Search

Control groups used in randomised controlled trials investigating psychological interventions for depression and anxiety disorders have effects of their own. This has never been investigated for schizophrenia, in particular treatment-resistant schizophrenia. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine how control groups in randomised controlled trials on psychological interventions for treatment-resistant schizophrenia behave in their effects on general symptomatology. In a search of various databases until July 2023, 31 eligible studies with 3125 participants were found whose control groups were assigned to four categories: active, inactive, treatment as usual and waitlist. The analyses showed that psychological interventions had a greater effect on symptom reduction to all control groups combined. When separating the control groups, only compared to TAU and waitlist controls the psychological interventions were superior. The difference was larger when less active control groups (e.g. waitlist - or treatment as usual control groups) were used. All control groups were associated with an improvement in symptoms from pre- to post-measurement point, with the greatest improvement observed in the inactive control group. The results are preliminary, but they suggest that the choice of the control group has a considerable impact on study effects as it has been shown in other psychiatric diagnoses., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Stefan Leucht: In the last 3 years SL has received honoraria as advisor and/or for lectures and/or for educational material from Alkermes, Angelini, Apsen, Eisai, Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Karuna, Kynexis, Lundbeck, Medichem, Medscape, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Mitshubishi, Neurotorium, NovoNordisk, Otsuka, Recordati, Roche, Rovi, Sanofi Aventis, and TEVA. Josef Priller, Alexandra Schütz, Nurul Husna Salahuddin and Irene Bighelli: none to declare., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Severe psychomotor agitation and aggression often require immediate pharmacological intervention, but clear evidence-based recommendations for choosing among the multiple options are lacking. To address this gap, we plan a systematic review and individual-participant-data network meta-analysis to investigate their comparative effectiveness in real-world emergency settings with increased precision., Methods: We will include randomized controlled trials investigating intramuscular or intravenous pharmacological interventions, as monotherapy or in combination, in adults with severe psychomotor agitation irrespective of the underlying diagnosis and requiring rapid tranquilization in general or psychiatric emergency settings. We will exclude studies before 2002, those focusing on specific reasons for agitation and placebo-controlled trials to avoid concerns related to the transitivity assumption and potential selection biases. We will search for eligible studies in BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL Plus, Embase, LILACS, MEDLINE via Ovid, PubMed, ProQuest, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO-ICTRP. Individual-participant data will be requested from the study authors and harmonized into a uniform format, and aggregated data will also be extracted from the studies. At least two independent reviewers will conduct the study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment using RoB 2, and applicability evaluation using the RITES tool. The primary outcome will be the number of patients achieving adequate sedation within 30 min after treatment, with secondary outcomes including the need for additional interventions and adverse events, using odds ratios as the effect size. If enough individual-participant data will be collected, we will synthesize them in a network meta-regression model within a Bayesian framework, incorporating study- and participant-level characteristics to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. In cases where individual-participant data are unavailable, potential data availability bias will be explored, and models allowing for the inclusion of studies reporting only aggregated data will be considered. We will assess the confidence in the evidence using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approach., Discussion: This individual-participant-data network meta-analysis aims to provide a fine-tuned synthesis of the evidence on the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for severe psychomotor agitation in real-world emergency settings. The findings from this study can greatly be provided clearer evidence-based guidance on the most effective treatments., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023402365., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: In recent years, a growing body of evidence has demonstrated the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions for schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) including positive symptoms such as auditory hallucinations (AH). However, clinical trials predominantly examine general treatment effects for positive symptoms. Therefore, previous research is lacking in comprehensive and clear evidence about psychological and psychosocial approaches that are primarily tailored to treat AH. To overcome this knowledge gap in the current literature, we will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of clearly targeted psychological and psychosocial interventions for AH in persons with SSD., Methods and Analysis: This study protocol has been developed according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. We will include all randomized controlled trials analyzing the efficacy of targeted psychological and psychosocial interventions especially aimed at treating AH in SSD. We will include studies on adult patients with SSD experiencing AH. The primary outcome will be the change on a published rating scale measuring AH. Secondary outcomes will be delusions, overall symptoms, negative symptoms, depression, social functioning, quality of life, and acceptability (drop-out). We will search relevant databases and the reference lists of included literature. The study selection process will be conducted by two independent reviewers. We will conduct a random-effect meta-analysis to consider heterogeneity across studies. Analyses will be carried out by software packages in R. The risk of bias in each study will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Assessment of heterogeneity and sensitivity analysis will be conducted., Discussion: The proposed study will augment the existing evidence by providing an overview of effective treatment approaches and their overall efficacy at treating AH in SSD. These findings will complement existing evidence that may impact future treatment implementations in clinical practice by addressing effective strategies to treat AH and therefore improve outcomes for the addressed population., Ethics and Dissemination: No ethical issues are foreseen. We will publish the results from this study in peer-reviewed journals and at relevant scientific conferences., Trial Registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023475704., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Fässler et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Many patients with schizophrenia have symptoms that do not respond to antipsychotics. This condition is called treatment-resistant schizophrenia and has not received specific attention as opposed to general schizophrenia. Psychological and psychosocial interventions as an add-on treatment to pharmacotherapy could be useful, but their role and comparative efficacy to each other and to standard care in this population are not known. We investigated the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of psychological and psychosocial interventions for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia., Methods: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), we searched for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through a systematic database search in BIOSIS, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS, MEDLINE, PsychInfo, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for articles published from inception up to Jan 31, 2020. We also searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group registry for studies published from inception up to March 31, 2022, and PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL for studies published from inception up to July 31, 2023. We included RCTs that included patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. The primary outcome was overall symptoms. We did random-effects pairwise meta-analyses and NMAs to calculate standardised mean differences (SMDs) or risk ratios with 95% CIs. No people with lived experience were involved throughout the research process. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42022358696., Findings: We identified 30 326 records, excluding 24 526 by title and abstract screening. 5762 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, of which 5540 were excluded for not meeting the eligibility criteria, and 222 reports corresponding to 60 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Of these, 52 RCTs with 5034 participants (1654 [33·2%] females and 3325 [66·8%] males with sex indicated) comparing 20 psychological and psychosocial interventions provided data for the NMA. Mean age of participants was 38·05 years (range 23·10-48·50). We aimed to collect ethnicity data, but they were scarcely reported. According to the quality of evidence, cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis (CBTp; SMD -0·22, 95% CI -0·35 to -0·09, 35 trials), virtual reality intervention (SMD -0·41, -0·79 to -0·02, four trials), integrated intervention (SMD -0·70, -1·18 to -0·22, three trials), and music therapy (SMD -1·27, -1·83 to -0·70, one study) were more efficacious than standard care in reducing overall symptoms. No indication of publication bias was identified., Interpretation: We provide robust findings that CBTp can reduce the overall symptoms of patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, and therefore clinicians can prioritise this intervention in their clinical practice. Other psychological and psychosocial interventions showed promising results but need further investigation., Funding: DAAD-ASFE., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests In the past 3 years SL has received honoraria as an adviser, for lectures, or for educational material from Angelini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Apsen, Eisai, Ekademia, Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Karuna, Kynexis, Lundbeck, Medichem, Medscape, Mitshubishi, NovoNordisk, Otsuka, Recordati, Rovi, and TEVA. GP-W received honoraria from Rovi. JP is a member of the TSC of the SINAPPS2 study, DGPPN, Referatsleiter; DGGPP, erweiterter Vorstand; DGBP, Referatsleiter; DZNE, PI; UK DRI, PI; DZPG, PI, and UniQure. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 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.)

Background: Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is a promising intervention for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. However, there are multiple available techniques and a comprehensive synthesis of evidence is lacking. Thus, we will conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of NIBS techniques as an add-on to antipsychotics for treatment-resistant schizophrenia., Methods: We will include single- and double-blind randomized-controlled trials (RCT) comparing any NIBS technique with each other or with a control intervention as an add-on to antipsychotics in adult patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. We will exclude studies focusing on predominant negative symptoms, maintenance treatment, and single sessions. The primary outcome will be a change in overall symptoms, and secondary outcomes will be a change in symptom domains, cognitive performance, quality of life, functioning, response, dropouts, and side effects. We will search for eligible studies in previous reviews, multiple electronic databases and clinical trial registries from inception onwards. At least two independent reviewers will perform the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We will measure the treatment differences using standardized mean difference (SMD) and odds ratio (OR) for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. We will conduct pairwise and network meta-analysis within a frequentist framework using a random-effects model, except for rare event outcomes where we will use a fixed-effects Mantel-Haenszel method. We will investigate potential sources of heterogeneity in subgroup analyses. Reporting bias will be assessed with funnel plots and the Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) tool. The certainty in the evidence will be evaluated using the Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA) approach., Discussion: Our network meta-analysis would provide an up-to-date synthesis of the evidence from all available RCTs on the comparative efficacy and safety of NIBS for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. This information could guide evidence-based clinical practice and improve the outcomes of patients., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO-ID CRD42023410645., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Treating the early phase of schizophrenia is crucial for preventing further episodes and improving quality of life, functioning, and social inclusion. Pharmacotherapies are first-line treatments, but have limitations. There is consensus on the need for non-pharmacological interventions for individuals in the early phase of schizophrenia. Several psychological interventions have shown promising effects; however, their comparative effectiveness remains largely unknown. To address this issue, a network meta-analysis will be performed. We aim to develop a hierarchy of existing psychological treatments concerning their efficacy and tolerability, which will inform treatment guidelines., Protocol: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating psychological interventions for first-episode psychosis, first-episode schizophrenia, or early phase schizophrenia will be included. The primary outcome will be overall schizophrenia symptoms (measured up to 6 and 12 months, and at the longest follow-up) and relapse as a co-primary outcome. Secondary outcomes are premature discontinuation; change in positive, negative, and depressive symptoms of schizophrenia; response; quality of life; overall functioning; satisfaction with care; adherence; adverse events; and mortality. The study selection and data extraction are performed by two independent reviewers. We will assess the risk of bias of each study using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2 and evaluate the confidence in the results using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to explore heterogeneity and assess the robustness of our findings., Discussion: This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to compare multiple existing psychological interventions, establishing which are best for symptom reduction, relapse prevention, and other important outcomes in early phase schizophrenia. Our results may provide practical guidance concerning the most effective psychological intervention to reduce symptom severity and the societal burden associated with the disorder., Competing Interests: Competing interests: In the last three years SL has received honoraria for advising/consulting and/or for lectures and/or for educational material from Angelini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Ekademia, GedeonRichter, Janssen, Karuna, Kynexis, Lundbeck, Medichem, Medscape, Mitsubishi, Neurotorium, Otsuka, NovoNordisk, Recordati, Rovi, Teva; JP from uniQure. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests. MH is a part-time employee of Get.On Institut für Gesundheitstrainings GmbH/HelloBetter., (Copyright: © 2024 Feber L et al.)

Objective: Clozapine is considered as the standard treatment for this subgroup, but the evidence is not unequivocal. There are several potential alternatives being used because of the possible adverse effects of clozapine. We aimed to examine the efficacy and adverse events of different antipsychotics in treatment-resistant schizophrenia by performing a network meta-analysis., Methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group register for randomized-controlled trials (up to March 06, 2022) and MEDLINE (up to January 20, 2023). We included blinded and open studies and participants with a broad definition of treatment resistance. The primary outcome was overall symptoms of schizophrenia; secondary outcomes were response to treatment, positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, discontinuation, side effects, quality of life, and functioning. The study was registered in Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/9nf2y/ )., Results: We included 60 studies involving 6838 participants in the network meta-analysis. In the primary outcome, clozapine and olanzapine were more efficacious than risperidone, haloperidol, fluphenazine, sertindole, chlorpromazine, and quetiapine (range of mean SMDs, - 0.11 to - 0.48). The difference between clozapine and olanzapine was trivial and uncertain (SMD - 0.05, 95% CI, - 0.21 to 0.11). The result of other efficacy outcomes as well as subgroup and sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analysis. Clozapine and olanzapine were associated with more weight gain, and clozapine was associated with more sedation events compared to many other antipsychotics., Conclusions: Clozapine remains the gold standard for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Olanzapine seems to be second-best and could be tried before switching to clozapine., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background and Hypothesis: The World Health Organization's (WHOs) Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP) aims to improve healthcare for mental, neurological, and substance use disorders in nonspecialized settings, with a focus on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). mhGAP includes guidelines for the treatment of psychoses (including schizophrenia), which were recently updated in 2023. The complexity of the WHO guideline update process and the updated recommendations on psychoses are presented., Study Design: The WHO guideline development process is outlined as well as the evidence appraisal and the translation of the evidence into recommendations following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The guideline update process includes a review of the literature, a compilation of systematic reviews, and extracting data related to critical and important outcomes. The updated recommendations and the justifying evidence are discussed., Study Results: The WHO mhGAP guidelines for psychoses are adapted to LMICs, and consist of 13 recommendations in 2023, whereof 5 were updated, and 1 recommendation was newly developed. Background information on how these recommendations were obtained, and significant changes since the previous guideline update in 2015 are provided., Conclusions: Unlike other guidelines, the WHO must consider various countries, contextual factors, and the WHO Model Lists of Essential Medicines when developing its guidelines. A transformation of the WHO guideline for psychoses into a living guideline would ensure always up-to-date recommendations and facilitate shared decision-making., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center.)

Background: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) can be effective in the general population of people with schizophrenia. It is still unclear whether CBT can be effectively used in the population of people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis., Objectives: To assess the effects of adding cognitive behavioural therapy to standard care for people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis., Search Methods: We conducted a systematic search on 6 March 2022 in the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and WHO ICTRP., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CBT added to standard care vs standard care in first-episode or recent-onset psychosis, in patients of any age., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors (amongst SFM, CC, LK and IB) independently screened references for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies and assessed the risk of bias using RoB2. Study authors were contacted for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcome was general mental state measured on a validated rating scale. Secondary outcomes included other specific measures of mental state, global state, relapse, admission to hospital, functioning, leaving the study early, cognition, quality of life, satisfaction with care, self-injurious or aggressive behaviour, adverse events, and mortality., Main Results: We included 28 studies, of which 26 provided data on 2407 participants (average age 24 years). The mean sample size in the included studies was 92 participants (ranging from 19 to 444) and duration ranged between 26 and 52 weeks. When looking at the results at combined time points (mainly up to one year after start of the intervention), CBT added to standard care was associated with a greater reduction in overall symptoms of schizophrenia (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.08, 20 RCTs, n = 1508, I 2 = 68%, substantial heterogeneity, low certainty of the evidence), and also with a greater reduction in positive (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.06, 22 RCTs, n = 1565, I² = 52%, moderate heterogeneity), negative (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.11, 22 RCTs, n = 1651, I² = 0%) and depressive symptoms (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.24 to -0.01, 18 RCTs, n = 1182, I² = 0%) than control. CBT added to standard care was also associated with a greater improvement in the global state (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.01, 4 RCTs, n = 329, I² = 47%, moderate heterogeneity) and in functioning (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.05, 18 RCTs, n = 1241, I² = 53%, moderate heterogeneity, moderate certainty of the evidence) than control. We did not find a difference between CBT added to standard care and control in terms of number of participants with relapse (relative risk (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.18, 7 RCTs, n = 693, I² = 48%, low certainty of the evidence), leaving the study early for any reason (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.05, 25 RCTs, n = 2242, I² = 12%, moderate certainty of the evidence), adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.97, 1 RCT, n = 43, very low certainty of the evidence) and the other investigated outcomes., Authors' Conclusions: This review synthesised the latest evidence on CBT added to standard care for people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis. The evidence identified by this review suggests that people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis may benefit from CBT additionally to standard care for multiple outcomes (overall, positive, negative and depressive symptoms of schizophrenia, global state and functioning). Future studies should better define this population, for which often heterogeneous definitions are used., (Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) can be effective in people with schizophrenia when provided in combination with antipsychotic medication. It remains unclear whether CBT could be safely and effectively offered in the absence of concomitant antipsychotic therapy., Objectives: To investigate the effects of CBT for schizophrenia when administered without concomitant pharmacological treatment with antipsychotics., Search Methods: We conducted a systematic search on 6 March 2022 in the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with schizophrenia comparing CBT without antipsychotics to standard care, standard care without antipsychotics, or the combination of CBT and antipsychotics., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened references for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool. We contacted study authors for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcome was general mental state measured with a validated rating scale. Key secondary outcomes were specific symptoms of schizophrenia, relapse, service use, number of participants leaving the study early, functioning, quality of life, and number of participants actually receiving antipsychotics during the trial. We also assessed behaviour, adverse effects, and mortality., Main Results: We included 4 studies providing data for 300 participants (average age 21.94 years). The mean sample size was 75 participants (range 61 to 90 participants). Study duration was between 26 and 39 weeks for the intervention period and 26 to 104 weeks for the follow-up period. Three studies employed a blind rater, while one study was triple-blind. All analyses included data from a maximum of three studies. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. For the primary outcome overall symptoms of schizophrenia, results showed a difference favouring CBT without antipsychotics when compared to no specific treatment at long term (> 1 year mean difference measured with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS MD) -14.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) -27.75 to -1.79, 1 RCT, n = 34). There was no difference between CBT without antipsychotics compared with antipsychotics (up to 12 months PANSS MD 3.38, 95% CI -2.38 to 9.14, 2 RCTs, n = 63) (very low-certainty evidence) or compared with CBT in combination with antipsychotics (up to 12 months standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.30, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.65, 3 RCTs, n = 125). Compared with no specific treatment, CBT without antipsychotics was associated with a reduction in overall symptoms (as described above) and negative symptoms (PANSS negative MD -4.06, 95% CI -7.50 to -0.62, 1 RCT, n = 34) at longer than 12 months. It was also associated with a lower duration of hospital stay (number of days in hospital MD -22.45, 95% CI -28.82 to -16.08, 1 RCT, n = 74) and better functioning (Personal and Social Performance Scale MD -12.42, 95% CI -22.75 to -2.09, 1 RCT, n = 40, low-certainty evidence) at up to 12 months. We did not find a difference between CBT and antipsychotics in any of the investigated outcomes, with the exception of adverse events measured with the Antipsychotic Non-Neurological Side-Effects Rating Scale (ANNSERS) at both 6 and 12 months (MD -4.94, 95% CI -8.60 to -1.28, 2 RCTs, n = 48; MD -6.96, 95% CI -11.55 to -2.37, 2 RCTs, n = 42). CBT without antipsychotics was less effective than CBT combined with antipsychotics in reducing positive symptoms at up to 12 months (SMD 0.40, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.76, 3 RCTs, n = 126). CBT without antipsychotics was associated with a lower number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event in comparison with CBT combined with antipsychotics at up to 12 months (risk ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.80, 1 RCT, n = 39, low-certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: This review is the first attempt to systematically synthesise the evidence about CBT delivered without medication to people with schizophrenia. The limited number of studies and low to very low certainty of the evidence prevented any strong conclusions. An important limitation in the available studies was that participants in the CBT without medication group (about 35% on average) received antipsychotic treatment, highlighting the challenges of this approach. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to provide additional data on the feasibility and efficacy of CBT without antipsychotics., (Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: There is no consensus on defining relapse in schizophrenia, and scale-derived criteria with unclear clinical relevance are widely used. We aimed to develop an evidence-based scale-derived set of criteria to define relapse in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder., Methods: We searched the Yale University Open Data Access (YODA) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in clinically stable adults with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, and obtained individual participant data on Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S), Personal and Social Performance (PSP), and Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS). Our main outcomes were PANSS-derived criteria based on worsening in PANSS total score. We examined their relevance using equipercentile linking with CGI-S and functioning scales, and their test-performance in defining relapse with diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis against CGI-S worsening (≥1-point increase together with a score ≥4 points) and psychiatric hospitalisation., Findings: Based on data from seven RCTs (2354 participants; 1348 men [57·3%] and 1006 women [42·7%], mean age of 39·5 years [SD 12·0, range 17-89]; 303 Asian [12.9%], 255 Black [10.8%], 1665 White [70.7%], and other or unspecified 131 [5.6%]), an increase of 12 points or more in PANSS total (range 30-210 points) corresponded to clinically important deterioration in global severity of illness (≥1 point increase in CGI-S, range 1-7) and functioning (≥10 points decline in PSP or SOFAS, range 1-100). The interpretation of percentage changes varied importantly across different baseline scores. An increase of 12 points or more in PANSS total had good sensitivity and specificity using CGI-S as reference standard (sensitivity 82·1% [95% CI 77·1-86·4], specificity 86·9% [82·9-90·3]), as well as good sensitivity but lower specificity compared to hospitalisation (sensitivity 81·7% [74·1-87·7], specificity 69·2% [60·5-76·9]). Requiring either an increase in PANSS total or in specific items for positive and disorganization symptoms further improved test-performance. Cutoffs for situations where high sensitivity or specificity is needed are presented., Interpretation: An increase of either 12 points or more in the PANSS total score, or worsening of specific positive and disorganisation symptom items could be a reasonable evidence-based definition of relapse in schizophrenia, potentially linking symptoms used to define remission and relapse. Percentage changes should not be used to define relapse because their interpretation depends on baseline scores., Funding: German Research Foundation (grant number: 428509362)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RAM has received speaker or consultancy fees from Karuna, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Otsuka, and co-directs a company that designs digital resources to support treatment of mental illness. JMK has been a consultant or advisor for, or has received honoraria from, Alkermes, Allergan, LB Pharmaceuticals, H Lundbeck, Intracellular Therapies, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Minerva, Neurocrine, Newron, Otsuka, Pierre Fabre, Reviva, Roche, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Takeda, Teva, and UpToDate, and is a shareholder in LB Pharmaceuticals and Vanguard Research Group. CA has been a consultant to, or has received honoraria or grants from, Acadia, Abbot, Ambrosetti, AMGEN, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Forum, Gedeon Richter, Janssen Cilag, Lundbeck, Merck, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, Shire, Schering Plough, Sunovion, and Takeda. WWF has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Angelini, Richter, and Recordati, and grant support from Lundbeck and Otsuka. PF received paid speakership from Otsuka, Recordati, Richter, Rovi, and Janssen, and is a member of advisory boards of Richter, Rovi, and Janssen. AH has received paid speakerships from AbbVie, Janssen, Otsuka, Rercordati, and Lundbeck. He was member of Rovi, Recordati, Otsuka, Lundbeck, and Janssen advisory boards. SRM has received consulting fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, H. Lundbeck, Otsuka, Takeda, Teva, Roche, Genentech, Targacept, Forum, AbbVie, Allergan, and Neurocrine. He has received research support from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Takeda, and Neurocrine. NS has been a consultant or advisor to, or has received honoraria, from Alkermes, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Otsuka Canada, and Teva. WGH has received consulting fees or sat on paid advisory boards for In Silico Biosciences, Translational Life Sciences, Newron, Otsuka, and AbbVie. RWB is a data and safety monitoring board member for Merck, Newron, and Roche; on the advisory board for Acadia, Boehringer Ingelheim, Karuna, Neurocrine, and Roche; and consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim. MD is an employee of Minerva Neurosciences. MW He has received advisory board, speaker's, or consultant fees from, and owns stock, with Acadia, Dexcel, Janssen, Lundbeck, Minerva, Pfizer, Roche, and Teva. OH was a part-time employee of H. Lundbeck, and has received investigator-initiated research funding from, or participated in, advisory or speaker meetings organised by Angellini, Autifony, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Heptares, Global Medical Education, Invicro, Jansenn, Lundbeck, Neurocrine, Otsuka, Sunovion, Rand, Recordati, Roche, and Viatris/Mylan. Neither he nor his family have holdings/a financial stake in any pharmaceutical company. He has a patent for the use of dopaminergic imaging. CUC has been a consultant or advisor to, or has received honoraria from, AbbVie, Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Aristo, Axsome, Cardio Diagnostics, Compass, Damitsa, Gedeon Richter, Hikma, Holmusk, IntraCellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, Karuna, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, MedInCell, Medscape, Merck, Mindpax, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mylan, Neurocrine, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Recordati, Relmada, Reviva, Rovi, Seqirus, Servier, SK Life Science, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, Teva, and Viatris. He provided expert testimony for Janssen and Otsuka. He served on a data safety monitoring board for Lundbeck, Relmada, Reviva, Rovi, and Teva. He has received grant support from Janssen and Takeda. He received royalties from UpToDate and is also a stock option holder of Cardio Diagnostics, Mindpax, LB Pharma and Quantics. In the past 3 years, SL has received honoraria as a consultant, adviser, or lecturer from Alkermes, Angelini, Eisai, Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Lundbeck, Lundbeck Institute, Merck Sharpp and Dome, Otsuka, Recordati, Rovi, Sanofi Aventis, TEVA, Medichem, and Mitsubishi. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset and reaches a peak within 10 minutes. The main symptoms involve bodily systems, such as racing heart, chest pain, sweating, shaking, dizziness, flushing, churning stomach, faintness and breathlessness. Other recognised panic attack symptoms involve fearful cognitions, such as the fear of collapse, going mad or dying, and derealisation (the sensation that the world is unreal). Panic disorder is common in the general population with a prevalence of 1% to 4%. The treatment of panic disorder includes psychological and pharmacological interventions, including antidepressants and benzodiazepines., Objectives: To compare, via network meta-analysis, individual drugs (antidepressants and benzodiazepines) or placebo in terms of efficacy and acceptability in the acute treatment of panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. To rank individual active drugs for panic disorder (antidepressants, benzodiazepines and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To rank drug classes for panic disorder (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), mono-amine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and benzodiazepines (BDZs) and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To explore heterogeneity and inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence in a network meta-analysis., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, CENTRAL, CDSR, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and PsycINFO to 26 May 2022., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people aged 18 years or older of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. We included trials that compared the effectiveness of antidepressants and benzodiazepines with each other or with a placebo., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data and continuous data as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD): response to treatment (i.e. substantial improvement from baseline as defined by the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), total number of dropouts due to any reason (as a proxy measure of treatment acceptability: dichotomous outcome), remission (i.e. satisfactory end state as defined by global judgement of the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), panic symptom scales and global judgement (continuous outcome), frequency of panic attacks (as recorded, for example, by a panic diary; continuous outcome), agoraphobia (dichotomous outcome). We assessed the certainty of evidence using threshold analyses., Main Results: Overall, we included 70 trials in this review. Sample sizes ranged between 5 and 445 participants in each arm, and the total sample size per study ranged from 10 to 1168. Thirty-five studies included sample sizes of over 100 participants. There is evidence from 48 RCTs (N = 10,118) that most medications are more effective in the response outcome than placebo. In particular, diazepam, alprazolam, clonazepam, paroxetine, venlafaxine, clomipramine, fluoxetine and adinazolam showed the strongest effect, with diazepam, alprazolam and clonazepam ranking as the most effective. We found heterogeneity in most of the comparisons, but our threshold analyses suggest that this is unlikely to impact the findings of the network meta-analysis. Results from 64 RCTs (N = 12,310) suggest that most medications are associated with either a reduced or similar risk of dropouts to placebo. Alprazolam and diazepam were associated with a lower dropout rate compared to placebo and were ranked as the most tolerated of all the medications examined. Thirty-two RCTs (N = 8569) were included in the remission outcome. Most medications were more effective than placebo, namely desipramine, fluoxetine, clonazepam, diazepam, fluvoxamine, imipramine, venlafaxine and paroxetine, and their effects were clinically meaningful. Amongst these medications, desipramine and alprazolam were ranked highest. Thirty-five RCTs (N = 8826) are included in the continuous outcome reduction in panic scale scores. Brofaromine, clonazepam and reboxetine had the strongest reductions in panic symptoms compared to placebo, but results were based on either one trial or very small trials. Forty-one RCTs (N = 7853) are included in the frequency of panic attack outcome. Only clonazepam and alprazolam showed a strong reduction in the frequency of panic attacks compared to placebo, and were ranked highest. Twenty-six RCTs (N = 7044) provided data for agoraphobia. The strongest reductions in agoraphobia symptoms were found for citalopram, reboxetine, escitalopram, clomipramine and diazepam, compared to placebo. For the pooled intervention classes, we examined the two primary outcomes (response and dropout). The classes of medication were: SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs. For the response outcome, all classes of medications examined were more effective than placebo. TCAs as a class ranked as the most effective, followed by BDZs and MAOIs. SSRIs as a class ranked fifth on average, while SNRIs were ranked lowest. When we compared classes of medication with each other for the response outcome, we found no difference between classes. Comparisons between MAOIs and TCAs and between BDZs and TCAs also suggested no differences between these medications, but the results were imprecise. For the dropout outcome, BDZs were the only class associated with a lower dropout compared to placebo and were ranked first in terms of tolerability. The other classes did not show any difference in dropouts compared to placebo. In terms of ranking, TCAs are on average second to BDZs, followed by SNRIs, then by SSRIs and lastly by MAOIs. BDZs were associated with lower dropout rates compared to SSRIs, SNRIs and TCAs. The quality of the studies comparing antidepressants with placebo was moderate, while the quality of the studies comparing BDZs with placebo and antidepressants was low., Authors' Conclusions: In terms of efficacy, SSRIs, SNRIs (venlafaxine), TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs may be effective, with little difference between classes. However, it is important to note that the reliability of these findings may be limited due to the overall low quality of the studies, with all having unclear or high risk of bias across multiple domains. Within classes, some differences emerged. For example, amongst the SSRIs paroxetine and fluoxetine seem to have stronger evidence of efficacy than sertraline. Benzodiazepines appear to have a small but significant advantage in terms of tolerability (incidence of dropouts) over other classes., (Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Competing Interests: This work was supported by the Deutsches Zentrum für Psychische Gesundheit (German Center for Mental Health [grant: 01EE2303B]). SL has received honoraria as advisor or for lectures or educational material from Alkermes, Angelini, Apsen, Eisai, Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Karuna, Kynexis, Lundbeck, Medichem, Medscape, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Mitshubishi, Neurotorium, NovoNordisk, Otsuka, Recordati, Roche, Rovi, Sanofi Aventis, and TEVA. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Functioning is recognized as a key treatment goal in alleviating the burden of schizophrenia. Psychological interventions can play an important role in improving functioning in this population, but the evidence on their efficacy is limited. We therefore aimed to evaluate the effect of psychological interventions in functioning for patients with schizophrenia. To conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched for published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, BIOSIS, Cochrane Library, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov and the Study register of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group. The outcome functioning was measured with validated scales. We performed random-effects pairwise meta-analysis to calculate standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We included 58 RCTs (5048 participants). Psychological interventions analyzed together (SMD =  - 0.37, 95% CI  - 0.49 to  - 0.25), cognitive behavioral therapy (30 RCTs, SMD =  - 0.26, 95% CI  - 0.39 to  - 0.12), and third wave cognitive-behavioral therapies (15 RCTs, SMD =  - 0.60, 95% CI  - 0.83 to  - 0.37) were superior to control in improving functioning, while creative therapies (8 RCTs, SMD = 0.01, 95% CI  - 0.38 to 0.39), integrated therapies (4 RCTs, SMD =  - 0.21, 95% CI  - 1.20 to 0.78) and other therapies (4 RCTs, SMD =  - 0.74, 95% CI  - 1.52 to 0.04) did not show a benefit. Psychological interventions, in particular cognitive behavioral therapy and third wave cognitive behavioral therapies, have shown a therapeutic effect on functioning. The confidence in the estimate was evaluated as very low due to risk of bias, heterogeneity and possible publication bias., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: There is evidence that antipsychotic drugs differ in their effect on the cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia. So far, there is no comprehensive systematic review available that would enable providers and patients to make informed choices regarding this important aspect of treatment. With a large number of substances available, conventional pairwise meta-analyses will not be sufficient to inform this choice. To fill this gap, we will conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA), integrating direct and indirect comparisons from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to rank antipsychotics according to their effect on cognitive functioning., Methods: In our NMA, we will include RCTs in patients with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses comparing one antipsychotic agent with another antipsychotic agent or placebo that measures cognitive function. We will include studies on patients of every age group, in any phase of illness (e.g., acute or stable, first episode or chronic schizophrenia, in- or outpatients) with an intervention time of at least 3 weeks. The primary outcome will be the composite score of cognitive functioning, preferentially measured with the test battery developed by the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) initiative. The secondary outcomes include the seven cognitive domains that the composite score is composed of, as well as functioning and quality of life. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted by at least two independent reviewers. We will use the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2 to determine the risk of bias in studies, and we will evaluate the confidence in the results using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). We will perform NMA using R (package netmeta). We will conduct subgroup and sensitivity analyses to explore the heterogeneity and assess the robustness of our findings., Discussion: This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to inform evidence-based antipsychotic treatment choice for cognitive deficits in schizophrenia patients by analyzing existing RCTs on this subject. The results have the potential to support patients' and physicians' decision-making processes based on the latest available evidence., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022312483., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Guidelines recommend clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. However, meta-analysis of aggregate data (AD) did not demonstrate higher efficacy of clozapine compared with other second-generation antipsychotics but found substantial heterogeneity between trials and variation between participants in treatment effects. Therefore, we will conduct an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to estimate the efficacy of clozapine compared with other second-generation antipsychotics while accounting for potentially important effect modifiers., Methods and Analysis: In a systematic review, two reviewers will independently search Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's trial register (without restrictions in date, language or state of publication) and related reviews. We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in participants with treatment-resistant schizophrenia comparing clozapine with other second-generation antipsychotics for at least 6 weeks. We will apply no restrictions in age, gender, origin, ethnicity or setting, but exclude open-label studies, studies from China, experimental studies and phase II of cross-over trials. IPD will be requested from trial authors and cross-check against published results. AD will be extracted in duplicate. Risk of bias will be assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 tool.The primary outcome will be overall symptoms of schizophrenia.We will synthesise results using random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression methods in a 3-level Bayesian model. The model combines IPD with AD when IPD is not available for all studies, and include participant, intervention and study design characteristics as potential effect modifiers. The effect size measures will be mean difference (or standardised mean difference when different scales were used). Confidence in the evidence will be assessed using GRADE., Ethics and Dissemination: This project has been approved by the ethics commission of the Technical University of Munich (#612/21 S-NP). The results will be published open-access in a peer-review journal and a plain-language version of the results will be disseminated.If we need to amend this protocol, we will describe the change and give the rationale in a specific section in the resulting publication 'Changes with respect to the protocol'., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (#CRD42021254986)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: In the last 3 years, SL has received honoraria as a consultant/advisor and/or for lectures from Angelini, Böhringer Ingelheim, Geodon&Richter, Janssen, Johnson&Johnson, Lundbeck, LTS Lohmann, MSD, Otsuka, Recordati, SanofiAventis, Sandoz, Sunovion, TEVA, Eisai, Rovi, Medichem and Mitsubishi., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Metabolic side effects of antipsychotic drugs can have serious health consequences and may increase mortality. Although persons with schizophrenia often take these drugs for a long time, their mid- to long-term metabolic effects have been studied little so far. This study aimed to evaluate the mid- to long-term metabolic side effects of 31 antipsychotics in persons with schizophrenia by applying a random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (up to April 27, 2020) and PubMed (up to June 14, 2021). We included published and unpublished, open and blinded randomized controlled trials with a study duration >13 weeks which compared any antipsychotic in any form of administration with another antipsychotic or with placebo in participants diagnosed with schizophrenia. The primary outcome was weight gain measured in kilograms. Secondary outcomes included "number of participants with weight gain", fasting glucose, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides. We identified 137 eligible trials (with 35,007 participants) on 31 antipsychotics, with a median follow-up of 45 weeks. Chlorpromazine produced the most weight gain (mean difference to placebo: 5.13 kg, 95% credible interval, CrI: 1.98 to 8.30), followed by clozapine (4.21 kg, 95% CrI: 3.03 to 5.42), olanzapine (3.82 kg, 95% CrI: 3.15 to 4.50), and zotepine (3.87 kg, 95% CrI: 2.14 to 5.58). The findings did not substantially change in sensitivity and network meta-regression analyses, although enriched design, drug company sponsorship, and the use of observed case instead of intention-to-treat data modified the mean difference in weight gain to some extent. Antipsychotics with more weight gain were often also among the drugs with worse outcome in fasting glucose and lipid parameters. The confidence in the evidence ranged from low to moderate. In conclusion, antipsychotic drugs differ in their propensity to induce metabolic side effects in mid- to long-term treatment. Given that schizophrenia is often a chronic disorder, these findings should be given more consideration than short-term data in drug choice., (© 2023 World Psychiatric Association.)

Background: Antipsychotic drugs are the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia, yet they are associated with diverse and potentially dose-related side effects which can reduce quality of life. For this reason, the lowest possible doses of antipsychotics are generally recommended, but higher doses are often used in clinical practice. It is still unclear if and how antipsychotic doses could be reduced safely in order to minimise the adverse-effect burden without increasing the risk of relapse., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of reducing antipsychotic dose compared to continuing the current dose for people with schizophrenia., Search Methods: We conducted a systematic search on 10 February 2021 at the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and WHO ICTRP. We also inspected the reference lists of included studies and previous reviews., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any dose reduction against continuation in people with schizophrenia or related disorders who were stabilised on their current antipsychotic treatment.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently screened relevant records for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies, and assessed the risk of bias using RoB 2. We contacted study authors for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcomes were clinically important change in quality of life,  rehospitalisations and dropouts due to adverse effects; key secondary outcomes were clinically important change in functioning, relapse, dropouts for any reason, and at least one adverse effect. We also examined scales measuring symptoms, quality of life, and functioning as well as a comprehensive list of specific adverse effects. We pooled outcomes at the endpoint preferably closest to one year. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach., Main Results: We included 25 RCTs, of which 22 studies provided data with 2635 participants (average age 38.4 years old). The median study sample size was 60 participants (ranging from 18 to 466 participants) and length was 37 weeks (ranging from 12 weeks to 2 years). There were variations in the dose reduction strategies in terms of speed of reduction (i.e. gradual in about half of the studies (within 2 to 16 weeks) and abrupt in the other half), and in terms of degree of reduction (i.e. median planned reduction of 66% of the dose up to complete withdrawal in three studies). We assessed risk of bias across outcomes predominantly as some concerns or high risk.  No study reported data on the number of participants with a clinically important change in quality of life or functioning, and only eight studies reported continuous data on scales measuring quality of life or functioning. There was no difference between dose reduction and continuation on scales measuring quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.15, 6 RCTs, n = 719, I 2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence) and scales measuring functioning (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.17, 6 RCTs, n = 966, I 2 = 0%, high certainty evidence). Dose reduction in comparison to continuation may increase the risk of rehospitalisation based on data from eight studies with estimable effect sizes; however, the 95% CI does not exclude the possibility of no difference (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.81, 8 RCTs, n = 1413, I 2 = 59% (moderate heterogeneity), very low certainty evidence). Similarly, dose reduction increased the risk of relapse based on data from 20 studies (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.06, 20 RCTs, n = 2481, I 2 = 70% (substantial heterogeneity), low certainty evidence).   More participants in the dose reduction group in comparison to the continuation group left the study early due to adverse effects (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.49, 6 RCTs with estimable effect sizes, n = 1079, I 2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence) and for any reason (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.81, 12 RCTs, n = 1551, I 2 = 48% (moderate heterogeneity), moderate certainty evidence). Lastly, there was no difference between the dose reduction and continuation groups in the number of participants with at least one adverse effect based on data from four studies with estimable effect sizes (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.12, 5 RCTs, n = 998 (4 RCTs, n = 980 with estimable effect sizes), I 2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review synthesised the latest evidence on the reduction of antipsychotic doses for stable individuals with schizophrenia. There was no difference between dose reduction and continuation groups in quality of life, functioning, and number of participants with at least one adverse effect. However, there was a higher risk for relapse and dropouts, and potentially for rehospitalisations, with dose reduction. Of note, the majority of the trials focused on relapse prevention rather potential beneficial outcomes on quality of life, functioning, and adverse effects, and in some studies there was rapid and substantial reduction of doses. Further well-designed RCTs are therefore needed to provide more definitive answers., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Summary: Sex differences in symptomatology in people with psychosis have been studied extensively in recent decades. Although studies have pointed to such differences, to date there is no review that has performed a systematic search and quantitative synthesis. In this paper, we describe the protocol for a pairwise meta-analysis comparing a range of symptom outcome measures between men and women diagnosed with a psychotic spectrum disorder at different stages of the disorder (PROSPERO registration number CRD42021264942). In August 2021 we conducted systematic searches of PsychInfo, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Dialnet to identify observational studies that report data on symptoms for males and females separately. Two independent reviewers will conduct literature searches, select studies, extract data, assess the risk of bias and assess outcome quality. To assess the effect size of all outcome measures, we will conduct pairwise meta-analysis using random-effects models. The quality of studies will be evaluated using a National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's quality assessment tool and the confidence in the results will be evaluated using the GRADE tool. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings. No ethical problems are foreseen. Results from this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences.

Background: To what extent the COVID-19 pandemic and its containment measures influenced mental health in the general population is still unclear., Purpose: To assess the trajectory of mental health symptoms during the first year of the pandemic and examine dose-response relations with characteristics of the pandemic and its containment., Data Sources: Relevant articles were identified from the living evidence database of the COVID-19 Open Access Project, which indexes COVID-19-related publications from MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase via Ovid, and PsycInfo. Preprint publications were not considered., Study Selection: Longitudinal studies that reported data on the general population's mental health using validated scales and that were published before 31 March 2021 were eligible., Data Extraction: An international crowd of 109 trained reviewers screened references and extracted study characteristics, participant characteristics, and symptom scores at each timepoint. Data were also included for the following country-specific variables: days since the first case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the stringency of governmental containment measures, and the cumulative numbers of cases and deaths., Data Synthesis: In a total of 43 studies (331 628 participants), changes in symptoms of psychological distress, sleep disturbances, and mental well-being varied substantially across studies. On average, depression and anxiety symptoms worsened in the first 2 months of the pandemic (standardized mean difference at 60 days, -0.39 [95% credible interval, -0.76 to -0.03]); thereafter, the trajectories were heterogeneous. There was a linear association of worsening depression and anxiety with increasing numbers of reported cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and increasing stringency in governmental measures. Gender, age, country, deprivation, inequalities, risk of bias, and study design did not modify these associations., Limitations: The certainty of the evidence was low because of the high risk of bias in included studies and the large amount of heterogeneity. Stringency measures and surges in cases were strongly correlated and changed over time. The observed associations should not be interpreted as causal relationships., Conclusion: Although an initial increase in average symptoms of depression and anxiety and an association between higher numbers of reported cases and more stringent measures were found, changes in mental health symptoms varied substantially across studies after the first 2 months of the pandemic. This suggests that different populations responded differently to the psychological stress generated by the pandemic and its containment measures., Primary Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation. (PROSPERO: CRD42020180049).

Background: In clinical practice, different antipsychotics can be combined in the treatment of people with schizophrenia (polypharmacy). This strategy can aim at increasing efficacy, but might also increase the adverse effects due to drug-drug interactions. Reducing polypharmacy by withdrawing one or more antipsychotics may reduce this problem, but must be done carefully, in order to maintain efficacy., Objectives: To examine the effects and safety of reducing antipsychotic polypharmacy compared to maintaining people with schizophrenia on the same number of antipsychotics., Search Methods: On 10 February 2021, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and WHO ICTRP., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared reduction in the number of antipsychotics to continuation of the current number of antipsychotics. We included adults with schizophrenia or related disorders who were receiving more than one antipsychotic and were stabilised on their current treatment., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened all the identified references for inclusion, and all the full papers. We contacted study authors if we needed any further information. Two review authors independently extracted the data, assessed the risk of bias using RoB 2 and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The primary outcomes were: quality of life assessed as number of participants with clinically important change in quality of life; service use assessed as number of participants readmitted to hospital and adverse effects assessed with number of participants leaving the study early due to adverse effects., Main Results: We included five RCTs with 319 participants. Study duration ranged from three months to one year. All studies compared polypharmacy continuation with two antipsychotics to polypharmacy reduction to one antipsychotic.  We assessed the risk of bias of results as being of some concern or at high risk of bias. A lower number of participants left the study early due to any reason in the polypharmacy continuation group (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.68; I 2 = 0%; 5 RCTs, n = 319; low-certainty evidence), and a lower number of participants left the study early due to inefficacy (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.65; I 2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, n = 201).  Polypharmacy continuation resulted in more severe negative symptoms (MD 3.30, 95% CI 1.51 to 5.09; 1 RCT, n = 35). There was no clear difference between polypharmacy reduction and polypharmacy continuation on readmission to hospital, leaving the study early due to adverse effects, functioning, global state, general mental state and positive symptoms, number of participants with at least one adverse effect, weight gain and other specific adverse effects, mortality and cognition. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low or low across measured outcomes. No studies reported quality of life, days in hospital, relapse, depressive symptoms, behaviour and satisfaction with care. Due to lack of data, it was not possible to perform some planned sensitivity analyses, including one controlling for increasing the dose of the remaining antipsychotic. As a result, we do not know if the observed results might be influenced by adjustment of dose of remaining antipsychotic compound., Authors' Conclusions: This review summarises the latest evidence on polypharmacy continuation compared with polypharmacy reduction. Our results show that polypharmacy continuation might be associated with a lower number of participants leaving the study early, especially due to  inefficacy. However, the evidence is of low and very low certainty and the data analyses based on few study only, so that it is not possible to draw strong conclusions based on the results of the present review. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to investigate this important topic., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: There is still no approved medication for the core symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This network meta-analysis investigated pharmacological and dietary-supplement treatments for ASD., Methods: We searched for randomized-controlled-trials (RCTs) with a minimum duration of seven days in ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, WHO-ICTRP (from inception up to July 8, 2018), CENTRAL and PubMed (up to November 3, 2021). The co-primary outcomes were core symptoms (social-communication difficulties-SCD, repetitive behaviors-RB, overall core symptoms-OCS) measured by validated scales and standardized-mean-differences (SMDs). Associated symptoms, e.g., irritability/aggression and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms, dropouts and important side-effects, were investigated as secondary outcomes. Studies in children/adolescents and adults were analyzed separately in random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses., Results: We analyzed data for 41 drugs and 17 dietary-supplements, from 125 RCTs (n = 7450 participants) in children/adolescents and 18 RCTs (n = 1104) in adults. The following medications could improve at least one core symptom domain in comparison with placebo: aripiprazole (k = 6 studies in analysis, SCD: SMD = 0.27 95% CI [0.09, 0.44], RB: 0.48 [0.26, 0.70]), atomoxetine (k = 3, RB:0.49 [0.18, 0.80]), bumetanide (k = 4, RB: 0.35 [0.09, 0.62], OCS: 0.61 [0.31, 0.91]), and risperidone (k = 4, SCM: 0.31 [0.06, 0.55], RB: 0.60 [0.29, 0.90]; k = 3, OCS: 1.18 [0.75, 1.61]) in children/adolescents; fluoxetine (k = 1, RB: 1.20 [0.45, 1.96]), fluvoxamine (k = 1, RB: 1.04 [0.27, 1.81]), oxytocin (k = 6, RB:0.41 [0.16, 0.66]) and risperidone (k = 1, RB: 0.97 [0.21,1.74]) in adults. There were some indications of improvement by carnosine, haloperidol, folinic acid, guanfacine, omega-3-fatty-acids, probiotics, sulforaphane, tideglusib and valproate, yet imprecise and not robust. Confidence in these estimates was very low or low, except moderate for oxytocin. Medications differed substantially in improving associated symptoms, and in their side-effect profiles., Limitations: Most of the studies were inadequately powered (sample sizes of 20-80 participants), with short duration (8-13 weeks), and about a third focused on associated symptoms. Networks were mainly star-shaped, and there were indications of reporting bias. There was no optimal rating scale measuring change in core symptoms., Conclusions: Some medications could improve core symptoms, although this could be likely secondary to the improvement of associated symptoms. Evidence on their efficacy and safety is preliminary; therefore, routine prescription of medications for the core symptoms cannot be recommended. Trial registration PROSPERO-ID CRD42019125317., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Family interventions are efficacious for relapse prevention in schizophrenia. Multiple different models have been developed. We aimed to compare the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of family interventions for relapse prevention in schizophrenia., Methods: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched for randomised controlled trials that investigated family intervention models aimed at preventing relapse in patients with schizophrenia. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, BIOSIS, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to Jan 20, 2020 and PubMed up to July 15, 2021. We included blinded and open-label randomised controlled trials in which at least 80% of patients had schizophrenia spectrum disorders. We excluded studies in which all patients were acutely ill, had a concurrent medical or psychiatric disorder, or were prodromal or "at risk of psychosis". Study selection and data extraction were done by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted about overall, positive, negative, and depressive symptoms of schizophrenia, quality of life, adherence, overall functioning, family burden, expressed emotion, and discontinuations due to inefficacy. The primary outcome was relapse, measured with operationalised criteria, psychiatric hospital admissions, or clinical judgement. We did a frequentist, random-effects, network meta-analysis to calculate odds ratios ([ORs]; dichotomous outcomes) or standardised mean differences (continuous outcomes) with 95% CIs. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020169951., Findings: We identified 28 395 studies through the database search and 334 from references of previous studies. We compared 11 family intervention models tested on a total of 90 randomised controlled trials with 10 340 participants (3579 females and 5632 males with sex indicated; median age 31 years [range 14-65]) in the network meta-analysis. Ethnicity data were not available. All interventions, with the exception of crisis-oriented interventions and family psychoeducation with two sessions or fewer, reduced the relapse rate significantly when compared with treatment as usual at the primary timepoint of 12 months. ORs compared with treatment as usual ranged from 0·18 (95% CI 0·12-0·27) for family psychoeducation alone to 0·63 (0·42-0·94) for community-based interventions involving family members. The results were robust in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses. The confidence in the estimates ranged from moderate to very low for different comparisons., Interpretation: Almost all family intervention models were efficacious in preventing relapse in schizophrenia. Family psychoeducation alone, without behavioural or skills training, was superior to the more complex models. Our results suggest that in contexts where there are financial constraints, family psychoeducation alone should be implemented., Funding: German Ministry for Education and Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SL has received honoraria for consultancy or advisory work or for lectures from Angelini, Böhringer Ingelheim, Geodon Richter, Janssen, Johnson&Johnson, Lundbeck, LTS Lohmann, MSD, Otsuka, Recordati, SanofiAventis, Sandoz, Sunovion, TEVA, ROVI, EISAI and Medichem. IB is the deputy coordinating editor of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group. TAF reports grants, royalties, or licenses and personal fees from Mitsubishi-Tanabe; personal fees from MSD and SONY; grants and personal fees from Shionogi, outside the submitted work; and has a patent pending for a smartphone cognitive behavioural therapy app (2020-548587), and intellectual properties for the Kokoro-app licensed to Mitsubishi-Tanabe. MSS reports personal fees from Lundbeck and Angelini; and is the coordinator of Italian Early Career Psychiatrists. GPW reports personal fees from OMNIX PHARMA and Janssen; is the second head of the German association of psychoeducation; and developed, in collaboration with Bäuml and colleagues, one of the psychoeducational models considered in this review. EA has been a consultant or a speaker or has received research grants from Allergan, Angelini, Doc Generici, FB-Health, Janssen, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Fidia, and Recordati; and is the president of the Italian Society of Psychopathology. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Schizophrenia is a common, severe, and usually chronic disorder. Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs can prevent relapse but also causes side-effects. We aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of antipsychotics as maintenance treatment for non-treatment resistant patients with schizophrenia., Methods: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched, without language restrictions, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's specialised register between database inception and April 27, 2020, PubMed from April 1, 2020, to Jan 15, 2021, and the lists of included studies from related systematic reviews. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs; ≥12 weeks of follow-up) that recruited adult participants with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder with stable symptoms who were treated with antipsychotics (monotherapy; oral or long-acting injectable) or placebo. We excluded RCTs of participants with specific comorbidities or treatment resistance. In duplicate, two authors independently selected eligible RCTs and extracted aggregate data. The primary outcome was the number of participants who relapsed and was analysed by random-effects, Bayesian network meta-analyses. The study was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42016049022., Findings: We identified 4157 references through our search, from which 501 references on 127 RCTs of 32 antipsychotics (comprising 18 152 participants) were included. 100 studies including 16 812 participants and 30 antipsychotics contributed to our network meta-analysis of the primary outcome. All antipsychotics had risk ratios (RRs) less than 1·00 when compared with placebo for relapse prevention and almost all had 95% credible intervals (CrIs) excluding no effect. RRs ranged from 0·20 (95% CrI 0·05-0·41) for paliperidone oral to 0·65 (0·16-1·14) for cariprazine oral (moderate-to-low confidence in estimates). Generally, we interpret that there was no clear evidence for the superiority of specific antipsychotics in terms of relapse prevention because most comparisons between antipsychotics included a probability of no difference., Interpretation: As we found no clear differences between antipsychotics for relapse prevention, we conclude that the choice of antipsychotic for maintenance treatment should be guided mainly by their tolerability., Funding: The German Ministry of Education and Research and Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests In the past 3 years, SL has received honoraria as a consultant, adviser, or both, or for lectures, from Alkermes, Angelini, Eisai, Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Lundbeck, Lundbeck Institute, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Otsuka, Recordati, Rovi, Sanofi Aventis, TEVA, Medichem, and Mitsubishi. TAF reports grants from Mitsubishi-Tanabe and Shionogi, outside the submitted work; personal fees from Mitsubishi-Tanabe, MSD, SONY, and Shionogi, outside the submitted work; a patent (2018–177688) concerning smartphone cognitive behavioural therapy apps pending; and intellectual properties for the Kokoro app licensed to Mitsubishi-Tanabe. ACi has received research and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Paediatric Trials, the CARIPLO Foundation, and Angelini Pharma, outside the submitted work. MH has received honoraria as an adviser from Recordati. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The magnitude of the superiority of antipsychotics over placebo is debated. One reason is that the effect-size index which is usually used in meta-analyses is in standard deviation units. Many other indices, some of which are more intuitive, exist., Methods: We explain the formulae, advantages, and limitations of 13 effect-size indices: Mean Difference (MD), Standardized-Mean-Difference (SMD), Correlation Coefficient, Ratio-of-Means (RoM, endpoint and change data), Improvement Fraction (IF), Drug-Response Fraction (DRF), Minimally-Clinically-Important-Difference-Units (MCIDU), Number-Needed-to-Treat-derived from SMD (NNT), Odds Ratio (OR), Relative Risk (RR), and Risk Difference (RD) derived from SMD, Drug-response and Placebo-response in percent. We applied these indices to meta-analyses comparing antipsychotic drugs with placebo for acute schizophrenia., Results: The difference of all antipsychotics pooled vs placebo (105 trials with 22741 participants) was: MD 9.4 (95% CI 8.4,10.2) PANSS points, SMD 0.47 (0.42,0.51), Correlation coefficient 0.23 (0.21,0.25), RoM endpoint 0.83 (0.81,0.85), RoM change 1.94 (1.84,2.02), IF (%) 49 (46,51), DRF (%) 94 (84,102), MCIDU 0.63 (0.56,0.68), NNT 5 (5,6), OR 2.34 (2.14, 2.52), RR 1.67 (1.59,1.73), RD 20% (18-22), and 50% (48, 52) improved on drug compared to 30% on placebo. Results of individual drugs compared to placebo are presented, as well., Conclusions: Taken together these indices show a substantial, but not a large superiority of antipsychotics compared to placebo. The general chronicity of the patients in the trials must be considered. Future meta-analyses should report other effect size indices in addition to the Standardized-Mean-Difference, in particular percentage responders in the drug and placebo groups. They can be easily derived and would enhance the interpretation of research findings., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center.All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Antipsychotic drugs and especially the newer compounds are known to cause metabolic side effects. However, a comprehensive comparison of the different substances regarding their propensity to cause metabolic side effects in medium- to long-term treatment of schizophrenia is lacking., Methods: We will conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which participants received either placebo or an antipsychotic (i.e. placebo-controlled trials and head-to-head comparisons of drugs). We will include studies in individuals with schizophrenia or related disorders (such as schizophreniform or schizoaffective disorders) at any stage of the disease (acute episode; maintenance phase). We will include studies with a duration of more than 3 months (medium- to long-term treatment). The primary outcome will be the change in body weight. Secondary outcomes will be the further metabolic parameters: fastening glucose, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and triglycerides. We will search for eligible studies (independent of the publication status) in Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is compiled by regular searches in trial registries and multiple electronic databases from their inception onwards including MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Additionally, we will search previously published systematic reviews and websites of pharmaceutical companies for eligible studies. At least two reviewers will independently conduct the process of study selection and data extraction. We will use the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool to evaluate the risk of bias in studies. We will conduct random-effects NMA within a Bayesian framework to synthesize all evidence for each outcome. We will conduct sensitivity and subgroup analyses to assess the robustness of the findings and to explore heterogeneity. The confidence in the results will be evaluated using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework., Discussion: This systematic review and network meta-analysis will provide a synthesis of the existing evidence from RCTs how antipsychotic drugs differ in terms of metabolic side effects during medium- to long-term treatment. The findings have the potential to influence the choice of antipsychotic medication made by individuals with schizophrenia and their physicians., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020175414., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Psychomotor agitation is a common condition in patients with psychotic disorders. One treatment possibility is intramuscular (IM) second-generation antipsychotics. Yet their efficacy in this formulation and for this aim is unclear. This network meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of short-acting IM second-generation antipsychotic drugs, haloperidol and placebo in patients with diagnosis of schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like disorders that present acute agitation., Methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, PubMed, BIOSIS, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP up to November 2018 and PubMed until March 2020. Study selection and outcome extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted to compare the different IM second-generation antipsychotics among themselves and with IM haloperidol and placebo. The primary outcome was the number of responders at 2 h after the first injection. Responders at 24 h were also analysed., Results: 10 studies with 1964 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Ziprasidone, olanzapine, aripiprazole and haloperidol were more efficacious than placebo in calming patients at 2 h after administration. Furthermore, olanzapine was superior to aripiprazole. The results at 24 h confirmed the superiority of aripiprazole, olanzapine and haloperidol over placebo, while for ziprasidone no data were available., Conclusions: All second-generation antipsychotics available as intramuscular medications were effective in reducing agitation in people with schizophrenia. Olanzapine was somewhat more efficacious than aripiprazole., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest In the past 3 years, SL has received honoraria for service as a consultant or adviser and/or for lectures from Angelini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, LB Pharma, LTS Lohmann, Lundbeck, MSD, Otsuka, Recordati, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, Sunovion, and TEVA. In the last two years, AV received support directly or indirectly for clinical studies or trials, conferences, consultancies, Congress presentations, advisory boards from Angelini, Boheringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Fidia, Innovapharma, Janssen- Cilag, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Recordati, Takeda. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: We examined patient and study characteristics of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy trials to establish whether the effects of these 2 treatment strategies can be compared meaningfully., Methods: We inspected all randomized controlled trials included in 2 recent meta-analyses on antipsychotics and psychotherapy in patients with positive symptoms of schizophrenia, searching EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Differences between psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy trials were analyzed with Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney and chi-square tests., Results: Eighty studies with 18 271 participants on antipsychotic drugs and 53 studies with 4068 participants on psychotherapy were included. Psychotherapy studies included less severely ill patients (P < .0001), with a shorter duration of illness (P = .021), lasted for a longer period (P < .0001), administered the intervention as add-on to antipsychotics (P < .0001), had higher risk of bias in some domains including blinding of outcome assessment (P < .0001), and were funded publicly more frequently (P < .0001). Antipsychotic trials had larger sample sizes (P < .0001) and more study centers (P < .0001), included more males (P = .0001), inpatients (P < .0001), and slightly older patients (P = .031), more often used diagnostic operationalized criteria (P = .006), and were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. They did not differ in conflict of interest (P = .24)., Conclusions: We found key differences between the 2 groups of studies that encompass higher risk of bias in psychotherapy studies and the inclusion of more severe patients in drug trials. These differences imply that study and patient characteristics should be carefully taken into account before considering a network meta-analysis. In the interest of patients, psychopharmacologists and psychotherapists should optimize their treatments rather than seeing them in competition., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Depression is one of the leading causes of the global burden of disease, and it has particularly negative consequences for elderly patients. Antidepressants are the most frequently used treatment. We present the first single-group meta-analysis examining: 1) the response rates of elderly patients to antidepressants, and 2) the determinants of antidepressants response in this population., Methods: We searched multiple databases for randomized controlled trials on antidepressants in the elderly with major depressive disorder above 65 years (last search: December 2017). Response was defined as 50% improvement on validated rating scales. We extracted response rates from studies and imputed the missing ones with a validated method. Data were pooled in a single-group meta-analysis. Additionally, several potential moderators of response to antidepressants were examined by subgroup and meta-regression analyses., Results: We included 44 studies with a total of 6373 participants receiving antidepressants. On average, 50.7% of the patients reached a reduction of at least 50% on the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses revealed a better response to treatment for patients in antidepressant-controlled trials compared to placebo-controlled trials. Mean age, study duration, percentage of woman, severity of illness at baseline, dose of antidepressants in fluoxetine equivalents, year of publication, setting (in- or out-patients), antidepressant groups (SSRI, TCA, SSNRI, α2-antagonist, SNRI, MAO-inhibitor), ITT (intention-to-treat) analysis vs completer analysis, sponsorship and overall risk of bias were not significant moderators of response., Conclusions: Our findings suggest an improvement in symptoms can be found in about 50% of the elderly with major depressive disorder treated with antidepressants.

Introduction: There is evidence that different psychosocial interventions could reduce the risk of relapse in schizophrenia, but a comprehensive evidence based on their relative efficacy is lacking. We will conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA), integrating direct and indirect comparisons from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to rank psychosocial treatments for relapse prevention in schizophrenia according to their efficacy, acceptability and tolerability., Methods and Analysis: We will include all RCTs comparing a psychosocial treatment aimed at preventing relapse in patients with schizophrenia with another psychosocial intervention or with a no treatment condition (waiting list, treatment as usual). We will include studies on adult patients with schizophrenia, excluding specific subpopulations (eg, acutely ill patients). Primary outcome will be the number of patients experiencing a relapse. Secondary outcomes will be acceptability (dropout), change in overall, positive, negative and depressive symptoms, quality of life, adherence, functioning and adverse events. Published and unpublished studies will be sought through database searches, trial registries and websites. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted by at least two independent reviewers. We will conduct random-effects NMA to synthesise all evidence for each outcome and obtain a comprehensive ranking of all treatments. NMA will be conducted in R within a frequentist framework. The risk of bias in studies will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the credibility of the evidence will be evaluated using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings., Ethics and Dissemination: No ethical issues are foreseen. Results from this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42019147884., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SL has received honoraria as a consultant/advisor and/or for lectures from LB Pharma, Otsuka, Lundbeck, Boehringer Ingelheim, LTS Lohmann, Janssen, Johnson and Johnson, TEVA, MSD, Sandoz, SanofiAventis, Angelini, Sunovion, Recordati and Gedeon Richter. TAF reports personal fees from Meiji, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, MSD and Pfizer and a grant from Mitsubishi-Tanabe, outside the submitted work, and has a patent 2018-1 77 688 pending., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

As there is currently no comprehensive evaluation about the efficacy and safety of interventions in elderly patients with major depressive disorder, we did a systematic review and network meta-analysis about all interventions in this population. We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane common mental disorders group, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CochraneLibrary, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO registry until Dec 12, 2017 to identify all randomized controlled trials about the treatment of major depressive disorder in patients over an age of 65. The primary outcome was response defined as reduction of at least 50% on the Hamilton Depression Scale or any other validated depression scale. Secondary outcomes were remission, depressive symptoms, dropouts total, dropouts owing to inefficacy and dropouts due to adverse events, quality of life and social functioning. Additionally, we analysed 116 adverse events. We identified 129 references from 53 RCTs with 9274 participants published from 1990 to 2017. The mean participant age was 73.7 years. In terms of the primary outcome response to treatment the network-meta-analysis showed significant superiority compared to placebo for quetiapine and duloxetine; in addition, agomelatine, imipramine and vortioxetine outperformed placebo in pairwise meta-analyses, and there were also significant superiorities of several antidepressants compared to placebo in secondary efficacy outcomes. Very limited evidence suggests that competitive memory training, geriatric home treatment group and detached mindfulness condition reduce depressive symptoms. Several antidepressants and quetiapine have been shown to be efficacious in elderly patients with major depressive disorder, but due to the comparably few available data, the results are not robust. Differences in the multiple side-effects analysed should also be considered in drug choice. Although there were significant effects for some non-pharmacological treatments, the overall evidence for non-pharmacological treatments in major depressive disorder is insufficient, because it is based on a few trials with usually small sample sizes., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Antipsychotic drugs might cause acutely occurring, serious side-effects and thus contribute to the increased physical morbidity and mortality observed in patients with severe mental health disorders. We examined this hypothesis by doing a meta-analysis of International Conference on Harmonisation-Good Clinical Practice-defined serious adverse events occurring in placebo-controlled trials of antipsychotics., Methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing second-generation antipsychotics with placebo. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for trials published in any language from database inception up until Jan 27, 2017. Trials were included without limitations in population (diagnostic category, age, sex, ethnicity), dosing regimen, blinding status, duration, or publication year. Only psychological studies lasting less than 1 day and trials done in mainland China were excluded. We contacted pharmaceutical companies, drug regulatory authorities, and study investigators for additional data. The primary outcome was the number of patients with at least one somatic serious adverse event. We estimated minimum and maximum numbers of patients with the outcome in each study group and synthesised the results with odds ratios (ORs) in a common-effects meta-analysis. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016033930., Findings: We identified 597 RCTs, comprising 108 664 participants, that met the inclusion criteria. 314 trials (67 642 participants) with details on individual serious adverse events available constituted the main dataset for meta-analysis. 88% of these were 13 weeks (approximately 3 months) or shorter in duration (median 6 weeks, IQR 4-9). At least one somatic serious adverse event occurred in 698 (1·63%) to 862 (2·02%) of 42 600 patients on antipsychotics, and in 343 (1·37%) to 419 (1·67%) of 25 042 patients on placebo. The odds ratios (ORs) were 1·24 (95% CI 1·08-1·42) and 1·24 (1·10-1·41) based on the minimum and maximum estimate, respectively. In predefined subgroup analyses we found evidence suggesting a larger effect in older patients (>65 years; OR 1·56, 95% CI 1·22-1·98; 1·58, 1·25-1·99) as compared with adults (18-65 years; 1·09, 0·91-1·29; 1·10, 0·95-1·28); likewise in children or adolescents (<18 years) although the evidence was more uncertain (1·49, 0·81-2·75; 1·54, 0·85-2·77). Of 597 included RCTs, 30 (5%), 358 (60%), and 209 (35%) were rated at high, moderate, or low risk of bias, respectively. τ 2 was zero for both analyses of the primary outcome (minimum estimate, maximum estimate). A Bayesian sensitivity analysis using external information on heterogeneity gave similar results., Interpretation: We found evidence that antipsychotics cause short-term somatic serious adverse events on top of somatic serious adverse events occurring independent of treatment. This effect appears to be mainly driven by results in older patients. Hence, clinicians should be aware that antipsychotics are potentially toxic, particularly when treating patients sharing risk factors with the older population., Funding: German Ministry of Education and Research., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Panic disorder is characterised by recurrent unexpected panic attacks consisting of a wave of intense fear that reaches a peak within a few minutes. Panic disorder is a common disorder, with an estimated lifetime prevalence of 1% to 5% in the general population and a 7% to 10% prevalence in primary care settings. Its aetiology is not fully understood and is probably heterogeneous.Panic disorder is treated with psychological and pharmacological interventions, often used in combination. Although benzodiazepines are frequently used in the treatment of panic disorder, guidelines recommend antidepressants, mainly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), as first-line treatment for panic disorder, particularly due to their lower incidence of dependence and withdrawal reaction when compared to benzodiazepines. Despite these recommendations, benzodiazepines are widely used in the treatment of panic disorder, probably because of their rapid onset of action., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and acceptability of benzodiazepines versus placebo in the treatment of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR Studies and References), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1950-), Embase (1974-), and PsycINFO (1967-) up to 29 May 2018. We handsearched reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews. We contacted experts in the field for supplemental data., Selection Criteria: All double-blind (blinding of patients and personnel) controlled trials randomising adults with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia to benzodiazepine or placebo., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently checked the eligibility of studies and extracted data using a standardised form. Data were then entered data into Review Manager 5 using a double-check procedure. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details, settings, and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability., Main Results: We included 24 studies in the review with a total of 4233 participants, of which 2124 were randomised to benzodiazepines and 1475 to placebo. The remaining 634 participants were randomised to other active treatments in three-arm trials. We assessed the overall methodological quality of the included studies as poor. We rated all studies as at unclear risk of bias in at least three domains. In addition, we judged 20 of the 24 included studies as having a high risk of bias in at least one domain.Two primary outcomes of efficacy and acceptability showed a possible advantage of benzodiazepines over placebo. The estimated risk ratio (RR) for a response to treatment was 1.65 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39 to 1.96) in favour of benzodiazepines, which corresponds to an estimated number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 4 (95% CI 3 to 7). The dropout rate was lower among participants treated with benzodiazepines (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.64); the estimated NNTB was 6 (95% CI 5 to 9). We rated the quality of the evidence as low for both primary outcomes. The possible advantage of benzodiazepine was also seen for remission (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.38 to 1.88) and the endpoint data for social functioning (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.53, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.42), both with low-quality evidence. We assessed the evidence for the other secondary outcomes as of very low quality. With the exception of the analyses of the change score data for depression (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.04) and social functioning (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.88 to 0.24), all secondary outcome analyses showed an effect in favour of benzodiazepines compared to placebo. However, the number of dropouts due to adverse effects was higher with benzodiazepines than with placebo (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.15; low-quality evidence). Furthermore, our analyses of adverse events showed that a higher proportion of participants experienced at least one adverse effect when treated with benzodiazepines (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.37; low-quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Low-quality evidence shows a possible superiority of benzodiazepine over placebo in the short-term treatment of panic disorders. The validity of the included studies is questionable due to possible unmasking of allocated treatments, high dropout rates, and probable publication bias. Moreover, the included studies were only short-term studies and did not examine the long-term efficacy nor the risks of dependency and withdrawal symptoms. Due to these limitations, our results regarding the efficacy of benzodiazepines versus placebo provide only limited guidance for clinical practice. Furthermore, the clinician's choice is not between benzodiazepines and placebo, but between benzodiazepines and other agents, notably SSRIs, both in terms of efficacy and adverse effects. The choice of treatment should therefore be guided by the patient's preference and should balance benefits and harms from treatment in a long-term perspective.