher with clozapine and olanzapine (except vs. clozapine) than other antipsychotics, and significantly lower with aripiprazole than other antipsychotics (except vs. amisulpride). Compared with matched general population controls, people with severe mental illness had a significantly increased risk for MetS (RR = 1.58; 95% CI: 1.35-1.86; p<0.001) and all its components, except for hypertension (p = 0.07). These data suggest that the risk for MetS is similarly elevated in the diagnostic subgroups of severe mental illness. Routine screening and multidisciplinary management of medical and behavioral conditions is needed in these patients. Risks of individual antipsychotics should be considered when making treatment choices.

© 2015 World Psychiatric Association.

Abstract/Text: Tardive dyskinesia (TD) risk with D2/serotonin receptor antagonists or D2 receptor partial agonists (second-generation antipsychotics, SGAs) is considered significantly lower than with D2 antagonists (first-generation antipsychotics, FGAs). As some reports questioned this notion, we meta-analyzed randomized controlled studies (RCTs) to estimate the risk ratio (RR) and annualized rate ratio (RaR) of TD comparing SGAs vs. FGAs and SGAs vs. SGAs. Additionally, we calculated raw and annualized pooled TD rates for each antipsychotic. Data from 57 head-to-head RCTs, including 32 FGA and 86 SGA arms, were meta-analyzed, yielding 32 FGA-SGA pairs and 35 SGA-SGA pairs. The annualized TD incidence across FGA arms was 6.5% (95% CI: 5.3-7.8%) vs. 2.6% (95% CI: 2.0-3.1%) across SGA arms. TD risk and annualized rates were lower with SGAs vs. FGAs (RR=0.47, 95% CI: 0.39-0.57, p<0.0001, k=28; RaR=0.35, 95% CI: 0.28-0.45, p<0.0001, number-needed-to-treat, NNT=20). Meta-regression showed no FGA dose effect on FGA-SGA comparisons (Z=-1.03, p=0.30). FGA-SGA TD RaRs differed by SGA comparator (Q=21.8, df=7, p=0.003), with a significant advantage of olanzapine and aripiprazole over other non-clozapine SGAs in exploratory pairwise comparisons. SGA-SGA comparisons confirmed the olanzapine advantage vs. non-clozapine SGAs (RaR=0.66, 95% CI: 0.49-0.88, p=0.006, k=17, NNT=100). This meta-analysis confirms a clinically meaningfully lower TD risk with SGAs vs. FGAs, which is not driven by high dose FGA comparators, and documents significant differences with respect to this risk between individual SGAs.

© 2018 World Psychiatric Association.