OBJECTIVE: The authors examined the safety and efficacy of antidepressants added to antipsychotic drugs in the treatment of schizophrenia. METHOD: Multiple databases and previous publications were searched through June 2015 to identify all randomized controlled trials of any add-on antidepressants compared with placebo or no-treatment in schizophrenia. Depressive and negative symptoms (primary outcomes), overall symptoms, positive symptoms, side effects, exacerbation of psychosis, and responder rates were examined. Subgroup, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were performed, as well as investigations of publication bias and risk of bias. RESULTS: Eighty-two randomized controlled trials with a total of 3,608 participants were included. Add-on antidepressants appeared more efficacious than controls for depressive symptoms (standardized mean difference: –0.25, 95% CI = –0.38 to –0.12), negative symptoms (standardized mean difference: –0.30, 95% CI = –0.44 to –0.16), overall symptoms (standardized mean difference: –0.24,95%CI = –0.39 to–0.09), positive symptoms (standardized mean difference: –0.17, 95% CI = –0.33 to –0.01), quality of life (standardized mean difference: –0.32, 95% CI = –0.57 to –0.06), and responder rate (risk ratio: 1.52, 95% CI = 1.29 to 1.78; number-needed-to-treat-to-benefit: 5, 95% CI = 4 to 7). The effects on depressive and negative symptoms appeared more pronounced when minimum thresholds of these symptoms were inclusion criteria (standardized mean difference: –0.34, 95% CI = –0.58 to –0.09 and standardized mean difference: –0.58, 95% CI=–0.94 to –0.21, respectively). There were no significant differences between antidepressants and controls in terms of exacerbation of psychosis, premature discontinuation, and the number of participants with at least one adverse event. More patients taking add-on antidepressants suffered from abdominal pain, constipation, dizziness, and dry mouth. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of primary outcomes (depressive and negative symptoms) suggests small, beneficial effects of adjunctive antidepressants. It would appear that this augmentation can be accomplished with a low risk of exacerbation of psychosis and adverse effects. However, secondary and subgroup analyses should be interpreted cautiously and considered exploratory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
BACKGROUND: Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with just antipsychotic drug treatment and various adjunct medications are used to promote additional response. The antiepileptic carbamazepine is one such drug.
OBJECTIVES: To examine whether carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine alone is an effective treatment for schizophrenia and schizoaffective psychoses and whether carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine augmentation of neuroleptic medication is an effective treatment for the same illnesses.
SEARCH METHODS: For the original version we searched The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials (December 2001), The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2001), MEDLINE (1966-2001), EMBASE (1980-2001), Biological Abstracts (1980-2001), PsycLIT (1886-2001) and PSYNDEX (1974-2001). For the most recent update we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials in July 2012. We also inspected references of all identified studies for further trials and contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies and authors for additional data.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing carbamazepine or compounds of the carbamazepine family with placebo or no intervention, whether as sole treatment or as an adjunct to antipsychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia and/or schizoaffective psychoses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated fixed-effect, risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD). We assessed the risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS: The updated search did not reveal any further studies that met our inclusion criteria. The number of included studies therefore remains at 10 with the number of participants randomised still 283.
One study comparing carbamazepine with placebo as the sole treatment for schizophrenia was abandoned early due to high relapse rate with 26 out of 31 participants relapsing by three months. No effect of carbamazepine was evident with no difference in relapse between the two groups (1 RCT n = 31, RR 1.07 CI 0.78 to 1.45). Another study compared carbamazepine with antipsychotics as the sole treatment for schizophrenia. No differences in terms of mental state were found when comparing 50% reduction in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) scores (1 RCT n = 38, RR 1.23 CI 0.78 to 1.92). A favourable effect for carbamazepine was found when more people who received the antipsychotic (perphenazine) had parkinsonism (1 RCT n = 38, RR 0.03 CI 0.00 to 0.043). Eight studies compared adjunctive carbamazepine versus adjunctive placebo, we were able use GRADE for quality of evidence for these results. Adding carbamazepine to antipsychotic treatment was as acceptable as adding placebo with no difference between the numbers leaving the study early from each group (8 RCTs n = 182, RR 0.47 CI 0.16 to 1.35, very low quality evidence). Carbamazepine augmentation was superior compared with antipsychotics alone in terms of overall global improvement, but participant numbers were low (2 RCTs n = 38, RR 0.57 CI 0.37 to 0.88). There were no differences for the mental state outcome of 50% reduction in BPRS scores (6 RCTs n = 147, RR 0.86 CI 0.67 to 1.12, low quality evidence). Less people in the carbamazepine augmentation group had movement disorders than those taking haloperidol alone (1 RCT n = 20, RR 0.38 CI 0.14 to 1.02). No data were available for the effects of carbamazepine on subgroups of people with schizophrenia and aggressive behaviour, negative symptoms or EEG abnormalities or with schizoaffective disorder.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on currently available randomised trial-derived evidence, carbamazepine cannot be recommended for routine clinical use for treatment or augmentation of antipsychotic treatment of schizophrenia. At present large, simple well-designed and reported trials are justified - especially if focusing on people with violent episodes and people with schizoaffective disorders or those with both schizophrenia and EEG abnormalities.
Persistent negative symptoms and cognitive impairment are major clinical problems in the treatment of schizophrenia. There is no convincing evidence regarding the efficacy of augmentation of clozapine with a second antipsychotic, ethyl eicosapentaenoic acid (E-EPA), an antidepressant, a mood stabilizer or extract of <i>Ginkgo</i><i>biloba</i> in clozapine-resistant schizophrenia. We present an overview of studies in which the potential clinical utility of the addition of non-glutamatergic agents to clozapine is assessed. We performed a meta-analysis on the efficacy of both risperidone and aripiprazole compared to placebo. We compared the effects of the addition of a second antipsychotic or an antidepressant to clozapine on positive, negative, overall and affective symptoms of schizophrenia in double-blind placebo-controlled trials. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
BACKGROUND: The main rationale for the use of lithium in the long-term treatment of unipolar affective disorder is its efficacy in treating bipolar affective disorder and resistant depression. However, there is considerable uncertainty about which pharmacological intervention is most effective in the long-term treatment of recurrent unipolar affective disorder.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of lithium versus antidepressants for the long-term treatment of recurrent affective disorder.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Registers (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) on 2/9/2005. Reference lists of relevant papers and major textbooks of affective disorder were checked. Experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies were contacted regarding unpublished material.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing lithium against antidepressant medication for the long-term treatment of patients with a diagnosis of affective disorder.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected adverse effects information from the trials.
MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials involving 475 people were included. Two of the studies included a mixed group of participants with either bipolar or unipolar disorder. Relapse was defined as admission to hospital and when all kinds of relapses were considered (both depressive and manic), there was a statistically significant difference in favour of lithium (relative risk (RR) fixed effect 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.82). The results did not exclude the point of no effect, when the random-effects model was used (RR random effects 0.40, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.18). There were no other statistically significant differences between lithium and antidepressants according to all other outcomes considered. Manic or depressive relapse was defined as prescription of non-study medication for mood disorder, manic or depressive relapse (as defined by the study authors), quality of life, social functioning, occupational functioning, overall drop-out rate, drop-out rate due to side-effects, troublesome side-effects, mortality due to all causes and specifically suicides.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was adequate efficacy evidence for lithium or antidepressants preventing relapse in unipolar affective disorder, however their relative efficacy was unknown. When considering lithium or antidepressant long-term therapy, patients and clinicians should take into account the patient's clinical history, the side-effects and the individual's likely adherence to the recommended treatment regime. Large-scale, long-term randomised trials in unselected groups of subjects with unipolar affective disorder are needed.
Approximately 40-70% of treatment-resistant schizophrenic patients fail to benefit from clozapine monotherapy or are partial responders. During the last years several clozapine adjunctive agents have come into clinical practice. This study aims to critically review all published randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) regarding the efficacy and safety of adjunctive agents in clozapineresistant schizophrenic or schizoaffective patients. A MEDLINE search for RCTs on clozapine adjunctive agents published from January 1980 to February 2004 was conducted. All identified papers were critically reviewed and examined against several methodological features as well as clinical and pharmacological parameters. Eleven trials including 270 patients, partial or non-responders to clozapine, assessed the efficacy of sulpiride, lithium, lamotrigine, fluoxetine, glycine, D-serine, D-cycloserine and ethyl-eicosapentanoate (E-EPA) as clozapine adjuncts. There were eight parallel-group and three crossover trials. The inclusion criteria varied widely. The duration as well as the dosage of clozapine monotherapy were reported adequate in only one trial. Plasma clozapine levels were assessed in only three trials. Main side-effects reported were hypersalivation, sedation, diarrhea, nausea, hyperprolactinaemia. The outcome favored clozapine augmentation with sulpiride, lamotrigine and E-EPA. Lithium was shown to benefit only schizoaffective patients. However, the methodological shortcomings of trials analyzed limit the impact of evidence provided. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
BACKGROUND: Depressive symptoms, often of substantial severity, are found in 50% of newly diagnosed suffers of schizophrenia and 33% of people with chronic schizophrenia who have relapsed. Depression is associated with dysphoria, disability, reduction of motivation to accomplish tasks and the activities of daily living, an increased duration of illness and more frequent relapses.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effects of antidepressant medication for the treatment of depression in people who also suffer with schizophrenia.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We undertook electronic searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (October 2000), ClinPsych (1988-2000), The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2000), EMBASE (1980-2000) and MEDLINE (1966-2000). This was supplemented by citation searching, personal contact with authors and pharmaceutical companies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised clinical trials that compared antidepressant medication with placebo for people with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who were also suffering from depression.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently selected and extracted. For homogeneous dichotomous data the fixed effects risk difference (RD), the 95% confidence intervals (CI) and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, reviewers calculated weighted mean differences. Statistical tests for heterogeneity were also undertaken.
MAIN RESULTS: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. All were small, and randomised fewer than 30 people to each group. Most included people after the most acute phase of psychosis and investigated a wide range of antidepressants. The quality of reporting varied a great deal. For the outcome of 'no important clinical response' antidepressants were significantly better than placebo (n=209, 5 RCTs, summary risk difference fixed effects -0.26, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.13, NNT 4 95% CI 3 to 8). The depression score at the end of the trial, as assessed by the Hamilton Rating Scale (HAM-D), seemed to suggest that using antidepressants was beneficial, but this was only statistically significant when a fixed effects model was used (n=261, 6 RCTs, WMD fixed effects -2.2 95% CI -3.8 to -0.6; WMD random effects -2.1 95% CI -5.04 to 0.84). There was no evidence that antidepressant treatment led to a deterioration of psychotic symptoms in the included trials. Heterogeneous data on 'any adverse effect' are equivocal (n=110, 2 RCTs, RD fixed 0.11 CI -0.03 to 0.25, Chi square 7.5, df=1, p=0.0062). In one small study extrapyramidal adverse effects were reported less often by those allocated to antidepressant (n=52, 1 RCT, RD fixed -0.28 CI -0.5 to -0.04). Only about 10% of people left these studies by 12 weeks. There was no apparent difference between those allocated placebo and those given an antidepressant (n=426, 10 RCTs, RD fixed 0.04 CI -0.02 to 0.1).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the literature was of poor quality, and only a small number of trials made useful contributions. Though our results provide some evidence to indicate that antidepressants may be beneficial for people with depression and schizophrenia, the results, at best, are likely to overestimate the treatment effect, and, at worst, could merely reflect selective reporting of statistically significant results and publication bias.
At present, there is no convincing evidence to support or refute the use of antidepressants in treating depression in people with schizophrenia. We need further well-designed, conducted and reported research to determine the best approach towards treating depression in people with schizophrenia.
BACKGROUND: Mood disorders are common, disabling and tend to be recurrent. They carry a high risk of suicide. Maintenance treatment, aimed at the prevention of relapse, is therefore of vital importance. Lithium has been used for some years as the mainstay of maintenance treatment in bipolar affective disorder, and to a lesser extent in unipolar disorder. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of prophylactic lithium therapy has been disputed. Low suicide rates in lithium-treated patients have led to claims that lithium has a specific anti-suicidal effect. If so, this is of considerable importance as treatments for mental disorders in general have not been shown convincingly to be effective in suicide prevention.
OBJECTIVES: 1. To investigate the efficacy of lithium treatment in the prevention of relapse in recurrent mood disorders.
2. To examine the effect of lithium treatment on consumers' general health and social functioning, its acceptability to consumers, and the side-effects of treatment.
3. To investigate the hypothesis that lithium has a specific effect in reducing the incidence of suicide and deliberate self-harm in persons with mood disorders.
SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR) and The Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register (CCTR) were searched. Reference lists of relevant papers and major text books of mood disorder were examined. Authors, other experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies were contacted for knowledge of suitable trials, published or unpublished. Specialist journals concerning lithium were hand searched.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing lithium with placebo, where the stated intent of treatment was maintenance or prophylaxis. Participants were males and females of all ages with diagnoses of mood disorder. Discontinuation studies (in which all participants had been stable on lithium for some time before being randomised to either continued lithium treatment or placebo substitution) were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted from the original reports independently by two reviewers. The main outcomes studied were related to the objectives stated above. Data were analysed for all diagnoses of mood disorder and for bipolar and unipolar disorder separately. Data were analysed using Review Manager version 4.0.
MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the review, reporting on 825 participants randomly allocated to lithium or placebo. Lithium was found to be more effective than placebo in preventing relapse in mood disorder overall, and in bipolar disorder. The most consistent effect was found in bipolar disorder (random effects OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.93 ). In unipolar disorder, the direction of effect was in favour of lithium, but the result (when heterogeneity between studies was allowed for) did not reach statistical significance. Considerable heterogeneity was found between studies in all groups of patients. The direction of effect was the same in all studies; no study found a negative effect for lithium. Heterogeneity may have been due to differences in selection of participants, and to differing exposures to lithium in the pre-study phase resulting in variable influence of a discontinuation effect. There was little reported data on overall health and social functioning of participants under the different treatment conditions, or on the participants' own views of their treatment. Descriptive analysis showed that assessments of general health and social functioning generally favoured lithium. Small absolute numbers of deaths and suicides, and the absence of data on non-fatal suicidal behaviours, made it impossible to draw meaningful conclusions about the place of lithium therapy in suicide prevention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review indicates that lithium is an efficacious maintenance treatment for bipolar disorder. In unipolar disorder the evidence of efficacy is less robust. This review does not cover the relative efficacy of lithium compared with other maintenance treatments, which is at present unclear. There is no definitive evidence from this review as to whether or not lithium has an anti-suicidal effect. Systematic reviews and large scale randomised studies comparing lithium with other maintenance treatments (e.g. anti-convulsants, antidepressants) are necessary. Outcomes relating to death and suicidal behaviour should be included in all future maintenance studies of mood disorder.
OBJECTIVE: Patients with concurrent schizophrenic and mood symptoms are often treated with antipsychotics plus antidepressant or thymoleptic drugs. The authors review the literature on treatment of two overlapping groups of patients: those with schizoaffective disorder and those with schizophrenia and concurrent mood symptoms.
METHOD: MEDLINE searches (from 1976 onward) were undertaken to identify treatment studies of both groups, and references in these reports were checked. Selection of studies for review was based on the use of specified diagnostic criteria and of parallel-group, double-blind design (or, where few such studies addressed a particular issue, large open studies). A total of 18 treatment studies of schizoaffective disorder and 15 of schizophrenia with mood symptoms were selected for review.
RESULTS: For acute exacerbations of schizoaffective disorder or of schizophrenia with mood symptoms, antipsychotics appeared to be as effective as combination treatments, and there was some evidence for superior efficacy of atypical antipsychotics. There was evidence supporting adjunctive antidepressant treatment for schizophrenic and schizoaffective patients who develop a major depressive syndrome after remission of acute psychosis, but there were mixed results for treatment of subsyndromal depression. There was little evidence to support adjunctive lithium for depressive symptoms and no evidence concerning its use for manic symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.
CONCLUSIONS: Empirical data suggest that both groups of patients are best treated by optimizing antipsychotic treatment and that atypical antipsychotics may prove to be most effective. Adjunctive antidepressants may be useful for patients with major depression who are not acutely ill. Careful longitudinal assessment is required to ensure identification of primary mood disorders.
The authors examined the safety and efficacy of antidepressants added to antipsychotic drugs in the treatment of schizophrenia.
METHOD:
Multiple databases and previous publications were searched through June 2015 to identify all randomized controlled trials of any add-on antidepressants compared with placebo or no-treatment in schizophrenia. Depressive and negative symptoms (primary outcomes), overall symptoms, positive symptoms, side effects, exacerbation of psychosis, and responder rates were examined. Subgroup, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were performed, as well as investigations of publication bias and risk of bias.
RESULTS:
Eighty-two randomized controlled trials with a total of 3,608 participants were included. Add-on antidepressants appeared more efficacious than controls for depressive symptoms (standardized mean difference: –0.25, 95% CI = –0.38 to –0.12), negative symptoms (standardized mean difference: –0.30, 95% CI = –0.44 to –0.16), overall symptoms (standardized mean difference: –0.24,95%CI = –0.39 to–0.09), positive symptoms (standardized mean difference: –0.17, 95% CI = –0.33 to –0.01), quality of life (standardized mean difference: –0.32, 95% CI = –0.57 to –0.06), and responder rate (risk ratio: 1.52, 95% CI = 1.29 to 1.78; number-needed-to-treat-to-benefit: 5, 95% CI = 4 to 7). The effects on depressive and negative symptoms appeared more pronounced when minimum thresholds of these symptoms were inclusion criteria (standardized mean difference: –0.34, 95% CI = –0.58 to –0.09 and standardized mean difference: –0.58, 95% CI=–0.94 to –0.21, respectively). There were no significant differences between antidepressants and controls in terms of exacerbation of psychosis, premature discontinuation, and the number of participants with at least one adverse event. More patients taking add-on antidepressants suffered from abdominal pain, constipation, dizziness, and dry mouth.
CONCLUSIONS:
Analysis of primary outcomes (depressive and negative symptoms) suggests small, beneficial effects of adjunctive antidepressants. It would appear that this augmentation can be accomplished with a low risk of exacerbation of psychosis and adverse effects. However, secondary and subgroup analyses should be interpreted cautiously and considered exploratory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
