Efficacy and safety of alcohol reduction pharmacotherapy according to treatment duration in patients with alcohol dependence or alcohol use disorder: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Relapse is common in alcohol dependence (AD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD), so alcohol reduction therapy should be measured over as long a period as possible; however, existing reviews do not consider the duration of treatment and therefore alcohol reduction therapy may not have been appropriately evaluated. This review evaluated the efficacy and safety of alcohol reduction pharmacotherapy in patients with AD or AUD according to the duration of treatment. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed 15 pharmacological agents. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for eligible trials through to May 2021. Outcomes were heavy drinking days (HDD), total alcohol consumption (TAC), any adverse event and days without drinking. RESULTS: Fifty-five RCTs (n = 8891) were included. Nalmefene was superior to placebo for reducing HDD (standard mean difference [SMD] -0.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.37, -0.18) and TAC (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.35, -0.16) in the long-term, but not in the short-term. Topiramate was superior to placebo for reducing HDD (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.59, -0.12) and days without drinking (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.11, 0.82), and baclofen was superior for reducing TAC (SMD -0.70, 95% CI -1.29, -0.11), in the short-term. The frequency of adverse events was higher with nalmefene and topiramate than with placebo. CONCLUSION: Nalmefene, topiramate and baclofen may be effective as alcohol reduction pharmacotherapy; however, only nalmefene has demonstrated long-term efficacy, and nalmefene and topiramate have a significantly higher frequency of adverse events compared with placebo.

Comparison between olanzapine and aripiprazole treatment for 104 weeks after hospital discharge in schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a multicenter retrospective cohort study in a real-world setting.

RATIONALE: The long-term effectiveness of olanzapine and aripiprazole in real clinical conditions at flexible doses in patients after hospital discharge has not been evaluated yet. OBJECTIVES: This study was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Patients with schizophrenia (n = 398) were prescribed olanzapine (n = 303) or aripiprazole (n = 95) at hospital discharge. The continuation of olanzapine or aripiprazole at 26, 52, or 104 weeks after the hospital discharge were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model and adjusted for possible confounders. RESULTS: The Kaplan-Meier survival curves revealed that the continuation of olanzapine at 26 (P = 0.001) and 52 weeks (P = 0.018) was significantly higher than that of aripiprazole but not at 104 weeks. Olanzapine was better than aripiprazole in efficacy at 26 (hazard ratio: 0.321, 95% confidence interval: 0.159-0.645, P = 0.001), 52 (hazard ratio: 0.405, 95% confidence interval: 0.209-0.786, P = 0.008), and 104 weeks (hazard ratio: 0.438, 95% confidence interval: 0.246-0.780, P = 0.005). Aripiprazole was better than olanzapine in tolerability at 104 weeks (hazard ratio: 4.574, 95% confidence interval: 1.415-14.787, P = 0.011). Rates after two years continuation of olanzapine and aripiprazole were not significantly different in patients with less than five years' duration of illness, but olanzapine was more commonly maintained for more than two years in those patients who had been ill for over five years' due to its greater efficacy. CONCLUSION: Olanzapine treatment showed better continuation rates at 26 and 52 after hospital discharge than aripiprazole, whereas maintenance with the two antipsychotics did not differ significantly at 104 weeks, due reduced tolerability of long-term olanzapine treatment.