Dataset Information

A meta-analysis of effectiveness of real-world studies of antipsychotics in schizophrenia: Are the results consistent with the findings of randomized controlled trials?

ABSTRACT: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been considered as gold standard for establishing the efficacy and safety of investigational new drugs; nonetheless, the generalizability of their findings has been questioned. To address this issue, an increasing number of naturalistic studies and real-world database analyses have been conducted. The question of how much information from these two approaches is congruent or discrepant with each other is of great importance for the clinical practice. To answer this question, we focused on data from the antipsychotic (AP) treatment of schizophrenia. Our aim was two-fold: to conduct a meta-analysis of real-world studies (RWS), and to compare the results of RWS meta-analysis with previously published meta-analyses of RCTs. The principal measure of effectiveness was all-cause treatment discontinuation for both RWS and RCTs (when not available, then drop out for RCTs). We included publications for 8 selected APs (oral formulations of amisulpride, aripiprazole, clozapine, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and long-acting injectable (LAI) risperidone). We identified 11 RWS and 7 RCT meta-analyses for inclusion. Our results indicated that the RWS yielded statistically conclusive and consistent findings across individual investigations. For the overwhelming majority of the comparisons where both RWS and RCT meta-analyses were available, there was good congruency between the RWS and the RCT results. Our results support that RCTs, despite their limitations, provide evidence which is generalizable to real-world settings. This is an important finding for both regulators and clinicians. RWS can provide guidance for situations where no evidence is available from double-blind clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Katona L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8494924 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:It has remained unclear whether there are clinically meaningful differences between antipsychotic treatments with regard to preventing relapse of schizophrenia, owing to the impossibility of including large unselected patient populations in randomized clinical trials, as well as residual confounding from selection biases in observational studies.To study the comparative real-world effectiveness of antipsychotic treatments for patients with schizophrenia.Prospectively gathered nationwide databases were linked to study the risk of rehospitalization and treatment failure from July 1, 2006, to December 31, 2013, among all patients in Sweden with a schizophrenia diagnosis who were 16 to 64 years of age in 2006 (29?823 patients in the total prevalent cohort; 4603 in the incident cohort of newly diagnosed patients). Within-individual analyses were used for primary analyses, in which each individual was used as his or her own control to eliminate selection bias. Traditional Cox proportional hazards multivariate regression was used for secondary analyses.Risk of rehospitalization and treatment failure (defined as psychiatric rehospitalization, suicide attempt, discontinuation or switch to other medication, or death).There were 29?823 patients (12?822 women and 17?001 men; mean [SD] age, 44.9 [12.0] years). During follow-up, 13?042 of 29?823 patients (43.7%) were rehospitalized, and 20?225 of 28?189 patients (71.7%) experienced treatment failure. The risk of psychiatric rehospitalization was the lowest during monotherapy with once-monthly long-acting injectable paliperidone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.64), long-acting injectable zuclopenthixol (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.48-0.57), clozapine (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.48-0.58), long-acting injectable perphenazine (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.52-0.65), and long-acting injectable olanzapine (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.77) compared with no use of antipsychotic medication. Oral flupentixol (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74-1.14), quetiapine (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-1.00), and oral perphenazine (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.97) were associated with the highest risk of rehospitalization. Long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications were associated with substantially lower risk of rehospitalization compared with equivalent oral formulations (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.84 in the total cohort; HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.86 in the incident cohort). Clozapine (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.53-0.63) and all long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications (HRs 0.65-0.80) were associated with the lowest rates of treatment failure compared with the most widely used medication, oral olanzapine. The results of several sensitivity analyses were consistent with those of the primary analyses.Clozapine and long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications were the pharmacologic treatments with the highest rates of prevention of relapse in schizophrenia. The risk of rehospitalization is about 20% to 30% lower during long-acting injectable treatments compared with equivalent oral formulations.

Project description:Rapid and robust strategies to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of novel and existing pharmacotherapeutic interventions (repurposed treatments) in future pandemics are required. Observational "real-world studies" (RWS) can report more quickly than randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and would have value were they to yield reliable results. Both RCTs and RWS were deployed during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Comparing results between them offers a unique opportunity to determine the potential value and contribution of each. A learning review of these parallel evidence channels in COVID-19, based on quantitative modeling, can help improve speed and reliability in the evaluation of repurposed therapeutics in a future pandemic. Analysis of all-cause mortality data from 249 observational RWS and RCTs across eight treatment regimens for COVID-19 showed that RWS yield more heterogeneous results, and generally overestimate the effect size subsequently seen in RCTs. This is explained in part by a few study factors: the presence of RWS that are imbalanced for age, gender, and disease severity, and those reporting mortality at 2 weeks or less. Smaller studies of either type contributed negligibly. Analysis of evidence generated sequentially during the pandemic indicated that larger RCTs drive our ability to make conclusive decisions regarding clinical benefit of each treatment, with limited inference drawn from RWS. These results suggest that when evaluating therapies in future pandemics, (1) large RCTs, especially platform studies, be deployed early; (2) any RWS should be large and should have adequate matching of known confounders and long follow-up; (3) reporting standards and data standards for primary endpoints, explanatory factors, and key subgroups should be improved; in addition, (4) appropriate incentives should be in place to enable access to patient-level data; and (5) an overall aggregate view of all available results should be available at any given time.

Project description:BackgroundSchizophrenia is a chronic mental disorder associated with substantial morbidity and mortality affecting 0.25-1.6% of adults in the USA. Antipsychotic treatment is the standard of care for schizophrenia, but real-world treatment patterns and associated costs have not been systematically reviewed.ObjectiveWe conducted a systematic review to summarize treatment patterns and associated costs related to oral antipsychotic treatment of patients with schizophrenia in the USA.Data sourcesWe searched Medline (via PubMed) and Embase to identify relevant observational studies published from January 1, 2008, to June 1, 2018; costs were converted to 2018 US dollars.Study eligibilityObservational, real-world studies reporting on patterns of treatment and/or associated costs for adult patients with schizophrenia treated with oral antipsychotics in the USA were included.ResultsEighty-one studies were identified. Frequently prescribed oral second-generation antipsychotics were olanzapine (up to 50.9%), risperidone (up to 40.0%), and quetiapine (up to 30.7%). Suboptimal adherence was common across studies. Antipsychotic switching occurred in about half of patients, while antipsychotic combination therapy occurred in nearly 30%; all were associated with increased medication-related costs. Mean annual direct medical costs differed by treatment, with reported costs of $17,115 to $26,138 for patients treated with olanzapine, $18,395 for risperidone, and $17,656 to $28,101 for quetiapine.LimitationsThis systematic review is limited by the variations in definitions of schizophrenia-related clinical terms used between studies and by the inclusion of studies focused on only the US health care system.ConclusionsIn the treatment of schizophrenia, suboptimal adherence, antipsychotic switching, and antipsychotic augmentation were all associated with high costs of care in comparison to patients who were adherent and did not require antipsychotic switching or augmentation. These findings illustrate the need for the development of new treatments that address efficacy and adherence challenges of currently available therapies.

Project description:Although clozapine treatment is often discontinued due to limited efficacy or low tolerability, there is a lack of guidelines and evidence on treatment options after discontinuation of clozapine in patients with schizophrenia. Persistence has proven to be an adequate indicator for treatment effectiveness in patients with schizophrenia. The aim of this study was, therefore, to compare persistence of antipsychotic use between antipsychotic treatment options in patients after stopping clozapine treatment. Registry data from a prescription database representative of the Dutch population (1996-2017) was collected to investigate persistence in patients with schizophrenia who had been using clozapine for ? 90 days. Persistence with antipsychotics after clozapine discontinuation was analyzed using Cox-proportional hazard regression models. Our study population consisted of 321 participants, of whom 138 re-initiated clozapine and 183 started some other antipsychotic in the year after clozapine discontinuation (N = 518 antipsychotic use periods, N = 9,178 months). Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) as a group were associated with better persistence compared to first-generation antipsychotics (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-0.93; P = 0.011). Compared with other antipsychotics, the following oral monotherapy antipsychotics were associated with significantly better persistence: restarting clozapine (aHR 0.48; 95% CI 0.32-0.71; P < 0.001) and switching to risperidone (aHR 0.52; 95% CI 0.32-0.84; P = 0.008) or olanzapine (aHR 0.55; 95% CI 0.35-0.87; P = 0.010). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the results. In conclusion, oral SGAs are associated with better persistence than alternative antipsychotic treatment options in patients discontinuing clozapine for undefined reasons. Especially clozapine (except in those with previous serious adverse reactions to clozapine), olanzapine and risperidone should be considered as oral monotherapy for these patients.

Project description:Compared with oral antipsychotics (OAPs), long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) should improve medication adherence and reduce relapses in schizophrenia. However, meta-analyses of randomized trials and mirror-image studies yielded inconsistent results. Nonrandomized cohort studies with parallel comparisons of LAIs and OAPs offer a third design to examine this issue. We meta-analyzed cohort studies with ≥24 weeks duration and hospitalization data. Primary outcome was hospitalization rate, ie, number of hospitalizations per person-year. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization risk, ie, proportion of patients experiencing ≥1 hospitalizations, all-cause discontinuation, and total hospitalization days. Patient severity and/or chronicity at baseline was also meta-analyzed and explored as a potential effect size moderator. Altogether, 42 studies (n = 101 624; follow-up = 18.6 ± 10.0 mo) were meta-analyzed. LAIs were superior to OAPs regarding hospitalization rate (studies = 15, person-years = 68 009, rate ratio = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.78-0.93, P < .001) and all-cause discontinuations (studies = 10, n = 37 293, risk ratio = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.67-0.91, P = .001), but not regarding hospitalization risk (studies = 33, n = 51 733, risk ratio = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.84-1.00, P = .06), and hospitalization days (studies = 11, n = 21 328, Hedges' g = -0.05, 95% CI = -0.16 to 0.06, P = .39). Illness severity/chronicity was significantly greater in patients prescribed LAIs vs OAPs when all available information was pooled together (studies = 23, n = 61 806, Hedges' g = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.03-0.26, P = .01), but not when examined separately. In summary, this meta-analysis of cohort studies, which included patients that are broadly representative of clinical practice, indicates that LAIs are superior to OAPs. The lack of significant superiority of LAIs for hospitalization risk and hospital days needs to be interpreted in the context of naturalistic treatment selection with subsequently greater illness severity/chronicity in LAI-treated patients.

Dataset Information

A meta-analysis of effectiveness of real-world studies of antipsychotics in schizophrenia: Are the results consistent with the findings of randomized controlled trials?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets