Systematic review of interventions for treating or preventing antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia

Author:

Bergman Hanna1,Walker Dawn-Marie2,Nikolakopoulou Adriani3,Soares-Weiser Karla4,Adams Clive E5

Affiliation:

1. Cochrane Response, Cochrane, London, UK

2. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

3. Institute of Social and Preventative Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

4. Cochrane Editorial Unit and Cochrane Innovations, Cochrane, London, UK

5. Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Abstract

BackgroundAntipsychotic medication can cause tardive dyskinesia (TD) – late-onset, involuntary, repetitive movements, often involving the face and tongue. TD occurs in > 20% of adults taking antipsychotic medication (first-generation antipsychotics for > 3 months), with this proportion increasing by 5% per year among those who continue to use these drugs. The incidence of TD among those taking newer antipsychotics is not different from the rate in people who have used older-generation drugs in moderate doses. Studies of TD have previously been found to be limited, with no treatment approach shown to be effective.ObjectivesTo summarise the clinical effectiveness and safety of treatments for TD by updating past Cochrane reviews with new evidence and improved methods; to undertake public consultation to gauge the importance of the topic for people living with TD/the risk of TD; and to make available all data from relevant trials.Data sourcesAll relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.Review methodsCochrane review methods, network meta-analysis (NMA).DesignSystematic reviews, patient and public involvement consultation and NMA.SettingAny setting, inpatient or outpatient.ParticipantsFor systematic reviews, adults with TD who have been taking a stable antipsychotic drug dose for > 3 months.InterventionsAny, with emphasis on those relevant to UK NHS practice.Main outcome measuresAny measure of TD, global assessments and adverse effects/events.ResultsWe included 112 studies (nine Cochrane reviews). Overall, risk of bias showed little sign of improvement over two decades. Taking the outcome of ‘TD symptoms improved to a clinically important extent’, we identified two trials investigating reduction of antipsychotic dose [n = 17, risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.04; very low quality]. Switching was investigated twice in trials that could not be combined (switching to risperidone vs. antipsychotic withdrawal: one RCT,n = 42, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.89; low quality; switching to quetiapine vs. haloperidol: one RCT,n = 45, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.22; low quality). In addition to RCTs, six observational studies compared antipsychotic discontinuation with decreased or increased dosage, and there was no clear evidence that any of these strategies had a beneficial effect on TD symptoms (very low-quality evidence). We evaluated the addition to standard antipsychotic care of several treatments, but not anticholinergic treatments, for which we identified no trials. We found no clear effect of the addition of either benzodiazepines (two RCTs,n = 32, RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.6 to 2.09; very low quality) or vitamin E (six RCTs,n = 264, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.01; low quality). Buspirone as an adjunctive treatment did have some effect in one small study (n = 42, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.84; low quality), as did hypnosis and relaxation (one RCT,n = 15, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.94; very low quality). We identified no studies focusing on TD in people with dementia. The NMA model found indirect estimates to be imprecise and failed to produce useful summaries on relative effects of interventions or interpretable results for decision-making. Consultation with people with/at risk of TD highlighted that management of TD remains a concern, and found that people are deeply disappointed at the length of time it has taken researchers to address the issue.LimitationsMost studies remain small and poorly reported.ConclusionsClinicians, policy-makers and people with/at risk of TD are little better informed than they were decades ago. Underpowered trials of limited quality repeatedly fail to provide answers.Future workTD reviews have data from current trials extracted, tabulated and traceable to source. The NMA highlights one context in which support for this technique is ill advised. All relevant trials, even if not primarily addressing the issue of TD, should report appropriate binary outcomes on groups of people with this problem. Randomised trials of treatments for people with established TD are indicated. These should be large (> 800 participants), necessitating accrual through accurate local/national registers, including an intervention with acceptable treatments and recording outcomes used in clinical practice.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD4201502045.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Funder

Health Technology Assessment programme

Publisher

National Institute for Health Research

Subject

Health Policy

Cited by 34 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3