4.1 Review

Antipsychotic drug exposure and risk of fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

期刊

INTERNATIONAL CLINICAL PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 181-196

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/YIC.0000000000000221

关键词

antipsychotic; fracture; hip fracture; side effects; systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate the extent to which exposure to first-generation and second-generation antipsychotics (APs) is associated with an increased risk of fractures, with a particular focus on hip fractures, and to ascertain the risk associated with exposure to individual drugs. We included observational studies that reported data on fractures in individuals exposed to APs compared with unexposed individuals or individuals with previous exposure. We extracted information on study design, source of data, population characteristics, outcomes of interest, matching and confounding factors, and used a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to judge study risk of bias. We pooled adjusted estimates of relative effects to generate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model. We rated the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Of 36 observational studies, 29 proved to have a low risk of bias and seven were found to have a high risk of bias. The risk of hip fracture (OR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.42-1.74, low quality of evidence) and of any fracture (OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.04-1.31, very low quality of evidence) increased with exposure to APs, with similar increases in risk in the first generation and second generation. The risk was similar among different diagnostic categories. The few studies that provided data were insufficient to allow inferences on individual drugs. AP exposure in unselected populations was associated with a 57% increase in the risk of hip fractures and a 17% increase in the risk of any fractures. Between-study heterogeneity limits the confidence in this estimate.

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

4.1
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