Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of Antipsychotics for Juvenile Psychotic Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".