Autoimmune responses regulate alloimmunity for prolonged cardiac allograft survival.

E. Yolcu,J. Fang,H. Shirwan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0041-1345(00)01920-5

IF: 1.014

2001-02-01

Transplantation Proceedings

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Olanzapine Versus Lithium in the Acute Treatment of Bipolar Mania: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Trial

Gu Niufan,Maunicio Tohen,Ang Qiuqing,Yang Fude,Elizabeth Pope,Heather McElroy,Li Ming,Wang Gaohua,Zhang Xinbao,Li Huichun,Shu Liang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2007.04.020

IF: 6.533

2008-01-01

Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract:Background: This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled study conducted in China examined the efficacy and safety of olanzapine versus lithium in the treatment of patients with bipolar manic/mixed episodes.Methods: Patients with bipolar manic or mixed episode (DSM-IV criteria) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score >= 20 at screening received olanzapine (5-20 mg/day, n = 69) or lithium carbonate (600-1800 mg/day, n = 7 1) for 4 weeks. The primary outcome was mean change from baseline in Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Version Overall Severity of Illness (CGI-BP) score. Secondary efficacy measures included YMRS, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores. Safety was also assessed.Results: A significantly greater mean change was observed in olanzapine versus lithium patients in CGI-BP (Overall Severity) (P=0.009), YMRS (P=0.013), BPRS (P=0.032), and CGI-BP (Severity of Mania) (P=0.012) scores. More olanzapine than lithium patients experienced at least one adverse event possibly related to study drug (P=0.038). More olanzapine patients had a clinically significant weight increase (>= 7% of baseline weight) compared to lithium patients (P=0.009). More olanzapine patients completed the study than lithium patients, although this difference was not statistically significant (olz, 91.3%; lith, 78.9%; P=0.057).Limitations: No placebo arm was included; however both treatments have previously been reported to be more effective than placebo.Conclusions: These results suggest that olanzapine has superior efficacy to lithium in the acute treatment of patients with bipolar mania over a 4-week period. However, adverse events were experienced by a greater number of olanzapine patients than lithium patients. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All fights reserved.
Comparative efficacy, safety, and tolerability of pharmacotherapies for acute mania in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Wenbo Huang,Shuyang He,Mingxin Liu,Jilai Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-024-02705-3

IF: 11

2024-08-28

Molecular Psychiatry

Abstract:The aim of this study was to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of currently used pharmacological treatments for adults with acute bipolar mania. To achieve this, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) using R software and related packages. We searched primary clinical databases until February 2023 for reports of randomized controlled trials of drug treatments and adjunctive therapies for adults with acute bipolar mania, with outcomes including efficacy (mean change from baseline to endpoint in mania rating scores), safety (clinically significant adverse events from baseline to end of treatment), and tolerability (the proportion of patients who completed the whole trial to the planned endpoint). A total of 113 studies were included in our analysis, in which 23,491 participants (50.38% males; mean age = 38.6 years; mean study duration = 3.39 weeks; mean manic baseline score = 29.37) were randomly allocated to one of 51 monotherapies, adjunctive treatments, or placebo. Our results showed that tamoxifen (mean difference, −22.31 [−25.97, −18.63], N = 2, n1 = 43, n2 = 39) and tamoxifen+ lithium or valproate (LIT/VAL) (−16.37 [−22.55, −10.25], N = 1, n1 = 20, n2 = 20) had the best and second-best clinical efficacy in adults with acute bipolar mania over the placebo. Furthermore, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, ziprasidone, risperidone, divalproex, and haloperidol were significantly better tolerated than placebo. Combination therapies of antipsychotics and LIT/VAL appeared to be more effective than their corresponding monotherapies. While pharmacotherapies were associated with specific common adverse events, we found no evidence of increased incidence of headache or depression events compared to the placebo. Overall, our NMAs provided important insights into the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of pharmacological treatments for acute bipolar mania and can help guide treatment decisions for clinicians.

biochemistry & molecular biology,neurosciences,psychiatry
Typical Versus Atypical Antipsychotics for Acute Mania

Clara Reece Medici,Linda Marie Kai,Simon Bang Kristensen,Christian Kirkedal,Povl Munk-Jørgensen,Sune Straszek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MJT.0000000000000871

Abstract:Background: Mania is challenging to treat. Typical antipsychotics may be more efficient compared with atypical antipsychotics, however, with unfavorable side effects. Study question: To investigate the courses of acute manic episodes and correlations between changes of severity during manic episodes and type of antipsychotic treatment. Study design: This case record study included patients admitted with mania (International Classification of Diseases 10th revision code F30, F31.0, F31.1, F31.2 or F31.6) at the Department of Affective Disorders, Aarhus University Hospital from June 1, 2013 to April 1, 2016. Measures and outcomes: The doses of typical and atypical antipsychotics were standardized as defined daily dose according to the World Health Organization's guidelines. The severity of mania was measured up to 3 times daily with the Modified Bech-Rafaelsen Mania Scale (MAS-M), a nurse administered scale. We applied a linear regression in a mixed model approach to compare MAS-M score over time under the influence of typical plus atypical antipsychotics and atypical antipsychotics only. We further analyzed by mania with and without psychosis and by concomitant use of lithium and/or antiseizure medication. Results: We included 56 admissions on 46 patients. The courses of the manic episodes measured by MAS-M varied between patients-both daily variations and changes over time. Patients receiving typical antipsychotics had higher baseline MAS-M, more recent admissions, and were mechanically constrained more often compared with patients receiving atypical antipsychotics only. Adjusted for age, gender, mechanical constraint, and dosage of antipsychotics, the difference in reduction of mania was -0.02 MAS-M points/d (95% confidence interval, -0.05 to 0.01) higher in the group receiving atypical antipsychotics only; however, it is not statistically or clinically significant. Conclusions: The rate of improvement of mania was similar in the two groups which supports that atypical antipsychotics can be recommended over typical antipsychotics to reduce risk of severe side effects.
The effects of alternative direct payment regimes on ecological and socio-economic indicators: results of a spatial linear programming model for a Swiss Alpine region.

C. Flury,N. Gotsch,P. Rieder,T. Heckelei,H. Witzke,W. Henrichsmeyer

Abstract:Policy makers and stakeholders concerned with regional rural land use and development find themselves facing an ever-increasing need for instruments that can improve transparency in the policy debate and enhance understanding of opportunities and limitations for development (Bouman et al., 1999). The complexity of land use requires different approaches combining the experience and methodological approaches of various disciplines. Different disciplinary contributions can be integrated with the help of multi-criteria analysis (MCA). MCA has evolved from a mechanism for the selection of the best alternative from a set of competing options to become a range of decision aid techniques (Beinat and Nijkamp, 1998). A number of land use models have been developed in the last decade based on a combination of methods of system analysis and multi-criteria and multi-objective decision models, respectively. Scenario-based programming approaches is one method which is frequently applied. De Wit et al. (1988), for example, employ multiple goal programming for regional analysis and planning of regional agricultural development. This methodology permits scenarios to be drawn up, in which biophysical, technical and economic information on potential or improved land use are combined with various objectives derived from different policy views. A common characteristic of such models is that they aim at the quantification of biophysical and economic trade-offs. Kruseman and Bade (1998), for instance, propose a bio-economic modelling framework for the assessment of the effectiveness of different agrarian policies to improve farm household income and soil fertility based on the functional combination of (1) an agricultural household model; (2) a multiple goal linear programming model; and (3) a partial equilibrium model. Cesaro (1995) uses a Weighted Goal Programming Model for the simulation of the consequences of alternative scenarios of CAP reform in a mountain area in north-eastern Italy on land-use patterns and the economic performance of the agricultural sector. Ridgley and Heil (1998) design buffer zones around protected areas (Mexico’s Izta-Popo national park) under different scenarios combining Lexicographic Goal Programming and Geographic Information System (GIS). Tiwari et al. (1999) apply Compromise Programming to determine trade-offs between ecological and economic goals in an irrigation project in the Northern Planes of Thailand. A GIS has been used to integrate spatial aspects in the analysis. Bouman et al. (1999) and Zander and Kächele (1999) combine technical coefficient generators, a linear programming model and a GIS to quantify trade-offs among socio-economic, agronomic and environmental indicators at the field level. The widespread use of GIS illustrates the fact that nowadays spatial aspects receive a considerable amount of attention in regional land use planning.
The influence of prednisolone on the regulation of major histocompatibility complex class II expression.

T. Ruers,E. E. Spronken,W. Buurman

IF: 1.014

1987-10-01

Transplantation Proceedings

Abstract:
[Visual system involvement in selected zoonotic diseases. I. Ocular toxocariasis].

J. Kocięcki,W. Kocięcka

Klinika Oczna

Abstract:The paper is presenting the selected problems regarding clinical pathology of ophthalmic toxocariasis, as well as methods of its diagnosis, especially immunodiagnosis. The outline of contemporary treatment of this entity is also presented. The data involves the description of Toxocara's life development cycle and data regarding epidemiology of this zoonosis as well.
Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis: Efficacy and Safety of Antipsychotics vs Antiepileptics or Lithium for Acute Mania in Children and Adolescents

Giovanni Vita,Viktor B Nöhles,Giovanni Ostuzzi,Corrado Barbui,Federico Tedeschi,Fabiola H Heuer,Amanda Keller,Melissa P DelBello,Jeffrey A Welge,Thomas J Blom,Robert A Kowatch,Christoph U Correll

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2024.07.920

2024-08-09

Abstract:Objective: To compare second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and mood stabilizers (MSs) in youth with a bipolar disorder type I (BD-I) manic/mixed episode. Method: A systematic PubMed/Embase/PsycInfo literature search until December 31, 2023, for randomized trials of SGAs or MSs in patients ≤18 years of age with BD-I manic/mixed episode was conducted. The study included a network meta-analysis comparing treatments regarding mania symptoms and mania response (co-primary outcomes), and secondary efficacy and tolerability outcomes. Results: Eighteen studies (n = 2844, mean age = 11.74, female participants = 48.0%, mean study duration = 5.4 weeks) comparing 6 SGAs (aripiprazole, asenapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone) and 4 MSs (lithium, oxcarbazepine, topiramate, and valproate) were meta-analyzed. All 6 SGAs outperformed placebo in reducing manic symptomatology, including risperidone (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -1.18, 95% CI = -0.92, -1.45, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis [CINeMA] = moderate confidence), olanzapine (SMD = -0.77, 95% CI = -0.36, -1.18, low confidence), aripiprazole (SMD = -0.67, 95% CI = -0.33, -1.01, moderate confidence), quetiapine (SMD = -0.60, 95% CI = -0.32, -0.87, high confidence), asenapine (SMD = -0.54, 95% CI = -0.19, -0.89, moderate confidence), and ziprasidone (SMD = -0.43, 95% CI = -0.17, 0.70, low confidence), whereas no mood stabilizer outperformed placebo. Concerning mania response, risperidone (Risk ratio [RR] = 2.58, 95% CI = 1.88, 3.54, low confidence), olanzapine (RR = 2.42, 95% CI = 1.33, 3.54, very low confidence), aripiprazole (RR = 2.05, 95% CI = 1.44, 2.92, low confidence), quetiapine (RR = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.45n 2.47, moderate confidence), asenapine (RR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.28, 2.55, very low confidence) and lithium (RR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.00, 1.83, p = .049, very low confidence) outperformed placebo, without superiority of other MSs vs placebo. Individually, risperidone was more efficacious in reducing manic symptomatology than all other comparators, except olanzapine and topiramate, yet with low/very low confidence, and was associated with increased prolactin and glucose. Pooled together, SGAs outperformed both placebo and MSs for mania symptom reduction (SMD = -0.68, 95% CI = -0.86, -0.51 and SMD = -0.61, 95% CI = -0.82, -0.40, moderate confidence), and mania response (RR = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.53, 2.24 and RR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.33, 2.04, moderate confidence) without differences between MSs and placebo. There were no significant treatment-placebo differences for all-cause discontinuation, whereas lithium, ziprasidone, and oxcarbazepine were associated with more adverse event-related drop-outs than placebo. Most SGAs were associated with more sedation, weight gain, and metabolic issues vs placebo and MSs. Conclusion: SGAs were more efficacious than placebo and MSs in treating acute mania symptoms, however, their use must be carefully weighed against important side effects.
Comparative Effectiveness of Antipsychotics in Patients With Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorder

Aleksi Hamina,Heidi Taipale,Johannes Lieslehto,Markku Lähteenvuo,Antti Tanskanen,Ellenor Mittendorfer-Rutz,Jari Tiihonen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.38358

2024-10-01

Abstract:Importance: Antipsychotics are the cornerstone of maintenance treatment in schizophrenia spectrum disorders, but it is unclear which agents should be prioritized by prescribers. Objective: To investigate the clinical effectiveness of antipsychotics, including recent market entries, in comparison with oral olanzapine in relapse and treatment failure prevention among individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorder. Design, setting, and participants: This comparative effectiveness research study with a within-individual analysis included data from Swedish health care registers of inpatient and specialized outpatient care, sickness absence, and disability pensions among all individuals aged 16 to 65 years who were diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorder from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2021, including an incident cohort and a prevalent cohort. Exposures: Specific antipsychotics. Main outcomes and measures: The risks for psychosis relapse hospitalization and treatment failure (psychiatric hospitalization, death, or change in an antipsychotic medication) were adjusted for the temporal order of treatments, time since cohort entry, and concomitant drugs. Comparisons of all antipsychotics with oral olanzapine, the most commonly used antipsychotic, were investigated. Results: Among the full cohort of 131 476 individuals, the mean (SD) age of the study cohort was 45.7 (16.2) years (70 054 men [53.3%]). During a median follow-up of 12.0 years [IQR, 5.2-16.0 years], 48.5% of patients (N = 63 730) experienced relapse and 71.1% (N = 93 464) underwent treatment failure at least once. Compared with oral olanzapine, paliperidone 3-month long-acting injectable (LAI) was associated with the lowest adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) in the prevention of relapses (AHR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51-0.86), followed by aripiprazole LAI (AHR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.70-0.84]), olanzapine LAI (AHR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.73-0.86]), and clozapine (AHR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.79-0.86]). Quetiapine was associated with the highest risk of relapse (AHR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.38-1.51]). For prevention of treatment failure, paliperidone 3-month LAI was associated with the lowest AHR (AHR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.31-0.42]), followed by aripiprazole LAI (AHR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.57-0.63]), olanzapine LAI (AHR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.63-0.72]), and paliperidone 1-month LAI (AHR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.68-0.74]). Conclusions and relevance: This comparative effectiveness research study demonstrated large differences in the risk of relapse and treatment failure among specific antipsychotic treatments. The findings contradict the widely held conception that all antipsychotics are equally effective in relapse prevention.
Dose-Dependent Efficacy of Aripiprazole in Treating Patients With Schizophrenia or Schizoaffective Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Li Qian,Liao Xuemei,Li Jitao,Su Yun'Ai,Si Tianmei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.717715

IF: 4.7

2021-01-01

Frontiers in Psychiatry

Abstract:Purpose: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of different administration strategies of aripiprazole. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI), and Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform(Wanfang) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of aripiprazole, using the terms: (aripiprazole) AND (schizophr* OR schizoaff*) AND ("syndrome scale" OR PANSS) AND (clini* OR trial). We retrieved study design, participant characteristics, comparison groups, and outcomes from each study. Results: In total, nine RCTs were selected for meta-analysis, which covered similar to 1,187 participants. We defined two treatment groups that represent different treatment strategies: (1) the high-dose group (the high-dose strategy) rapidly increased to doses higher than 15 mg/day in 2 weeks or began with doses higher than 15 mg/day, otherwise the group was defined as (2) the low-dose group (the low-dose strategy). If the initial or target doses of aripiprazole in a study were all higher than 15 mg/day, the high- and low-dose groups were created based on the relative level of the dose. The high-dose group showed significantly greater reductions in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores (standardized mean differences = -8.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -16.48, -0.13; P < 0.01; I-2 = 96%) than the low-dose group. The high-dose group showed superior effects compared with the low-dose group in long-term studies (more than 8 weeks) (standardized mean differences = -13.81, 95% CI = -25.07, -2.55; P < 0.01; I-2 = 96%). With exception of somnolence, we did not find significant differences in side effects or discontinuation due to adverse events. Sensitivity analyses produced similar results. Conclusion: The high-dose treatment strategy of aripiprazole for patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder may bring more benefits without obvious side effects.
Haloperidol (oral) versus olanzapine (oral) for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders

Khasan Ibragimov,Gregory Peter Keane,Cristina Carreño Glaría,Jie Cheng,Augusto Eduardo Llosa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013425.pub2

2024-07-03

Abstract:Background: Schizophrenia is often a severe and disabling psychiatric disorder. Antipsychotics remain the mainstay of psychotropic treatment for people with psychosis. In limited resource and humanitarian contexts, it is key to have several options for beneficial, low-cost antipsychotics, which require minimal monitoring. We wanted to compare oral haloperidol, as one of the most available antipsychotics in these settings, with a second-generation antipsychotic, olanzapine. Objectives: To assess the clinical benefits and harms of haloperidol compared to olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia study-based register of trials, which is based on monthly searches of CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and WHO ICTRP. We screened the references of all included studies. We contacted relevant authors of trials for additional information where clarification was required or where data were incomplete. The register was last searched on 14 January 2023. Selection criteria: Randomised clinical trials comparing haloperidol with olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in global state, relapse, clinically important change in mental state, extrapyramidal side effects, weight increase, clinically important change in quality of life and leaving the study early due to adverse effects. Data collection and analysis: We independently evaluated and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB or NNTH) with 95% CI. For continuous data, we estimated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. For all included studies, we assessed risk of bias (RoB 1) and we used the GRADE approach to create a summary of findings table. Main results: We included 68 studies randomising 9132 participants. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in clinically important change in global state (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02; 6 studies, 3078 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in relapse (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.02; 7 studies, 1499 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in overall mental state compared to olanzapine (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.81; 13 studies, 1210 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every eight people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this improvement. The evidence suggests that haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects compared to olanzapine (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.28 to 5.02; 14 studies, 3290 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every three people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one additional person would experience extrapyramidal side effects. For weight gain, the evidence suggests that there may be a large reduction in the risk with haloperidol compared to olanzapine (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; 18 studies, 4302 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 10 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience weight increase. A single study suggests that haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in quality of life compared to olanzapine (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 828 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every nine people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience clinically important improvement in quality of life. Haloperidol may result in an increase in the incidence of leaving the study early due to adverse effects compared to olanzapine (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.47; 21 studies, 5047 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 22 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this outcome. Thirty otherwise relevant studies and several endpoints from 14 included studies could not be evaluated due to inconsistencies and poor transparency of several parameters. Furthermore, even within studies that were included, it was often not possible to use data for the same reasons. Risk of bias differed substantially for different outcomes and the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The most common risks of bias leading to downgrading of the evidence were blinding (performance bias) and selective reporting (reporting bias). Authors' conclusions: Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low to very low for the main outcomes in this review, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in terms of clinically important global state and relapse. Olanzapine may result in a slightly greater overall clinically important change in mental state and in a clinically important change in quality of life. Different side effect profiles were noted: haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects and olanzapine in a large increase in weight gain. The drug of choice needs to take into account side effect profiles and the preferences of the individual. These findings and the recent inclusion of olanzapine alongside haloperidol in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines should increase the likelihood of it becoming more easily available in low- and middle- income countries, thereby improving choice and providing a greater ability to respond to side effects for people with lived experience of schizophrenia. There is a need for additional research using appropriate and equivalent dosages of these drugs. Some of this research needs to be done in low- and middle-income settings and should actively seek to account for factors relevant to these. Research on antipsychotics needs to be person-centred and prioritise factors that are of interest to people with lived experience of schizophrenia.
A systematic review and network meta-analysis on comparative efficacy, acceptability, and safety of treatments in acute bipolar mania in youths

Selma Tural Hesapcioglu,Meryem Kasak,Helin Abursu,Seda Kafali,Mehmet Fatih Ceylan,Mesut Akyol

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2024.01.067

IF: 6.533

2024-01-11

Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract:Background The evidence of treatment options' efficacy on acute bipolar manic episodes is relatively less in youths than adults. We aimed to compare and rank the drug's efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety for acute mania in children and adolescents. Method We systematically reviewed the double-blinded, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing drugs or placebo for acute manic episodes of bipolar disorder in children and adolescents using PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, EBSCO, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and https://clinicaltrials.gov from inception until November 20, 2022. Response to treatment was the primary outcome, and random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted (PROSPERO 2022: CRD42022367455). Results Of 10,134 citations, we included 15 RCTs, including 2372 patients (47 % female), 15 psychotropic drugs, and the placebo. Risperidone 0.5–2.5 mg/day, aripiprazole 30 mg/day olanzapine, quetiapine 400 mg/day, quetiapine 600 mg/day, asenapine 5 mg/day, asenapine 10 mg, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole 10 mg were found to be effective (in comparison with placebo) in children and adolescents, respectively (τ 2 = 0.0072, I 2 = 10.2 %). The tolerability of aripiprazole 30 mg/day was lower than risperidone 0.5–2.5 mg/day and olanzapine. Oxcarbazepine had the highest discontinuation due to the adverse effects risk ratio. Limitations Efficacy ranking of the treatments could be performed by evaluating relatively few RCT results, and only monotherapies were considered. Conclusions Efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety are changing with the doses of antipsychotics for children and adolescents with acute bipolar manic episodes. Drug selection and optimum dosage should be carefully adjusted in children and adolescents.

psychiatry,clinical neurology
Multivariate Bayesian Arm-Based Network Meta-Analysis of Pharmacological Interventions for the Treatment of Acute Bipolar Mania in Adults

Palash Kumar Malo,Binukumar Bhaskarapillai,Muralidharan Kesavan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02537176221114392

Abstract:Background: In a network meta-analysis (NMA), multiple treatments can be compared simultaneously by aggregating pieces of evidence from direct as well as indirect treatment comparisons in different randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Conventional NMA are performed using a normal approximation approach and can be applied for arm-level binary outcome data as well. This study aimed to estimate the treatment effects within a Bayesian framework using a binomial likelihood for a multivariate NMA model. Methods: The dataset consists of 57 RCTs comparing the effect of ten pharmacological drugs and a placebo for acute bipolar mania in adults. The binary outcomes of interest were treatment response and all-cause dropouts measured three weeks from the baseline. Binomial distribution was adopted for the number of events and the probability of event occurrence modeled on the logit scale. Jeffrey's Beta prior was considered for the heterogeneity and inconsistency of standard deviation (SD) parameters. Cholesky and spherical decomposition strategies were adopted for the between-study variance-covariance matrix. Deviance information criterion (DIC) indices were computed to determine the model fit. All results pertaining to Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations and all analyses were carried out in WinBUGS software. Results: The estimated common heterogeneity SDs were similar, and the DIC values did not provide any evidence for superiority between the two decomposition strategies. The correlation (95% credible interval) between the outcomes was estimated as -0.31 (-0.71, -0.02) and -0.37 (-0.73, -0.03) for the Cholesky and spherical decompositions, respectively. Gelman-Rubin convergence statistics were stable, and Monte Carlo errors for all the parameters were around 0.005. Overall, olanzapine, paliperidone, and quetiapine were both significantly more effective and acceptable than a placebo when both the study outcomes were considered simultaneously. Conclusions: The findings favoring olanzapine, paliperidone, and quetiapine possess an excellent concordance with the one adopted in clinical practice, and the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments and Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists guidelines recommend these as first-line drugs for treating bipolar disorder.
Personality correlates of dogmatism.

R. Vacchiano,P. Strauss,D. Schiffman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/H0025430

1968-02-01

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract:
A new cause of cerebrospinal fluid eosinophilia: neurosarcoidosis.

T. Scott

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9343(88)90082-4

1988-05-01

Abstract:
Olanzapine vs Haloperidol for Management of Acute Agitation in Emergency Department: An Open Label Randomised Controlled Trial

Yatharth Choudhary,Nayer Jamshed,Roshan Mathew,Satya Prakash Rout,Golak Prasad Patra,Ankit Kumar Sahu,Maroof Ahmad Khan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2024.11.014

IF: 1.473

2024-12-01

Journal of Emergency Medicine

Abstract:Background Acute agitation is a common presentation in the emergency department (ED), often managed with haloperidol. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine versus haloperidol for the initial treatment of acute agitation in the ED. Objectives Primary outcome was adequate sedation at 15 minutes, defined as Altered Mental Status (AMS) score of zero or less. Secondary outcomes included adequate sedation at 30 minutes, need for rescue medications and reported adverse events. Methods This open-label, randomized controlled trial included adult patients presenting to the ED with acute agitation, defined with an AMS score ≥ 3. After taking surrogate consent from their legally authorized representative, patients were randomly assigned to receive either intramuscular (IM) olanzapine (10 mg) or IM haloperidol (5 mg). Results Of the total 94 patients, 47 received IM olanzapine and 47 received IM haloperidol. Similar proportions of patients were adequately sedated at 15 minutes (olanzapine 31.9% vs haloperidol 25.5%; relative risk [RR] - 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65 to 2.37; p - 0.494) and 30 minutes (olanzapine 61.7% vs haloperidol 48.9%; RR – 1.26, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.82; p - 0.213). The need for rescue medications was similar (olanzapine 12.7% vs. haloperidol 25.5%; RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.22; p 0.116). Adverse events were uncommon and similar across both arms (olanzapine 4.2% vs. haloperidol 10.6%; RR 0.4, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.96; p 0.238). Conclusion Intramuscular olanzapine performed better than IM haloperidol in the management of acute agitation in ED. However, the differences were not statistically significant.

emergency medicine
Risperidone Versus Haloperidol in Treatment of Acute Manic Episodes of Bipolar Ⅰ Disorder: a Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Muiticenter Study

张鸿燕,舒良,李华芳,顾牛范,谢世平,李婷,肖卫东,李鸣,张波,刘铁榜

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/j:issn:1006-7884.2006.01.009

2006-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of risperidone and haloperidol in treating patients with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Ⅳ bipolar Ⅰ disorder acute manic episodes.Methods A randomized, double-blind, controlled multicenter clinical trial was conducted. All 173 patients received 4 weeks treatment with either risperidone (n=85, averaged dosage of 4.6 mg/d) or haloperidol (n=88, 8.0 mg/d). The main efficacy measure was the change in total score of the Young Mania Rating Scale.Results The clinical response rates were 79% in risperidone and 76% in haloperidol. There were significantly higher rates of extrapyramidal symptoms in haloperidol group (58%) than that in risperidone group (44%).Conclusion The results show that risperidone has similar therapeutic effect to haloperidol in treatment of acute manic episodes, but risperidone has better tolerability.
Comparison of intramuscular haloperidol and other short-acting injectable antipsychotics for management of acute agitation in an adult inpatient psychiatry unit

Sarah Gamcsik,Katie S Adams

DOI: https://doi.org/10.9740/mhc.2024.08.242

2024-08-02

Abstract:Introduction: There is no consensus on the optimal antipsychotic for acute agitation. Whereas haloperidol is frequently used and has proven efficacy, second generation antipsychotics show similar efficacy and improved safety and tolerability. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of short-acting intramuscular (IM) haloperidol versus other IM antipsychotics for acute agitation in adults admitted to an inpatient psychiatry unit. Methods: This was a retrospective medical record review of patients who received 1 or more doses of a short-acting IM antipsychotic, including chlorpromazine, haloperidol, olanzapine, or ziprasidone. The primary endpoint was the need for subsequent IM antipsychotic(s) or physical restraint within 2 hours of the initial IM antipsychotic. Secondary endpoints assessed outcomes at 24 hours and adverse events. Results: One hundred six patients were included. Four patients in the haloperidol group and 0 patients in the other antipsychotic group received an additional IM antipsychotic or required physical restraints within 2 hours (5.3% versus 0%, p = .319). More patients in the other antipsychotic group required an additional dose of IM antipsychotic within 24 hours compared with the haloperidol group (p = .0096). More adverse events were seen in patients who received haloperidol. Discussion: Haloperidol was used more frequently than other short-acting IM antipsychotics. Whereas the effectiveness at 2 hours was not significantly different between groups, patients who received haloperidol were more likely to experience adverse events and were more often subjected to polypharmacy with benzodiazepines and/or diphenhydramine. This study further supports the use of olanzapine and ziprasidone for acute agitation in patients hospitalized in inpatient psychiatry.
Long‐term efficacy of antipsychotic drugs in initially acutely ill adults with schizophrenia: systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Stefan Leucht,Angelika Burschinski,Natalie Peter,Dongfang Wang,Shimeng Dong,Maximilian Huhn,Adriani Nikolakopoulou,Georgia Salanti,Johannes Schneider‐Thoma,John M. Davis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.21089

2023-05-10

World Psychiatry

Abstract:Most acute phase antipsychotic drug trials in schizophrenia last only a few weeks, but patients must usually take these drugs much longer. We examined the long‐term efficacy of antipsychotic drugs in acutely ill patients using network meta‐analysis. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group register up to March 6, 2022 for randomized, blinded trials of at least 6‐month duration on all second‐generation and 18 first‐generation antipsychotics. The primary outcome was change in overall symptoms of schizophrenia; secondary outcomes were all‐cause discontinuation; change in positive, negative and depressive symptoms; quality of life, social functioning, weight gain, antiparkinson medication use, akathisia, serum prolactin level, QTc prolongation, and sedation. Confidence in the results was assessed by the CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta‐Analysis) framework. We included 45 studies with 11,238 participants. In terms of overall symptoms, olanzapine was on average more efficacious than ziprasidone (standardized mean difference, SMD=0.37, 95% CI: 0.26‐0.49), asenapine (SMD=0.33, 95% CI: 0.21‐0.45), iloperidone (SMD=0.32, 95% CI: 0.15‐0.49), paliperidone (SMD=0.28, 95% CI: 0.11‐0.44), haloperidol (SMD=0.27, 95% CI: 0.14‐0.39), quetiapine (SMD=0.25, 95% CI: 0.12‐0.38), aripiprazole (SMD=0.16, 95% CI: 0.04‐0.28) and risperidone (SMD=0.12, 95% CI: 0.03‐0.21). The 95% CIs for olanzapine versus aripiprazole and risperidone included the possibility of trivial effects. The differences between olanzapine and lurasidone, amisulpride, perphenazine, clozapine and zotepine were either small or uncertain. These results were robust in sensitivity analyses and in line with other efficacy outcomes and all‐cause discontinuation. Concerning weight gain, the impact of olanzapine was higher than all other antipsychotics, with a mean difference ranging from –4.58 kg (95% CI: –5.33 to –3.83) compared to ziprasidone to –2.30 kg (95% CI: –3.35 to –1.25) compared to amisulpride. Our data suggest that olanzapine is more efficacious than a number of other antipsychotic drugs in the longer term, but its efficacy must be weighed against its side effect profile.

psychiatry
Determination of the amount of native structural bacteriorhodopsin in purple membrane Langmuir-Blodgett films by a spectroscopic surface denaturation quantifying technique.

Y. Sugiyama,T. Inoue,M. Ikematsu,M. Iseki,T. Sekiguchi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-2736(97)00016-3

1997-05-22

Biochimica et Biophysica Acta

Abstract:
Endoscopic correction of primary VUR by using polyacrylate polyalcohol copolymer (Vantris) in young girls: 2-year follow-up.

F. Sharifiaghdas,Farzam Tajalli,H. Otukesh,R. H. Shamsabadi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.02.016

IF: 1.921

2014-12-01

Journal of Pediatric Urology

Abstract:

Autoimmune responses regulate alloimmunity for prolonged cardiac allograft survival.

Olanzapine Versus Lithium in the Acute Treatment of Bipolar Mania: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Trial

Comparative efficacy, safety, and tolerability of pharmacotherapies for acute mania in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Typical Versus Atypical Antipsychotics for Acute Mania

The effects of alternative direct payment regimes on ecological and socio-economic indicators: results of a spatial linear programming model for a Swiss Alpine region.

The influence of prednisolone on the regulation of major histocompatibility complex class II expression.

[Visual system involvement in selected zoonotic diseases. I. Ocular toxocariasis].

Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis: Efficacy and Safety of Antipsychotics vs Antiepileptics or Lithium for Acute Mania in Children and Adolescents

Comparative Effectiveness of Antipsychotics in Patients With Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorder

Dose-Dependent Efficacy of Aripiprazole in Treating Patients With Schizophrenia or Schizoaffective Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Haloperidol (oral) versus olanzapine (oral) for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders

A systematic review and network meta-analysis on comparative efficacy, acceptability, and safety of treatments in acute bipolar mania in youths

Multivariate Bayesian Arm-Based Network Meta-Analysis of Pharmacological Interventions for the Treatment of Acute Bipolar Mania in Adults

Personality correlates of dogmatism.

A new cause of cerebrospinal fluid eosinophilia: neurosarcoidosis.

Olanzapine vs Haloperidol for Management of Acute Agitation in Emergency Department: An Open Label Randomised Controlled Trial

Risperidone Versus Haloperidol in Treatment of Acute Manic Episodes of Bipolar Ⅰ Disorder: a Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Muiticenter Study

Comparison of intramuscular haloperidol and other short-acting injectable antipsychotics for management of acute agitation in an adult inpatient psychiatry unit

Long‐term efficacy of antipsychotic drugs in initially acutely ill adults with schizophrenia: systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Determination of the amount of native structural bacteriorhodopsin in purple membrane Langmuir-Blodgett films by a spectroscopic surface denaturation quantifying technique.

Endoscopic correction of primary VUR by using polyacrylate polyalcohol copolymer (Vantris) in young girls: 2-year follow-up.