Key result
Second-generation long-acting antipsychotic injections reduced PANSS scores more than placebo (Hedges's g=0.336; 95% CI 0.246-0.426; P<0.001) but showed no efficacy advantage over oral antipsychotics.
Why the study?
Do second-generation long-acting antipsychotic injections improve psychotic symptoms in patients with schizophrenia compared to placebo or oral antipsychotics?
Meta-Analysis (n=6,313)
Do second-generation long-acting antipsychotic injections improve psychotic symptoms in patients with schizophrenia compared to placebo or oral antipsychotics?
Standardized Mean Difference: 0.336 (95% CI 0.246–0.426)
p-value: p=<0.001
Second-generation long-acting antipsychotic injections are more effective than placebo but lack an advantage over oral medications in reducing psychotic symptoms in schizophrenia, while carrying a higher risk of extrapyramidal side effects.
Supports LAI preference only for adherence issues in schizophrenia; challenges efficacy superiority over orals and guides adherence-focused trials.
The aim of the present article is to test at a meta-analytical level the efficacy and safety of second-generation long-acting antipsychotic injections (SGLAI) in schizophrenia. Thirteen randomized-controlled trials comparing SGLAI with either placebo or oral antipsychotics were included in a quantitative meta-analysis (6313 patients). Efficacy and safety measures as well as demographic and clinical variables were extracted from each publication or obtained directly from authors. Publication bias was assessed with funnel plots and Egger's intercept. Heterogeneity was addressed with the Q statistic and the I² index. SGLAI were more effective than placebo injections [Hedges's g=0.336, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.246-0.426, Z=7.325, P<0.001] in reducing the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores, but no differences were observed compared with oral antipsychotics (Hedges's g=0.072, 95% CI -0.072 to 0.217, Z=0.983, P=0.326). There were more responders under SGLAI than placebo (47 vs. 24%, NNT 4, 95% CI 3-6), but no differences in comparison with oral antipsychotics [relative risk (RR)=0.962, P=0.094]. SGLAI and controls groups shared a common safety profile with respect to the number of deaths, overall number of treatment-adverse events, insomnia, QT prolongation, or pain in the injection site. There was a greater risk of developing extrapyramidal side effects with SGLAI than with placebo (RR=2.037, P<0.001) or with oral antipsychotics (RR=1.451, P=0.048). There was no evidence of publication bias (Egger's P=0.476), and sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of results. The present meta-analysis shows superior efficacy for the SGLAI over placebo on psychotic symptoms, although with a relatively small effect size; no evidence of superiority in efficacy over oral antipsychotics; and modest evidence of greater symptoms of extrapyramidal side effects. These data suggest that SGLAI lack an advantage in reducing psychotic symptoms over oral medications. Their potential effects on relapse prevention should be better addressed by future randomized-controlled trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fusar‐Poli et al. (2012) conducted a meta-analysis in Schizophrenia (n=6,313). Second-generation long-acting antipsychotic injections (SGLAI) vs. Placebo or oral antipsychotics was evaluated on Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores (Hedges's g 0.336, 95% CI 0.246-0.426, p=<0.001). Second-generation long-acting antipsychotic injections reduced PANSS scores more than placebo (Hedges's g=0.336; 95% CI 0.246-0.426; P<0.001) but showed no efficacy advantage over oral antipsychotics.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: