Search

A systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis were conducted to compare the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of antidepressants to treat adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) in the maintenance phase. This study searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases and included only double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials with an enrichment design: patients were stabilized on the antidepressant of interest during the open-label study and then randomized to receive the same antidepressant or placebo. The outcomes were the 6-month relapse rate (primary outcome, efficacy), all-cause discontinuation (acceptability), discontinuation due to adverse events (tolerability), and the incidence of individual adverse events. The risk ratio with a 95% credible interval was calculated. The meta-analysis comprised 34 studies (n = 9384, mean age = 43.80 years, and %females = 68.10%) on 20 antidepressants (agomelatine, amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, tianeptine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine) and a placebo. In terms of the 6-month relapse rate, amitriptyline, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, tianeptine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine outperformed placebo. Compared to placebo, desvenlafaxine, paroxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine had lower all-cause discontinuation; however, sertraline had a higher discontinuation rate due to adverse events. Compared to placebo, venlafaxine was associated with a lower incidence of dizziness, while desvenlafaxine, sertraline, and vortioxetine were associated with a higher incidence of nausea/vomiting. In conclusion, desvenlafaxine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine had reasonable efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability in the treatment of adults with stable MDD.

A systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of pharmacological interventions for adults with acute bipolar mania. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase databases for eligible studies published before March 14, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of oral medication monotherapy lasting ≥10 days in adults with mania were included, and studies that allowed the use of antipsychotics as a rescue medication during a trial were excluded. The primary outcomes were response to treatment (efficacy) and all-cause discontinuation (acceptability). The secondary outcomes were the improvement of mania symptoms and discontinuation due to inefficacy. Of the 79 eligible RCTs, 72 double-blind RCTs of 23 drugs and a placebo were included in the meta-analysis (mean study duration = 3.96 ± 2.39 weeks, n = 16442, mean age = 39.55 years, with 50.93% males). Compared with the placebo, aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, cariprazine, haloperidol, lithium, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, tamoxifen, valproate, and ziprasidone outperformed response to treatment (N = 56, n = 14503); aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone had lower all-cause discontinuation; however, topiramate had higher all-cause discontinuation (N = 70, n = 16324). Compared with the placebo, aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, cariprazine, haloperidol, lithium, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, tamoxifen, valproate, and ziprasidone outperformed the improvement of mania symptoms (N = 61, n = 15466), and aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, cariprazine, haloperidol, lithium, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, valproate, and ziprasidone had lower discontinuation due to inefficacy (N = 50, n = 14284). In conclusions, these antipsychotics, carbamazepine, lithium, tamoxifen, and valproate were effective for acute mania. However, only aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone had better acceptability than the placebo.

Most conventional insomnia medications are gamma‐aminobutylic acid receptor agonists. However, physical dependence is a concern and one of the major limiting factors for long‐term treatment. The dual orexin receptor antagonists, suvorexant and lemborexant, were recently approved for treating chronic insomnia, giving a novel pharmacotherapeutic option. Because there are no comparative studies on these drugs, a network meta‐analysis was conducted, which is suitable for comparing interventions. According to this analysis, 5‐ and 10‐mg lemborexant were superior to 20‐mg suvorexant because of the greater improvement in initiating sleep after 1‐week administration. Furthermore, 5‐mg lemborexant (not 10 mg) and suvorexant were similarly well tolerated, without requiring discontinuation due to adverse events. We also overviewed the pharmacological and pharmacokinetic properties of lemborexant and suvorexant that may support these clinical outcomes. When compared to suvorexant, lemborexant quickly binds to the orexin receptors. The time to reach the maximum concentration after multiple administrations is shorter for lemborexant than for suvorexant. Considering these results, we recommend 5‐mg lemborexant as an initial treatment for insomnia, followed by 10‐mg lemborexant or suvorexant., A network meta‐analysis of the dual orexin receptor antagonists, suvorexant, and lemborexant, showed that 5‐ and 10‐mg lemborexant were superior to 20‐mg suvorexant, with greater improvement in sleep onset after 1 week of treatment. In addition, 5‐mg (but not 10‐mg) lemborexant and suvorexant were similarly well tolerated. We have overviewed the pharmacological and pharmacokinetic properties of lemborexant and suvorexant that may support these clinical results, and recommended 5‐mg lemborexant as initial treatment for insomnia, followed by 10‐mg lemborexant or suvorexant.

IntroductionTo examine whether aripiprazole once-monthly (AOM) was more beneficial than oral aripiprazole (OARI) in the treatment of adults with schizophrenia during the maintenance phase. MethodsWe performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized controlled trials that included two of the following treatments: AOM, OARI, and placebo. ResultsWe identified four studies involving 1830 adults. Relapse rates at 26 weeks were lower for both AOM (odds ratio [OR] 0.240, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.169–0.341) and OARI (OR=0.306, 95%CI=0.217–0.431) than for placebo, although their treatment outcomes did not differ significantly (OR=0.786, 95%CI=0.529–1.168). Rates of all-cause discontinuation were also lower with AOM (OR=0.300, 95% CI=0.227–0.396) and OARI (OR=0.441, 95%CI=0.333–0.582) than with placebo. The rate of all-cause discontinuation was lower with AOM than with OARI (OR=0.681, 95% CI=0.529–0.877)]. Other outcomes did not differ significantly between AOM and OARI. DiscussionAlthough both AOM and OARI were efficacious in the treatment of schizophrenia during the maintenance phase, AOM was better accepted than OARI.

Objectives A systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trials were conducted to examine how soon an increase in recurrence risk could be observed among bipolar I disorder (BDI) patients who were clinically stable with the combination therapy of mood stabilizers with second-generation antipsychotics (SGA+MS) treatment following second-generation antipsychotics discontinuation (i.e., MS alone) compared with SGA+MS maintenance. Methods Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL databases were used for systematic literature searches until May/22/2020. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate of any mood episode at 6 months. The secondary outcomes were the recurrence rates of manic/hypomanic/mixed and depressive episodes and all-cause discontinuation at 6 months. The recurrence rates at 1, 2, 3, 9, and 12 months were also investigated. Results Eight studies (mean study duration = 58.25 ± 33.63 weeks) were identified (SGA+MS group [n = 1,456: 3 aripiprazole+MS studies, 1 lurasidone+MS study, 1 olanzapine+MS study, 2 quetiapine+MS studies, 1 ziprasidone+MS study] and placebo+MS group [n = 1,476]). Pooled SGA+MS exhibited lower recurrence rates of any mood episode, manic/hypomanic/mixed episodes, and depressive episodes as well as reduced all-cause discontinuation at every observational point. The risk ratios (95% confidence interval) of the recurrence rate at 6 months were 0.51 (0.39-0.86) for any mood episode, 0.42 (0.30-0.59) for manic/hypomanic/mixed episodes, and 0.39 (0.28-0.54) for depressive episodes. The RR for all-cause discontinuation was 0.67 (0.50-0.89). Both aripiprazole+MS and quetiapine+MS outperformed placebo+MS in the recurrence of any mood, manic/hypomanic/mixed, and depressive episodes at 6 months. Conclusions SGA+MS prevented recurrence for up to 12 months for BDI compared with placebo+MS.

We searched Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL from inception until 22 May 2020 to investigate which antipsychotics and/or mood stabilizers are better for patients with bipolar disorder in the maintenance phase. We performed two categorical network meta-analyses. The first included monotherapy studies and studies in which the two drugs used were specified (i.e., aripiprazole, aripiprazole once monthly, aripiprazole+lamotrigine, aripiprazole+valproate, asenapine, carbamazepine, lamotrigine, lamotrigine+valproate, lithium, lithium+oxcarbazepine, lithium+valproate, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone long-acting injection, valproate, and placebo). The second included studies on second-generation antipsychotic combination therapies (SGAs) (i.e., aripiprazole, lurasidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, and ziprasidone) with lithium or valproate (LIT/VAL) compared with placebo with LIT/VAL. Outcomes were recurrence/relapse rate of any mood episode (RR-any, primary), depressive episode (RR-dep) and manic/hypomanic/mixed episode (RR-mania), discontinuation, mortality, and individual adverse events. Risk ratios and 95% credible interval were calculated. Forty-one randomized controlled trials were identified (n = 9821; mean study duration, 70.5 ± 36.6 weeks; percent female, 54.1%; mean age, 40.7 years). All active treatments other than carbamazepine, lamotrigine+valproate (no data) and paliperidone outperformed the placebo for RR-any. Aripiprazole+valproate, lamotrigine, lamotrigine+valproate, lithium, olanzapine, and quetiapine outperformed placebo for RR-dep. All active treatments, other than aripiprazole+valproate, carbamazepine, lamotrigine, and lamotrigine+valproate, outperformed placebo for RR-mania. Asenapine, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, and valproate outperformed placebo for all-cause discontinuation. All SGAs+LIT/VALs other than olanzapine+LIT/VAL outperformed placebo+LIT/VAL for RR-any. Lurasidone+LIT/VAL and quetiapine+LIT/VAL outperformed placebo+LIT/VAL for RR-dep. Aripiprazole+LIT/VAL and quetiapine+LIT/VAL outperformed placebo+LIT/VAL for RR-mania. Lurasidone+LIT/VAL and quetiapine+LIT/VAL outperformed placebo+LIT/VAL for all-cause discontinuation. Treatment efficacy, tolerability, and safety profiles differed among treatments.

This study investigated factors associated with discontinuation in double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (DBRPCTs) of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for acute schizophrenia, with a view to establishing what factors were associated with all-cause discontinuation. 77 eligible studies (96 comparisons; n = 22,678) were included in this study. Thirty-one factors potentially affecting all-cause discontinuation, related to the participants, study design, and drugs, were included in a meta-regression analysis that examined the factors associated with discontinuation rates in treatment and placebo groups and/or the treatment–placebo group difference in discontinuation. Smaller improvements in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total scores from baseline to endpoint were associated with higher discontinuation rates in both the treatment and placebo groups, and smaller response rates in the treatment group were associated with higher discontinuation rates in the treatment group. These factors were also associated with the treatment–placebo group difference in discontinuation. Although the risk of weight gain from SGA use was not associated with discontinuation rates in either the treatment or placebo groups, SGAs with a risk of weight gain were associated with a larger treatment–placebo group difference in discontinuation, although the reason is unknown. Factors associated with discontinuation rates in both treatment and placebo groups did not influence the treatment–placebo group difference in discontinuation. The efficacy and the risk of weight gain of SGAs seemed to influence treatment–placebo group difference in discontinuation in DBRPCTs of SGAs for acute schizophrenia.

BackgroundThis random-effects model meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trials compared recurrence rates in bipolar disorder (BD) patients between antipsychotic/mood stabilizer discontinuation and maintenance groups.MethodsWe conducted systematic literature search of Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL databases without language restriction from inception until 22 May 2020. Independent investigators assessed studies and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and numbers needed to benefit or harm (NNTB/NNTH). Primary outcome was the recurrence rate of any mood episode at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were recurrence rates of depressive episodes and manic/hypomanic/mixed episodes and all-cause discontinuation at 6 months. We also investigated these outcomes at 1, 3, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months.ResultsWe identified 22 studies (n = 5462) receiving aripiprazole, asenapine, divalproex, long-acting injectable (LAI)-aripiprazole, LAI-risperidone, lamotrigine, lithium, olanzapine, paliperidone, or quetiapine. Mean study duration was 64.50 ± 69.35 weeks. The maintenance group demonstrated lower recurrence rates of any mood episode, depressive episodes, and manic/hypomanic/mixed episodes as well as reduced all-cause discontinuation at every observational point. The RRs (95% confidence interval, NNTB/NNTH) of recurrence rate at 6 months were 0.61 (0.54–0.70, 5) for any mood episode, 0.72 (0.60–0.87, 13) for depressive episodes, and 0.45 (0.36–0.57, 6) for manic/hypomanic/mixed episodes. The RR for all-cause discontinuation at 6 months was 0.71 (0.61–0.82, 6).ConclusionsMaintaining drug treatment during clinically stable BD prevented recurrence for up to 24 months. Discontinuation of medications for ⩾1 month significantly increased recurrence risk. However, 47.3% of patients who discontinued drugs for 6 months did not experience recurrence.

Introduction Several reports of the effectiveness of the use of psychostimulants for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are available. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted including double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Outcomes were the improvement of apathy scales score (primary), mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score, activities of daily living scale score, Zarit burden interview score, all-cause discontinuation, discontinuation due to adverse events, and incidence of at least 1 adverse event. Results Three methylphenidate studies and 1 modafinil study were identified (n=156). Results from combined psychostimulants were superior to placebo in the improvement of apathy scales score (standardized mean differences [SMD]=−0.63 (−1.22, −0.04), p=0.04, all studies) and the MMSE score (SMD=−0.58 (−1.14, −0.02), p=0.04, 3 methylphenidate studies). The modafinil study was excluded from the meta-analysis for the improvement of apathy scales score; therefore, the effect size increased (SMD=−0.82 (−1.43, −0.20), p=0.009). However, no significant differences were observed in terms of other outcomes, including safety outcomes between the treatment groups. Discussion Methylphenidate would be effective in treating apathy and cognitive impairment in AD patients.

Introduction The use of the blonanserin patch (BLO-P) for schizophrenia treatment was approved in Japan in 2019. This systematic review of trials in Japan assessed the efficacy and safety profile of BLO-P compared with other antipsychotics. Methods The systematic review included 6-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials in Japan that included patients with acute schizophrenia. Pooled data for patients receiving BLO-P 40 and 80 mg/day (BLO-P40+80) were compared with pooled data for patients receiving asenapine 10 and 20 mg/day (ASE10+20) and data for those receiving brexpiprazole 2 mg/day (BRE2) and paliperidone extended-release 6 mg/day (PAL-ER6). Results All the investigated treatments were superior to placebo in reducing the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score; the Hedges’ g values (95% confidence interval) for BLO-P40+80, ASE10+20, BRE2, and PAL-ER6 were−0.40 (−0.58,−0.22),−0.61 (−0.79,−0.42),−0.33 (−0.60,−0.07), and−0.69 (−0.93,−0.45), respectively. There were differences among the antipsychotics in the incidence of various individual adverse events. Discussion BLO-P40+80 may have a good efficacy/safety/tolerability profile for the treatment of patients with acute schizophrenia.

Aim There have been no previous reports on the efficacy and safety of suvorexant for insomnia in people with psychiatric disorders. Methods This one‐week, prospective, single‐arm, clinical trial of fixed dose of suvorexant (20 mg if ages 18–64 or 15 mg if age ≥ 65 years) for insomnia included 57 patients with psychiatric disorders who had experienced any of the following insomnia symptoms for four or more nights during the week prior to the start of the study: total sleep time (TST), This is one‐week, prospective, single‐arm, clinical trial of fixed dose of suvorexant for insomnia included 57 patients with psychiatric disorders. Compared with the baseline scores, taking suvorexant was associated with significant improvements in total sleep time, time to sleep onset, wake time after sleep onset, and the patients' sleep satisfaction level at week 1.

Objective: This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, investigating the efficacy and tolerability/safety of melatonin receptor agonists, such as ramelteon and melatonin, for patients with bipolar disorder. Methods: We carried out a literature search through PubMed and the Cochrane Library from the date of inception to January 6, 2019. The risk ratio (RR), number needed to treat (NNT), and standardized mean difference (SMD) ±95% CI were calculated. The primary outcome was all-cause discontinuation. Results: We identified three ramelteon (n=746) and two melatonin (n=53) studies. One of these two melatonin studies reported only data on all-cause discontinuation, whereas the other study did not report data relevant for a meta-analysis. We found no significant differences between the treatment and placebo groups regarding all-cause discontinuation, neither individually (p: ramelteon=0.86, melatonin=1.00) nor pooled together (p=0.85). Although we found no significant differences between ramelteon and placebo regarding the relapse due to mania/hypomania or mixed episode; Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index scores; depression scales scores; Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire - Short Form scores; and the incidence of individual adverse events, such as headaches, insomnia, somnolence, anxiety, and dizziness, ramelteon was associated with a lower incidence of relapse due to depression than placebo (RR=0.67, 95% CI=0.48-0.94, p=0.02, NNT=14). Conclusion: Ramelteon might prevent relapse due to depression in patients with bipolar disorder. However, because of the small number of studies included in the present systematic review and meta-analysis, further studies comparing ramelteon and placebo with larger samples of patients with bipolar disorder are warranted. We also did not evaluate the efficacy and safety of melatonin for patients with bipolar disorder in detail.

Aim Whether patients with adult bipolar disorder (BD) who have been clinically stabilized with lithium or lamotrigine should continue this medication is not established fully. This systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of lithium and lamotrigine for maintenance treatment in clinically stable patients with adult BD. Methods This meta‐analysis included only double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled trials with an enrichment design that selected patients who responded acutely to lithium or lamotrigine. Reports prior to November 15, 2018, were retrieved from the PubMed/Cochrane Library/Embase. The primary outcome was the relapse rate due to any mood episode at the study endpoint. Other outcomes were relapse rates due to a manic/hypomanic/mixed episode or depression at the study endpoint, discontinuation rate, death, and death by suicide. Risk ratios (RRs) (95% confidence intervals) were calculated. When the random‐effects model showed significant differences between groups, the number‐needed‐to‐treat (NNT) was estimated. Results The search retrieved two studies regarding lithium (N = 218) and four evaluating lamotrigine (N = 706). Both drugs were superior to placebo for reducing the relapse rate due to any mood episode [lithium: RR = 0.52 (0.41‐0.66), P, Study, patient, and treatment characteristics of the included double‐blinded, randomized placebo‐controlled trials of patients with bipolar disorder

Background We examined the efficacy and safety of using antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia using only randomized trials of antipsychotic for schizophrenia conducted in Japan to avoid the biological and environmental heterogeneities caused by pooling data from various races and ethnicities. Methods We searched for eligible studies on Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL. Primary outcomes were improvement in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score (PANSS−T) and all-cause discontinuation. Other outcomes were improvement in PANSS subscale scores, discontinuation due to adverse events or inefficacy, and the incidence of 16 adverse events. Results We calculated mean difference or risk ratios and 95% credible intervals. We identified 34 RCTs (6798 patients; mean study duration, 9.0 ± 4.24 weeks; proportion of male patients, 53.7%; mean age, 43.3 years). Besides placebo, studies included aripiprazole, asenapine, blonanserin, blonanserin-patch, brexpiprazole, clocapramine (no PANSS data), clozapine (no PANSS data), haloperidol, lurasidone, mosapramine, olanzapine, paliperidone, perospirone, quetiapine, and risperidone. Efficacy and safety profiles differed for antipsychotics used with schizophrenia in Japanese patients. All active treatments other than haloperidol and quetiapine outperformed placebo to improve PANSS−T. Asenapine, olanzapine, paliperidone, and risperidone outperformed placebo for all-cause discontinuation. Asenapine, blonanserin, blonanserin-patch, haloperidol, lurasidone, mosapramine, olanzapine, paliperidone, and risperidone outperformed placebo to improve PANSS positive subscale scores. Aripiprazole, asenapine, blonanserin, blonanserin-patch, brexpiprazole, lurasidone, olanzapine, paliperidone, perospirone, and risperidone outperformed placebo to improve PANSS negative subscale scores. The confidence in evidence of most outcomes was low or very low. Conclusion Our results are similar to those of previous network meta-analysis involving various races and ethnicities.

This random-effects model meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trials compared recurrence rates in bipolar disorder (BD) patients between antipsychotic/mood stabilizer discontinuation and maintenance groups.We conducted systematic literature search of Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL databases without language restriction from inception until 22 May 2020. Independent investigators assessed studies and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and numbers needed to benefit or harm (NNTB/NNTH). Primary outcome was the recurrence rate of any mood episode at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were recurrence rates of depressive episodes and manic/hypomanic/mixed episodes and all-cause discontinuation at 6 months. We also investigated these outcomes at 1, 3, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months.We identified 22 studies (n = 5462) receiving aripiprazole, asenapine, divalproex, long-acting injectable (LAI)-aripiprazole, LAI-risperidone, lamotrigine, lithium, olanzapine, paliperidone, or quetiapine. Mean study duration was 64.50 ± 69.35 weeks. The maintenance group demonstrated lower recurrence rates of any mood episode, depressive episodes, and manic/hypomanic/mixed episodes as well as reduced all-cause discontinuation at every observational point. The RRs (95% confidence interval, NNTB/NNTH) of recurrence rate at 6 months were 0.61 (0.54-0.70, 5) for any mood episode, 0.72 (0.60-0.87, 13) for depressive episodes, and 0.45 (0.36-0.57, 6) for manic/hypomanic/mixed episodes. The RR for all-cause discontinuation at 6 months was 0.71 (0.61-0.82, 6).Maintaining drug treatment during clinically stable BD prevented recurrence for up to 24 months. Discontinuation of medications for ⩾1 month significantly increased recurrence risk. However, 47.3% of patients who discontinued drugs for 6 months did not experience recurrence.

We investigated the association between discontinuation due to withdrawal of consent (DWC) in schizophrenia trials and the use of long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAI-APs). In two categorical meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, we compared DWC: individual and pooled LAI-APs vs. (1) placebo and (2) oral antipsychotics (OAPs). We also performed conducted a single-group meta-analysis to calculate the average DWC and a meta-regression analysis to examine the association between the results of the meta-analyses and factors related to study design, treatment, and patients. We identified 52 studies (total adult patients = 18,675, LAI-APs = 12,613, placebo = 2,083, and OAPs = 3,979; median study duration = 32 weeks). DWC was higher for LAI-aripiprazole than for the placebo [risk ratio (95% confidence interval) = 1.70 (1.23–2.39)]. Neither pooled nor individual LAI-APs differed from the placebo for fluphenazine, olanzapine, paliperidone, and risperidone or from the OAPs for aripiprazole, fluphenazine, haloperidol, olanzapine, paliperidone, risperidone, and zuclopenthixol. The average DWC of each LAI-AP was as follows: LAI-aripiprazole = 10.98%, LAI-fluphenazine = 7.65%, LAI-flupenthixol = 3.33%, LAI-haloperidol = 6.71%, LAI-olanzapine = 10.50%, LAI-paliperidone = 10.38%, LAI-perphenazine = 7.06%, LAI-risperidone = 10.39%, LAI-zuclopenthixol = 4.45%, pooled LAI-APs = 9.88%, and placebo = 11.17%. Meta-regression analysis demonstrated that publication year (β = 0.02), percentage of males (β = 0.02), and mean age (β = 0.05) were associated with an average DWC for pooled LAI-APs. Study duration (β = −0.03), percentage of males (β = 0.08), and patient status (β = −0.85) were associated with an average DWC for LAI-aripiprazole. Presence of a placebo arm (β = 1.60) was associated with an average DWC for LAI-fluphenazine. LAI-AP use was unlikely to be associated with DWC. Although the LAI-aripiprazole had a higher DWC than did the placebo, its average DWC was similar to other those of LAI-APs.

Background The exact recurrence rate of bipolar disorder in patients receiving lithium maintenance phase treatment and the modifiers associated with recurrence are still unknown. Methods We searched Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL from inception until April 28, 2020. Outcomes included recurrence rate of any mood episode, depressive episodes, and manic/hypomanic/mixed episodes; all-cause discontinuation rate; and discontinuation rate due to adverse events. A random-effects model, single-group summary meta-analysis was conducted. A meta-regression analysis to examine whether the modifiers (total number of patients, %female, mean age, duration of study, duration of preliminary phase, publication year, bipolar disorder type, mood status at recruitment, presence of a placebo arm, sponsorship, enrichment design, number of treatment arms, and risk of bias for blinding or randomization) were associated with the event rate of the outcomes was also performed. Results We identified 21 randomized trials (n = 1,415; mean study duration, 78.40 ± 32.10 weeks; %female, 54.85%; mean age, 43.47 ± 4.88 years). The event rates (95% confidence interval [CI]) were as follows: recurrence of any mood episode, 39.8% (32.8%, 47.1%); depressive episodes, 25.6% (18.8%, 34.0%); manic/hypomanic/mixed episodes, 18.5% (13.7%, 24.7%); all-cause discontinuation rate, 67.0% (57.2%, 75.5%); and discontinuation rate due to adverse events, 8.7% (5.1%, 14.7%). After adjusting for multiple testing, our meta-regression analysis showed association only between the all-cause discontinuation rate and presence of a placebo arm. Conclusions The recurrence rate of depressive episodes seemed to be higher than the recurrence rate of manic/hypomanic/mixed episodes. The all-cause discontinuation rate was high. However, the studies included in our meta-analysis were of short duration.

This study investigated factors associated with discontinuation in double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (DBRPCTs) of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for acute schizophrenia, with a view to establishing what factors were associated with all-cause discontinuation. 77 eligible studies (96 comparisons; n = 22,678) were included in this study. Thirty-one factors potentially affecting all-cause discontinuation, related to the participants, study design, and drugs, were included in a meta-regression analysis that examined the factors associated with discontinuation rates in treatment and placebo groups and/or the treatment-placebo group difference in discontinuation. Smaller improvements in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total scores from baseline to endpoint were associated with higher discontinuation rates in both the treatment and placebo groups, and smaller response rates in the treatment group were associated with higher discontinuation rates in the treatment group. These factors were also associated with the treatment-placebo group difference in discontinuation. Although the risk of weight gain from SGA use was not associated with discontinuation rates in either the treatment or placebo groups, SGAs with a risk of weight gain were associated with a larger treatment-placebo group difference in discontinuation, although the reason is unknown. Factors associated with discontinuation rates in both treatment and placebo groups did not influence the treatment-placebo group difference in discontinuation. The efficacy and the risk of weight gain of SGAs seemed to influence treatment-placebo group difference in discontinuation in DBRPCTs of SGAs for acute schizophrenia.

It remains unclear whether using N-acetylcysteine as an adjunctive treatment has any benefit for bipolar depression and major depressive disorder. A systematic review and random-effect meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trials was conducted to explore the clinical question. Outcomes included improvement in depression scale scores (primary), Young Mania Rating Scale score, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale score, Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S) score, Global Assessment of Functioning Scale score, Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale score, Range of Impaired Functioning Tool score, Streamed Longitudinal Interval Clinical Evaluation for the Longitudinal Interview Follow-Up Evaluation score, quality of life scales scores, and the incidence of all-cause discontinuation and individual adverse events. Seven studies (n = 728, 8–24 weeks, mean age = 46.81, % female = 58.45%) were included. N-acetylcysteine did not improve depressive symptoms compared with placebo (N = 7, n = 579, standardized mean difference (SMD) = − 0.12, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = − 0.38, 0.14, p = 0.38, I2 = 52.74%). The meta-regression analysis detected an association between effect size and publication year (coefficient = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.00, 0.11, p = 0.04, I2 = 27.56%). Although N-acetylcysteine was superior to placebo in CGI-S score (N = 6, n = 563, SMD = − 0.28, 95% CI = − 0.47, − 0.10, p

We conducted a random-effects model network meta-analysis to examine differences between lemborexant and suvorexant in efficacy and safety outcomes for treating patients with insomnia. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL from their inception until April/28/2020. Primary outcomes were subjective time to sleep onset (sTSO), subjective total sleep time (sTST), and subjective wake-after-sleep onset (sWASO) at week 1. Four double-blind, randomized controlled trials were identified (n = 3237; 72.4% female; mean age 58.0 years). The treatment arm consisted of lemborexant 10 mg/d (LEM10, n = 592), lemborexant 5 mg/d (LEM5, n = 589), suvorexant 20/15 mg/d (SUV20/15, n = 493), zolpidem tartrate extended release 6.25 mg/d (ZOL6.25, n = 263), and placebo (n = 1300). All active treatments outperformed placebo regarding sTSO at week 1; standardized mean differences (95% credible interval): LEM10 = −0.51 (−0.63, −0.39), LEM5 = −0.48 (−0.60, −0.36), SUV20/15 = −0.21 (−0.33, −0.10), and ZOL6.25 = −0.30 (−0.46, −0.14); sTST at week 1: LEM10 = −0.58 (−0.70, −0.45), LEM5 = −0.33 (−0.46, −0.21), SUV20/15 = −0.34 (−0.46, −0.23), and ZOL6.25 = −0.42 (−0.59, −0.25); and sWASO at week 1: LEM10 = −0.42 (−0.57, −0.28), LEM5 = −0.26 (−0.40, −0.11), SUV20/15 = −0.18 (−0.32, −0.05), and ZOL6.25 = −0.37 (−0.56, −0.18). Although no significant differences were found in discontinuation due to adverse events between each active drug and placebo, LEM10 and SUV20/15 were associated with greater somnolence compared with placebo. LEM10 had the largest effect size compared with placebo for all primary outcomes, although with a risk of somnolence.

This study aims to examine whether folate/folic acid/methylfolate/folinic acid supplemented to antipsychotics (FA + AP) is beneficial in schizophrenia treatment. We conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of FA + AP for schizophrenia. The primary outcome was an improvement in total symptoms. Other outcomes were psychopathology subscales (positive, negative, general, and depressive symptoms), discontinuation due to all-cause and adverse events, and individual adverse events. The meta-analysis evaluated the effect size based on a random-effects model. Although we included ten RCTs with 925 patients in total (seven folic acid RCTs (n = 789), two methylfolate RCTs (n = 96), and one folinic acid RCT (n = 40)) in the systematic review, only seven RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled FA + AP treatments were not superior to placebo + AP in the improvement of total (N = 7, n = 340; standardized mean difference (SMD) = − 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) = − 0.41, 0.02, p = 0.08, I2 = 0%), positive, general, or depressive symptoms. Pooled FA + AP treatments were more effective than placebo + AP for negative symptoms (N = 5, n = 281; SMD = −0.25, 95% CI = −0.49, −0.01, p = 0.04, I2 = 0%). Although pooled FA + AP treatments were associated with a lower incidence of serious adverse events than placebo treatments (N = 4, n = 241; risk ratio = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.12–0.82, p = 0.02, I2 = 0%; number needed to harm = not significant), there were no significant differences in other safety outcomes between both treatments. Our findings suggest that pooled FA + AP treatment improves negative symptoms in schizophrenia patients. Moreover, this treatment was well tolerated. However, because our results might exhibit a small-study effect, future studies with a larger sample should be conducted to obtain more robust results.