Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of Antipsychotics for Juvenile Psychotic Disorders
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Psychotic disorders produce important morbidity and disability in children and adolescents. There have been few relevant treatment trials, encouraging assessment of research aimed at testing efficacy and safety of antipsychotics for juveniles. We aimed to compare the short- and long-term efficacy and safety of antipsychotics to treat psychotic disorders among children and adolescents. METHODS: Four major bibliographic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE) were searched for clinical trials of antipsychotics in children or adolescents, from database inception to May 2021. We searched for clinical trials comparing antipsychotics with control conditions for juvenile psychosis based on blinded review by 2 independent investigators (C.S.Y. and M.L.). We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and applied the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool to appraise study quality. One reviewer (A.B.) performed data abstraction which was confirmed by 2 independent, blinded reviewers (C.S.Y. and M.L.). Primary outcomes were scores rating psychosis symptoms and dichotomized retention in treatment protocols versus dropouts because of adverse events. Effect sizes were pooled using frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis modeling to generate summary rate ratios (RRs) and Cohen d standardized mean differences. RESULTS: Systematic searching generated 1330 unique records. Of these, short-term (n = 15, for 6 [3-12] weeks) and long-term (n = 10, for 12 [6-60] months) treatment trials involved 2208 (39.2% females; median age, 15.3 years), and 1366 subjects (35.0% females; median age, 15.6 years), respectively. Short-term reduction of psychosis scores ranked clozapine (d = -1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.97 to -0.73]), molindone (-1.22; 95% CI, -1.68 to -0.75), olanzapine (-1.12; 95% CI, -1.44 to -0.81), and risperidone (-0.93; 95% CI, -1.22 to -0.63) as the most effective agents. In longer-term treatment, only lurasidone was effective. Clozapine (RR, 12.8) and haloperidol (RR, 5.15) led to more all-cause and adverse event-related dropouts. There were few trials/drug (1 each for aripiprazole, asenapine, lurasidone, molindone, paliperidone, and ziprasidone, short term; aripiprazole, clozapine, haloperidol, lurasidone, and molindone, long-term). Heterogeneity and inconsistency were high, especially in long-term trials, without evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Some antipsychotics were effective and tolerated short term, but longer-term evidence was very limited. The overall paucity of trials and of adequate controls indicates that more well-designed randomized controlled trials are required for adequate assessment of antipsychotic drug treatment for juveniles. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021232937.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».