SynthesisNeuropsychopharmacology reports2020
Lurasidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine extended-release for bipolar depression: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of phase 3 trials in Japan.
Synthesis in Neuropsychopharmacology reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Practice Guidelines for Bipolar Disorder by the JSMD (Japanese Society of Mood Disorders).Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2024Guideline
- Lurasidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine extended-release for bipolar depression: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of phase 3 trials in Japan.Neuropsychopharmacology reports · 2020Pooled it
- Risk of Drug-induced Movement Disorders with Newer Antipsychotic Agents.Tremor and other hyperkinetic movements (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis systematic review and random-effect model, network meta-analysis of the phase 3 trials in Japan assessed the efficacy and safety profile of lurasidone compared with olanzapine and quetiapine extended-release (QUE-XR) for the treatment of bipolar depression.
methodsThe study included double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials in Japan that included patients with bipolar depression. Outcomes included response rate (primary), remission rate (secondary), improvement of Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score, discontinuation rates, and incidence of individual adverse events.
resultsThree studies were included (n = 1223). Lurasidone and olanzapine but not QUE-XR were superior to placebo in response rate [risk ratio (95% credible interval): lurasidone = 0.78 (0.66, 0.92); olanzapine = 0.84 (0.71, 0.99); QUE-XR = 0.87 (0.73, 1.03)]. Lurasidone, olanzapine and QUE-XR were superior to placebo in remission rate [lurasidone = 0.90 (0.83, 0.98); olanzapine = 0.87 (0.77, 0.99); QUE-XR = 0.84 (0.73, 0.98)] and the improvement of MADRS total score. There were not differences in discontinuation rates between each antipsychotic and placebo. Compared with placebo, lurasidone was higher incidence of akathisia, and increased body weight and blood prolactin level; olanzapine was higher incidence of somnolence and ≥7% weight gain, and increased body weight, blood total cholesterol level, blood LDL cholesterol level, and blood triglyceride levels; QUE-XR was higher incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms, akathisia, somnolence, dry mouth, constipation and ≥7% weight gain, and increased body weight, blood total cholesterol level, blood LDL cholesterol level, and blood triglyceride levels.
conclusionsOur results suggested although the efficacy of three SGAs was similar, there were the differences in the safety profile among the SGAs.
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.