Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc., Marlborough, MA, USA.
IQVIA, Stockholm, Sweden.
BMC Psychiatry. 2021 May 11;21(1):249. doi: 10.1186/s12888-021-03220-3.
While clinical trial evidence has firmly established the efficacy of several atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) for treating bipolar depression, no randomized controlled trials (RCT's) comparing AAPs have been conducted. This Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the relative efficacy and tolerability of AAP monotherapy in adults with bipolar depression.
Efficacy measures included change in Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Improvement - Bipolar Disorder (CGI-BP), response, and remission. Multiple tolerability outcomes were examined. Results from random effects models were reported as difference in change from baseline for continuous variables or odds ratios for dichotomous variables. Treatments were ranked using the surface under the curve cumulative ranking probabilities. Number needed to treat (NNT) and harm (NNH) were calculated.
Eighteen RCT's met inclusion criteria of the systematic literature review. On change in MADRS, lurasidone (- 4.71 [95% Crl - 6.98, - 2.41]), quetiapine (- 4.80 [- 5.93, - 3.72]), olanzapine (- 4.57 [- 5.92, - 3.20]), and cariprazine (- 2.29 [- 3.47, - 1.09]) were more efficacious than placebo. Lurasidone was associated with a significantly greater odds of response (≥50% improvement in MADRS) compared to cariprazine (1.78 [95% Crl 1.08, 2.77]), aripiprazole (2.38 [1.38, 3.85]), and ziprasidone (2.47 [1.41, 3.98]), but was similar to olanzapine (1.68 [0.99,2.65]) and quetiapine (1.25 [0.78, 1.90]). For change in CGI-BP-S-overall score, lurasidone was significantly better than cariprazine (- 0.38 [95% Crl - 0.66,-0.10]) and ziprasidone (- 0.58 [- 0.91,-0.26]), but similar to quetiapine (- 0.08 [- 0.36, 0.19])and olanzapine (- 0.04 [- 1.41, 1.46]). Lurasidone (0.34 kg [95% Crl - 0.22, 0.89]) and aripiprazole (0.20 kg [- 0.59, 1.00]) had a similar weight change compared to placebo, but olanzapine (2.88 kg [2.40, 3.36]), quetiapine (1.17 kg [0.84, 1.49]), and cariprazine (0.65 kg [0.34, 0.96]) were associated with greater weight gain. The NNT for response was the lowest for lurasidone (NNT = 5) followed by quetiapine (NNT = 6), olanzapine (NNT = 10) and cariprazine (NNT = 12).
In this NMA in adults with bipolar depression, which evaluated change in depressive symptoms (assessed by MADRS) across short-term trials, the largest improvement versus placebo was observed for lurasidone, olanzapine and quetiapine with cariprazine, showing a smaller treatment effect. Aripiprazole and ziprasidone were ineffective for the treatment of bipolar depression. Improvement in CGI-BP-S score for lurasidone was larger than cariprazine and ziprasidone but similar to quetiapine and olanzapine. Based on short term studies lurasidone and aripiprazole had similar weight gain compared to placebo.
虽然临床试验证据已经明确了几种非典型抗精神病药(AAP)治疗双相抑郁的疗效,但尚未进行 AAP 之间的随机对照试验(RCT)比较。这项贝叶斯网络荟萃分析(NMA)比较了成人双相抑郁患者中单用 AAP 的相对疗效和耐受性。
疗效测量包括蒙哥马利-Åsberg 抑郁评定量表(MADRS)、双相障碍临床总体印象-改善(CGI-BP)、反应和缓解的变化。检查了多种耐受性结果。报告了来自随机效应模型的结果,以连续变量的基线变化差异或二分类变量的优势比表示。使用累积排序概率曲线下面积来对治疗方法进行排名。计算了需要治疗的人数(NNT)和危害(NNH)。
18 项 RCT 符合系统文献综述的纳入标准。在 MADRS 变化方面,卢拉西酮(-4.71 [95%可信区间-6.98,-2.41])、喹硫平(-4.80 [-5.93,-3.72])、奥氮平(-4.57 [-5.92,-3.20])和卡利培嗪(-2.29 [-3.47,-1.09])比安慰剂更有效。与卡利培嗪相比,卢拉西酮的反应率(MADRS 改善≥50%)更高(1.78 [95%可信区间 1.08,2.77]),阿立哌唑(2.38 [1.38,3.85])和齐拉西酮(2.47 [1.41,3.98]),但与奥氮平(1.68 [0.99,2.65])和喹硫平(1.25 [0.78,1.90])相似。在 CGI-BP-S 总体评分变化方面,卢拉西酮明显优于卡利培嗪(-0.38 [95%可信区间-0.66,-0.10])和齐拉西酮(-0.58 [-0.91,-0.26]),但与喹硫平(-0.08 [-0.36,0.19])和奥氮平(-0.04 [-1.41,1.46])相似。卢拉西酮(0.34kg [95%可信区间 0.22,0.89])和阿立哌唑(0.20kg [-0.59,1.00])与安慰剂相比体重变化相似,但奥氮平(2.88kg [2.40,3.36])、喹硫平(1.17kg [0.84,1.49])和卡利培嗪(0.65kg [0.34,0.96])与体重增加相关。反应的 NNT 最低为卢拉西酮(NNT=5),其次是喹硫平(NNT=6)、奥氮平(NNT=10)和卡利培嗪(NNT=12)。
在这项针对成人双相抑郁的 NMA 中,评估了短期试验中抑郁症状(用 MADRS 评估)的变化,与安慰剂相比,卢拉西酮、奥氮平和喹硫平的改善最大,而卡利培嗪的治疗效果较小。阿立哌唑和齐拉西酮对双相抑郁无效。卢拉西酮的 CGI-BP-S 评分改善大于卡利培嗪和齐拉西酮,但与喹硫平、奥氮平相似。基于短期研究,卢拉西酮和阿立哌唑与安慰剂相比体重增加相似。