Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35900760›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Association of Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics and Oral Antipsychotics With Disease Relapse, Health Care Use, and Adverse Events Among People With Schizophrenia.

Yue Wei, Vincent K C Yan, Wei Kang, Ian C K Wong, David J Castle, Le Gao, Celine S L Chui, Kenneth K C Man, Joseph F Hayes, Wing Chung Chang and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.3field-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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Yue WeiCentre for Safe Medication Practice and Research, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administration Region (SAR), China.
Vincent K C YanCentre for Safe Medication Practice and Research, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administration Region (SAR), China.
Wei KangCentre for Safe Medication Practice and Research, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administration Region (SAR), China.
Ian C K WongCentre for Safe Medication Practice and Research, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administration Region (SAR), China.
David J CastleCentre for Addiction and Mental Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Le GaoCentre for Safe Medication Practice and Research, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administration Region (SAR), China.
Celine S L ChuiLaboratory of Data Discovery for Health, Hong Kong Science and Technology Park, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Kenneth K C ManCentre for Safe Medication Practice and Research, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administration Region (SAR), China.
Joseph F HayesDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Wing Chung ChangDepartment of Psychiatry, Queen Mary Hospital, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Esther W ChanCentre for Safe Medication Practice and Research, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administration Region (SAR), China.
University of Hong Kong · HKUniversity College London · GBHong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation · CNLaboratory of Data Discovery for HealthQueen Mary Hospital · CNUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Evidence for improved clinical outcomes with long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIAs) vs oral antipsychotics (OAs) is limited in Asian populations and special patient groups, including older people (>65 years), people with substance use, and early initiators of LAIAs. Objective: To compare the risk of disease relapse, health care use, and adverse events associated with the use of LAIAs vs OAs among people in Hong Kong with schizophrenia. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this self-controlled case series study, individuals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia who were prescribed LAIAs and OAs between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2019, were identified from the Clinical Database Analysis and Reporting System of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. Data analysis was conducted from May to August in 2021. Exposures: Use of LAIAs vs OAs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk of disease relapse (hospitalizations for psychiatric disorders, hospitalizations for schizophrenia, and suicide attempts), health care use (all-cause emergency department visits and hospitalizations), and adverse events (hospitalizations for somatic disorders, hospitalizations for cardiovascular diseases, and extrapyramidal symptoms) between the period in which patients were treated with LAIAs and the period in which patients were treated with OAs were compared using Poisson regression. Results: Of the 70 396 individuals with schizophrenia (37 200 women [52.8%]; mean [SD] age, 44.2 [15.8] years), 23 719 (33.7%) were prescribed both LAIAs and OAs. Compared with OAs, LAIAs were associated with a lower risk of hospitalizations for any cause (n = 20 973; incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.61-0.65]), hospitalizations for psychiatric disorders (n = 19 283; IRR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.50-0.53]), hospitalizations for schizophrenia (n = 18 385; IRR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.51-0.55]), and incident suicide attempts (n = 1453; IRR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.44-0.71]). During full treatment with LAIAs, there was a reduction in hospitalizations for somatic disorders (n = 15 396; IRR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.85-0.91]), hospitalizations for cardiovascular diseases (n = 3710; IRR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.81-0.96]), and extrapyramidal symptoms (n = 22 182; IRR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.82-0.91]) compared with full treatment with OAs. No significant difference was found for emergency department visits. Similar associations were observed during the subsequent treatment periods (beyond 90 days) and among older people and those with substance use, except for an increased risk of extrapyramidal symptoms among older people when initiating LAIAs (first 90 days). Compared with late initiators, early LAIA initiators had a greater reduction in these outcome events. Conclusions and Relevance: This self-controlled case series study of people in Hong Kong with schizophrenia suggests that LAIAs were associated with a lower risk of disease relapse and hospitalization than OAs, without an increased risk of adverse events. Clinicians should more broadly consider the long-term use of LAIAs for Chinese people with schizophrenia, especially early in the course of illness.

Indexed as

Antipsychotic AgentsCardiovascular DiseasesSchizophreniaSubstance-Related DisordersAdultAgedChronic DiseaseDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansRecurrenceAntipsychotic Agents

Identifiers

PMID35900760
PMCPMC9335136
OpenAlexW4288442693

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.