2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2016.11.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Does formulation matter? A systematic review and meta-analysis of oral versus long-acting antipsychotic studies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
51
1
5

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 69 publications
(57 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
0
51
1
5
Order By: Relevance
“…The reduction seen in the total number of MH ER visits (~48.6%) is consistent with other studies which have previously documented decreases between ~36% and 73% (Su et al, 2009;Denham & Adamson, 1971;Schooler, 2003). However, in contrast to our results, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have generally not found statistically significant differences between the efficacy of OA and LAI regimens (Kishimoto et al, 2012;Ostuzzi et al, 2017). Although meta-analyses of both standard study-designs clearly contradict each other, there is no evidence of OA to LAI superiority.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…The reduction seen in the total number of MH ER visits (~48.6%) is consistent with other studies which have previously documented decreases between ~36% and 73% (Su et al, 2009;Denham & Adamson, 1971;Schooler, 2003). However, in contrast to our results, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have generally not found statistically significant differences between the efficacy of OA and LAI regimens (Kishimoto et al, 2012;Ostuzzi et al, 2017). Although meta-analyses of both standard study-designs clearly contradict each other, there is no evidence of OA to LAI superiority.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…However, seven independent metaanalyses of available randomized controlled trials, including one conducted in recent-onset psychosis (including only three trials enrolling patients with a diagnosis of psychosis within 1-5 years) 123 , found no evidence that LAIs are associated with better efficacy on relapse prevention, compared to oral antipsychotics [124][125][126][127][128][129] .…”
Section: Should We Use Long-acting Injectable Antipsychotics Earlier?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The inclusion of control groups, consisting of patients on typical depot antipsychotics or the corresponding oral formulations of ARI and PAL, would have produced stronger results, as would a prospective, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled design. However, even without testing in our study the two LAIs against their oral counterparts or placebo, we may rely on previous studies showing overlap of clinical effects and functioning between oral formulations and LAI (Misawa, Kishimoto, Hagi, Kane, & Correll, ; Patel et al, ) and even slight advantages for the latter in meta‐analyses, when quality of studies is taken into account (Ostuzzi, Bighelli, So, Furukawa, & Barbui, ). In addition, placebo‐controlled studies showed the superiority of both medications over placebo (Fu et al, ; Kane et al, ; Kramer et al, ; Meltzer et al, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%