A systematic review of meta-analyses of the efficacy of oral atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of adult patients with schizophrenia

Abstract

Introduction: Meta-analyses are a convenient way for clinicians and researchers to review data regarding different interventions. Meta-analyses can overcome many of the limitations of individual studies, namely the power to detect differences, and help resolve the results of inconsistent studies.

Areas covered: This paper is a review of meta-analyses of oral atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia, located through PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. A total of 91 meta-analyses were identified that included efficacy outcome data for the 10 atypical antipsychotics available in the USA (11 focused on clozapine, 17 for risperidone, 8 for olanzapine, 5 for quetiapine, 3 for ziprasidone, 10 for aripiprazole, 5 for paliperidone, 1 for iloperidone, 0 for asenapine or lurasidone, and 31 others that were classified more broadly). These include Cochrane Reviews and other similarly executed reports, as well as pooled analyses meta-tagged in PubMed as a meta-analysis.

Expert opinion: In general, there is heterogeneity among the atypical antipsychotics in terms of efficacy, with clozapine evidencing consistent superiority over typical antipsychotics, trailed behind by olanzapine and risperidone. Meta-analyses generally do not support efficacy differences between the other atypical antipsychotics compared with the older typical agents. Although this review is focused on efficacy, other considerations are also important, including the large tolerability differences among all the agents and the need to individualize medication choice based on past history of therapeutic response, past history of tolerability issues and the individual's personal values and preferences.

Keywords:

• atypical antipsychotic
• Cochrane review
• meta-analysis
• schizophrenia
• systematic review

Notes

This box summarizes key points contained in the article.