Systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of personality disorder in randomised controlled trials of pharmacological interventions for adults with mood disorders

2021 ◽  
Vol 279 ◽  
pp. 711-721
Author(s):  
Bianca E Kavanagh ◽  
Melanie M Ashton ◽  
Stephanie P Cowdery ◽  
Olivia M Dean ◽  
Alyna Turner ◽  
...  
BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e025145
Author(s):  
Bianca E Kavanagh ◽  
Sharon Lee Brennan-Olsen ◽  
Alyna Turner ◽  
Olivia M Dean ◽  
Michael Berk ◽  
...  

IntroductionRemission rates for mood disorders, including depressive and bipolar disorders, remain relatively low despite available treatments, and many patients fail to respond adequately to these interventions. Evidence suggests that personality disorder may play a role in poor outcomes. Although personality disorders are common in patients with mood disorders, it remains unknown whether personality disorder affects treatment outcomes in mood disorders. We aim to review currently available evidence regarding the role of personality disorder on pharmacological interventions in randomised controlled trials for adults with mood disorders.Methods and analysisA systematic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) via cochranelibrary.com, PubMed via PubMed, EMBASE via embase.com, PsycINFO via Ebsco and CINAHL Complete via Ebsco databases will be conducted to identify randomised controlled trials that have investigated pharmacological interventions in participants aged 18 years or older for mood disorders (ie, depressive disorders and bipolar spectrum disorders) and have also included assessment of personality disorder. One reviewer will screen studies against the predetermined eligibility criteria, and a second reviewer will confirm eligible studies. Data will be extracted by two independent reviewers. Methodological quality and risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A systematic review, and if sufficient evidence is identified, a meta-analysis will be completed. Meta-analysis will be conducted using the standardised mean difference approach and reported with 95% CIs. A random effects model will be employed and statistical heterogeneity will be evaluated using the I2 statistic. Prespecified subgroup analyses will be completed.Ethics and disseminationAs this systematic review will use published data, ethics permission will not be required. The outcomes of this systematic review will be published in a relevant scientific journal and presented at a research conference.Trial registration numberCRD42018089279.


2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (7) ◽  
pp. 520 ◽  
Author(s):  
JeetinderK Makkar ◽  
NarinderP Singh ◽  
Vincent Wourms ◽  
Andrés Zorrilla-Vaca ◽  
RonaldB Cappellani ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 193 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Álvarez-Jiménez ◽  
Sarah E. Hetrick ◽  
César González-Blanch ◽  
John F. Gleeson ◽  
Patrick D. McGorry

BackgroundAntipsychotic-induced weight gain is a major concern in the treatment of psychosis. The efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions as well as the optimal intervention approach for this side-effect remain unclear.AimsTo determine the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions and specific treatment approaches to control antipsychotic-induced weight gain in patients with firstepisode or chronic schizophrenia.MethodSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.ResultsTen trials were included in the meta-analysis. Adjunctive non-pharmacological interventions, either individual or group interventions, or cognitive-behavioural therapy as well as nutritional counselling were effective in reducing or attenuating antipsychotic-induced weight gain compared with treatment as usual, with treatment effects maintained over follow-up.ConclusionsNon-pharmacological weight-management interventions should be a priority, particularly during the early stages of antipsychotic treatment. Preventive approaches have the potential to be more effective, acceptable, cost-efficient and beneficial.


2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S168-S168
Author(s):  
Dan Siskind ◽  
Brian Wu ◽  
Tommy Wong ◽  
Steve Kisely

Abstract Background People living with schizophrenia are 3 times more likely to smoke than the general population, and have fewer and less successful quitting attempts. In concert with psychosocial quit interventions, there is a need for evidence based pharmacological interventions to assist people living with schizophrenia achieve smoking abstinence. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, PsycInfo, EMBASE and Cochrane for randomised controlled trials of pharmacological interventions for reducing smoking among people living with schizophrenia. We conducted pairwise and network meta-analyses of effectiveness of interventions for achieving abstinence and reduction in smoking. We also examined psychiatric and physical adverse events of interventions. Results Nineteen studies were included in the systematic review. Data was available for buproprion, varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Buproprion (RR 3.4, 95%CI 1.6–7.3, p=0.002), varenicline (RR 3.8, 95%CI 2.0–7.2, p<0.001) and NRT (RR 4.3, 95%CI 1.7–10.7, p=0.002) were all associated with increased rates of abstinence in pairwise meta-analyses. In a network meta-analysis varenicline was superior to buproprion (RR 2.0, 95%CI 1.0–3.9), however there was no statistically significant difference between varenicline and NRT or buproprion and NRT. Varenicline was associated with higher rates of nausea than placebo. Discussion Buproprion, varenicline and NRT were all superior to placebo for achieving abstinence. Varenicline appears to be superior to buproprion for achieving abstinence, however varenicline is associated with higher rates of nausea.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document