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 Study Selection At least 2 independent reviewers selected published and unpublished single- and double-blind RCTs in treatment-resistant schizophrenia (any study-defined criterion) that compared any antipsychotic (at any dose and in any form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.

The great fluid debate: saline or so-called "balanced" salt solutions?

BACKGROUND Intravenous fluids are commonly prescribed in childhood. 0.9 % saline is the most-used fluid in pediatrics as resuscitation or maintenance solution. Experimental studies and observations in adults suggest that 0.9 % saline is a poor candidate for fluid resuscitation. Although anesthesiologists, intensive care specialists, perioperative physicians and nephrologists have been the most active in this debate, this issue deserves some physiopathological considerations also among pediatricians. RESULTS As compared with so-called "balanced" salt crystalloids such as lactated Ringer, administration of large volumes of 0.9 % saline has been associated with following deleterious effects: tendency to hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis (called dilution acidosis); acute kidney injury with reduced urine output and salt retention; damaged vascular permeability and stiffness, increase in proinflammatory mediators; detrimental effect on coagulation with tendency to blood loss; detrimental gastrointestinal perfusion and function; possible uneasiness at the bedside resulting in unnecessary administration of more fluids. Nevertheless, there is no firm evidence that these adverse effects are clinically relevant. CONCLUSIONS Intravenous fluid therapy is a medicine like insulin, chemotherapy or antibiotics. Prescribing fluids should fit the child's history and condition, consider the right dose at the right rate as well as the electrolyte levels and other laboratory variables. It is unlikely that a single type of fluid will be suitable for all pediatric patients. "Balanced" salt crystalloids, although more expensive, should be preferred for volume resuscitation, maintenance and perioperatively. Lactated Ringer appears unsuitable for patients at risk for brain edema and for those with overt or latent chloride-deficiency. Finally, in pediatrics there is a need for new fluids to be developed on the basis of a better understanding of the physiology and to be tested in well-designed trials.