精神分裂症亚组患者对不同抗精神病药物的反应:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。

The lancet. Psychiatry Pub Date : 2022-11-01 Epub Date: 2022-10-10 DOI:10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00304-2
Stefan Leucht, Anna Chaimani, Marc Krause, Johannes Schneider-Thoma, Dongfang Wang, Shimeng Dong, Myrto Samara, Natalie Peter, Maximilian Huhn, Josef Priller, John M Davis
{"title":"精神分裂症亚组患者对不同抗精神病药物的反应:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Stefan Leucht,&nbsp;Anna Chaimani,&nbsp;Marc Krause,&nbsp;Johannes Schneider-Thoma,&nbsp;Dongfang Wang,&nbsp;Shimeng Dong,&nbsp;Myrto Samara,&nbsp;Natalie Peter,&nbsp;Maximilian Huhn,&nbsp;Josef Priller,&nbsp;John M Davis","doi":"10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00304-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As comparatively few trials in subgroups of patients with schizophrenia have been done, clinicians need to know whether they can rely on the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the general population of patients with schizophrenia. We aimed to compare the efficacy and side-effects of antipsychotic drugs in different subgroups.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register (from database inception to April 27, 2020), and PubMed (from April 1, 2020 to June 14, 2021). We excluded studies in patients with stable schizophrenia (ie, relapse prevention studies), studies with a high risk of bias, and studies from mainland China due to quality concerns concerning allocation and masking methods. We included single-blind RCTs or better that assessed one or more of 16 second-generation and 18 first-generation antipsychotics in the general population of patients with schizophrenia or in one or more of the subgroups: children and adolescents (age range as defined in the original studies), patients with a first episode, patients with predominant or prominent negative symptoms, patients with comorbid substance use, patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, or older patients (age range as defined in the original studies). Two authors independently screened the results of the search, retrieved full-text articles, and checked the inclusion criteria. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline, all parameters were extracted in duplicate. The primary outcome was change in overall symptoms. We compared drug efficacy between subgroups, by sex, schizoaffective disorder versus schizophrenia, and study origin using random-effects, inverse variance meta-analyses and random-effects subgroup tests, and meta-regression.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We included 537 RCTs with 76 382 participants, 26 627 (34·9%) women, 49 755 (65·1%) men, mean age 37·3 years (range of means 7·9-80·2; ethnicity data not available). 412 RCTs included patients in the general population of patients with schizophrenia, 42 included patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, 25 included children and adolescents, 20 included patients with their first episode, 20 included patients with predominant or prominent negative symptoms, 13 included patients with comorbid substance use, and 11 included older patients. Of 507 random-effects subgroup tests done, 46 (9%) showed a significant difference (p<0·05) between subgroups, but there was no clear indication as to which drug should be used in which subgroup.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>The effects of antipsychotics in various patient subgroups were usually similar to those in the general population of patients with schizophrenia, but comparably few studies contributed to the subgroups, in particular in terms of side-effects. If the evidence for treatment in a given subgroup is small, guideline makers and clinicians should consider using the results in the much better studied group of the general population of patients with schizophrenia.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung; FKZ 01KG1508).</p>","PeriodicalId":240194,"journal":{"name":"The lancet. Psychiatry","volume":" ","pages":"884-893"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The response of subgroups of patients with schizophrenia to different antipsychotic drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Stefan Leucht,&nbsp;Anna Chaimani,&nbsp;Marc Krause,&nbsp;Johannes Schneider-Thoma,&nbsp;Dongfang Wang,&nbsp;Shimeng Dong,&nbsp;Myrto Samara,&nbsp;Natalie Peter,&nbsp;Maximilian Huhn,&nbsp;Josef Priller,&nbsp;John M Davis\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00304-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As comparatively few trials in subgroups of patients with schizophrenia have been done, clinicians need to know whether they can rely on the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the general population of patients with schizophrenia. We aimed to compare the efficacy and side-effects of antipsychotic drugs in different subgroups.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register (from database inception to April 27, 2020), and PubMed (from April 1, 2020 to June 14, 2021). We excluded studies in patients with stable schizophrenia (ie, relapse prevention studies), studies with a high risk of bias, and studies from mainland China due to quality concerns concerning allocation and masking methods. We included single-blind RCTs or better that assessed one or more of 16 second-generation and 18 first-generation antipsychotics in the general population of patients with schizophrenia or in one or more of the subgroups: children and adolescents (age range as defined in the original studies), patients with a first episode, patients with predominant or prominent negative symptoms, patients with comorbid substance use, patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, or older patients (age range as defined in the original studies). Two authors independently screened the results of the search, retrieved full-text articles, and checked the inclusion criteria. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline, all parameters were extracted in duplicate. The primary outcome was change in overall symptoms. We compared drug efficacy between subgroups, by sex, schizoaffective disorder versus schizophrenia, and study origin using random-effects, inverse variance meta-analyses and random-effects subgroup tests, and meta-regression.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We included 537 RCTs with 76 382 participants, 26 627 (34·9%) women, 49 755 (65·1%) men, mean age 37·3 years (range of means 7·9-80·2; ethnicity data not available). 412 RCTs included patients in the general population of patients with schizophrenia, 42 included patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, 25 included children and adolescents, 20 included patients with their first episode, 20 included patients with predominant or prominent negative symptoms, 13 included patients with comorbid substance use, and 11 included older patients. Of 507 random-effects subgroup tests done, 46 (9%) showed a significant difference (p<0·05) between subgroups, but there was no clear indication as to which drug should be used in which subgroup.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>The effects of antipsychotics in various patient subgroups were usually similar to those in the general population of patients with schizophrenia, but comparably few studies contributed to the subgroups, in particular in terms of side-effects. If the evidence for treatment in a given subgroup is small, guideline makers and clinicians should consider using the results in the much better studied group of the general population of patients with schizophrenia.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung; FKZ 01KG1508).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":240194,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The lancet. Psychiatry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"884-893\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The lancet. Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00304-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/10/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The lancet. Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00304-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/10/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

背景:由于在精神分裂症患者亚组中进行的试验相对较少,临床医生需要知道他们是否可以依赖在精神分裂症患者一般人群中的随机对照试验(RCTs)的结果。我们的目的是比较不同亚组抗精神病药物的疗效和副作用。方法:在本系统评价和荟萃分析中,我们检索了以前的系统评价和荟萃分析的参考文献列表、Cochrane精神分裂症小组的基于研究的登记册(从数据库建立到2020年4月27日)和PubMed(从2020年4月1日到2021年6月14日)。我们排除了稳定型精神分裂症患者的研究(即预防复发的研究)、高偏倚风险的研究以及来自中国大陆的研究,因为它们涉及分配和掩蔽方法的质量问题。我们纳入了单盲或更好的随机对照试验,评估了精神分裂症患者一般人群或一个或多个亚组中16种第二代和18种第一代抗精神病药物中的一种或多种:儿童和青少年(原始研究中定义的年龄范围)、首次发作患者、主要或突出阴性症状患者、共病物质使用患者、难治性精神分裂症患者或老年患者(原始研究中定义的年龄范围)。两位作者独立筛选搜索结果,检索全文文章,并检查纳入标准。使用系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目,提取所有参数一式两份。主要结局是总体症状的改变。我们使用随机效应、逆方差荟萃分析、随机效应亚组检验和meta回归,按性别、分裂情感性障碍与精神分裂症、研究来源等亚组间比较药物疗效。结果:我们纳入了537项随机对照试验,共有76 382名参与者,女性26 627名(34.9%),男性49 755名(65.1%),平均年龄37.3岁(范围平均值7.9 - 802;没有种族数据)。412项随机对照试验纳入了精神分裂症患者的一般人群,42项纳入了难治性精神分裂症患者,25项纳入了儿童和青少年,20项纳入了首次发作的患者,20项纳入了主要或突出阴性症状的患者,13项纳入了合并症药物使用患者,11项纳入了老年患者。在507个随机效应亚组试验中,46个(9%)显示出显著差异(解释:抗精神病药物在不同患者亚组中的作用通常与精神分裂症患者的一般人群相似,但相对而言,很少有研究对亚组做出贡献,特别是在副作用方面。如果在一个特定的亚组中治疗的证据很少,指南制定者和临床医生应该考虑在精神分裂症患者的一般人群中进行更好的研究。资助:德国联邦教育和研究部(bundesministium fr Bildung und Forschung);FKZ 01 kg1508)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The response of subgroups of patients with schizophrenia to different antipsychotic drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: As comparatively few trials in subgroups of patients with schizophrenia have been done, clinicians need to know whether they can rely on the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the general population of patients with schizophrenia. We aimed to compare the efficacy and side-effects of antipsychotic drugs in different subgroups.

Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register (from database inception to April 27, 2020), and PubMed (from April 1, 2020 to June 14, 2021). We excluded studies in patients with stable schizophrenia (ie, relapse prevention studies), studies with a high risk of bias, and studies from mainland China due to quality concerns concerning allocation and masking methods. We included single-blind RCTs or better that assessed one or more of 16 second-generation and 18 first-generation antipsychotics in the general population of patients with schizophrenia or in one or more of the subgroups: children and adolescents (age range as defined in the original studies), patients with a first episode, patients with predominant or prominent negative symptoms, patients with comorbid substance use, patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, or older patients (age range as defined in the original studies). Two authors independently screened the results of the search, retrieved full-text articles, and checked the inclusion criteria. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline, all parameters were extracted in duplicate. The primary outcome was change in overall symptoms. We compared drug efficacy between subgroups, by sex, schizoaffective disorder versus schizophrenia, and study origin using random-effects, inverse variance meta-analyses and random-effects subgroup tests, and meta-regression.

Findings: We included 537 RCTs with 76 382 participants, 26 627 (34·9%) women, 49 755 (65·1%) men, mean age 37·3 years (range of means 7·9-80·2; ethnicity data not available). 412 RCTs included patients in the general population of patients with schizophrenia, 42 included patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, 25 included children and adolescents, 20 included patients with their first episode, 20 included patients with predominant or prominent negative symptoms, 13 included patients with comorbid substance use, and 11 included older patients. Of 507 random-effects subgroup tests done, 46 (9%) showed a significant difference (p<0·05) between subgroups, but there was no clear indication as to which drug should be used in which subgroup.

Interpretation: The effects of antipsychotics in various patient subgroups were usually similar to those in the general population of patients with schizophrenia, but comparably few studies contributed to the subgroups, in particular in terms of side-effects. If the evidence for treatment in a given subgroup is small, guideline makers and clinicians should consider using the results in the much better studied group of the general population of patients with schizophrenia.

Funding: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung; FKZ 01KG1508).

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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