Aripiprazole alone or in combination for acute mania

Abstract

Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Aripiprazole versus placebo, Outcome 1 Mean change in YMRS from baseline at three weeks. Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Aripiprazole versus placebo, Outcome 2 Mean change in YMRS from baseline at day four. Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Aripiprazole versus placebo, Outcome 3 Mean change in YMRS from baseline week four. Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Aripiprazole versus placebo, Outcome 4 Mean change in YMRS from baseline at week six. Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Aripiprazole versus placebo, Outcome 5 Mean change in YMRS from baseline to week 12.

Making the Case for ‘Power Abuse Disorder' as a Nosologic Entity

“…On pharmacologic principle, stabilization of a dysregulated (i.e., oscillating) dopaminergic system (with power craving associated with a hypodomanigergic state and power wielding associated with a hyperdopaminergic state, see above) could be a obtained with the partial dopamine D2 receptor agonist aripiprazole, which has proven efficacious in the treatment and prophylaxis of manic episodes in bipolar patients [85,86] ((http://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/038-019.html). However, according to these reviews and guidelines, aripiprazole did not significantly improve depressive episodes in bipolar patients and resulted in extrapyramidal effects, akathisia in particular.…”

Outcomes in systematic reviews of complex interventions never reached “high” GRADE ratings when compared with those of simple interventions

“…The picture was quite similar for the reviews of simple interventions: 64% (7/11) explicitly highlighted the adoption of GRADE in the review [53,55,57,59,60,63,65] or included a discussion on the GRADE considerations [53,55,60,65]. Most commonly, the application of GRADE in both the review groups was restricted to the SoF tables, whereas justifications for the evidence ratings were provided in the footnotes below them.…”

“…The integration of subgroup analysis data in decisions on rating the evidence based on inconsistency was not common in the investigated reviews in either of the groups. This could be partially explained by the fact that, in general, an intention of subgroup analysis for the purposes of explaining the sources of heterogeneity was expressed by most reviews; in most cases, it was not conducted [32,35,36,38,47,50,51,53,57,65,66], or conducted for a very limited number of variables [39,41,45,49,55,60,63,64], mainly due to an insufficient number of studies.…”

Different treatment benefits were estimated by clinical trials performed in adults compared with those performed in children

“…For the other 13 drugs, heterogeneity in the amount of the treatment effect was observed. For five drugs, the treatment benefit was higher in children compared with adults [30,33,90,97]. For nine drugs, the treatment benefit was higher for adults compared with children [18,27,32,34,41,67,104].…”

“…No infants (29 days to 24 months) or newborns (0 to 28 days) were included. For 11 drugs with significant RORs, the doses were not adjusted according to the weight of children [18,27,30,32,34,41,67,90,104]. Children received an adjusted dose for ondansetron (0.10 to 0.15 mg/kg), for dolasetron (1 mg/kg), and for erythropoietin (600 IU/kg) [33,97].…”