4.4 Review

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of depot antipsychotic frequency on compliance and outcome

期刊

SCHIZOPHRENIA RESEARCH
卷 166, 期 1-3, 页码 178-186

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2015.04.028

关键词

Depot antipsychotic; LAI; Dosing frequency; Outcomes

资金

  1. University of Queensland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Depot antipsychotics are commonly used to improve adherence and clinical outcomes such as relapse and readmission. Dosing regimens vary but are commonly two- and four-weekly. To date, the effect of administration at two-weekly or four-weekly intervals on outcome has not been examined in a meta-analysis. Aims: A systematic review and meta-analysis on whether the frequency of depot antipsychotic administration (e.g., two- vs four-weekly) makes any difference to compliance and outcome. Methods: A systematic search of Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo for RCTs that compared the frequency of depot administration (e.g., two- vs four-weekly) for an equivalent dose. Outcomes were compliance, psychiatric symptomatology, quality of life, adverse drug reactions (ADRs), patient preference, admission rates, bed-days and costs. Results: Seven studies from eight papers (n = 3994) were found covering olanzapine, paliperidone, risperidone, haloperidol and fluphenazine enanthate/decanoate with follow-up of up to one year. Meta-analyses were possible for psychotic symptoms and ADRs. There were no differences in psychotic symptoms or quality of life between two- and four-weekly doses. Health service use was not reported. For ADRs, the only significant difference detected was that two-weekly injections were less likely to lead to site pain (RR 0.16, 95% Cl 0.07-038; 2 studies n = 1667). There were no differences in other ADRs. Conclusions: There were surprisingly little data on the effect of dosing frequency for an equivalent dose on clinical outcomes. There is a need for long-term studies of a wide range of outcomes including cost-effectiveness. Claims for advantages of new preparations over others require careful evaluation. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据