高剂量奥氮平与氯氮平治疗难治性精神分裂症:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Bijen Upadhyay , Sheila Abdolmanafi , Tanmay Bhatnagar , Mustafa Al Jnainati , Jana Al Jnainati , Partha Baral , Muhammad Faisal Shakir
{"title":"高剂量奥氮平与氯氮平治疗难治性精神分裂症:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Bijen Upadhyay ,&nbsp;Sheila Abdolmanafi ,&nbsp;Tanmay Bhatnagar ,&nbsp;Mustafa Al Jnainati ,&nbsp;Jana Al Jnainati ,&nbsp;Partha Baral ,&nbsp;Muhammad Faisal Shakir","doi":"10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2025.07.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) affects approximately 30 % of schizophrenia patients and represents a significant clinical challenge. Although clozapine remains the gold standard treatment, it is underutilized due to hematological monitoring requirements, though recent FDA guidance has made such monitoring less restrictive. High-dose olanzapine has emerged as a potential alternative; however, comparative evidence has been mixed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. Four electronic databases were searched, from inception to February 2025. Studies that directly compared high-dose olanzapine (≥20 mg/day) with clozapine in treatment-resistant populations were included. The primary outcomes included changes in overall psychopathology as measured by PANSS total scores or BPRS total scores, along with positive and negative symptom subscales, positive and negative symptoms, and adverse events. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, which were included in the meta-analysis. Using random-effects models, clozapine demonstrated significant superiority for positive symptoms (MD = −1.30, 95 % CI [−2.52, −0.08]), whereas differences in overall psychopathology (MD = −2.50, 95 % CI [−6.53, 1.53]) and negative symptoms (MD = 0.21, 95 % CI [−1.96, 2.38]) were not significant. High heterogeneity was observed across the outcomes (I<sup>2</sup> = 61–98 %). In the pediatric population, clozapine showed clear superiority. Olanzapine demonstrated better general tolerability with lower discontinuation rates due to adverse events but Some studies showed significantly greater weight gain with high-dose olanzapine (≥20 mg/day) compared to clozapine (15.9 vs 3.5 lbs). Although clozapine remains the most effective option for TRS, particularly for positive symptoms, high-dose olanzapine represents a viable alternative with a different efficacy and risk profile. Treatment decisions should be individualized, considering specific symptom profiles, prior treatment responses, susceptibility to side effects, and patient preferences. Both medications require careful monitoring for metabolic side effects.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12517,"journal":{"name":"General hospital psychiatry","volume":"96 ","pages":"Pages 140-150"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"High-dose olanzapine versus clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Bijen Upadhyay ,&nbsp;Sheila Abdolmanafi ,&nbsp;Tanmay Bhatnagar ,&nbsp;Mustafa Al Jnainati ,&nbsp;Jana Al Jnainati ,&nbsp;Partha Baral ,&nbsp;Muhammad Faisal Shakir\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2025.07.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) affects approximately 30 % of schizophrenia patients and represents a significant clinical challenge. Although clozapine remains the gold standard treatment, it is underutilized due to hematological monitoring requirements, though recent FDA guidance has made such monitoring less restrictive. High-dose olanzapine has emerged as a potential alternative; however, comparative evidence has been mixed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. Four electronic databases were searched, from inception to February 2025. Studies that directly compared high-dose olanzapine (≥20 mg/day) with clozapine in treatment-resistant populations were included. The primary outcomes included changes in overall psychopathology as measured by PANSS total scores or BPRS total scores, along with positive and negative symptom subscales, positive and negative symptoms, and adverse events. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, which were included in the meta-analysis. Using random-effects models, clozapine demonstrated significant superiority for positive symptoms (MD = −1.30, 95 % CI [−2.52, −0.08]), whereas differences in overall psychopathology (MD = −2.50, 95 % CI [−6.53, 1.53]) and negative symptoms (MD = 0.21, 95 % CI [−1.96, 2.38]) were not significant. High heterogeneity was observed across the outcomes (I<sup>2</sup> = 61–98 %). In the pediatric population, clozapine showed clear superiority. Olanzapine demonstrated better general tolerability with lower discontinuation rates due to adverse events but Some studies showed significantly greater weight gain with high-dose olanzapine (≥20 mg/day) compared to clozapine (15.9 vs 3.5 lbs). Although clozapine remains the most effective option for TRS, particularly for positive symptoms, high-dose olanzapine represents a viable alternative with a different efficacy and risk profile. Treatment decisions should be individualized, considering specific symptom profiles, prior treatment responses, susceptibility to side effects, and patient preferences. Both medications require careful monitoring for metabolic side effects.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"General hospital psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"96 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 140-150\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"General hospital psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163834325001422\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"General hospital psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163834325001422","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

难治性精神分裂症(TRS)影响了大约30%的精神分裂症患者,是一项重大的临床挑战。虽然氯氮平仍然是金标准治疗,但由于血液学监测的要求,氯氮平未得到充分利用,尽管最近FDA的指导使这种监测的限制减少了。大剂量奥氮平已成为潜在的替代品;然而,比较证据好坏参半。我们按照PRISMA指南进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。从成立到2025年2月,搜索了四个电子数据库。直接比较高剂量奥氮平(≥20mg /天)和氯氮平治疗耐药人群的研究被纳入。主要结局包括通过PANSS总分或BPRS总分测量的总体精神病理变化,以及阳性和阴性症状亚量表、阳性和阴性症状以及不良事件。12项研究符合纳入标准,纳入meta分析。使用随机效应模型,氯氮平在阳性症状(MD = - 1.30, 95% CI[- 2.52, - 0.08])方面表现出显著优势,而在整体精神病理(MD = - 2.50, 95% CI[- 6.53, 1.53])和阴性症状(MD = 0.21, 95% CI[- 1.96, 2.38])方面差异不显著。结果之间存在高度异质性(I2 = 61 - 98%)。在儿科人群中,氯氮平显示出明显的优势。奥氮平表现出更好的总体耐受性,由于不良事件导致的停药率更低,但一些研究显示,与氯氮平相比,高剂量奥氮平(≥20mg /天)的体重增加明显更多(15.9 vs 3.5磅)。虽然氯氮平仍然是TRS最有效的选择,特别是对于阳性症状,但大剂量奥氮平是一种可行的替代方案,具有不同的疗效和风险特征。治疗决定应个体化,考虑到特定的症状特征、先前的治疗反应、对副作用的易感性和患者的偏好。这两种药物都需要仔细监测代谢副作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
High-dose olanzapine versus clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) affects approximately 30 % of schizophrenia patients and represents a significant clinical challenge. Although clozapine remains the gold standard treatment, it is underutilized due to hematological monitoring requirements, though recent FDA guidance has made such monitoring less restrictive. High-dose olanzapine has emerged as a potential alternative; however, comparative evidence has been mixed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. Four electronic databases were searched, from inception to February 2025. Studies that directly compared high-dose olanzapine (≥20 mg/day) with clozapine in treatment-resistant populations were included. The primary outcomes included changes in overall psychopathology as measured by PANSS total scores or BPRS total scores, along with positive and negative symptom subscales, positive and negative symptoms, and adverse events. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, which were included in the meta-analysis. Using random-effects models, clozapine demonstrated significant superiority for positive symptoms (MD = −1.30, 95 % CI [−2.52, −0.08]), whereas differences in overall psychopathology (MD = −2.50, 95 % CI [−6.53, 1.53]) and negative symptoms (MD = 0.21, 95 % CI [−1.96, 2.38]) were not significant. High heterogeneity was observed across the outcomes (I2 = 61–98 %). In the pediatric population, clozapine showed clear superiority. Olanzapine demonstrated better general tolerability with lower discontinuation rates due to adverse events but Some studies showed significantly greater weight gain with high-dose olanzapine (≥20 mg/day) compared to clozapine (15.9 vs 3.5 lbs). Although clozapine remains the most effective option for TRS, particularly for positive symptoms, high-dose olanzapine represents a viable alternative with a different efficacy and risk profile. Treatment decisions should be individualized, considering specific symptom profiles, prior treatment responses, susceptibility to side effects, and patient preferences. Both medications require careful monitoring for metabolic side effects.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
General hospital psychiatry
General hospital psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
2.90%
发文量
125
审稿时长
20 days
期刊介绍: General Hospital Psychiatry explores the many linkages among psychiatry, medicine, and primary care. In emphasizing a biopsychosocial approach to illness and health, the journal provides a forum for professionals with clinical, academic, and research interests in psychiatry''s role in the mainstream of medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信