Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia

Anna Ceraso, Jessie Jingxia Lin, Johannes Schneider-Thoma, Spyridon Siafis, Magdolna Tardy, Katja Komossa, Stephan Heres, Werner Kissling, John M Davis, Stefan Leucht, Anna Ceraso, Jessie Jingxia Lin, Johannes Schneider-Thoma, Spyridon Siafis, Magdolna Tardy, Katja Komossa, Stephan Heres, Werner Kissling, John M Davis, Stefan Leucht

Abstract

Background: The symptoms and signs of schizophrenia have been linked to high levels of dopamine in specific areas of the brain (limbic system). Antipsychotic drugs block the transmission of dopamine in the brain and reduce the acute symptoms of the disorder. An original version of the current review, published in 2012, examined whether antipsychotic drugs are also effective for relapse prevention. This is the updated version of the aforesaid review.

Objectives: To review the effects of maintaining antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia compared to withdrawing these agents.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including the registries of clinical trials (12 November 2008, 10 October 2017, 3 July 2018, 11 September 2019).

Selection criteria: We included all randomised trials comparing maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs and placebo for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

Data collection and analysis: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD), again based on a random-effects model.

Main results: The review currently includes 75 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 9145 participants comparing antipsychotic medication with placebo. The trials were published from 1959 to 2017 and their size ranged between 14 and 420 participants. In many studies the methods of randomisation, allocation and blinding were poorly reported. However, restricting the analysis to studies at low risk of bias gave similar results. Although this and other potential sources of bias limited the overall quality, the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs for maintenance treatment in schizophrenia was clear. Antipsychotic drugs were more effective than placebo in preventing relapse at seven to 12 months (primary outcome; drug 24% versus placebo 61%, 30 RCTs, n = 4249, RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.45, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 3; high-certainty evidence). Hospitalisation was also reduced, however, the baseline risk was lower (drug 7% versus placebo 18%, 21 RCTs, n = 3558, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57, NNTB 8, 95% CI 6 to 14; high-certainty evidence). More participants in the placebo group than in the antipsychotic drug group left the studies early due to any reason (at seven to 12 months: drug 36% versus placebo 62%, 24 RCTs, n = 3951, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65, NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; high-certainty evidence) and due to inefficacy of treatment (at seven to 12 months: drug 18% versus placebo 46%, 24 RCTs, n = 3951, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.44, NNTB 3, 95% CI 3 to 4). Quality of life might be better in drug-treated participants (7 RCTs, n = 1573 SMD -0.32, 95% CI to -0.57 to -0.07; low-certainty evidence); probably the same for social functioning (15 RCTs, n = 3588, SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.34; moderate-certainty evidence). Underpowered data revealed no evidence of a difference between groups for the outcome 'Death due to suicide' (drug 0.04% versus placebo 0.1%, 19 RCTs, n = 4634, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.97,low-certainty evidence) and for the number of participants in employment (at 9 to 15 months, drug 39% versus placebo 34%, 3 RCTs, n = 593, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.41, low certainty evidence). Antipsychotic drugs (as a group and irrespective of duration) were associated with more participants experiencing movement disorders (e.g. at least one movement disorder: drug 14% versus placebo 8%, 29 RCTs, n = 5276, RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.85, number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 20, 95% CI 14 to 50), sedation (drug 8% versus placebo 5%, 18 RCTs, n = 4078, RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.86, NNTH 50, 95% CI not significant), and weight gain (drug 9% versus placebo 6%, 19 RCTs, n = 4767, RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.35, NNTH 25, 95% CI 20 to 50).

Authors' conclusions: For people with schizophrenia, the evidence suggests that maintenance on antipsychotic drugs prevents relapse to a much greater extent than placebo for approximately up to two years of follow-up. This effect must be weighed against the adverse effects of antipsychotic drugs. Future studies should better clarify the long-term morbidity and mortality associated with these drugs.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00111189 NCT00658645 NCT00704509.

Conflict of interest statement

Anna Ceraso: none to declare. Jessie Lin: none to declare. Johannes Schneider‐Thoma: none to declare. Spyridon Siafis: none to declare. Magdolna Tardy: none to declare. Katja Komossa: none to declare. Stephan Heres: received speaker honoraria from Janssen‐Cilag, Eli Lilly, Sanofi‐Aventis, Otsuka, Lundbeck and Johnson & Johnson; accepted travel or hospitality payment from Janssen‐Cilag, Sanofi‐Aventis, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Bristol‐Myers‐Squibb, AstraZeneca, Lundbeck, Novartis and Eli Lilly; participated in clinical trials sponsored or supported by Eli Lilly, Janssen Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol‐Myers‐Squibb, AstraZeneca, Lundbeck, Novartis, Servier, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Organon, Roche and Merck; and received honoraria for participation in advisory‐boards or activities as a consultant from Lundbeck, Otsuka, Eli Lilly, Roche, Teva, Janssen and Johnson & Johnson. Werner Kissling: has received honoraria for board memberships, consulting and lectures from Janssen and Eli Lilly; honoraria for development of educational materials from Janssen; grant support from Janssen and AstraZeneca; and travel/accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Janssen. John M Davis: none to declare. Stefan Leucht: In the last three years Stefan Leucht has received honoraria for lectures or consulting from LB Pharma, Otsuka, Lundbeck, Boehringer Ingelheim, LTS Lohmann, Janssen, Johnson&Johnson, TEVA, MSD, Sandoz, SanofiAventis, Angelini, Recordati, Sunovion, Geodon Richter.

Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram (results of the original search) For the review update in 2018: 3 reports describing the 2 studies originally excluded from quantitative synthesis were moved to excluded studies (no usable data for outcomes of interest); 3 reports on 1 study, originally excluded (short duration of follow‐up), were moved to included studies; one report originally included as independent study was moved as secondary publication of another included study.
2
2
Study flow diagram (results of the 2017/2018/2019 update search and combined results of the original search and the update search)
3
3
Size of trial over time
4
4
'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
5
5
'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
6
6
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, outcome: Relapse
7
7
Meta‐regression on duration of clinical stability before study start (relapse at 12 months) The size of the bubbles is proportional to the inverse variance of the treatment effect.
8
8
Meta‐regression on duration of taper in the placebo group (relapse at 12 months) The size of the bubbles is proportional to the inverse variance of treatment effect.
9
9
Meta‐regression on mean dose in chlorpromazine equivalents (relapse at 12 months) The size of the bubbles is proportional to the inverse variance of treatment effect.
10
10
Meta‐regression on study duration (relapse, all studies included). The size of the bubbles is proportional to the inverse variance of treatment effect.
1.1. Analysis
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 1: Relapse: 1. Within pre‐specified time periods
1.2. Analysis
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 2: Relapse: 2. Independent of duration
1.3. Analysis
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 3: Leaving the study early: 1. Due to any reason (acceptability of treatment)
1.4. Analysis
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 4: Leaving the study early: 2. Due to adverse events (overall tolerability)
1.5. Analysis
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 5: Leaving the study early: 3. Due to inefficacy
1.6. Analysis
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 6: Global state: number of participants improved (at least minimally)
1.7. Analysis
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 7: Global state: number of participants in symptomatic remission
1.8. Analysis
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 8: Global state: number of participants in sustained remission
1.9. Analysis
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 9: Service use: number of participants hospitalised
1.10. Analysis
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 10: Service use: number of participants discharged
1.11. Analysis
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 11: Death: due to any reason
1.12. Analysis
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 12: Death: due to natural causes
1.13. Analysis
1.13. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 13: Death: due to suicide
1.14. Analysis
1.14. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 14: Number with suicide attempts
1.15. Analysis
1.15. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 15: Number with suicide ideation
1.16. Analysis
1.16. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 16: Violent/aggressive behaviour
1.17. Analysis
1.17. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 17: Adverse effects: at least one adverse event
1.18. Analysis
1.18. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 18: Adverse effects: movement disorders: at least one movement disorder
1.19. Analysis
1.19. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 19: Adverse effects: movement disorders: akathisia
1.20. Analysis
1.20. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 20: Adverse effects: movement disorders: akinesia
1.21. Analysis
1.21. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 21: Adverse effects: movement disorders: dyskinesia
1.22. Analysis
1.22. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 22: Adverse effects: movement disorders: dystonia
1.23. Analysis
1.23. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 23: Adverse effects: movement disorders: rigor
1.24. Analysis
1.24. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 24: Adverse effects: movement disorders: tremor
1.25. Analysis
1.25. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 25: Adverse effects: movement disorders: use of antiparkinson medication
1.26. Analysis
1.26. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 26: Adverse effects: sedation
1.27. Analysis
1.27. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 27: Adverse effects: weight gain
1.28. Analysis
1.28. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 28: Participant´s satisfaction with care
1.29. Analysis
1.29. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 29: Quality of life (various scales, different timepoints)
1.30. Analysis
1.30. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 30: Quality of life (across all scales and timepoints)
1.31. Analysis
1.31. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 31: Number of participants in employment
1.32. Analysis
1.32. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 32: Social Functioning (various scales, different timepoints)
1.33. Analysis
1.33. Analysis
Comparison 1: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 33: Social Functioning (across all scales and timepoints)
2.1. Analysis
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2: Subgroup analysis (relapse at 12 months), Outcome 1: Subgroup analysis: participants with a first episode
2.2. Analysis
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2: Subgroup analysis (relapse at 12 months), Outcome 2: Subgroup analysis: participants in remission at baseline
2.3. Analysis
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2: Subgroup analysis (relapse at 12 months), Outcome 3: Subgroup analysis: various durations of stability before entering the study
2.4. Analysis
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2: Subgroup analysis (relapse at 12 months), Outcome 4: Subgroup analysis: abrupt withdrawal versus tapering
2.5. Analysis
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2: Subgroup analysis (relapse at 12 months), Outcome 5: Subgroup analysis: single antipsychotic drugs
2.6. Analysis
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2: Subgroup analysis (relapse at 12 months), Outcome 6: Subgroup analysis: depot versus oral drugs
2.7. Analysis
2.7. Analysis
Comparison 2: Subgroup analysis (relapse at 12 months), Outcome 7: Subgroup analysis: first‐ versus second‐generation antipsychotic drugs
2.8. Analysis
2.8. Analysis
Comparison 2: Subgroup analysis (relapse at 12 months), Outcome 8: Subgroup analysis: appropriate versus unclear allocation concealment
2.9. Analysis
2.9. Analysis
Comparison 2: Subgroup analysis (relapse at 12 months), Outcome 9: Subgroup analysis: blinded versus open trials
3.1. Analysis
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3: Sensitivity analysis (relapse at 12 months), Outcome 1: Exclusion of studies that were not explicitly described as randomised
3.2. Analysis
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3: Sensitivity analysis (relapse at 12 months), Outcome 2: Exclusion of non‐double‐blind studies
3.3. Analysis
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3: Sensitivity analysis (relapse at 12 months), Outcome 3: Fixed‐effects model
3.4. Analysis
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3: Sensitivity analysis (relapse at 12 months), Outcome 4: Original authors' assumptions on dropouts
3.5. Analysis
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3: Sensitivity analysis (relapse at 12 months), Outcome 5: Inclusion of only large studies (> 200 participants)
3.6. Analysis
3.6. Analysis
Comparison 3: Sensitivity analysis (relapse at 12 months), Outcome 6: Exclusion of studies with clinical diagnosis
3.7. Analysis
3.7. Analysis
Comparison 3: Sensitivity analysis (relapse at 12 months), Outcome 7: Three months stable
3.8. Analysis
3.8. Analysis
Comparison 3: Sensitivity analysis (relapse at 12 months), Outcome 8: Six months stable
3.9. Analysis
3.9. Analysis
Comparison 3: Sensitivity analysis (relapse at 12 months), Outcome 9: Nine months stable
3.10. Analysis
3.10. Analysis
Comparison 3: Sensitivity analysis (relapse at 12 months), Outcome 10: Exclusion of studies with unclear randomisation method
3.11. Analysis
3.11. Analysis
Comparison 3: Sensitivity analysis (relapse at 12 months), Outcome 11: Exclusion of studies with unclear allocation concealment method

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever