13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Antipsychotic medication for women with schizophrenia spectrum disorders

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          There are significant differences between men and women in the efficacy and tolerability of antipsychotic drugs. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of what is currently known about the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antipsychotics in women with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs) and translate these insights into considerations for clinical practice. Slower drug absorption, metabolism and excretion in women all lead to higher plasma levels, which increase the risk for side-effects. Moreover, women reach higher dopamine receptor occupancy compared to men at similar serum levels, since oestrogens increase dopamine sensitivity. As current treatment guidelines are based on studies predominantly conducted in men, women are likely to be overmedicated by default. The risk of overmedicating generally increases when sex hormone levels are high (e.g. during ovulation and gestation), whereas higher doses may be required during low-hormonal phases (e.g. during menstruation and menopause). For premenopausal women, with the exceptions of quetiapine and lurasidone, doses of antipsychotics should be lower with largest adjustments required for olanzapine. Clinicians should be wary of side-effects that are particularly harmful in women, such as hyperprolactinaemia which can cause oestrogen deficiency and metabolic symptoms that may cause cardiovascular diseases. Given the protective effects of oestrogens on the course of SSD, oestrogen replacement therapy should be considered for postmenopausal patients, who are more vulnerable to side-effects and yet require higher dosages of most antipsychotics to reach similar efficacy. In conclusion, there is a need for tailored, female-specific prescription guidelines, which take into account adjustments required across different phases of life.

          Related collections

          Most cited references212

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 32 oral antipsychotics for the acute treatment of adults with multi-episode schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

          Summary Background Schizophrenia is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders in adults worldwide. Antipsychotic drugs are its treatment of choice, but there is controversy about which agent should be used. We aimed to compare and rank antipsychotics by quantifying information from randomised controlled trials. Methods We did a network meta-analysis of placebo-controlled and head-to-head randomised controlled trials and compared 32 antipsychotics. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, BIOSIS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to Jan 8, 2019. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We included randomised controlled trials in adults with acute symptoms of schizophrenia or related disorders. We excluded studies in patients with treatment resistance, first episode, predominant negative or depressive symptoms, concomitant medical illnesses, and relapse-prevention studies. Our primary outcome was change in overall symptoms measured with standardised rating scales. We also extracted data for eight efficacy and eight safety outcomes. Differences in the findings of the studies were explored in metaregressions and sensitivity analyses. Effect size measures were standardised mean differences, mean differences, or risk ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014014919. Findings We identified 54 417 citations and included 402 studies with data for 53 463 participants. Effect size estimates suggested all antipsychotics reduced overall symptoms more than placebo (although not statistically significant for six drugs), with standardised mean differences ranging from −0·89 (95% CrI −1·08 to −0·71) for clozapine to −0·03 (−0·59 to 0·52) for levomepromazine (40 815 participants). Standardised mean differences compared with placebo for reduction of positive symptoms (31 179 participants) varied from −0·69 (95% CrI −0·86 to −0·52) for amisulpride to −0·17 (−0·31 to −0·04) for brexpiprazole, for negative symptoms (32 015 participants) from −0·62 (−0·84 to −0·39; clozapine) to −0·10 (−0·45 to 0·25; flupentixol), for depressive symptoms (19 683 participants) from −0·90 (−1·36 to −0·44; sulpiride) to 0·04 (−0·39 to 0·47; flupentixol). Risk ratios compared with placebo for all-cause discontinuation (42 672 participants) ranged from 0·52 (0·12 to 0·95; clopenthixol) to 1·15 (0·36 to 1·47; pimozide), for sedation (30 770 participants) from 0·92 (0·17 to 2·03; pimozide) to 10·20 (4·72 to 29·41; zuclopenthixol), for use of antiparkinson medication (24 911 participants) from 0·46 (0·19 to 0·88; clozapine) to 6·14 (4·81 to 6·55; pimozide). Mean differences compared to placebo for weight gain (28 317 participants) ranged from −0·16 kg (−0·73 to 0·40; ziprasidone) to 3·21 kg (2·10 to 4·31; zotepine), for prolactin elevation (21 569 participants) from −77·05 ng/mL (−120·23 to −33·54; clozapine) to 48·51 ng/mL (43·52 to 53·51; paliperidone) and for QTc prolongation (15 467 participants) from −2·21 ms (−4·54 to 0·15; lurasidone) to 23·90 ms (20·56 to 27·33; sertindole). Conclusions for the primary outcome did not substantially change after adjusting for possible effect moderators or in sensitivity analyses (eg, when excluding placebo-controlled studies). The confidence in evidence was often low or very low. Interpretation There are some efficacy differences between antipsychotics, but most of them are gradual rather than discrete. Differences in side-effects are more marked. These findings will aid clinicians in balancing risks versus benefits of those drugs available in their countries. They should consider the importance of each outcome, the patients' medical problems, and preferences. Funding German Ministry of Education and Research and National Institute for Health Research
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Sex differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

            Significant differences that exist between the sexes affect the prevalence, incidence and severity of a broad range of diseases and conditions. Men and women also differ in their response to drug treatment. It is therefore essential to understand these reactions in order to appropriately conduct risk assessment and to design safe and effective treatments. Even from that modest perspective, how and when we use drugs can result in unwanted and unexpected outcomes. This review summarizes the sex-based differences that impact on pharmacokinetics, and includes a general comparison of clinical pharmacology as it applies to men, women and pregnant women. Sex-related or pregnancy-induced changes in drug absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination, when significant, may guide changes in dosage regimen or therapeutic monitoring to increase its effectiveness or reduce potential toxicity. Given those parameters, and our knowledge of sex differences, we can derive essentially all factors necessary for therapeutic optimization. Since this is a rapidly evolving area, it is essential for the practitioner to review drug prescribing information and recent literature in order to fully understand the impact of these differences on clinical therapeutics.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A systematic review and meta-analysis of recovery in schizophrenia.

              Our primary aims were (a) to identify the proportion of individuals with schizophrenia and related psychoses who met recovery criteria based on both clinical and social domains and (b) to examine if recovery was associated with factors such as gender, economic index of sites, and selected design features of the study. We also examined if the proportions who met our definition of recovery had changed over time. A comprehensive search strategy was used to identify potential studies, and data were extracted for those that met inclusion criteria. The proportion who met our recovery criteria (improvements in both clinical and social domains and evidence that improvements in at least 1 of these 2 domains had persisted for at least 2 years) was extracted from each study. Meta-regression techniques were used to explore the association between the recovery proportions and the selected variables. We identified 50 studies with data suitable for inclusion. The median proportion (25%-75% quantiles) who met our recovery criteria was 13.5% (8.1%-20.0%). Studies from sites in countries with poorer economic status had higher recovery proportions. However, there were no statistically significant differences when the estimates were stratified according to sex, midpoint of intake period, strictness of the diagnostic criteria, duration of follow-up, or other design features. Based on the best available data, approximately, 1 in 7 individuals with schizophrenia met our criteria for recovery. Despite major changes in treatment options in recent decades, the proportion of recovered cases has not increased.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Psychol Med
                Psychol Med
                PSM
                Psychological Medicine
                Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, UK )
                0033-2917
                1469-8978
                March 2022
                12 November 2021
                : 52
                : 4
                : 649-663
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Biomedical Sciences of Cells & Systems, Section Cognitive Neurosciences, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen , Groningen, the Netherlands
                [2 ]Department of Psychiatry, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University , Utrecht, the Netherlands
                [3 ]Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London , London, UK
                [4 ]National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London , London, UK
                Author notes
                Author for correspondence: Iris E. C. Sommer, E-mail: i.e.c.sommer@ 123456umcg.nl
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2383-0851
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0740-0969
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1231-2733
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8427-3617
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5597-3262
                Article
                S0033291721004591
                10.1017/S0033291721004591
                8961338
                34763737
                016be870-ef03-49f7-a002-11ebdab09478
                © The Author(s) 2021

                This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.

                History
                : 19 May 2021
                : 13 October 2021
                : 22 October 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 2, References: 202, Pages: 15
                Categories
                Invited Review

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                antipsychotic treatment,dopamine sensitivity,pharmacodynamics,pharmacokinetics,psychosis,schizophrenia,sex differences

                Comments

                Comment on this article