NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Structured Abstract
Objectives:
Antipsychotic medications are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and for some drugs, depression. We performed a systematic review on the efficacy and safety of atypical antipsychotic drugs for use in conditions lacking FDA approval.
Data Sources:
We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Cochrane DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), and Cochrane CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from inception to May 2011. We included only English-language studies.
Review Methods:
Controlled trials comparing an atypical antipsychotic (risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, aripiprazole, ziprasidone, asenapine, iloperidone, paliperidone) to either placebo, another atypical antipsychotic drug, or other pharmacotherapy, for the off-label conditions of anxiety disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dementia and severe geriatric agitation, major depressive disorder, eating disorders, insomnia, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), personality disorders, substance abuse, and Tourette’s syndrome were included. Observational studies with sample sizes greater than 1,000 were included to assess rare adverse events. Two investigators conducted independent article review, data abstraction, and study quality assessment.
Results:
One hundred seventy trials contributed data to the efficacy review. Among the placebo-controlled trials of elderly patients with dementia reporting a total/global outcome score that includes symptoms such as psychosis, mood alterations, and aggression, small but statistically significant effect sizes ranging from 0.12 and 0.20 were observed for aripiprazole, olanzapine, and risperidone. For generalized anxiety disorder, pooled analysis of three large trials showed that quetiapine was associated with a 26 percent greater likelihood of “responding,” defined as at least 50 percent improvement on the Hamilton Anxiety Scale, compared with placebo. For obsessive-compulsive disorder, risperidone was associated with a 3.9-fold greater likelihood of “responding,” defined as a 25 to 35 percent improvement on the Yale Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) compared with placebo.
We identified 6 trials on eating disorders, 12 on personality disorder, an existing meta-analysis and 10 trials of risperidone or olanzapine for PTSD, 36 trials for depression of which 7 assessed drugs without an FDA-approved indication, and 33 trials of aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, or risperidone for treating substance abuse disorders. We identified one small trial (N=13) of atypical antipsychotics for insomnia which was inconclusive. For eating disorder patients specifically, evidence shows that atypicals are do not cause significant weight gain. The level of evidence is mixed regarding personality disorders and moderate for an association of risperidone with improving post-traumatic stress disorder. Evidence does not support efficacy of atypical antipsychotics for substance abuse.
In elderly patients, adverse events included an increased risk of death (number needed to harm [NNH]=87), stroke (for risperidone, NNH=53), extrapyramidal symptoms (for olanzapine (NNH=10) and risperidone (NNH=20), and urinary symptoms (NNH= from 16 to 36). In nonelderly adults, adverse events included weight gain (particularly with olanzapine), fatigue, sedation, akithisia (for aripiprazole) and extrapyramidal symptoms. Direct comparisons of different atypical antipsychotics for off-label conditions are rare.
Conclusions:
Benefits and harms vary among atypical antipsychotics for off-label usage. For symptoms associated with dementia in elderly patients, small but statistically significant benefits were observed for aripiprazole, olanzapine, and risperidone. Quetiapine was associated with benefits in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder, and risperidone was associated with benefits in the treatment of OCD; however, adverse events were common.
Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Technical Expert Panel
- Peer Reviewers
- Executive Summary
- Introduction
- Methods
- Results
- Key Question 1 What are the leading off-label uses of atypical antipsychotics in utilization studies? How have trends in utilization changed in recent years, including inpatient versus outpatient use? What new uses are being studied in trials?
- Key Question 2 What does the evidence show regarding the efficacy and comparative effectiveness of atypical antipsychotics for off-label indications?
- Key Question 3 What subset of the population would potentially benefit from off-label uses? Do effectiveness and harms differ by race/ethnicity, gender, and age group? By severity of condition and clinical subtype?
- Key Question 4 What are the potential adverse effects and/or complications involved with off-label prescribing of atypical antipsychotics? How do they compare within the class and with other drugs used for the conditions?
- Key Question 5 What is the effective dose and time limit for off-label indications?
- Summary and Discussion
- References
- Abbreviations and Acronyms
- Appendixes
Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services1, . Contract No. HHSA 290-2007-10062-1. Prepared by: Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center, Santa Monica, CA
Suggested citation:
Maglione M, Ruelaz Maher A, Hu J, Wang Z, Shanman R, Shekelle PG, Roth B, Hilton L, Suttorp MJ, Ewing BA, Motala A, Perry T. Off-Label Use of Atypical Antipsychotics: An Update. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 43. (Prepared by the Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. HHSA290-2007-10062-1.) Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. September 2011. Available at: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.
This report is based on research conducted by the Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. HHSA 290-2007-10062-1). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the author(s), who are responsible for its content, and do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. No statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The information in this report is intended to help clinicians, employers, policymakers, and others make informed decisions about the provision of health care services. This report is intended as a reference and not as a substitute for clinical judgment.
This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products or actions may not be stated or implied.
None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.
- 1
540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www
.ahrq.gov
- NLM CatalogRelated NLM Catalog Entries
- Review Summary of the comparative effectiveness review on off-label use of atypical antipsychotics.[J Manag Care Pharm. 2012]Review Summary of the comparative effectiveness review on off-label use of atypical antipsychotics.Maher AR, Theodore G. J Manag Care Pharm. 2012 Jun; 18(5 Suppl B):S1-20.
- Review Efficacy and comparative effectiveness of atypical antipsychotic medications for off-label uses in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.[JAMA. 2011]Review Efficacy and comparative effectiveness of atypical antipsychotic medications for off-label uses in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Maher AR, Maglione M, Bagley S, Suttorp M, Hu JH, Ewing B, Wang Z, Timmer M, Sultzer D, Shekelle PG. JAMA. 2011 Sep 28; 306(12):1359-69.
- Review Drug Class Review: Atypical Antipsychotic Drugs: Final Update 3 Report[ 2010]Review Drug Class Review: Atypical Antipsychotic Drugs: Final Update 3 ReportMcDonagh M, Peterson K, Carson S, Fu R, Thakurta S. 2010 Jul
- Review An open, large, 6-month naturalistic study of outcome in schizophrenic outpatients, treated with olanzapine.[Hum Psychopharmacol. 2011]Review An open, large, 6-month naturalistic study of outcome in schizophrenic outpatients, treated with olanzapine.Krzystanek M, Krupka-Matuszczyk I. Hum Psychopharmacol. 2011 Jan; 26(1):81-5. Epub 2011 Feb 9.
- Review First- and Second-Generation Antipsychotics in Children and Young Adults: Systematic Review Update[ 2017]Review First- and Second-Generation Antipsychotics in Children and Young Adults: Systematic Review UpdatePillay J, Boylan K, Carrey N, Newton A, Vandermeer B, Nuspl M, MacGregor T, Jafri SHA, Featherstone R, Hartling L. 2017 Mar
- Off-Label Use of Atypical Antipsychotics: An UpdateOff-Label Use of Atypical Antipsychotics: An Update
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...