Trial reportNeuropsychopharmacology reports2019
Quetiapine extended-release vs olanzapine for Japanese patients with bipolar depression: A Bayesian analysis.
Trial report in Neuropsychopharmacology reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quetiapine extended-release vs olanzapine for Japanese patients with bipolar depression: A Bayesian analysis.Neuropsychopharmacology reports · 2019Trial
- Neurological and metabolic related pathophysiologies and treatment of comorbid diabetes with depression.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2024Review
- Pharmacological Treatment of Bipolar Depression: A Review of Observational Studies.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIt is unknown whether there are differences in efficacy and safety between quetiapine extended-release, 300 mg/d (QUEXR300), and olanzapine, 5-20 mg/d (OLA), for Japanese patients with bipolar depression.
methodsWe conducted a Bayesian analysis of data from phase 3 studies in Japan of QUEXR300 and OLA. Outcomes were remission rate (primary), response rate, improvement on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores, discontinuation rate, and incidence of individual adverse events. We calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) and the risk ratio (RR) and 95% credible interval (95% CrI) for continuous and dichotomous data, respectively.
resultsThere were no significant differences between QUEXR300 and OLA for any of the efficacy outcomes. QUEXR300 was associated with a higher incidence of somnolence than OLA (RR = 5.517; 95% CrI = 1.563, 19.787), while OLA was associated with greater increase body weight (SMD = -0.488; 95% CrI = -0.881, -0.089) and blood prolactin levels (SMD = -0.642; 95% CrI = -1.073, -0.213) than QUEXR300, and a greater decrease in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (SMD = -0.408; 95% CrI = -0.785, -0.030) than QUEXR300.
conclusionAlthough the two drugs' efficacy did not differ, OLA increased the risk of metabolic syndrome and QUEXR300 the risk of somnolence. A large scale, long-term, head-to-head comparison study of QUEXR300 vs OLA for Japanese patients with bipolar depression is needed to confirm the results of the current study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.