Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24062193›Full record

SynthesisCNS drugs2013

A review of the pharmacology, efficacy and tolerability of recently approved and upcoming oral antipsychotics: an evidence-based medicine approach.

Leslie Citrome

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in CNS drugs, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Asenapine: an atypical antipsychotic with atypical formulations.Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Leslie CitromeNew York Medical College, Valhalla, NY, USA, citrome@cnsconsultant.com.
New York Medical College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a broad concept, but the key elements include the incorporation of clinical judgment (which requires clinical experience) together with relevant scientific evidence while remaining mindful of the individual patient's values and preferences. Using the framework and philosophy of EBM, this systematic review summarizes the pharmacology, efficacy, and tolerability of newly approved oral antipsychotics, including iloperidone, asenapine, and lurasidone, and outlines what is known about agents that are in late-stage clinical development, such as cariprazine, brexpiprazole, zicronapine, bitopertin, and EVP-6124. Potential advantages and disadvantages of these agents over existing antipsychotics are outlined, centered on clinically relevant issues such as the potential for weight gain and metabolic abnormalities, potential association with somnolence/sedation, extra-pyramidal side effects, akathisia, and prolongation of the electrocardiogram (ECG) QT interval, as well as practical issues regarding dosing instructions, titration requirements, and drug-drug interactions. Lurasidone appears to be best in class in terms of minimizing untoward alterations in body weight and metabolic variables. However, iloperidone, asenapine, lurasidone, and cariprazine differ among themselves in terms of on-label dosing frequency (once daily for lurasidone and, presumably, cariprazine versus twice daily for iloperidone and asenapine), the need for initial titration to a therapeutic dose for iloperidone and possibly cariprazine, requirement to be taken sublingually for asenapine, requirement for administration with food for lurasidone, lengthening of the ECG QT interval (greater for iloperidone than for asenapine and no effect observed with lurasidone), and adverse effects such as akathisia (seen with cariprazine, lurasidone, and asenapine but not with iloperidone) and sedation (most notable with asenapine).

Indexed as

Antipsychotic AgentsDrug ApprovalAdministration, OralBipolar DisorderEvidence-Based MedicineHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSchizophreniaTreatment OutcomeAntipsychotic Agents

Identifiers

PMID24062193
OpenAlexW2037081441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.