Dataset Information

Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics for Prevention of Relapse in Bipolar Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aimed to examine the advantages of long-acting injectable antipsychotics over placebo or oral medications regarding efficacy and safety for patients with bipolar disorder.

Methods

Two categorical meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials were performed to compare study-defined relapse rate (primary), discontinuation rates, and individual adverse events: (1) risperidone-long-acting injectable vs placebo, and (2) long-acting injectable antipsychotics vs oral medications.

Results

We identified 7 randomized controlled trials (n=1016; long-acting injectable antipsychotics [flupenthixol (1 randomized controlled trial) and risperidone (6 randomized controlled trials)=449]; oral medications [mood stabilizers, antidepressants, antipsychotic, or any combination of these agents=283]; and placebo=284). Risperidone-long-acting injectable antipsychotic was superior to placebo for study-defined relapse rate (risk ratio=0.63, P<.0001), relapse of manic symptoms (risk ratio=0.42, P<.00001), and all-cause discontinuation (risk ratio=0.75, P=.007). Risperidone-long-acting injectable was associated with higher incidence of prolactin-related adverse events (risk ratio=4.82, P=.001) and weight gain (risk ratio=3.80, P<.0001) than placebo. The pooled long-acting injectable antipsychotics did not outperform oral medications regarding primary outcome but with significant heterogeneity (I²=74%). Sensitivity analysis, including only studies with rapid cycling or high frequency of relapse patients, revealed that long-acting injectable antipsychotics were superior compared to oral medications (I²=0%, RR=0.58, P=.0004). However, the comparators in this sensitivity analysis did not include second-generation antipsychotic monotherapy. In sensitivity analysis, including only studies with second-generation antipsychotic monotherapy as the comparator, long-acting injectable antipsychotics did not outperform second-generation antipsychotic monotherapy. Risperidone-long-acting injectable was also associated with higher incidence of prolactin-related adverse events than oral medications (RR=2.66, P=.03).

Conclusions

Long-acting injectable antipsychotics appear beneficial for relapse prevention in patients with rapid cycling. Furthermore, randomized controlled trials comparing long-acting injectable antipsychotics and oral second-generation antipsychotic using larger samples of rapid cycling patients are warranted.

SUBMITTER: Kishi T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5043645 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics for Prevention of Relapse in Bipolar Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Kishi Taro T Oya Kazuto K Iwata Nakao N

The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology 20160921 9

<h4>Background</h4>This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aimed to examine the advantages of long-acting injectable antipsychotics over placebo or oral medications regarding efficacy and safety for patients with bipolar disorder.<h4>Methods</h4>Two categorical meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials were performed to compare study-defined relapse rate (primary), discontinuation rates, and individual adverse events: (1) risperidone-long-acting injectable vs placebo, and (2) long ...[more]

PMID: 27207910

Similar Datasets

Project description:Medication non-adherence in patients with schizophrenia continues to be a significant problem and threatens successful treatment outcomes. Medication non-adherence is often associated with negative consequences, including symptom exacerbation, more frequent emergency room visits, re-hospitalizations and relapse. Long-acting injectable (LAI) forms of antipsychotics allow for rapid identification of non-adherence, obviate the need for the patient to take the medication on a daily basis and increase adherence to some significant degree. Eli Lilly has developed a long-acting depot formulation of olanzapine, olanzapine pamoate, which has recently been approved by the FDA for the US market, and which will be reviewed here. Olanzapine LAI appears to be an effective antipsychotic at dosages of 210 mg every 2 weeks, 300 mg every 2 weeks and 405 mg every 4 weeks in patients with acute schizophrenia, and at 150 mg every 2 weeks, 300 mg every 2 weeks and at 405 mg every 4 weeks for the maintenance treatment of stable patients. Oral supplementation appears not to be needed, particularly not at the onset of treatment with the LAI as is necessary with risperidone LAI. Its efficacy is in general comparable to the efficacy seen with oral olanzapine at a corresponding dose. The side effect profile is also comparable to the side effects observed with oral olanzapine, including lower rates of extrapyramidal symptoms, prolactin elevation and cardiovascular side effects, but significant metabolic effects. The latter include significant weight gain, lipid abnormalities and glucose dysregulation. While the injection site adverse events are overall mild, the most significant serious adverse event is the post-injection delirium sedation syndrome (PDSS). While rare, this syndrome results from inadvertent intravascular injection of olanzapine LAI and can cause a range of olanzapine overdose-type of symptoms. Olanzapine LAI needs therefore to be administered by trained personnel in settings where a post-injection observation period for at least 3 hours by medical personnel is available. The overall use of olanzapine LAI will probably be limited by the possibility of a PDSS event. Patients who have a history of good response to oral olanzapine and are in need of assured medication administration may present a good indication for its use, provided that the appropriate mental health delivery setting is available.

Project description:ImportanceEvidence for improved clinical outcomes with long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIAs) vs oral antipsychotics (OAs) is limited in Asian populations and special patient groups, including older people (>65 years), people with substance use, and early initiators of LAIAs.ObjectiveTo compare the risk of disease relapse, health care use, and adverse events associated with the use of LAIAs vs OAs among people in Hong Kong with schizophrenia.Design, setting, and participantsIn this self-controlled case series study, individuals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia who were prescribed LAIAs and OAs between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2019, were identified from the Clinical Database Analysis and Reporting System of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. Data analysis was conducted from May to August in 2021.ExposuresUse of LAIAs vs OAs.Main outcomes and measuresRisk of disease relapse (hospitalizations for psychiatric disorders, hospitalizations for schizophrenia, and suicide attempts), health care use (all-cause emergency department visits and hospitalizations), and adverse events (hospitalizations for somatic disorders, hospitalizations for cardiovascular diseases, and extrapyramidal symptoms) between the period in which patients were treated with LAIAs and the period in which patients were treated with OAs were compared using Poisson regression.ResultsOf the 70 396 individuals with schizophrenia (37 200 women [52.8%]; mean [SD] age, 44.2 [15.8] years), 23 719 (33.7%) were prescribed both LAIAs and OAs. Compared with OAs, LAIAs were associated with a lower risk of hospitalizations for any cause (n = 20 973; incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.61-0.65]), hospitalizations for psychiatric disorders (n = 19 283; IRR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.50-0.53]), hospitalizations for schizophrenia (n = 18 385; IRR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.51-0.55]), and incident suicide attempts (n = 1453; IRR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.44-0.71]). During full treatment with LAIAs, there was a reduction in hospitalizations for somatic disorders (n = 15 396; IRR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.85-0.91]), hospitalizations for cardiovascular diseases (n = 3710; IRR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.81-0.96]), and extrapyramidal symptoms (n = 22 182; IRR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.82-0.91]) compared with full treatment with OAs. No significant difference was found for emergency department visits. Similar associations were observed during the subsequent treatment periods (beyond 90 days) and among older people and those with substance use, except for an increased risk of extrapyramidal symptoms among older people when initiating LAIAs (first 90 days). Compared with late initiators, early LAIA initiators had a greater reduction in these outcome events.Conclusions and relevanceThis self-controlled case series study of people in Hong Kong with schizophrenia suggests that LAIAs were associated with a lower risk of disease relapse and hospitalization than OAs, without an increased risk of adverse events. Clinicians should more broadly consider the long-term use of LAIAs for Chinese people with schizophrenia, especially early in the course of illness.

Project description:Chronic management of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorders is frequently complicated by symptomatic relapse. An open-label, randomized, active-controlled, 2-year trial evaluated 710 patients with schizophrenia or related disorders who were switched from stable treatment with oral risperidone, olanzapine, or conventional neuroleptics to risperidone long-acting injectable (RLAI) or oral quetiapine. Primary effectiveness evaluation was time-to-relapse. Safety evaluations included adverse events (AEs) reported for the duration of the study, Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale (ESRS), clinical laboratory tests, and vital signs. A total of 666 patients (n=329 RLAI, n=337 quetiapine) were evaluable for effectiveness measures. Baseline demographics were similar between treatment groups. Kaplan-Meier estimate of time-to-relapse was significantly longer with RLAI (p<0.0001). Relapse occurred in 16.5% of patients with RLAI and 31.3% with quetiapine. RLAI and quetiapine were both safe and well tolerated. Weight gain affected 7% of patients with RLAI and 6% with quetiapine, with mean end point increases of 1.25±6.61 and 0±6.55 kg, respectively. There were no significant between-group differences in weight gain. ESRS total scores decreased similarly after randomization to either RLAI or quetiapine. Extrapyramidal AEs occurred in 10% of patients with RLAI and 6% with quetiapine. Treatment-emergent potentially prolactin-related AEs were reported in 15 (5%) patients with RLAI and 5 (2%) patients with quetiapine; hyperprolactinemia was reported in 43 (13.1%) patients with RLAI and 5 (1.5%) patients with quetiapine. Somnolence occurred in 2% of patients with RLAI and 11% with quetiapine. To our knowledge, this is the first report of a randomized clinical trial directly comparing relapse prevention with a second-generation long-acting injectable antipsychotic and oral therapy. Time-to-relapse in stable patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder was significantly longer in patients randomized to RLAI compared with those randomized to oral quetiapine. Both antipsychotics were generally well tolerated.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare adjunctive long-acting injectable risperidone plus treatment as usual (RLAI+TAU) versus TAU alone for relapse, rehospitalization, and urgent care events in patients with bipolar disorder in routine care settings.MethodsThis was a 12-month randomized open comparison of RLAI+TAU (n = 20) and TAU alone (n = 25) in adults with rapid cycling, Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview-confirmed bipolar I/II disorder and 4 or more illness relapses in the preceding 12 months. Clinical outcome was assessed every 2 weeks using the Longitudinal Interval Follow-up Evaluation instrument. Psychopathology and quality of life were assessed monthly using the Young Mania Rating Scale, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms-Self Report 16 and Quality of Life, Enjoyment, and Satisfaction Questionnaire. Relapse was defined using symptom severity, necessary clinical adjustment of medications, and urgent care referrals. Relapse rates and duration were calculated per person per year of follow-up. All treatments were provided by community-based clinicians.ResultsThere were no significant between-groups differences in the total number or duration of relapse events (any cause) or in the number of manic or depressive relapses. Thirteen of 14 urgent care events (hospitalization, emergency department visit, intensive outpatient, or respite care referral) occurred with TAU alone (92.3%). Urgent care referral (P < 0.04) and necessary medication change rates (P = 0.01) were significantly lower in the RLAI+TAU group. There were no significant between-groups differences in the duration of follow-up, hospitalization rates, or psychopathology over time.ConclusionsRates of any-cause relapse may not differ significantly between RLAI+TAU and TAU alone; however, RLAI may reduce the need for urgent care referrals or the frequency of medication adjustments to prevent relapse in community-treated patients with rapid cycling bipolar disorder. Additional investigation is warranted.

Dataset Information

Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics for Prevention of Relapse in Bipolar Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics for Prevention of Relapse in Bipolar Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets