Britta Galling

Diabetes mellitus in people with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder: a systematic review and large scale meta-analysis

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 (r2=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.

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Youth Exposed to Antipsychotics: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE Antipsychotics are used increasingly in youth for nonpsychotic and off-label indications, but cardiometabolic adverse effects and (especially) type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) risk have raised additional concern. OBJECTIVE To assess T2DM risk associated with antipsychotic treatment in youth. DATA SOURCES Systematic literature search of PubMed and PsycINFO without language restrictions from database inception until May 4, 2015. Data analyses were performed in July 2015, and additional analyses were added in November 2015. STUDY SELECTION Longitudinal studies reporting on T2DM incidence in youth 2 to 24 years old exposed to antipsychotics for at least 3 months. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Two independent investigators extracted study-level data for a random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression of T2DM risk. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The coprimary outcomes were study-defined T2DM, expressed as cumulative T2DM risk or as T2DM incidence rate per patient-years. Secondary outcomes included the comparison of the coprimary outcomes in antipsychotic-treated youth with psychiatric controls not receiving antipsychotics or with healthy controls. RESULTS Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analysis, including 185,105 youth exposed to antipsychotics and 310,438 patient-years. The mean (SD) age of patients was 14.1 (2.1) years, and 59.5% were male. The mean (SD) follow-up was 1.7 (2.3) years. Among them, 7 studies included psychiatric controls (1,342,121 patients and 2,071,135 patient-years), and 8 studies included healthy controls (298,803 patients and 463,084 patient-years). Antipsychotic-exposed youth had a cumulative T2DM risk of 5.72 (95% CI, 3.45-9.48; P < .001) per 1000 patients. The incidence rate was 3.09 (95% CI, 2.35-3.82; P < .001) cases per 1000 patient-years. Compared with healthy controls, cumulative T2DM risk (odds ratio [OR], 2.58; 95% CI, 1.56-4.24; P < .0001) and incidence rate ratio (IRR) (IRR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.71-5.35; P < .0001) were significantly greater in antipsychotic-exposed youth. Similarly, compared with psychiatric controls, antipsychotic-exposed youth had significantly higher cumulative T2DM risk (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.50-52.90; P < .0001) and IRR (IRR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.31-2.44; P < .0001). In multivariable meta-regression analyses of 10 studies, greater cumulative T2DM risk was associated with longer follow-up (P < .001), olanzapine prescription (P < .001), and male sex (P = .002) (r(2) = 1.00, P < .001). Greater T2DM incidence was associated with second-generation antipsychotic prescription (P ≤ .050) and less autism spectrum disorder diagnosis (P = .048) (r(2) = 0.21, P = .044). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Although T2DM seems rare in antipsychotic-exposed youth, cumulative risk and exposure-adjusted incidences and IRRs were significantly higher than in healthy controls and psychiatric controls. Olanzapine treatment and antipsychotic exposure time were the main modifiable risk factors for T2DM development in antipsychotic-exposed youth. Antipsychotics should be used judiciously and for the shortest necessary duration, and their efficacy and safety should be monitored proactively.

Antipsychotic augmentation vs. monotherapy in schizophrenia: systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis

Antipsychotic polypharmacy in schizophrenia is much debated, since it is common and costly with unclear evidence for its efficacy and safety. We conducted a systematic literature search and a random effects meta‐analysis of randomized trials comparing augmentation with a second antipsychotic vs. continued antipsychotic monotherapy in schizophrenia. Co‐primary outcomes were total symptom reduction and study‐defined response. Antipsychotic augmentation was superior to monotherapy regarding total symptom reduction (16 studies, N=694, standardized mean difference, SMD=–0.53, 95% CI: −0.87 to −0.19, p=0.002). However, superiority was only apparent in open‐label and low‐quality trials (both p<0.001), but not in double‐blind and high‐quality ones (p=0.120 and 0.226, respectively). Study‐defined response was similar between antipsychotic augmentation and monotherapy (14 studies, N=938, risk ratio = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.42, p=0.061), being clearly non‐significant in double‐blind and high‐quality studies (both p=0.990). Findings were replicated in clozapine and non‐clozapine augmentation studies. No differences emerged regarding all‐cause/specific‐cause discontinuation, global clinical impression, as well as positive, general and depressive symptoms. Negative symptoms improved more with augmentation treatment (18 studies, N=931, SMD=–0.38, 95% CI: −0.63 to −0.13, p<0.003), but only in studies augmenting with aripiprazole (8 studies, N=532, SMD=–0.41, 95% CI: −0.79 to −0.03, p=0.036). Few adverse effect differences emerged: D2 antagonist augmentation was associated with less insomnia (p=0.028), but more prolactin elevation (p=0.015), while aripiprazole augmentation was associated with reduced prolactin levels (p<0.001) and body weight (p=0.030). These data suggest that the common practice of antipsychotic augmentation in schizophrenia lacks double‐blind/high‐quality evidence for efficacy, except for negative symptom reduction with aripiprazole augmentation.

Do antipsychotics increase diabetes risk in children and adolescents

Introduction: Glucose dysregulation and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are feared antipsychotic drug adverse effects. Despite increasing utilization, data about antipsychotic risk of T2DM in youth are scarce. Areas covered: We conducted a systematic PubMed/MEDLINE search until 15 May 2014 focusing on studies with ≥ 20 youths aged ≤ 24 years, reporting quantitative data on: i) change in fasting glucose, hemoglobin A1c, insulin or insulin resistance after antipsychotic initiation (studies = 19, n = 2123,age = 13.3 years, follow up = 28.8 weeks); or ii) prevalence (studies = 4) or incidence (studies = 8, follow up = 1.57 years) of T2DM in antipsychotic-exposed youth (studies = 10, n = 65,486, age = 14.2 years) versus healthy controls (studies = 4, n = 246,828), psychiatric controls (studies = 5, n = 61,784) or without control groups (studies = 2). Expert opinion: Antipsychotics are associated with early adverse changes in glucose metabolism that are greater with all analyzable antipsychotics compared to controls, being highest with olanzapine, followed by quetiapine, aripiprazole and risperidone; but data were scarce. Although T2DM is fortunately rare in antipsychotic-treated youth, its prevalence (odds ratio [OR] = 8.176, 95% CI = 7.139 – 9.362) and incidence (OR = 1.450, 95% CI = 1.101 – 1.911, p = 0.006) were higher than in healthy controls. Similarly, T2DM prevalence (OR = 3.475, 95% CI = 3.019 – 4.001, p < 0.0001) and incidence (OR = 5.376, 95% CI = 4.004 – 7.233, p < 0.0001, excluding one outlying study) were higher than in psychiatric controls. Antipsychotics should only be used after lower-risk interventions failed, and inappropriately low clinical metabolic monitoring must be remedied.

Safety and tolerability of antipsychotic co-treatment in patients with schizophrenia: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

ABSTRACT Introduction: Antipsychotic co-treatment is common in schizophrenia, despite lacking evidence for its efficacy and safety. Areas: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed/PsycInfo/CJN/WangFan/CBM without language restrictions from database inception until 05/25/2015 for randomized trials comparing antipsychotic monotherapy with antipsychotic co-treatment in ≥20 adults with schizophrenia reporting meta-analyzable adverse events (AEs) data. Meta-analyzing 67 studies (n=4,861, duration=10.3±5.2 weeks), antipsychotic co-treatment was similar to monotherapy regarding intolerability-related discontinuation (risk ratio (RR)=0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.53-1.33, p=0.455). While incidence of ≥1 AE was lower with antipsychotic co-treatment (RR=0.77, 95%CI=0.66-0.90, p=0.001), these results were solely driven by open-label and efficacy-focused studies. Adjunctive D2-antagonists lead to less nausea (RR=0.220, 95%CI=0.06–0.87, p=0.030) and insomnia (RR=0.26, 95%CI=0.08-0.86, p=0.028), but higher prolactin (SMD=2.20, 95%CI=0.43-3.96, p=0.015). Conversely, adjunctive partial D2-agonists (aripiprazole=100%) resulted in lower electrocardiogram abnormalities (RR=0.43, 95%CI=0.25-0.73, p=0.002), constipation (RR=0.45, 95%CI=0.25-0.79, p=0.006), drooling/hypersalivation (RR=0.14, 95%CI=0.07-0.29, p<0.001), prolactin (SMD=-1.77, 95%CI=-2.38, -1.15, p<0.001), total and LDL-cholesterol (SMD=-0.33, 95%CI=-0.55, -0.11, p=0.003; SMD=-0.33, 95%CI=-0.54, -0.10, p=0.004). Expert opinion: No double-blind evidence for altered AE burden associated with antipsychotic co-treatment was found. However, AEs were insufficiently and incompletely reported and follow-up duration was modest. Adjunctive partial D2-agonists might be beneficial for counteracting several AEs. High-quality, long-term studies that comprehensively assess AEs are needed.

Comparison of Early Intervention Services vs Treatment as Usual for Early-Phase Psychosis: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Meta-regression

Importance The value of early intervention in psychosis and allocation of public resources has long been debated because outcomes in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders have remained suboptimal. Objective To compare early intervention services (EIS) with treatment as usual (TAU) for early-phase psychosis. Data Sources Systematic literature search of PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov without language restrictions through June 6, 2017. Study Selection Randomized trials comparing EIS vs TAU in first-episode psychosis or early-phase schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Data Extraction and Synthesis This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Three independent investigators extracted data for a random-effects meta-analysis and prespecified subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures The coprimary outcomes were all-cause treatment discontinuation and at least 1 psychiatric hospitalization during the treatment period. Results Across 10 randomized clinical trials (mean [SD] trial duration, 16.2 [7.4] months; range, 9-24 months) among 2176 patients (mean [SD] age, 27.5 [4.6] years; 1355 [62.3%] male), EIS was associated with better outcomes than TAU at the end of treatment for all 13 meta-analyzable outcomes. These outcomes included the following: all-cause treatment discontinuation (risk ratio [RR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.80; P < .001), at least 1 psychiatric hospitalization (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.90; P = .003), involvement in school or work (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.24; P = .01), total symptom severity (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.32; 95% CI, −0.47 to −0.17; P < .001), positive symptom severity (SMD, −0.22; 95% CI, −0.32 to −0.11; P < .001), and negative symptom severity (SMD, −0.28; 95% CI, −0.42 to −0.14; P < .001). Superiority of EIS regarding all outcomes was evident at 6, 9 to 12, and 18 to 24 months of treatment (except for general symptom severity and depressive symptom severity at 18-24 months). Conclusions and Relevance In early-phase psychosis, EIS are superior to TAU across all meta-analyzable outcomes. These results support the need for funding and use of EIS in patients with early-phase psychosis.

Safety and tolerability of antipsychotic-mood stabilizer co-treatment in the management of acute bipolar disorder: results from a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis.

Introduction: Mood stabilizer (MS) plus antipsychotic (AP) co-treatment is common in patients with acute bipolar disorder (BD), but adverse effects (AEs) of this strategy have not been systematically reviewed. Areas covered: We conducted a systematic review searching PubMed/MEDLINE and PsycINFO on April 1, 2015 for randomized trials in ≥ 20 adults with acute manic/mixed or depressed BD comparing MS or AP monotherapy with their combination that reported quantitative AE data. Pooled together, MS+AP versus MS monotherapy (studies = 18, n = 4419) was associated with significantly higher burden regarding 21/53 (39.6%) individual AEs, particularly weight gain-related (5/5 = 100%), extrapyramidal (5/12 = 41.7%) and glucose/lipid-related AEs (3/8 = 37.5%). AP+MS versus AP monotherapy (studies = 3, n = 397) was associated with significantly higher burden regarding 4/21 (19.0%) individual AEs (≥ 1 AE, tremor, sedation/somnolence, vomiting). Expert opinion: Efficacy advantages of AP+MS co-treatment versus monotherapy should be balanced with its greater AE burden. AE risk is higher for adding AP to MS (17 additional AEs) than adding MS to an AP, including the particularly concerning cardiometabolic AEs. More data are needed, as only one or two studies provided data for 21/21 (100%) AEs of MS augmentation of AP, and 13/53 (24.5%) AEs of AP augmentation of MS, and as sparse data suggest clinically relevant AE differences across individual AP+MS combinations.

Safety and tolerability of antidepressant co-treatment in acute major depressive disorder: results from a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis

Introduction: Although antidepressant (AD) monotherapy is recommended first-line for major depressive disorder (MDD), AD + AD co-treatment is common. Areas covered: We conducted the first systematic review searching PubMed/MEDLINE/PsycInfo/Embase from database inception until 1 June 2015 for acute randomized trials in ≥ 20 adults with MDD comparing AD monotherapy with AD + AD co-treatment that reported quantitative data on adverse events (AEs). Meta-analyzing 23 studies (n = 2435, duration = 6.6 weeks) AD monotherapy and AD + AD co-treatment were similar regarding intolerability-related discontinuation (risk ratio [RR] = 1.38, 95% CI = 0.89 – 1.10) and frequency of ≥ 1 AE (RR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.95 – 1.49). Nevertheless, AD + AD co-treatment was associated with significantly greater burden regarding 4/25 AEs (tremor: RR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.01 – 2.38; sweating: RR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.13 –3.38, ≥ 7% weight gain: RR = 3.15, 95% CI = 1.34 – 7.41; weight gain = 2.17, 95% CI = 0.71 – 3.63 kg), but not more CNS, gastrointestinal, sexual or alertness-related AEs. However, 11/25 AEs (44.0%) were reported in only 1 – 2 studies. Adding noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants (NaSSA) or tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) was specifically associated with more AEs. Expert opinion: The potential for increased AEs with AD + AD co-treatment needs to be considered vis-à-vis unclear efficacy benefits of this strategy. In particular, NaSSAs and TCAs should be added to SSRIs with caution. Clearly, more data on side-effect burden of AD + AD co-treatment are needed.

Early detection and integrated care for adolescents and young adults with severe psychotic disorders: rationales and design of the Integrated Care in Early Psychosis Study (ACCESS III)

The Integrated Care in Early Psychosis (ACCESS III) Study examined the efficacy and cost‐effectiveness of a combined intervention consisting of strategies to improve early detection and quality of care (integrated care including therapeutic assertive community treatment) in adolescents and young adults in the early phase of a severe psychotic disorder from 2011 to 2014.

Früherkennung und integrierte Versorgung von Jugendlichen und jungen Erwachsenen mit schweren psychotischen Erkrankungen

This is a prospective 1-year follow-up study comparing a combined intervention consisting of multidimensional early detection strategies with age- and interdisciplinary integrated care (intervention group, n = 120) with standard care (historical control group, n = 105) in adolescents and young adults within the early phase of psychosis. Data at study entry indicate a high complexity and severity of illness. Primary outcome is the 6-month rate of combined symptomatic and functional remission at study endpoint.