Dataset Information

Safety of aripiprazole for tics in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Aripiprazole is widely used in the management of tic disorders (TDs), we aimed to assess the safety of aripiprazole for TDs in children and adolescents.

Methods

A systematic literature review was performed in the databases of MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and 4 Chinese databases, from inception to February 2019. All types of studies evaluating the safety of aripiprazole for TDs were included. The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tool, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence, the CARE (Case Report) guidelines according to types of studies. Risk ratio (RR) and incidence rate with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to summarize the results.

Results

A total 50 studies involving 2604 children met the inclusion criteria. The result of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showed that there was a significant difference between aripiprazole and haloperidol with respect to rate of somnolence (RR?=?0.596, 95% CI: 0.394, 0.901), extrapyramidal symptoms (RR?=?0.236, 95% CI: 0.111, 0.505), tremor (RR?=?0.255, 95% CI: 0.114, 0.571), constipation (RR?=?0.148, 95% CI: 0.040, 0.553), and dry mouth (RR?=?0.141, 95% CI: 0.046, 0.425). There was a significant difference between aripiprazole and placebo in the incidence rate of adverse events (AEs) for somnolence (RR?=?6.565, 95% CI: 1.270, 33.945). The meta-analysis of incidence of AEs related to aripiprazole for case series studies revealed that the incidence of sedation was 26.9% (95% CI: 16.3%, 44.4%), irritability 25% (95% CI: 9.4%, 66.6%), restlessness 31.3% (95% CI: 13%, 75.1%), nausea and vomiting 28.9% (95% CI: 21.1%, 39.5%), and weight gain 31.3% (95% CI: 10.7%, 91.3%).

Conclusion

Aripiprazole was generally well tolerated in children and adolescents. Common AEs were somnolence, headache, sedation, nausea, and vomiting. Further high-quality studies are needed to confirm the safety of aripiprazole for children and adolescents with TDs.

SUBMITTER: Yang C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6709053 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Safety of aripiprazole for tics in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yang Chunsong C Yi Qiusha Q Zhang Lingli L Cui Hao H Mao Jianping J

Medicine 20190501 22

<h4>Background</h4>Aripiprazole is widely used in the management of tic disorders (TDs), we aimed to assess the safety of aripiprazole for TDs in children and adolescents.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic literature review was performed in the databases of MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and 4 Chinese databases, from inception to February 2019. All types of studies evaluating the safety of aripiprazole for TDs were included. The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias to ...[more]

PMID: 31145316

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBoth the US FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have approved aripiprazole for use in adolescents for specific indications. Given the assumed favorable side-effect profile of aripiprazole, its use in children and adolescents has increased for both official and off-label indications (anxiety disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders). However, several cases of children and adolescents with new-onset extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) after commencing treatment with aripiprazole have been reported, and a more systematic appraisal of this possible risk is lacking.ObjectiveWe conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis to assess the evidence for acute EPS (acute dystonia, akathisia, Parkinsonism) associated with the use of aripiprazole in children and adolescents.MethodWe searched the MEDLINE and Embase databases (2003-10 April 2016) for clinical trials in pediatric patients (aged 0-18 years) using the keywords 'aripiprazole' (regardless of the formulation) and 'extrapyramidal symptoms'. We evaluated the abstracts of papers using the following exclusion criteria: (1) study design: case report, letter to the editor, editorial, or poster presentation data; (2) unrelated PICOS (population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, study) structure. We performed a meta-analysis, in which we used effect sizes with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). To examine the homogeneity of the effect size distribution, we used a Q-statistic. When we observed heterogeneity in effect sizes, we assessed the possible influence of moderator variables (age and sex, mean dose, study duration, and method of measuring EPS incidence) and evaluated the suitability of either a fixed or a random model. Finally, we assessed the incidence of EPS in children and adolescents treated with aripiprazole compared with placebo.ResultsAn initial search via PubMed and Embase yielded 328 hits. A manual search of the reference lists of review papers revealed seven additional relevant articles. We included 41 studies, with 2114 pediatric patients, in the meta-analysis. For the analysis of the mean incidence of EPS, data were provided by 24 studies, with a total of 1446 pediatric patients. Meta-analysis revealed a mean EPS incidence of 17.1 % (95 % CI 0.128-0.223). In terms of the incidence of various extrapyramidal side effects, overall, no significant effects of age, sex, mean dose, study duration, or measuring method could be demonstrated. The side effects 'EPS', 'parkinsonism', and 'tremor' were significantly more common in children and adolescents treated with aripiprazole than in those treated with placebo.ConclusionOur meta-analysis provides evidence for a non-negligible incidence of acute EPS in children and adolescents treated with aripiprazole. Although the study has several limitations and further investigation is needed, these findings may help clinicians make more balanced treatment choices and more closely monitor the use of this drug in youth.

Project description:BackgroundAbacavir is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor recommended in paediatric HIV care. We assessed the safety and efficacy profile of abacavir used in first, second, or subsequent lines of treatment for infants, children, and adolescents living with HIV to inform 2021 WHO paediatric ART recommendations.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we included observational and experimental studies conducted in infants aged 0-1 year, children aged 1-10 years, and adolescents aged 10-19 years living with HIV; with data on safety or efficacy, or both, of abacavir-based antiretroviral therapy (ART); published in English or French between Jan 1, 2009, and Oct 1, 2020, plus an updated search to incorporate studies published between Oct 1, 2020, and May 15, 2022. Studies could be non-randomised or non-comparative and include patients who are treatment-naive or those who previously received abacavir (only if abacavir was combined with other ART). Case studies, studies in adults aged 18 years or older, and those assessing the effect of maternal ART exposure were excluded. We extracted data related to study identifier, study design, study period, setting, population characteristics, ART treatment, and safety (any hypersensitivity reaction, death, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, treatment discontinuation, any other morbidities, and serious adverse events), and efficacy outcomes (HIV viral load and CD4 counts reported at 6 and 12 months after ART initiation). Using random-effect models, we estimated weighted pooled incidence and relative risk (RR) of outcomes. The protocol is published in PROSPERO (CRD42022309230).FindingsOf 1777 records identified, 1475 (83%) were screened after removing duplicates and a further 1421 (96%) were excluded. Of 54 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, 33 (61%) were excluded. Four records were identified from grey literature plus one duplicate from database searching, resulting in 24 studies included (two randomised controlled trials, one single-arm trial, 12 prospective cohorts, seven retrospective cohorts, and two cross-sectional studies). 19 studies described safety data and 15 described efficacy data. 18 (75%) studies were conducted in ART-naive participants. The risk of bias was considered moderate to high for most studies, and all outcomes had significant between-study heterogeneity. Data from 24 265 participants were included, of whom 7236 (30%) received abacavir. Abacavir hypersensitivity reaction was reported in nine (38%) studies, with an incidence ranging from 0·00% to 8·26% (I2=85%; p<0·0001). The incidence of death (reported in seven studies) following abacavir treatment varied from 0·00% to 5·49% (I2=58%; p=0·026). Viral suppression (<400 copies per mL) varied from 50% to 70% at 6 months (I2=92%, p<0·0001) and from 57% to 78% at 12 months (I2=88%, p<0·0001).InterpretationToxic effects due to abacavir use remain rare and manageable. Despite scarce data on efficacy, this meta-analysis supports the use of abacavir as a preferred first-line regimen for infants and children living with HIV.FundingWHO.

Project description:BackgroundCefepime is a fourth-generation cephalosporin antibiotic used to treat a variety of infections. The US Food and Drug Administration approved its use in certain types of infections among pediatric patients, and yet there have been mixed data about its efficacy and safety in this population.ObjectiveThe objective of this review is to compare efficacy and all-cause mortality of cefepime to other clinically indicated antibiotics among children.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS, and clinicaltrials.gov databases through February 8, 2016. We included randomized controlled trials comparing cefepime to other clinical antibiotics, placebo, or no treatment in children aged 0-19 years in the inpatient setting with clinical signs of infection. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were success rate, treatment failure, and incidence of adverse events. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.ResultsSeventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. There was a total of 1,285 participants included, 624 participants in the cefepime arm and 661 in the comparison arm. A random effects meta-analysis for all-cause mortality showed no difference in rates of mortality between cefepime and comparator antibiotics with a mortality risk ratio of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.71-1.08). For the secondary outcomes of success rate and treatment failure, a random effects model meta-analysis conducted of the studies showed no difference in rate between cefepime and comparator antibiotics with an overall risk ratio of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.92-1.05) and 1.04 (95% CI: 0.91-1.19), respectively. Adverse events were not statistically assessed given widespread heterogeneity. Overall, the studies had unclear risk of bias and were limited by high heterogeneity and methodological flaws.ConclusionThe efficacy and safety of cefepime in pediatric patients remain unclear despite the inclusion of newer trials since the last index systematic review conducted a decade ago.

Project description:Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are widely found in the environment, and comparing to adults, children are more vulnerable to PAHs exposure. Urinary metabolites of PAHs are used as preferred biomarkers to estimate the PAHs exposure. Systematic review on the internal exposure level of children and adolescents is rare. We aimed to calculate the internal exposure levels of PAHs in children and adolescents and compare the levels of PAHs internal exposure in various children groups. We searched PubMed, OVID, Web of Science, EBSCO, ACS, and four Chinese databases, and all studies examining the urinary concentrations of PAHs in children and adolescent were identified. The total exposure level of 11 PAHs metabolites were pooled. Standard mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of PAHs urinary concentration were calculated and pooled by RevMan5.3 to compare the exposure levels of different children groups. We found that 1-OHPyr, 2-OHNap, 2-OHFlu, 3-OHPhe, and 4-OHPhe were five PAHs metabolites most commonly studied in existing studies in children, and their total exposure levels were 0.38 ± 0.98, 2.32 ± 4.83, 0.81 ± 1.54, 0.09 ± 0.14, 0.03 ± 0.10 μmol/mol creatinine, respectively. The meta-analysis showed that the levels of 1-OHPyr were higher in higher environmental exposure group (SMD = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.03~0.40), ETS exposure group (SMD = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.08~0.54), and 6~11 years group (SMD = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.09~0.24); the level of 2-OHNap (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.01~0.53) was higher in higher environmental exposure group; however, the levels of 3-OHPhe (SMD = - 0.34, 95% CI = - 0.57~- 0.12) and 4-OHPhe (SMD = - 0.48, 95% CI = - 0.69~- 0.28) were higher in lower environmental exposure group. The levels of 1-OHPyr (SMD = - 0.01, 95% CI = - 0.11~0.10) and 2-OHNap (SMD = 0.01, 95% CI = - 0.20~0.22) were not statistically different between boys and girls. In conclusions, we found that the internal diversity of PAHs existed in children and adolescents, and the level of 1-OHPyr in children and adolescents was in higher status compared with non-occupational people who do not smoke.

Dataset Information

Safety of aripiprazole for tics in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Safety of aripiprazole for tics in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets