Rattehalli Ranganath D, Zhao Sai, Li Bao Guo, Jayaram Mahesh B, Xia Jun, Sampson Stephanie
General Psychiatry, Logan Hospital, Meadowbrook, Brisbane, Australia, QLD 4131.
Systematic Review Solutions Ltd, 5-6 West Tashan Road, Yan Tai, Tianjin, China, 264000.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 15;12(12):CD006918. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006918.pub3.
Risperidone is the first new-generation antipsychotic drug made available in the market in its generic form.
To determine the clinical effects, safety and cost-effectiveness of risperidone compared with placebo for treating schizophrenia.
On 19th October 2015, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We checked the references of all included studies and contacted industry and authors of included studies for relevant studies and data.
Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing oral risperidone with placebo treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.
Two review authors independently screened studies, assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR), and the 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and the 95% CI. We created a 'Summary of findings table' using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).
The review includes 15 studies (N = 2428). Risk of selection bias is unclear in most of the studies, especially concerning allocation concealment. Other areas of risk such as missing data and selective reporting also caused some concern, although not affected on the direction of effect of our primary outcome, as demonstrated by sensitivity analysis. Many of the included trials have industry sponsorship of involvement. Nonetheless, generally people in the risperidone group are more likely to achieve a significant clinical improvement in mental state (6 RCTs, N = 864, RR 0.64, CI 0.52 to 0.78, very low-quality evidence). The effect withstood, even when three studies with >50% attrition rate were removed from the analysis (3 RCTs, N = 589, RR 0.77, CI 0.67 to 0.88). Participants receiving placebo were less likely to have a clinically significant improvement on Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI) than those receiving risperidone (4 RCTs, N = 594, RR 0.69, CI 0.57 to 0.83, very low-quality evidence). Overall, the risperidone group was 31% less likely to leave early compared to placebo group (12 RCTs, N = 2261, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.78, low-quality evidence), but Incidence of significant extrapyramidal side effect was more likely to occur in the risperidone group (7 RCTs, N = 1511, RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.15, very low-quality evidence).When risperidone and placebo were augmented with clozapine, there is no significant differences between groups for clinical response as defined by a less than 20% reduction in PANSS/BPRS scores (2 RCTs, N = 98, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.42, low-quality evidence) and attrition (leaving the study early for any reason) (3 RCTs, N = 167, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.42, low quality evidence). One study measured clinically significant responses using the CGI, no effect was evident (1 RCT, N = 68, RR 1.12 95% CI 0.87 to 1.44, low quality evidence). No data were available for extrapyramidal adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low quality evidence, risperidone appears to be benefitial in improving mental state compared with placebo, but it also causes more adverse events. Eight out of the 15 included trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies. The currently available evidence isvery low to low quality.
利培酮是市场上首个以通用名形式上市的新一代抗精神病药物。
确定与安慰剂相比,利培酮治疗精神分裂症的临床疗效、安全性和成本效益。
2015年10月19日,我们检索了Cochrane精神分裂症组试验注册库,该注册库基于对CINAHL、BIOSIS、AMED、EMBASE、PubMed、MEDLINE、PsycINFO的定期检索以及临床试验注册库。我们检查了所有纳入研究的参考文献,并联系了纳入研究的行业和作者以获取相关研究和数据。
比较口服利培酮与安慰剂治疗精神分裂症和/或精神分裂症样精神病患者的随机临床试验(RCT)。
两位综述作者独立筛选研究、评估纳入研究的偏倚风险并提取数据。对于二分数据,我们在意向性分析的基础上计算风险比(RR)和95%置信区间(CI)。对于连续数据,我们计算平均差(MD)和95%CI。我们使用GRADE(推荐分级评估、制定和评价)创建了一个“结果总结表”。
该综述纳入15项研究(N = 2428)。大多数研究中选择偏倚的风险尚不清楚,尤其是关于分配隐藏方面。其他风险领域,如数据缺失和选择性报告,也引起了一些关注,尽管敏感性分析表明这些并未影响我们主要结局的效应方向。许多纳入试验有行业资助参与。尽管如此,总体而言,利培酮组患者在精神状态上更有可能实现显著的临床改善(6项RCT,N = 864,RR 0.64,CI 0.52至0.78,极低质量证据)。即使从分析中剔除三项失访率>50%的研究,该效应仍然存在(3项RCT,N = 589,RR 0.77,CI 0.67至0.88)。接受安慰剂的参与者在临床总体印象量表(CGI)上出现临床显著改善的可能性低于接受利培酮的参与者(4项RCT,N = 594,RR 0.69,CI 0.57至0.83,极低质量证据)。总体而言,与安慰剂组相比,利培酮组提前退出的可能性低31%(12项RCT,N = 2261,RR 0.69,95%CI 0.62至0.78,低质量证据),但利培酮组发生显著锥体外系副作用的发生率更高(7项RCT,N = 1511,RR 1.56,95%CI 1.13至2.15,极低质量证据)。当利培酮和安慰剂与氯氮平联合使用时,根据阳性和阴性症状量表(PANSS)/简明精神病评定量表(BPRS)评分降低少于20%定义的临床反应,两组之间无显著差异(2项RCT,N = 98,RR 1.15,95%CI 0.93至1.42,低质量证据),且在失访(因任何原因提前退出研究)方面也无显著差异(3项RCT,N = 167,RR 1.13,95%CI 0.53至2.42,低质量证据)。一项研究使用CGI测量临床显著反应,未发现明显效果(1项RCT,N = 68,RR 1.12,95%CI 0.87至1.44,低质量证据)。未获得锥体外系不良反应的数据。
基于低质量证据,与安慰剂相比,利培酮似乎在改善精神状态方面有益,但也会导致更多不良事件。15项纳入试验中有8项由制药公司资助。目前可得的证据质量极低至低质量。