Antipsychotic agents in anxiety disorders: An umbrella review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although not approved for the treatment of anxiety disorders (except trifluoperazine) there is ongoing off-label, unapproved use of first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for anxiety disorders. There have been systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the use of antipsychotics in anxiety disorders, most of which focused on SGAs. OBJECTIVE: The specific aims of this umbrella review are to: (1) Evaluate the evidence of efficacy of FGAs and SGAs in anxiety disorders as an adjunctive treatment to traditional antidepressant treatments and other nonantipsychotic medications; (2) Compare monotherapy with antipsychotics to first-line treatments for anxiety disorders in terms of effectiveness, risks, and side effects. The review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021237436). METHODS: An initial search was undertaken to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses from inception until 2020, with an updated search completed August 2021 and January 2023. The searches were conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), APA PsycInfo (Ovid), CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), and the Cochrane Library through hand searches of references of included articles. Review quality was measured using the AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) scale. RESULTS: The original and updated searches yielded 1796 and 3744 articles respectively, of which 45 were eligible. After final review, 25 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in the analysis. Most of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses were deemed low-quality through AMSTAR-2 with only one review being deemed high-quality. In evaluating the monotherapies with antipsychotics compared with first-line treatments for anxiety disorder there was insufficient evidence due to flawed study designs (such as problems with randomization) and small sample sizes within studies. There was limited evidence suggesting efficacy of antipsychotic agents in anxiety disorders other than quetiapine in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). CONCLUSIONS: This umbrella review indicates a lack of high-quality studies of antipsychotics in anxiety disorders outside of the use of quetiapine in GAD. Although potentially effective for anxiety disorders, FGAs and SGAs may have risks and side effects that outweigh their efficacy, although there were limited data. Further long-term and larger-scale studies of antipsychotics in anxiety disorders are needed.
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 | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".