Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Antipsychotic augmentation vs. monotherapy in schizophrenia: systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis

  • Britta Galling
  • , Alexandra Roldán
  • , Katsuhiko Hagi
  • , Liz Rietschel
  • , Frozan Walyzada
  • , Wei Zheng
  • , Xiao Lan Cao
  • , Yu Tao Xiang
  • , Mathias Zink
  • , John M. Kane
  • , Jimmi Nielsen
  • , Stefan Leucht
  • , Christoph U. Correll
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin
  • Zucker Hillside Hospital
  • Hofstra North Shore-Long Island Jewish School of Medicine
  • Autonomous University of Barcelona
  • Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co.
  • University of Bern
  • Guangzhou Medical College
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong
  • University of Macau
  • Heidelberg University 
  • Northwell Health System
  • Albert Einstein College of Medicine
  • Aalborg University
  • Technical University of Munich

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

218 Scopus citations

Abstract

Antipsychotic polypharmacy in schizophrenia is much debated, since it is common and costly with unclear evidence for its efficacy and safety. We conducted a systematic literature search and a random effects meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing augmentation with a second antipsychotic vs. continued antipsychotic monotherapy in schizophrenia. Co-primary outcomes were total symptom reduction and study-defined response. Antipsychotic augmentation was superior to monotherapy regarding total symptom reduction (16 studies, N=694, standardized mean difference, SMD=–0.53, 95% CI: −0.87 to −0.19, p=0.002). However, superiority was only apparent in open-label and low-quality trials (both p<0.001), but not in double-blind and high-quality ones (p=0.120 and 0.226, respectively). Study-defined response was similar between antipsychotic augmentation and monotherapy (14 studies, N=938, risk ratio = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.42, p=0.061), being clearly non-significant in double-blind and high-quality studies (both p=0.990). Findings were replicated in clozapine and non-clozapine augmentation studies. No differences emerged regarding all-cause/specific-cause discontinuation, global clinical impression, as well as positive, general and depressive symptoms. Negative symptoms improved more with augmentation treatment (18 studies, N=931, SMD=–0.38, 95% CI: −0.63 to −0.13, p<0.003), but only in studies augmenting with aripiprazole (8 studies, N=532, SMD=–0.41, 95% CI: −0.79 to −0.03, p=0.036). Few adverse effect differences emerged: D2 antagonist augmentation was associated with less insomnia (p=0.028), but more prolactin elevation (p=0.015), while aripiprazole augmentation was associated with reduced prolactin levels (p<0.001) and body weight (p=0.030). These data suggest that the common practice of antipsychotic augmentation in schizophrenia lacks double-blind/high-quality evidence for efficacy, except for negative symptom reduction with aripiprazole augmentation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)77-89
Number of pages13
JournalWorld Psychiatry
Volume16
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2017

Keywords

  • Antipsychotics
  • aripiprazole
  • augmentation
  • clozapine
  • monotherapy
  • polypharmacy
  • schizophrenia

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Antipsychotic augmentation vs. monotherapy in schizophrenia: systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this