Marianna Purgato

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antimanic drugs in acute mania: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Conventional meta-analyses have shown inconsistent results for efficacy of pharmacological treatments for acute mania. We did a multiple-treatments meta-analysis, which accounted for both direct and indirect comparisons, to assess the effects of all antimanic drugs. METHODS We systematically reviewed 68 randomised controlled trials (16,073 participants) from Jan 1, 1980, to Nov 25, 2010, which compared any of the following pharmacological drugs at therapeutic dose range for the treatment of acute mania in adults: aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, valproate, gabapentin, haloperidol, lamotrigine, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, topiramate, and ziprasidone. The main outcomes were the mean change on mania rating scales and the number of patients who dropped out of the allocated treatment at 3 weeks. Analysis was done by intention to treat. FINDINGS Haloperidol (standardised mean difference [SMD] -0·56 [95% CI -0·69 to -0·43]), risperidone (-0·50 [-0·63 to -0·38), olanzapine (-0·43 [-0·54 to -0·32], lithium (-0·37 [-0·63 to -0·11]), quetiapine (-0·37 [-0·51 to -0·23]), aripiprazole (-0·37 [-0·51 to -0·23]), carbamazepine (-0·36 [-0·60 to -0·11], asenapine (-0·30 [-0·53 to -0·07]), valproate (-0·20 [-0·37 to -0·04]), and ziprasidone (-0·20 [-0·37 to -0·03]) were significantly more effective than placebo, whereas gabapentin, lamotrigine, and topiramate were not. Haloperidol had the highest number of significant differences and was significantly more effective than lithium (SMD -0·19 [95% CI -0·36 to -0·01]), quetiapine (-0·19 [-0·37 to 0·01]), aripiprazole (-0·19 [-0·36 to -0·02]), carbamazepine (-0·20 [-0·36 to -0·01]), asenapine (-0·26 [-0·52 to 0·01]), valproate (-0·36 [-0·56 to -0·15]), ziprasidone -0·36 [-0·56 to -0·15]), lamotrigine (-0·48 [-0·77 to -0·19]), topiramate (-0·63 [-0·84 to -0·43]), and gabapentin (-0·88 [-1·40 to -0·36]). Risperidone and olanzapine had a very similar profile of comparative efficacy, being more effective than valproate, ziprasidone, lamotrigine, topiramate, and gabapentin. Olanzapine, risperidone, and quetiapine led to significantly fewer discontinuations than did lithium, lamotrigine, placebo, topiramate, and gabapentin. INTERPRETATION Overall, antipsychotic drugs were significantly more effective than mood stabilisers. Risperidone, olanzapine, and haloperidol should be considered as among the best of the available options for the treatment of manic episodes. These results should be considered in the development of clinical practice guidelines. FUNDING None.

Dose equivalents of antidepressants: Evidence-based recommendations from randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND Dose equivalence of antidepressants is critically important for clinical practice and for research. There are several methods to define and calculate dose equivalence but for antidepressants, only daily defined dose and consensus methods have been applied to date. The purpose of the present study is to examine dose equivalence of antidepressants by a less arbitrary and more systematic method. METHODS We used data from all randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose trials comparing fluoxetine or paroxetine as standard drugs with any other active antidepressants as monotherapy in the acute phase treatment of unipolar depression. We calculated the ratio of the mean doses for each study and weighted it by the total sample size to find the weighted mean ratio for each drug, which was then used to define the drug׳s dosage equivalent to fluoxetine 40mg/d. RESULTS We included 83 studies (14 131 participants). In the primary analysis, fluoxetine 40mg/day was equivalent to paroxetine dosage of 34.0mg/day, agomelatine 53.2mg/day, amitriptyline, 122.3mg/day, bupropion 348.5mg/day, clomipramine 116.1mg/day, desipramine 196.3mg/day, dothiepin 154.8mg/day, doxepin 140.1mg/day, escitalopram 18.0mg/day, fluvoxamine 143.3mg/day, imipramine 137.2mg/day, lofepramine 250.2mg/day, maprotiline 118.0mg/day, mianserin, 101.1mg/day, mirtazapine 50.9mg/day, moclobemide 575.2mg/day, nefazodone 535.2mg/day, nortriptyline 100.9mg/day, reboxetine 11.5mg/day, sertraline 98.5mg/day, trazodone 401.4mg/day, and venlafaxine 149.4mg/day. Sensitivity analyses corroborated the results except for doxepin. LIMITATIONS The number of studies for some drugs was small. The current method assumes dose response relationship of antidepressants. CONCLUSIONS Our findings can be useful for clinicians when they switch antidepressants and for researchers when they compare various antidepressants in their research.

Aripiprazole versus haloperidol in combination with clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia in routine clinical care: a randomized, controlled trial

This multisite study was conducted to compare the efficacy and tolerability of combination treatment with clozapine plus aripiprazole versus combination treatment with clozapine plus haloperidol in patients with schizophrenia who do not have an optimal response to clozapine. Patients continued to take clozapine and were randomly assigned to receive daily augmentation with aripiprazole or haloperidol. Physicians prescribed the allocated treatments according to usual clinical care. Withdrawal from allocated treatment within 3 months was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included severity of symptoms on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and antipsychotic subjective tolerability on the Liverpool University Neuroleptic Side Effect Rating Scale. A total of 106 patients with schizophrenia were randomly assigned to treatment. After 3 months, we found no difference in the proportion of patients who discontinued treatment between the aripiprazole and haloperidol groups (13.2% vs 15.1%, P = 0.780). The 3-month change of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total score was similar in the aripiprazole and haloperidol groups (−5.9 vs −4.4 points, P = 0.523), whereas the 3-month decrease of the Liverpool University Neuroleptic Side Effect Rating Scale total score was significantly higher in the aripiprazole group than in the haloperidol group (−7.4 vs −2.0 points, P = 0.006). These results suggest that augmentation of clozapine with aripiprazole offers no benefit with regard to treatment withdrawal and overall symptoms in schizophrenia compared with augmentation with haloperidol. However, an advantage in the perception of adverse effects with aripiprazole treatment may be meaningful for patients.

Psychosocial interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder in refugees and asylum seekers resettled in high-income countries: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in refugees and asylum seekers resettled in high-income countries presents specific challenges. This systematic review examined the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for this group. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of randomised trials, CINAHL, EMBASE, PILOTS, PsycINFO, PubMed and Web of Science up to July 2016. Studies included randomised and controlled clinical trials comparing psychosocial interventions with waiting list or treatment as usual in adult refugees and asylum seekers with PTSD resettled in high-income countries. PTSD symptoms post-intervention was the primary outcome. We computed standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). This study is registered with PROSPERO: CRD42015027843. Twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis. Psychosocial interventions were effective in decreasing PTSD symptoms relative to control groups (SMD -1·03, 95% CI -1·55 to -0·51; number needed to treat 4·4; I2 86%; 95% CI 77 to 91). Narrative exposure therapy, a manualized short-term variant of cognitive behavioural therapy with a trauma focus, was the best-supported intervention (5 RCTs, 187 participants, SMD -0·78, 95% CI -1·18 to -0·38, I2 37%; 95% CI 0 to 77). Methodological quality of the included studies was limited. Overall, psychosocial interventions for asylum seekers and refugees with PTSD resettled in high-income countries were found to provide significant benefits in reducing PTSD symptoms. Yet, the number of studies is small and their methodological quality limited, so that more rigorous trials should be conducted in the future.

Aripiprazole versus haloperidol in combination with clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a 12-month, randomized, naturalistic trial.

Background Long-term studies for patients with resistant schizophrenia are necessary to assess the effectiveness of combination strategies on persisting positive symptoms. Aims and Methods This multicenter, naturalistic, randomized, superiority study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00395915) aimed to compare clinical efficacy and tolerability of haloperidol versus aripiprazole as combination treatment with clozapine in patients with resistant schizophrenia. Results One hundred six patients were followed up for 12 months. After 12 months, the proportion of patients who discontinued treatment was not significantly different between aripiprazole and haloperidol (37% vs 28%, respectively; P = 0.431). The change in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale score was similar in the aripiprazole and haloperidol groups (−7.0 vs −7.9, respectively; P = 0.389), whereas the tolerability total score decreased significantly more in the aripiprazole group (−7.2 vs −2.3; P = 0.008). Conclusions While the effectiveness of clozapine augmentation with a second antipsychotic agent is not clearly demonstrated yet, results from this study suggest that augmentation with aripiprazole offers no substantial benefit over haloperidol in efficacy. Aripiprazole was perceived more tolerable than haloperidol, but it is uncertain how this finding may translate into the real world of clinical practice.

Decisions on WHO’s essential medicines need more scrutiny

Global endorsement as a WHO essential medicine is big step. But Corrado Barbui and Marianna Purgato find that the quality of applications for antidepressants and antipsychotics is poor and call on applicants and WHO to raise standards

Effectiveness of lithium in subjects with treatment-resistant depression and suicide risk: a protocol for a randomised, independent, pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, superiority clinical trial.

BackgroundData on therapeutic interventions following deliberate self harm (DSH) in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) are very scant and there is no unanimous consensus on the best pharmacological option for these patients. There is some evidence that lithium treatment might be effective in reducing the risk of completed suicide in adult patients with unipolar affective disorders, however no clear cut results have been found so far. The primary aim of the present study is to assess whether adding lithium to standard therapy is an effective treatment strategy to reduce the risk of suicidal behaviour in long term treatment of people with TRD and previous history of DSH.Methods/DesignWe will carry out a randomised, parallel group, assessor-blinded superiority clinical trial. Adults with a diagnosis of major depression, an episode of DSH in the previous 12 months and inadequate response to at least two antidepressants given sequentially at an adequate dose for an adequate time for the current depressive episode will be allocated to add lithium to current therapy (intervention arm) or not (control arm). Following randomisation, treatment is to be taken daily for 1 year unless some clear reason to stop develops. Suicide completion and acts of DSH during the 12 months of follow-up will constitute the composite primary outcome. To preserve outcome assessor blindness, an independent adjudicating committee, blind to treatment allocation, will anonymously review all outcome events.DiscussionThe results of this study should indicate whether lithium treatment is associated with lower risk of completed suicide and DSH in adult patients with treatment resistant unipolar depression, who recently attempted suicide.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00927550

Heterogeneity: The issue of apples, oranges and fruit pie

Heterogeneity refers to any kind of variation among studies contributing to the same outcome in a systematic review. There are three broad types of heterogeneity: clinical heterogeneity, methodological heterogeneity and statistical heterogeneity. In this paper, we describe these three types of heterogeneity and the main statistical approaches to measure heterogeneity.

Assessing risk of bias in randomized controlled trials

Even though randomised controlled trials are the design of choice for evaluating the efficacy of health care interventions, they are not immune to bias that may affect research process and validity of results. In the present paper we discussed how trial quality may be appraised considering both whether a clinical trial is reported in a comprehensive and complete way (consistently with what had been declared in the study protocol), and whether the characteristics of the trial itself are associated with risk of bias.

Making the use of psychotropic drugs more rational through the development of GRADE recommendations in specialist mental healthcare

IntroductionIn recent years the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology has often been used by international or national health authorities, or scientific societies, for developing evidence-based treatment recommendations. However, the GRADE approach has never been used by practicing physicians who aim at harmonizing their prescribing behaviours paying due attention to the best available evidence. This paper describes the experience of a working group of psychiatrists who adopted the GRADE approach to develop clinical recommendations on the use of psychotropic drugs in specialist mental healthcare.Case descriptionThe project was conducted in the Department of Mental Health of Verona, Italy, a city located in the north of Italy. At the beginning of 2012, psychiatrists with a specific interest in the rational use of psychotropic drugs were identified and appointed as members of a Guideline Development Group (GDG). The first task of the GDG was the identification of controversial areas in the use of psychotropic drugs, the definition of scoping questions, and the identification of outcomes of interest. The GDG was supported by a scientific secretariat, who searched the evidence, identified one or more systematic reviews matching the scoping questions, and drafted GRADE tables.Discussion and evaluationOn the basis of efficacy, acceptability, tolerability and safety data, considering the risk of bias and confidence in estimates, and taking also into consideration preferences, values and practical aspects in favour and against the intervention under scrutiny, a draft recommendation with its strength was formulated and agreed by GDG members. Recommendations were submitted for consideration to all specialists of the Department, discussed in two plenary sessions open to the whole staff, and finally approved at the end of 2012.ConclusionThe present project of guideline development raised several challenging and innovating aspects, including a “bottom-up” approach, as it was motivated by reasons that found agreement among specialists, those who developed the recommendations were those who were supposed to follow them, and values, preferences and feasibility issues were considered paying due attention to local context variables.