Dataset Information

Antipsychotics for Amphetamine Psychosis. A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: Background: Among individuals experiencing amphetamine psychosis, it may be difficult to rule out schizophrenia. The use of antipsychotics for the treatment of amphetamine psychosis is sparse due to possible side effects. Some arguments disfavor their use, stating that the psychotic episode is self-limited. Without treatment, some individuals may?not fully?recover?from the?psychosis and may develop full-blown psychosis, emotional, and cognitive disturbance. This review aims to investigate the clinical benefits and risks of antipsychotics for the treatment of amphetamine psychosis. Methods: Electronic search on trials on antipsychotic drugs for amphetamine psychosis from their inception to November 2018 was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, EBSCOhost, ProQuest, Cochrane Review Database, Medline Ovid, and EMBASE following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool assessed the risk of bias, the methodological quality of individual trials was assessed by the Oxford Quality Scoring System, and the quality of evidence for recommendations was judged by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE). The results were synthesized qualitatively and quantitatively. Results: The investigation of six randomized controlled trials of 314 participants showed that aripiprazole, haloperidol, quetiapine, olanzapine, and risperidone were able to reduce or control the psychotic episode (positive and negative symptoms) induced by amphetamine use with no adverse event. Although the side-effect profile of these agents varied, no drug was clinically superior to others. Conclusions: This review suggests that antipsychotics seem to be efficacious for amphetamine psychosis on both positive and negative symptoms. Practitioners need to tailor their use based on risks for side effects individually.

SUBMITTER: Fluyau D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6804571 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Antipsychotics for Amphetamine Psychosis. A Systematic Review.

Fluyau Dimy D Mitra Paroma P Lorthe Kervens K

Frontiers in psychiatry 20191015

<b>Background:</b> Among individuals experiencing amphetamine psychosis, it may be difficult to rule out schizophrenia. The use of antipsychotics for the treatment of amphetamine psychosis is sparse due to possible side effects. Some arguments disfavor their use, stating that the psychotic episode is self-limited. Without treatment, some individuals may not fully recover from the psychosis and may develop full-blown psychosis, emotional, and cognitive disturbance. This review aims to investigate ...[more]

PMID: 31681046

Similar Datasets

Project description:Antipsychotics are an important pharmacotherapy option for the treatment of many mental illnesses. Unfortunately, selecting antipsychotics is often a trial-and-error process due to a lack of understanding as to which medications an individual patient will find most effective and best tolerated. Metabolomics, or the study of small molecules in a biosample, is an increasingly used omics platform that has the potential to identify biomarkers for medication efficacy and toxicity. This systematic review was conducted to identify metabolites and metabolomic pathways associated with antipsychotic use in humans. Ultimately, 42 studies were identified for inclusion in this review, with all but three studies being performed in blood sources such as plasma or serum. A total of 14 metabolite classes and 12 lipid classes were assessed across studies. Although the studies were highly heterogeneous in approach and mixed in their findings, increases in phosphatidylcholines, decreases in carboxylic acids, and decreases in acylcarnitines were most consistently noted as perturbed in patients exposed to antipsychotics. Furthermore, for the targeted metabolomic and lipidomic studies, seven metabolites and three lipid species had findings that were replicated. The most consistent finding for targeted studies was an identification of a decrease in aspartate with antipsychotic treatment. Studies varied in depth of detail provided for their study participants and in study design. For example, in some cases, there was a lack of detail on specific antipsychotics used or concomitant medications, and the depth of detail on sample handling and analysis varied widely. The conclusions here demonstrate that there is a large foundation of metabolomic work with antipsychotics that requires more complete reporting so that an objective synthesis such as a meta-analysis can take place. This will then allow for validation and clinical application of the most robust findings to move the field forward. Future studies should be carefully controlled to take advantage of the sensitivity of metabolomics while limiting potential confounders that may result from participant heterogeneity and varied analysis approaches.

Project description:Because early treatment choice is critical in first-episode schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (FES), this meta-analysis compared efficacy and tolerability of individual second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) with first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) in FES. We conducted systematic literature search (until 12 December 2010) and meta-analysis of acute, randomized trials with ?1 FGA vs. SGA comparison; patients in their first episode of psychosis and diagnosed with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders; available data for psychopathology change, treatment response, treatment discontinuation, adverse effects, or cognition. Across 13 trials (n = 2509), olanzapine (seven trials) and amisulpride (one trial) outperformed FGAs (haloperidol: 9/13 trials) in 9/13 and 8/13 efficacy outcomes, respectively, risperidone (eight trials) in 4/13, quetiapine (one trial) in 3/13 and clozapine (two trials) and ziprasidone (one trial) in 1/13, each. Compared to FGAs, extrapyramidal symptom (EPS)-related outcomes were less frequent with olanzapine, risperidone and clozapine, but weight gain was greater with clozapine, olanzapine and risperidone. Pooled SGAs were similar to FGAs regarding total psychopathology change, depression, treatment response and metabolic changes. SGAs significantly outperformed FGAs regarding lower treatment discontinuation, irrespective of cause, negative symptoms, global cognition and less EPS and akathisia, while SGAs increased weight more (p < 0.05-0.01). Results were not affected by FGA dose or publication bias, but industry-sponsored studies favoured SGAs more than federally funded studies. To summarize, in FES, olanzapine, amisulpride and, less so, risperidone and quetiapine showed superior efficacy, greater treatment persistence and less EPS than FGAs. However, weight increase with olanzapine, risperidone and clozapine and metabolic changes with olanzapine were greater. Additional FES studies including broader-based SGAs and FGAs are needed.

Project description:BackgroundStimulant drugs are second only to cannabis as the most widely used class of illicit drug globally, accounting for 68 million past-year consumers. Dependence on amphetamines (AMPH) or methamphetamine (MA) is a growing global concern. Yet, there is no established pharmacotherapy for AMPH/MA dependence. A comprehensive assessment of the research literature on pharmacotherapy for AMPH/MA dependence may inform treatment guidelines and future research directions.MethodsWe systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed literature via the electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and SCOPUS for randomised controlled trials reported in the English language examining a pharmacological treatment for AMPH/MA dependence or use disorder. We included all studies published to 19 June 2019. The selected studies were evaluated for design; methodology; inclusion and exclusion criteria; sample size; pharmacological and (if included) psychosocial interventions; length of follow-up and follow-up schedules; outcome variables and measures; results; overall conclusions and risk of bias. Outcome measures were any reported impact of treatment related to AMPH/MA use.ResultsOur search returned 43 studies that met our criteria, collectively enrolling 4065 participants and reporting on 23 individual pharmacotherapies, alone or in combination. Disparate outcomes and measures (n = 55 for the primary outcomes) across studies did not allow for meta-analyses. Some studies demonstrated mixed or weak positive signals (often in defined populations, e.g. men who have sex with men), with some variation in efficacy signals dependent on baseline frequency of AMPH/MA use. The most consistent positive findings have been demonstrated with stimulant agonist treatment (dexamphetamine and methylphenidate), naltrexone and topiramate. Less consistent benefits have been shown with the antidepressants bupropion and mirtazapine, the glutamatergic agent riluzole and the corticotropin releasing factor (CRF-1) antagonist pexacerfont; whilst in general, antidepressant medications (e.g. selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs]) have not been effective in reducing AMPH/MA use.ConclusionsNo pharmacotherapy yielded convincing results for the treatment of AMPH/MA dependence; mostly studies were underpowered and had low treatment completion rates. However, there were positive signals from several agents that warrant further investigation in larger scale studies; agonist therapies show promise. Common outcome measures should include change in use days. Future research must address the heterogeneity of AMPH/MA dependence (e.g. coexisting conditions, severity of disorder, differences between MA and AMPH dependence) and the role of psychosocial intervention.

Project description:BackgroundThe prescription use of the stimulants methylphenidate and amphetamine for the treatment of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been increasing. In 2007, the Food and Drug Administration mandated changes to drug labels for stimulants on the basis of findings of new-onset psychosis. Whether the risk of psychosis in adolescents and young adults with ADHD differs among various stimulants has not been extensively studied.MethodsWe used data from two commercial insurance claims databases to assess patients 13 to 25 years of age who had received a diagnosis of ADHD and who started taking methylphenidate or amphetamine between January 1, 2004, and September 30, 2015. The outcome was a new diagnosis of psychosis for which an antipsychotic medication was prescribed during the first 60 days after the date of the onset of psychosis. To estimate hazard ratios for psychosis, we used propensity scores to match patients who received methylphenidate with patients who received amphetamine in each database, compared the incidence of psychosis between the two stimulant groups, and then pooled the results across the two databases.ResultsWe assessed 337,919 adolescents and young adults who received a prescription for a stimulant for ADHD. The study population consisted of 221,846 patients with 143,286 person-years of follow up; 110,923 patients taking methylphenidate were matched with 110,923 patients taking amphetamines. There were 343 episodes of psychosis (with an episode defined as a new diagnosis code for psychosis and a prescription for an antipsychotic medication) in the matched populations (2.4 per 1000 person-years): 106 episodes (0.10%) in the methylphenidate group and 237 episodes (0.21%) in the amphetamine group (hazard ratio with amphetamine use, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.31 to 2.09).ConclusionsAmong adolescents and young adults with ADHD who were receiving prescription stimulants, new-onset psychosis occurred in approximately 1 in 660 patients. Amphetamine use was associated with a greater risk of psychosis than methylphenidate. (Funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and others.).

Project description:BackgroundAtypical antipsychotics are increasingly used for treatment of mental illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and considered to have fewer extrapyramidal effects than older antipsychotics.MethodsWe examined efficacy in randomised trials of bipolar disorder where the presenting episode was either depression, or manic/mixed, comparing atypical antipsychotic with placebo or active comparator, examined withdrawals for any cause, or due to lack of efficacy or adverse events, and combined all phases for adverse event analysis. Studies were found through systematic search (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library), and data combined for analysis where there was clinical homogeneity, with a special reference to trial duration.ResultsIn five trials (2,206 patients) participants presented with a depressive episode, and in 25 trials (6,174 patients) the presenting episode was manic or mixed. In 8-week studies presenting with depression, quetiapine and olanzapine produced significantly better rates of response and symptomatic remission than placebo, with NNTs of 5-6, but more adverse event withdrawals (NNH 12). With mania or mixed presentation atypical antipsychotics produced significantly better rates of response and symptomatic remission than placebo, with NNTs of about 5 up to six weeks, and 4 at 6-12 weeks, but more adverse event withdrawals (NNH of about 22) in studies of 6-12 weeks. In comparisons with established treatments, atypical antipsychotics had similar efficacy, but significantly fewer adverse event withdrawals (NNT to prevent one withdrawal about 10). In maintenance trials atypical antipsychotics had significantly fewer relapses to depression or mania than placebo or active comparator. In placebo-controlled trials, atypical antipsychotics were associated with higher rates of weight gain of >or=7% (mainly olanzapine trials), somnolence, and extrapyramidal symptoms. In active controlled trials, atypical antipsychotics were associated with lower rates of extrapyramidal symptoms, but higher rates of weight gain and somnolence.ConclusionAtypical antipsychotics are effective in treating both phases of bipolar disorder compared with placebo, and as effective as established drug therapies. Atypical antipsychotics produce fewer extrapyramidal symptoms, but weight gain is more common (with olanzapine). There is insufficient data confidently to distinguish between different atypical antipsychotics.

Project description:Few controlled trials compared second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) with first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) regarding relapse prevention in schizophrenia. We conducted a systematic review/meta-analysis of randomized trials, lasting ?6 months comparing SGAs with FGAs in schizophrenia. Primary outcome was study-defined relapse; secondary outcomes included relapse at 3, 6 and 12 months; treatment failure; hospitalization; and dropout owing to any cause, non-adherence and intolerability. Pooled relative risk (RR) (±95% confidence intervals (CIs)) was calculated using random-effects model, with numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) calculations where appropriate. Across 23 studies (n=4504, mean duration=61.9±22.4 weeks), none of the individual SGAs outperformed FGAs (mainly haloperidol) regarding study-defined relapse, except for isolated, single trial-based superiority, and except for risperidone's superiority at 3 and 6 months when requiring ?3 trials. Grouped together, however, SGAs prevented relapse more than FGAs (29.0 versus 37.5%, RR=0.80, CI: 0.70-0.91, P=0.0007, I(2)=37%; NNT=17, CI: 10-50, P=0.003). SGAs were also superior regarding relapse at 3, 6 and 12 months (P=0.04, P<0.0001, P=0.0001), treatment failure (P=0.003) and hospitalization (P=0.004). SGAs showed trend-level superiority for dropout owing to intolerability (P=0.05). Superiority of SGAs regarding relapse was modest (NNT=17), but confirmed in double-blind trials, first- and multi-episode patients, using preferentially or exclusively raw or estimated relapse rates, and for different haloperidol equivalent comparator doses. There was no significant heterogeneity or publication bias. The relevance of the somewhat greater efficacy of SGAs over FGAs on several key outcomes depends on whether SGAs form a meaningful group and whether mid- or low-potency FGAs differ from haloperidol. Regardless, treatment selection needs to be individualized considering patient- and medication-related factors.

Dataset Information

Antipsychotics for Amphetamine Psychosis. A Systematic Review.

Publications

Antipsychotics for Amphetamine Psychosis. A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets