Efficacy, Acceptability, and Tolerability of Antipsychotics in Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia: A Network Meta-analysis.

Importance In treatment-resistant schizophrenia, clozapine is considered the standard treatment. However, clozapine use has restrictions owing to its many adverse effects. Moreover, an increasing number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of other antipsychotics have been published. Objective To integrate all the randomized evidence from the available antipsychotics used for treatment-resistant schizophrenia by performing a network meta-analysis. Data Sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis, PsycINFO, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Trial Registry, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched up to June 30, 2014. Study Selection At least 2 independent reviewers selected published and unpublished single- and double-blind RCTs in treatment-resistant schizophrenia (any study-defined criterion) that compared any antipsychotic (at any dose and in any form of administration) with another antipsychotic or placebo. Data Extraction and Synthesis At least 2 independent reviewers extracted all data into standard forms and assessed the quality of all included trials with the Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool. Data were pooled using a random-effects model in a Bayesian setting. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was efficacy as measured by overall change in symptoms of schizophrenia. Secondary outcomes included change in positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, categorical response to treatment, dropouts for any reason and for inefficacy of treatment, and important adverse events. Results Forty blinded RCTs with 5172 unique participants (71.5% men; mean [SD] age, 38.8 [3.7] years) were included in the analysis. Few significant differences were found in all outcomes. In the primary outcome (reported as standardized mean difference; 95% credible interval), olanzapine was more effective than quetiapine (-0.29; -0.56 to -0.02), haloperidol (-0. 29; -0.44 to -0.13), and sertindole (-0.46; -0.80 to -0.06); clozapine was more effective than haloperidol (-0.22; -0.38 to -0.07) and sertindole (-0.40; -0.74 to -0.04); and risperidone was more effective than sertindole (-0.32; -0.63 to -0.01). A pattern of superiority for olanzapine, clozapine, and risperidone was seen in other efficacy outcomes, but results were not consistent and effect sizes were usually small. In addition, relatively few RCTs were available for antipsychotics other than clozapine, haloperidol, olanzapine, and risperidone. The most surprising finding was that clozapine was not significantly better than most other drugs. Conclusions and Relevance Insufficient evidence exists on which antipsychotic is more efficacious for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, and blinded RCTs-in contrast to unblinded, randomized effectiveness studies-provide little evidence of the superiority of clozapine compared with other second-generation antipsychotics. Future clozapine studies with high doses and patients with extremely treatment-refractory schizophrenia might be most promising to change the current evidence.

Diagnostic value of immunoassays for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Immunoassays are essential in the workup of patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. However, the diagnostic accuracy is uncertain with regard to different classes of assays, antibody specificities, thresholds, test variations, and manufacturers. We aimed to assess diagnostic accuracy measures of available immunoassays and to explore sources of heterogeneity. We performed comprehensive literature searches and applied strict inclusion criteria. Finally, 49 publications comprising 128 test evaluations in 15 199 patients were included in the analysis. Methodological quality according to the revised tool for quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies was moderate. Diagnostic accuracy measures were calculated with the unified model (comprising a bivariate random-effects model and a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics model). Important differences were observed between classes of immunoassays, type of antibody specificity, thresholds, application of confirmation step, and manufacturers. Combination of high sensitivity (>95%) and high specificity (>90%) was found in 5 tests only: polyspecific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) with intermediate threshold (Genetic Testing Institute, Asserachrom), particle gel immunoassay, lateral flow immunoassay, polyspecific chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) with a high threshold, and immunoglobulin G (IgG)-specific CLIA with low threshold. Borderline results (sensitivity, 99.6%; specificity, 89.9%) were observed for IgG-specific Genetic Testing Institute-ELISA with low threshold. Diagnostic accuracy appears to be inadequate in tests with high thresholds (ELISA; IgG-specific CLIA), combination of IgG specificity and intermediate thresholds (ELISA, CLIA), high-dose heparin confirmation step (ELISA), and particle immunofiltration assay. When making treatment decisions, clinicians should be a aware of diagnostic characteristics of the tests used and it is recommended they estimate posttest probabilities according to likelihood ratios as well as pretest probabilities using clinical scoring tools.

Effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of pain in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the backbone of osteoarthritis pain management. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of different preparations and doses of NSAIDs on osteoarthritis pain in a network meta-analysis. METHODS For this network meta-analysis, we considered randomised trials comparing any of the following interventions: NSAIDs, paracetamol, or placebo, for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the reference lists of relevant articles for trials published between Jan 1, 1980, and Feb 24, 2015, with at least 100 patients per group. The prespecified primary and secondary outcomes were pain and physical function, and were extracted in duplicate for up to seven timepoints after the start of treatment. We used an extension of multivariable Bayesian random effects models for mixed multiple treatment comparisons with a random effect at the level of trials. For the primary analysis, a random walk of first order was used to account for multiple follow-up outcome data within a trial. Preparations that used different total daily dose were considered separately in the analysis. To assess a potential dose-response relation, we used preparation-specific covariates assuming linearity on log relative dose. FINDINGS We identified 8973 manuscripts from our search, of which 74 randomised trials with a total of 58 556 patients were included in this analysis. 23 nodes concerning seven different NSAIDs or paracetamol with specific daily dose of administration or placebo were considered. All preparations, irrespective of dose, improved point estimates of pain symptoms when compared with placebo. For six interventions (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 30 mg/day, 60 mg/day, and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 mg/day and 50 mg/day), the probability that the difference to placebo is at or below a prespecified minimum clinically important effect for pain reduction (effect size [ES] -0·37) was at least 95%. Among maximally approved daily doses, diclofenac 150 mg/day (ES -0·57, 95% credibility interval [CrI] -0·69 to -0·46) and etoricoxib 60 mg/day (ES -0·58, -0·73 to -0·43) had the highest probability to be the best intervention, both with 100% probability to reach the minimum clinically important difference. Treatment effects increased as drug dose increased, but corresponding tests for a linear dose effect were significant only for celecoxib (p=0·030), diclofenac (p=0·031), and naproxen (p=0·026). We found no evidence that treatment effects varied over the duration of treatment. Model fit was good, and between-trial heterogeneity and inconsistency were low in all analyses. All trials were deemed to have a low risk of bias for blinding of patients. Effect estimates did not change in sensitivity analyses with two additional statistical models and accounting for methodological quality criteria in meta-regression analysis. INTERPRETATION On the basis of the available data, we see no role for single-agent paracetamol for the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis irrespective of dose. We provide sound evidence that diclofenac 150 mg/day is the most effective NSAID available at present, in terms of improving both pain and function. Nevertheless, in view of the safety profile of these drugs, physicians need to consider our results together with all known safety information when selecting the preparation and dose for individual patients. FUNDING Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number 405340-104762) and Arco Foundation, Switzerland.

The enduring effects of psychodynamic treatments vis-à-vis alternative treatments: A multilevel longitudinal meta-analysis

Although evidence suggests that the benefits of psychodynamic treatments are sustained over time, presently it is unclear whether these sustained benefits are superior to non-psychodynamic treatments. Additionally, the extant literature comparing the sustained benefits of psychodynamic treatments compared to alternative treatments is limited with methodological shortcomings. The purpose of the current study was to conduct a rigorous test of the growth of the benefits of psychodynamic treatments relative to alternative treatments across distinct domains of change (i.e., all outcome measures, targeted outcome measures, non-targeted outcome measures, and personality outcome measures). To do so, the study employed strict inclusion criteria to identify randomized clinical trials that directly compared at least one bona fide psychodynamic treatment and one bona fide non-psychodynamic treatment. Hierarchical linear modeling (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon, & du Toit, 2011) was used to longitudinally model the impact of psychodynamic treatments compared to non-psychodynamic treatments at post-treatment and to compare the growth (i.e., slope) of effects beyond treatment completion. Findings from the present meta-analysis indicated that psychodynamic treatments and non-psychodynamic treatments were equally efficacious at post-treatment and at follow-up for combined outcomes (k=20), targeted outcomes (k=19), non-targeted outcomes (k=17), and personality outcomes (k=6). Clinical implications, directions for future research, and limitations are discussed.