16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Assessment of Reported Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Atypical Antipsychotics in the Treatment of Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia : A Network Meta-analysis

      research-article
      , PharmD 1 , , , PhD 1 , , MPH 2 , , MD 3 , , MD, PhD 1 , 4
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      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.

          Key Points

          Question

          Which atypical antipsychotic is most beneficial and safe for the treatment of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia?

          Findings

          In this network meta-analysis of 17 studies (5373 patients), no significant differences were found across measures of effectiveness and safety among aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone, although differences were found for some of these drugs and outcomes compared with placebo. No trials were found for other atypical antipsychotics.

          Meaning

          Insufficient evidence exists on which atypical antipsychotic is both safest and most beneficial across several measures for people with dementia, and this study suggests that a single most effective and safe treatment option may not exist.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Atypical antipsychotics offer modest effectiveness compared with placebo but with serious safety risks, including a boxed warning for the risk of death in the treatment of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). Their comparative effectiveness and safety are not fully known.

          Objective

          To assess the relative benefits and safety of atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of BPSD shown in randomized clinical trials using network meta-analysis.

          Data Sources

          PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, and Cochrane Library were searched from their inception until May 31, 2018. Key terms included dementia and atypical antipsychotics.

          Study Selection

          Randomized clinical trials comparing any atypical antipsychotic with another atypical antipsychotic or with placebo were included in the analysis.

          Data Extraction and Synthesis

          Two independent reviewers used a standardized data extraction and quality assessment form. Random-effects network meta-analyses were performed. Effect sizes were reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% CIs. In addition to ORs, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was ascertained, which represents the percentage of the effectiveness or safety for each treatment compared with a hypothetical treatment that would be ranked first without uncertainty.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The primary effectiveness outcome assessed was the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI); secondary effectiveness outcomes were the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI). The primary safety outcomes were death and cerebrovascular adverse events (CVAEs). Secondary safety outcomes were extrapyramidal signs/symptoms; somnolence/sedation; falls, fracture, or injury; and urinary tract infection/incontinence.

          Results

          Seventeen studies (5373 patients) were included. The mean (SD) age of all participants was 80.8 (3.1) years, and most were women (3748 [69.8%]). Compared with placebo, aripiprazole was associated with improvement in outcomes on the NPI (SMD, −0.17; 95% CI, −0.31 to −0.02), BPRS (SMD, −0.20; 95% CI, −0.35 to −0.05), and CMAI (SMD, −0.30; 95% CI, −0.55 to −0.05); quetiapine was associated with improvement in outcomes on the BPRS (SMD, −0.24; 95% CI, −0.46 to −0.01), and risperidone was associated with improvement in outcomes on the CMAI (SMD, −0.26; 95% CI, −0.37 to −0.15). Differences between atypical antipsychotics were not significant for effectiveness, death, or CVAE. Compared with placebo, risperidone (OR, 3.85; 95% CI, 1.55-9.55) and olanzapine (OR, 4.28; 95% CI, 1.26-14.56) were associated with increased risk of CVAEs. The SUCRA estimated relative ranking of treatments suggested that aripiprazole might be the most effective and safe atypical antipsychotic and that olanzapine provides the least benefit overall; however, these results should be interpreted with caution where point estimates (OR and SMD) show that there is no statistically significant difference.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          This network meta-analysis supports the existence of a trade-off between the effectiveness and safety of atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of BPSD and confirms that a single most effective and safe treatment option does not exist. Clinicians should individualize the assessment of safety risks against expected benefits when prescribing these medications to patients with dementia.

          Abstract

          This network meta-analysis examines the results of randomized clinical trials that evaluated the effectiveness and safety of atypical antipsychotics in patients with dementia.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Dementia prevention, intervention, and care

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

            STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2

            Purpose: screening tool of older people's prescriptions (STOPP) and screening tool to alert to right treatment (START) criteria were first published in 2008. Due to an expanding therapeutics evidence base, updating of the criteria was required. Methods: we reviewed the 2008 STOPP/START criteria to add new evidence-based criteria and remove any obsolete criteria. A thorough literature review was performed to reassess the evidence base of the 2008 criteria and the proposed new criteria. Nineteen experts from 13 European countries reviewed a new draft of STOPP & START criteria including proposed new criteria. These experts were also asked to propose additional criteria they considered important to include in the revised STOPP & START criteria and to highlight any criteria from the 2008 list they considered less important or lacking an evidence base. The revised list of criteria was then validated using the Delphi consensus methodology. Results: the expert panel agreed a final list of 114 criteria after two Delphi validation rounds, i.e. 80 STOPP criteria and 34 START criteria. This represents an overall 31% increase in STOPP/START criteria compared with version 1. Several new STOPP categories were created in version 2, namely antiplatelet/anticoagulant drugs, drugs affecting, or affected by, renal function and drugs that increase anticholinergic burden; new START categories include urogenital system drugs, analgesics and vaccines. Conclusion: STOPP/START version 2 criteria have been expanded and updated for the purpose of minimizing inappropriate prescribing in older people. These criteria are based on an up-to-date literature review and consensus validation among a European panel of experts.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers

              Background In the last decade, network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been introduced as an extension of pairwise meta-analysis. The advantage of network meta-analysis over standard pairwise meta-analysis is that it facilitates indirect comparisons of multiple interventions that have not been studied in a head-to-head fashion. Although assumptions underlying pairwise meta-analyses are well understood, those concerning network meta-analyses are perceived to be more complex and prone to misinterpretation. Discussion In this paper, we aim to provide a basic explanation when network meta-analysis is as valid as pairwise meta-analysis. We focus on the primary role of effect modifiers, which are study and patient characteristics associated with treatment effects. Because network meta-analysis includes different trials comparing different interventions, the distribution of effect modifiers cannot only vary across studies for a particular comparison (as with standard pairwise meta-analysis, causing heterogeneity), but also between comparisons (causing inconsistency). If there is an imbalance in the distribution of effect modifiers between different types of direct comparisons, the related indirect comparisons will be biased. If it can be assumed that this is not the case, network meta-analysis is as valid as pairwise meta-analysis. Summary The validity of network meta-analysis is based on the underlying assumption that there is no imbalance in the distribution of effect modifiers across the different types of direct treatment comparisons, regardless of the structure of the evidence network.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                22 March 2019
                March 2019
                22 March 2019
                : 2
                : 3
                : e190828
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Pharmacy, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Boston
                [2 ]College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, St Louis, Missouri
                [3 ]Department of Psychiatry, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                [4 ]Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: January 19, 2019.
                Published: March 22, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.0828
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2019 Yunusa I et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Ismaeel Yunusa, PharmD, School of Pharmacy, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 179 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115 ( ismaeelrx@ 123456gmail.com ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Yunusa and Eguale had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Yunusa, Alsumali, Garba, Eguale.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Yunusa, Alsumali, Regestein, Eguale.
                Drafting of the manuscript: All authors.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Yunusa, Alsumali, Regestein, Eguale.
                Statistical analysis: Yunusa, Alsumali, Garba, Eguale.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Eguale.
                Supervision: Alsumali, Regestein, Eguale.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
                Article
                zoi190050
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.0828
                6583313
                30901041
                ea537698-d66c-43e0-b2cf-def81fc64957
                Copyright 2019 Yunusa I et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 29 October 2018
                : 18 January 2019
                : 19 January 2019
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Geriatrics

                Comments

                Comment on this article