Dataset Information

Atypical antipsychotics, insulin resistance and weight; a meta-analysis of healthy volunteer studies.

ABSTRACT: Atypical antipsychotics increase the risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease through their side effects of insulin resistance and weight gain. The populations for which atypical antipsychotics are used carry a baseline risk of metabolic dysregulation prior to medication which has made it difficult to fully understand whether atypical antipsychotics cause insulin resistance and weight gain directly. The purpose of this work was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of atypical antipsychotic trials in healthy volunteers to better understand their effects on insulin sensitivity and weight gain. Furthermore, we aimed to evaluate the occurrence of insulin resistance with or without weight gain and with treatment length by using subgroup and meta-regression techniques. Overall, the meta-analysis provides evidence that atypical antipsychotics decrease insulin sensitivity (standardized mean difference=-0.437, p<0.001) and increase weight (standardized mean difference=0.591, p<0.001) in healthy volunteers. It was found that decreases in insulin sensitivity were potentially dependent on treatment length but not weight gain. Decreases in insulin sensitivity occurred in multi-dose studies <13days while weight gain occurred in studies 14days and longer (max 28days). These findings provide preliminary evidence that atypical antipsychotics cause insulin resistance and weight gain directly, independent of psychiatric disease and may be associated with length of treatment. Further, well-designed studies to assess the co-occurrence of insulin resistance and weight gain and to understand the mechanisms and sequence by which they occur are required.

SUBMITTER: Burghardt KJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5817633 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Atypical antipsychotics, insulin resistance and weight; a meta-analysis of healthy volunteer studies.

Burghardt Kyle J KJ Seyoum Berhane B Mallisho Abdullah A Burghardt Paul R PR Kowluru Renu A RA Yi Zhengping Z

Progress in neuro-psychopharmacology & biological psychiatry 20180108

Atypical antipsychotics increase the risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease through their side effects of insulin resistance and weight gain. The populations for which atypical antipsychotics are used carry a baseline risk of metabolic dysregulation prior to medication which has made it difficult to fully understand whether atypical antipsychotics cause insulin resistance and weight gain directly. The purpose of this work was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of atypical anti ...[more]

PMID: 29325867

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhile clinical trial evidence has firmly established the efficacy of several atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) for treating bipolar depression, no randomized controlled trials (RCT's) comparing AAPs have been conducted. This Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the relative efficacy and tolerability of AAP monotherapy in adults with bipolar depression.MethodsEfficacy measures included change in Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Improvement - Bipolar Disorder (CGI-BP), response, and remission. Multiple tolerability outcomes were examined. Results from random effects models were reported as difference in change from baseline for continuous variables or odds ratios for dichotomous variables. Treatments were ranked using the surface under the curve cumulative ranking probabilities. Number needed to treat (NNT) and harm (NNH) were calculated.ResultsEighteen RCT's met inclusion criteria of the systematic literature review. On change in MADRS, lurasidone (- 4.71 [95% Crl - 6.98, - 2.41]), quetiapine (- 4.80 [- 5.93, - 3.72]), olanzapine (- 4.57 [- 5.92, - 3.20]), and cariprazine (- 2.29 [- 3.47, - 1.09]) were more efficacious than placebo. Lurasidone was associated with a significantly greater odds of response (≥50% improvement in MADRS) compared to cariprazine (1.78 [95% Crl 1.08, 2.77]), aripiprazole (2.38 [1.38, 3.85]), and ziprasidone (2.47 [1.41, 3.98]), but was similar to olanzapine (1.68 [0.99,2.65]) and quetiapine (1.25 [0.78, 1.90]). For change in CGI-BP-S-overall score, lurasidone was significantly better than cariprazine (- 0.38 [95% Crl - 0.66,-0.10]) and ziprasidone (- 0.58 [- 0.91,-0.26]), but similar to quetiapine (- 0.08 [- 0.36, 0.19])and olanzapine (- 0.04 [- 1.41, 1.46]). Lurasidone (0.34 kg [95% Crl - 0.22, 0.89]) and aripiprazole (0.20 kg [- 0.59, 1.00]) had a similar weight change compared to placebo, but olanzapine (2.88 kg [2.40, 3.36]), quetiapine (1.17 kg [0.84, 1.49]), and cariprazine (0.65 kg [0.34, 0.96]) were associated with greater weight gain. The NNT for response was the lowest for lurasidone (NNT = 5) followed by quetiapine (NNT = 6), olanzapine (NNT = 10) and cariprazine (NNT = 12).ConclusionsIn this NMA in adults with bipolar depression, which evaluated change in depressive symptoms (assessed by MADRS) across short-term trials, the largest improvement versus placebo was observed for lurasidone, olanzapine and quetiapine with cariprazine, showing a smaller treatment effect. Aripiprazole and ziprasidone were ineffective for the treatment of bipolar depression. Improvement in CGI-BP-S score for lurasidone was larger than cariprazine and ziprasidone but similar to quetiapine and olanzapine. Based on short term studies lurasidone and aripiprazole had similar weight gain compared to placebo.

Project description:BACKGROUND:With the exception of genotoxic oncology drugs, first-in-human, Phase 1 clinical studies of investigational drugs have traditionally been conducted in healthy volunteers (HVs). The primary goal of these studies is to investigate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a novel drug candidate, determine appropriate dosing, and document safety and tolerability. MAIN BODY:When tailored to specific study objectives, HV studies are beneficial to manufacturers and patients alike and can be applied to both non-oncology and oncology drug development. Enrollment of HVs not only increases study accrual rates for dose-escalation studies but also alleviates the ethical concern of enrolling patients with disease in a short-term study at subtherapeutic doses when other studies (e.g. Phase 2 or Phase 3 studies) may be more appropriate for the patient. The use of HVs in non-oncology Phase 1 clinical trials is relatively safe but nonetheless poses ethical challenges because of the potential risks to which HVs are exposed. In general, most adverse events associated with non-oncology drugs are mild in severity, and serious adverse events are rare, but examples of severe toxicity have been reported. The use of HVs in the clinical development of oncology drugs is more limited but is nonetheless useful for evaluating clinical pharmacology and establishing an appropriate starting dose for studies in cancer patients. During the development of oncology drugs, clinical pharmacology studies in HVs have been used to assess pharmacokinetics, drug metabolism, food effects, potential drug-drug interactions, effects of hepatic and renal impairment, and other pharmacologic parameters vital for clinical decision-making in oncology. Studies in HVs are also being used to evaluate biosimilars versus established anticancer biologic agents. CONCLUSION:A thorough assessment of toxicity and pharmacology throughout the drug development process is critical to ensure the safety of HVs. With the appropriate safeguards, HVs will continue to play an important role in future drug development.

Project description:Background: Patients with schizophrenia are at high risk of pre-mature mortality due to cardiovascular disease (CVD). Our group has completed studies in pharmacogenomics and metabolomics that have independently identified perturbations in one-carbon metabolism as associated with risk factors for CVD in this patient population. Therefore, this study aimed to use genetic and metabolomic data to determine the relationship between folate pharmacogenomics, one-carbon metabolites, and insulin resistance as measured using the homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) as a marker of CVD. Methods: Participants in this pilot analysis were on a stable atypical antipsychotic regimen for at least 6 months, with no diabetes diagnosis or use of antidiabetic medications. Participant samples were genotyped for MTHFR variants rs1801131 (MTHFR A1298C) and rs1801133 (MTHFR C677T). Serum metabolite concentrations were obtained with NMR. A least squares regression model was used to predict log(HOMA-IR) values based on the following independent variables: serum glutamate, glycine, betaine, serine, and threonine concentrations, and carrier status of the variant alleles for the selected genotypes. Results: A total of 67 participants were included, with a median age of 47 years old (IQR 42-52), 39% were female, and the median BMI was 30.3 (IQR 26.3-37.1). Overall, the model demonstrated an ability to predict log(HOMA-IR) values with an adjusted R 2 of 0.44 and a p-value of < 0.001. Glutamate, threonine, and carrier status of the MTHFR 1298 C or MTHFR 677 T allele were positively correlated with log(HOMA-IR), whereas glycine, serine, and betaine concentrations trended inversely with log(HOMA-IR). All factors included in this final model were considered as having a possible effect on predicting log(HOMA-IR) as measured with a p-value < 0.1. Conclusions: Presence of pharmacogenomic variants that decrease the functional capacity of the MTHFR enzyme are associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease, as measured in this instance by log(HOMA-IR). Furthermore, serine, glycine, and betaine concentrations trended inversely with HOMA-IR, suggesting that increased presence of methyl-donating groups is associated with lower measures of insulin resistance. Ultimately, these results will need to be replicated in a significantly larger population.

Project description:BackgroundIn many countries of the industrialised world second generation (atypical) antipsychotics have become first line drug treatments for people with schizophrenia. The question as to whether, and if so how much, the effects of the various second generation antipsychotics differ is a matter of debate. In this review we examine how the efficacy and tolerability of amisulpride differs from that of other second generation antipsychotics.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effects of amisulpride compared with other atypical antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.Search strategyWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (April 2007) which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO.Selection criteriaWe included randomised, at least single-blind, trials comparing oral amisulpride with oral forms of aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, sertindole, ziprasidone or zotepine in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.Data collection and analysisWe extracted data independently. For continuous data we calculated weighted mean differences (MD), for dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random effects model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate.Main resultsThe review currently includes ten short to medium term trials with 1549 participants on three comparisons: amisulpride versus olanzapine, risperidone and ziprasidone. The overall attrition rate was considerable (34.7%) with no significant difference between groups. Amisulpride was similarly effective as olanzapine and risperidone and more effective than ziprasidone (leaving the study early due to inefficacy: n=123, 1 RCT, RR 0.21 CI 0.05 to 0.94, NNT 8 CI 5 to 50). Amisulpride induced less weight gain than risperidone (n=585, 3 RCTs, MD -0.99 CI -1.61 to -0.37) or olanzapine (n=671, 3 RCTs, MD -2.11 CI -2.94 to -1.29). Olanzapine was also associated with a higher increase of glucose (n=406, 2 RCTs, MD -7.30 CI -7.62 to -6.99). There was no difference in terms of cardiac effects and extra pyramidal symptoms (EPS) compared with olanzapine (akathisia: n= 587, 2 RCTs, RR 0.66 CI 0.36 to 1.21), compared with risperidone (akathisia: n=586, 3 RCTs, RR 0.80 CI 0.58 to 1.11) and compared with ziprasidone (akathisia: n=123, 1 RCT, RR 0.63, CI 0.11 to 3.67).Authors' conclusionsThere is little randomised evidence comparing amisulpride with other second generation antipsychotic drugs. We could only find trials comparing amisulpride with olanzapine, risperidone and ziprasidone. We found amisulpride may be somewhat more effective than ziprasidone, and more tolerable in terms of weight gain and other associated problems than olanzapine and risperidone. These data, however, are based on only ten short to medium term studies and therefore too limited to allow for firm conclusions.

Dataset Information

Atypical antipsychotics, insulin resistance and weight; a meta-analysis of healthy volunteer studies.

Publications

Atypical antipsychotics, insulin resistance and weight; a meta-analysis of healthy volunteer studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets