Tardive dyskinesia risk with first‐ and second‐generation antipsychotics in comparative randomized controlled trials: a meta‐analysis

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.     

Oral and long‐acting antipsychotics for relapse prevention in schizophrenia‐spectrum disorders: a network meta‐analysis of 92 randomized trials including 22,645 participants

According to current evidence and guidelines, continued antipsychotic treatment is key for preventing relapse in people with schizophrenia‐spectrum disorders, but evidence‐based recommendations for the choice of the individual antipsychotic for maintenance treatment are lacking. Although oral antipsychotics are often prescribed first line for practical reasons, long‐acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) are a valuable resource to tackle adherence issues since the earliest phase of disease. Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and CINAHL databases and online registers were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing LAIs or oral antipsychotics head‐to‐head or against placebo, published until June 2021. Relative risks and standardized mean differences were pooled using random‐effects pairwise and network meta‐analysis. The primary outcomes were relapse and dropout due to adverse events. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess study quality, and the CINeMA approach to assess the confidence of pooled estimates. Of 100 eligible trials, 92 (N=22,645) provided usable data for meta‐analyses. Regarding relapse prevention, the vast majority of the 31 included treatments outperformed placebo. Compared to placebo, “high” confidence in the results was found for (in descending order of effect magnitude) amisulpride‐oral (OS), olanzapine‐OS, aripiprazole‐LAI, olanzapine‐LAI, aripiprazole‐OS, paliperidone‐OS, and ziprasidone‐OS. “Moderate” confidence in the results was found for paliperidone‐LAI 1‐monthly, iloperidone‐OS, fluphenazine‐OS, brexpiprazole‐OS, paliperidone‐LAI 1‐monthly, asenapine‐OS, haloperidol‐OS, quetiapine‐OS, cariprazine‐OS, and lurasidone‐OS. Regarding tolerability, none of the antipsychotics was significantly worse than placebo, but confidence was poor, with only aripiprazole (both LAI and OS) showing “moderate” confidence levels. Based on these findings, olanzapine, aripiprazole and paliperidone are the best choices for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia‐spectrum disorders, considering that both LAI and oral formulations of these antipsychotics are among the best‐performing treatments and have the highest confidence of evidence for relapse prevention. This finding is of particular relevance for low‐ and middle‐income countries and constrained‐resource settings, where few medications may be selected. Results from this network meta‐analysis can inform clinical guidelines and national and international drug regulation policies.     

Safety of 80 antidepressants,antipsychotics, anti‐attention‐deficit/hyperactivity medications and mood stabilizers in children and adolescents with psychiatric disorders: a large scale systematic meta‐review of 78 adverse effects

Mental disorders frequently begin in childhood or adolescence. Psychotropic medications have various indications for the treatment of mental dis­orders in this age group and are used not infrequently off‐label. However, the adverse effects of these medications require special attention during developmentally sensitive periods of life. For this meta‐review, we systematically searched network meta‐analyses and meta‐analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), individual RCTs, and cohort studies reporting on 78 a priori selected adverse events across 19 categories of 80 psychotropic medications – including antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti‐attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications and mood stabilizers – in children and adolescents with mental disorders. We included data from nine network meta‐analyses, 39 meta‐analyses, 90 individual RCTs, and eight cohort studies, including 337,686 children and adolescents. Data on ≥20% of the 78 adverse events were available for six antidepressants (sertraline, escitalopram, paroxetine, fluoxetine, venlafaxine and vilazodone), eight antipsychotics (risperidone, quetiapine, aripiprazole, lurasidone, paliperidone, ziprasidone, olanzapine and asenapine), three anti‐ADHD medications (methylphenidate, atomoxetine and guanfacine), and two mood stabilizers (valproate and lithium). Among these medications with data on ≥20% of the 78 adverse events, a safer profile emerged for escitalopram and fluoxetine among antidepressants, lurasidone for antipsychotics, methylphenidate among anti‐ADHD medications, and lithium among mood stabilizers. The available literature raised most concerns about the safety of venlafaxine, olanzapine, atomoxetine, guanfacine and valproate. Nausea/vomiting and discontinuation due to adverse event were most frequently associated with antidepressants; sedation, extrapyramidal side effects, and weight gain with antipsychotics; anorexia and insomnia with anti‐ADHD medications; sedation and weight gain with mood stabilizers. The results of this comprehensive and updated quantitative systematic meta‐review of top‐tier evidence regarding the safety of antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti‐ADHD medications and mood stabilizers in children and adolescents can inform clinical practice, research and treatment guidelines.     

Risk of metabolic syndrome and its components in people with schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders,bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

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, r² = 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.     

Guided Internet‐based vs. face‐to‐face cognitive behavior therapy for psychiatric and somatic disorders: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy (ICBT) has been tested in many research trials, but to a lesser extent directly compared to face-to-face delivered cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials in which guided ICBT was directly compared to face-to-face CBT. Studies on psychiatric and somatic conditions were included. Systematic searches resulted in 13 studies (total N=1053) that met all criteria and were included in the review. There were three studies on social anxiety disorder, three on panic disorder, two on depressive symptoms, two on body dissatisfaction, one on tinnitus, one on male sexual dysfunction, and one on spider phobia. Face-to-face CBT was either in the individual format (n=6) or in the group format (n=7). We also assessed quality and risk of bias. Results showed a pooled effect size (Hedges'' g) at post-treatment of −0.01 (95% CI: −0.13 to 0.12), indicating that guided ICBT and face-to-face treatment produce equivalent overall effects. Study quality did not affect outcomes. While the overall results indicate equivalence, there are still few studies for each psychiatric and somatic condition and many conditions for which guided ICBT has not been compared to face-to-face treatment. Thus, more research is needed to establish equivalence of the two treatment formats.     

Mortality in people with schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of relative risk and aggravating or attenuating factors

People with schizophrenia die 15‐20 years prematurely. Understanding mortality risk and aggravating/attenuating factors is essential to reduce this gap. We conducted a systematic review and random‐effects meta‐analysis of prospective and retrospective, nationwide and targeted cohort studies assessing mortality risk in people with schizophrenia versus the general population or groups matched for physical comorbidities or groups with different psychiatric disorders, also assessing moderators. Primary outcome was all‐cause mortality risk ratio (RR); key secondary outcomes were mortality due to suicide and natural causes. Other secondary outcomes included any other specific‐cause mortality. Publication bias, subgroup and meta‐regression analyses, and quality assessment (Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale) were conducted. Across 135 studies spanning from 1957 to 2021 (schizophrenia: N=4,536,447; general population controls: N=1,115,600,059; other psychiatric illness controls: N=3,827,955), all‐cause mortality was increased in people with schizophrenia versus any non‐schizophrenia control group (RR=2.52, 95% CI: 2.38‐2.68, n=79), with the largest risk in first‐episode (RR=7.43, 95% CI: 4.02‐13.75, n=2) and incident (i.e., earlier‐phase) schizophrenia (RR=3.52, 95% CI: 3.09‐4.00, n=7) versus the general population. Specific‐cause mortality was highest for suicide or injury‐poisoning or undetermined non‐natural cause (RR=9.76‐8.42), followed by pneumonia among natural causes (RR=7.00, 95% CI: 6.79‐7.23), decreasing through infectious or endocrine or respiratory or urogenital or diabetes causes (RR=3 to 4), to alcohol or gastrointestinal or renal or nervous system or cardio‐cerebrovascular or all natural causes (RR=2 to 3), and liver or cerebrovascular, or breast or colon or pancreas or any cancer causes (RR=1.33 to 1.96). All‐cause mortality increased slightly but significantly with median study year (beta=0.0009, 95% CI: 0.001‐0.02, p=0.02). Individuals with schizophrenia <40 years of age had increased all‐cause and suicide‐related mortality compared to those ≥40 years old, and a higher percentage of females increased suicide‐related mortality risk in incident schizophrenia samples. All‐cause mortality was higher in incident than prevalent schizophrenia (RR=3.52 vs. 2.86, p=0.009). Comorbid substance use disorder increased all‐cause mortality (RR=1.62, 95% CI: 1.47‐1.80, n=3). Antipsychotics were protective against all‐cause mortality versus no antipsychotic use (RR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.59‐0.84, n=11), with largest effects for second‐generation long‐acting injectable anti­psychotics (SGA‐LAIs) (RR=0.39, 95% CI: 0.27‐0.56, n=3), clozapine (RR=0.43, 95% CI: 0.34‐0.55, n=3), any LAI (RR=0.47, 95% CI: 0.39‐0.58, n=2), and any SGA (RR=0.53, 95% CI: 0.44‐0.63, n=4). Antipsychotics were also protective against natural cause‐related mortality, yet first‐generation antipsychotics (FGAs) were associated with increased mortality due to suicide and natural cause in incident schizophrenia. Higher study quality and number of variables used to adjust the analyses moderated larger natural‐cause mortality risk, and more recent study year moderated larger protective effects of antipsychotics. These results indicate that the excess mortality in schizophrenia is associated with several modifiable factors. Targeting comorbid substance abuse, long‐term maintenance antipsychotic treatment and appropriate/earlier use of SGA‐LAIs and clozapine could reduce this mortality gap.     

The efficacy of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy in treating depressive and anxiety disorders: a meta‐analysis of direct comparisons

Although psychotherapy and antidepressant medication are efficacious in the treatment of depressive and anxiety disorders, it is not known whether they are equally efficacious for all types of disorders, and whether all types of psychotherapy and antidepressants are equally efficacious for each disorder. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies in which psychotherapy and antidepressant medication were directly compared in the treatment of depressive and anxiety disorders. Systematic searches in bibliographical databases resulted in 67 randomized trials, including 5,993 patients that met inclusion criteria, 40 studies focusing on depressive disorders and 27 focusing on anxiety disorders. The overall effect size indicating the difference between psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy after treatment in all disorders was g=0.02 (95% CI: −0.07 to 0.10), which was not statistically significant. Pharmacotherapy was significantly more efficacious than psychotherapy in dysthymia (g=0.30), and psychotherapy was significantly more efficacious than pharmacotherapy in obsessive-compulsive disorder (g=0.64). Furthermore, pharmacotherapy was significantly more efficacious than non-directive counseling (g=0.33), and psychotherapy was significantly more efficacious than pharmacotherapy with tricyclic antidepressants (g=0.21). These results remained significant when we controlled for other characteristics of the studies in multivariate meta-regression analysis, except for the differential effects in dysthymia, which were no longer statistically significant.