Evaluation of Differences in Individual Treatment Response in Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders: A Meta-analysis

Stephanie Winkelbeiner; Stefan Leucht; John M. Kane; Philipp Homan

doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.1530

Key Points

Question听 Is there evidence from randomized clinical trials that patients respond differently to antipsychotic drugs?

Findings听 In this meta-analysis of 52 randomized clinical trials involving 15鈥�360 patients with a schizophrenia or schizoaffective diagnosis, the outcome variability in the antipsychotic drug treatment group was not higher but slightly lower than that in the placebo control group.

Meaning听 This study cannot rule out that individual differences in drug response might still exist, but it does question the assumption of a personal element of response to antipsychotic treatment.

Abstract

Importance听 An assumption among clinicians and researchers is that patients with schizophrenia vary considerably in their response to antipsychotic drugs in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

Objective听 To evaluate the overall variation in individual treatment response from random variation by comparing the variability between treatment and control groups.

Data Sources听 Cochrane Schizophrenia, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS Previews, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from January 1, 1955, to December 31, 2016.

Study Selection听 Double-blind, placebo-controlled, RCTs of adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorders and prescription for licensed antipsychotic drugs.

Data Extraction and Synthesis听 Means and SDs of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale pretreatment and posttreatment outcome difference scores were extracted. Data quality and validity were ensured by following the PRISMA guidelines.

Main Outcomes and Measures听 The outcome measure was the overall variability ratio of treatment to control in a meta-analysis across RCTs. Individual variability ratios were weighted by the inverse-variance method and entered into a random-effects model. A personal element of response was hypothesized to be reflected by a substantial overall increase in variability in the treatment group compared with the control group.

Results听 An RCT was simulated, comprising 30 patients with schizophrenia randomized to either the treatment or the control group. The different components of variation in RCTs were illustrated with simulated data. In addition, we assessed the variability ratio in 52 RCTs involving 15鈥�360 patients with a schizophrenia or schizoaffective diagnosis. The variability was slightly lower in the treatment compared with the control group (variability ratio鈥�=鈥�0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99; P鈥�=鈥�.01).

Conclusions and Relevance听 In this study, no evidence was found in RCTs that antipsychotic drugs increased the outcome variance, suggesting no personal element of response to treatment but instead indicating that the variance was slightly lower in the treatment group than in the control group; although the study cannot rule out that subsets of patients respond differently to treatment, it suggests that the average treatment effect is a reasonable assumption for the individual patient.

Introduction

Personalized medicine is based on a widely held assumption that patients differ substantially in their response to treatments. The goal of personalized medicine is to find the right treatment for the right patient. Psychiatry is no exception. An assumption among clinicians and researchers alike is that the response to antipsychotic drugs by patients with psychosis differs considerably between individuals.¹

We report that this assumption may be ungrounded. Although variation in the observed treatment responses obviously exists, it is crucial to distinguish between observed and true treatment response: observed response consists of true response plus regression to the mean, some placebo effects, and random terms such as (but not restricted to) measurement error. First, we exemplify why confusing observed with true treatment response is so common, and we use simulated data to show how variation that is purely random and unrelated to permanent differences in treatment response may suggest the need for personalized treatment. Next, we review the evidence of the differences in treatment response by conducting a meta-analysis of the variation in antipsychotic treatment trials. Although this issue is brought up by statisticians regularly,² it deserves more attention from a general psychiatric audience.

Where does the assumption of individual differences in treatment response come from? In general, antipsychotic drugs are assessed in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), the criterion standard for identifying the efficacy of a treatment. In RCTs, patients are assessed at baseline (eg, with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS]) and randomized to either a treatment or a control group. What RCTs can ultimately provide is an answer to whether a treatment works in general. This average treatment effect is derived from the direct comparison of the response between the treatment and the control groups, which is imperative in an RCT.³ Understandably, this answer may leave clinicians unsatisfied; after all, they are treating individual, and not typical, patients. From a clinical perspective, patients vary considerably in their response to antipsychotic drugs, and the general response may seem almost like an uninformed guess for the individual patient. Furthermore, clinicians seem to prefer categories such as normal or abnormal and responders or nonresponders to inform diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. A consequence is that many investigators now try to personalize medicine by aiming to tailor treatments to individual patients. They agree that response to treatment varies from patient to patient.

However, estimating individual response to treatment, known as the treatment-by-patient interaction, is more complex than often appreciated and depends on laborious study designs, such as repeated crossover trials.² However, as we illustrate with simulated data, such study designs are needed to distinguish individual response to treatment from other components of variation that are unrelated to permanent differences in treatment response.⁴^-7

By design, RCTs cannot estimate the treatment-by-patient interaction, the index of individual response. Although RCTs do not tell anything about individual response, they might indicate something about the presence of individual response. As recognized early by Fisher,⁸ an increase in variance in the treatment group compared with the control group could indicate the presence of variation in response to treatment.² The strength of this increase would then quantify the size of the personal element of response and provide evidence for the presence of a treatment-by-patient interaction.⁹ A method has been developed to compare variances between groups across studies¹⁰ and has been adopted by a meta-analysis package.¹¹ In psychiatry, this method has been applied to compare variances in brain structure¹² and inflammatory parameters in psychosis.¹³ This method compares the variance of treatment and control by computing their ratio: a ratio of 1 means equal variances, a ratio greater than 1 means more variability in the treatment group, and a ratio smaller than 1 means less variability in the treatment group compared with the control group.¹⁰^,12^,13

This study is organized in 2 parts. The first part illustrates the different components of variation in RCTs with simulated data, showing the importance of recognizing the treatment-by-patient interaction (which reflects individual treatment response) as the component of interest. The second part shows the results of a meta-analysis, which tested for the presence of treatment-by-patient interaction in empirical data from antipsychotic drug RCTs. We compared the overall variability in the treatment group with the overall variability in the control group, using data from a recently published meta-analysis,¹⁴ summarizing 24 years of placebo-controlled, antipsychotic RCTs in schizophrenia. We hypothesized that compared with control, the often-highlighted heterogeneity in patients with schizophrenia would be reflected by a clinically relevant increase in overall variance of treatment, outcome, which is compatible with a personal element of response that deviates from the estimated average treatment effects.

Methods

Trial Simulation

To illustrate the different components of variation in RCTs, we simulated data from patients with schizophrenia who were randomized to either the antipsychotic treatment or control group and assessed with the PANSS and a positive effect of treatment (Cohen d鈥�=鈥�1.32; t_27.5鈥�=鈥�3.46; P鈥�=鈥�.002). First, we added a single crossover condition with either a constant or a varying treatment effect, and then we added a double crossover to this simulated trial. With these additions, we show how the variability between and within patients has to be distinguished from the treatment-by-patient interaction, the component reflecting the individual differences in treatment response.

Meta-analysis

To ensure data quality and validity, this meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. We searched Cochrane Schizophrenia, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS Previews, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from January 1, 1955, to December 31, 2016.

Using the meta-analysis of Leucht et al¹⁵ as a basis, we included published and unpublished double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs of at least 3 weeks鈥� duration. These studies investigated adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorders and prescription for licensed antipsychotic medications, except clozapine. Studies were excluded if they investigated relapse prevention, patients with predominant negative symptoms, patients with major concomitant somatic or psychiatric illness, or intramuscular formulations of antipsychotic treatment, or if they were Chinese research. We included only studies that reported the necessary information (mean, SD, and sample size) of the PANSS pretreatment and posttreatment outcome difference scores.

In studies that combined comparisons of multiple antipsychotic drugs with placebo, we calculated an aggregated SD across all comparisons, leaving only 1 SD per study. We extracted the PANSS means and SDs of the pretreatment and posttreatment outcome difference scores as well as the sample sizes for the treatment and the control groups. Further information on the search strategy is published elsewhere.¹⁵

Statistical Analysis

The SDs of the pretreatment and posttreatment outcome difference scores in the treatment and control groups consist of the same variance components, including the within-patient variation. The treatment group, however, may also include the additional treatment-by-patient interaction, which could indicate the presence of individual response differences. Thus, in the case of a variable treatment effect, an increase of the variance in the treatment group, compared with the control group, should be observable. To assess this variation, we calculated for each comparison between antipsychotic and placebo drugs the relative variability of treatment and control as the log variability ratio (log VR)¹⁶ with

,

in which SD_Tx was the reported sample SD for treatment, SD_Ct was the reported sample SD for control, n_Tx was the treatment sample size, and n_Ct the control sample size.¹⁰ The corresponding sampling variance (SD²_logVR)for each comparison between antipsychotic and placebo drugs can be expressed as follows:

.

We did not find an association between the pretreatment and posttreatment outcome difference scores and their respective SDs in the data for the control group (尾鈥�=鈥�0.16; P鈥�=鈥�.15; eFigure 1A in the Supplement) or the treatment group (尾鈥�=鈥夆€�0.05; P鈥�=鈥�.63; eFigure 1B in the Supplement). For this reason, we did not consider the log coefficient of variation ratio (log CVR) as an additional index for comparing variabilities.¹⁰

We weighted each log VR with the inverse of this sampling variance¹¹ and entered it into a random-effects model. This approach allows for the quantification of the true individual response, after adjusting for within-patient variability and regression to the mean.⁵^,9 Results were back-transformed from the log scale for better interpretability, with a variability ratio higher than 1, indicating greater variability under treatment compared with control, and a ratio lower than 1, indicating less variability under treatment compared with control.

The analysis was performed from October 31, 2018, to March 29, 2019, with the R package metafor, version 2.0.0,¹¹ and the manuscript was produced with the R package knitr, version 1.20, in RStudio (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). All the data and code we used are freely available online to ensure reproducibility ().

Results

Simulation

We simulated an RCT of 30 patients with schizophrenia randomized to either the treatment or the control group. The individual pretreatment and posttreatment outcome differences (Figure 1A) might tempt us to infer that some patients in the treatment group responded better than others. We might then rank these patients according to their outcome and classify them as either responders or nonresponders. However, such ranking and classification can be misleading.

Although seemingly different (Figure 2A), adding a simulated crossover condition to the initial parallel trial may reveal that the apparent differences in improvement among patients in the treatment group vanish (Figure 2B) and the treatment effect may actually be constant across patients (Figure 2C). Such a scenario cannot be ruled out from the results of a parallel group trial. In addition, the same ranking (Figure 2A) may reflect yet another scenario, in which differences in improvement as calculated from a crossover condition may reverse the ranking (Figure 2D), such that patients who appeared to have improved the most had actually the smallest net improvement (Figure 2E). Apparent outcome differences among patients in an RCT may still be compatible with a constant treatment effect.

Next, outcome differences may also be found within patients. Assessing patients repeatedly over time might reveal that symptoms fluctuate randomly around the same mean score (Figure 3). This fluctuation shows that within-patient variability alone may suggest differences in treatment response that are a mere reflection of random fluctuation.

Again, we can add a simple crossover condition to the simulated parallel group trial (Figure 4A), in which each patient received both the treatment (antipsychotic drug) and control (placebo). Only by running the crossover trial once again (Figure 4B) can we determine whether the differences observed in the first crossover trial are indeed stable features of the patients. The net improvement from crossover trial 1 may not replicate in crossover trial 2, which indicates that the response differences are still not stable features of the patients (Figure 4C). For that stability to be the case, we would have to see a similar outcome in crossover trial 1 (Figure 4A) as in crossover trial 2 (Figure 4D), in which case we have identified a substantial treatment-by-patient interaction (Figure 4E).

A careful distinction of the sources of variation in a simulated RCT has shown that it is not trivial to distinguish the source of primary interest (treatment-by-patient interaction) from components that tell nothing about individual response. In the meta-analysis, we assessed whether evidence exists for such treatment-by-patient interaction across antipsychotic drug trials.

Meta-analysis

We investigated 75 comparisons of antipsychotic drug with placebo in 52 RCTs.¹⁷^-68 None of these studies used a design such as repeated crossovers that would have allowed for a direct estimate of individual responses. Overall, a total of 15鈥�360 patients with a schizophrenia or schizoaffective diagnosis were included, of whom 8550 (55.7%) had been randomized to the treatment group and 6810 (44.3%) to the control group (more details can be found in the eResults in the Supplement).

We found an overall lower variability in treatment compared with control (variability ratio鈥�=鈥�0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99; P鈥�=鈥�.01; Figure 5¹⁷^-68). This finding indicates that the overall variability across treatment groups was 3% lower compared with that in the control groups. Furthermore, we compared the variances in individual antipsychotic drug outcome and found the same pattern, with lower variability across treatment compared with control (variability ratio鈥�=鈥�0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-1.00; P鈥�=鈥�.02; eFigure 2 in the Supplement).

No evidence was found that antipsychotic treatment increased the outcome variance compared with the control. Instead, the outcome variance was slightly lower in the treatment than in the control group.

Discussion

A widespread belief among clinicians and researchers is that patients differ substantially in their antipsychotic treatment response, but finding evidence for this assumption is complex. A likely explanation, supported by the simulations conducted for this study, is that taking an observed treatment response as the true treatment response is tempting, compelling us to ignore the components of variation most likely encountered: random variation within patients and differences between patients. The existing empirical evidence for such individual differences is weaker than expected: No evidence was found that the antipsychotic drug increased the outcome variance compared with the placebo. Instead, the outcome variance was slightly lower in the treatment group. With this finding, we still cannot rule out that subsets of patients responded differently to treatment, but the overall small difference in variances suggests that the average treatment effect is a reasonable assumption for the individual patient. By assuming heterogeneity in treatment outcomes, we might ultimately introduce noise into clinical practice by refusing to go with the best available evidence, the average treatment effect derived from RCTs.²

Although RCTs are questioned regularly, sometimes using questionable arguments,⁶⁹ they remain the criterion standard in clinical research. They provide unbiased estimates of the relative efficacy of an intervention, which even the largest observational studies cannot provide.⁷⁰ In addition, appreciating the role of randomization in RCTs is important. Randomization is not compatible with the notion that specific features, such as placebo response, increase in one but not the other group in an RCT. If evidence existed of an enhanced placebo response over time, as has been suggested repeatedly in the past years,¹⁴ this response would have been apparent in both the control and the treatment groups because of randomization and thus would have canceled out. Furthermore, the concept of placebo response, although regularly investigated,⁷¹ cannot be studied by looking at the observed responses in control groups,⁷² for the same reasons that this approach does not work for the treatment groups, as this study has shown.

Comparing the variabilities between treatment and control groups may provide valuable insight into the presence of individual response and the scope of personalized medicine. Recently, other groups have taken a similar approach to assess the presence of individual differences in brain structure¹² and immunological parameters in psychosis.¹³ We assumed that, in the presence of a personal element of response to treatment, the variance in the treatment group should be higher compared with the control group, which in turn would require further investigation (eg, with n-of-1 trials).⁷³^-75 However, our results indicate that overall variability in the treatment groups was slightly lower, if only by a modest amount (1% to 5%). One explanation might be that the treatment had a stabilizing quality⁹ that reduced the variability in the treatment group. An example for such variance stabilization might be the floor effect, in which the assessment instrument is too coarse to capture patient improvements over a certain level.

Nevertheless, given the slightly lower variability under treatment compared with control found in this study, we cannot rule out that individual differences in response to antipsychotic drugs might still exist. A subset of ill patients may have responded well to treatment, whereas less affected patients may not have improved, resulting in an overall decreased variance under treatment than under control.⁹ Yet, the finding of a narrow CI around an overall only slightly lower variability suggests that substantial differences in drug response are rather unlikely. Thus, analyses aimed at estimating individual response might be premature until these differences have been shown to exist and to be clinically relevant.

As the simulations have shown, labeling patients as responders might be misleading. The label suggests that true response has been established as a permanent feature of the patient, even though the label is a mere reflection of the observed response, which includes true response plus regression to the mean, some placebo effect, and random terms such as measurement error. Thus, response rates that are calculated in RCTs reflect observed but not true response. We suggest that biomarker research aimed at identifying response to treatment of individuals or subgroups should consider the possibility that treatment outcome is less heterogeneous than anticipated and might even be close to constant across individuals.

Limitations

This meta-analysis has some limitations. First, the calculation of the pretreatment and posttreatment outcome difference scores varied between studies. Although some RCTs calculated the differences between outcome and baseline PANSS scores, others used analysis of covariances with the baseline PANSS scores and additional variables as covariates. Thus, some of the included SDs of change were adjusted for covariates but others were not. Second, the use of pretreatment and posttreatment outcome difference scores might lead to a loss of information and might not be sensitive enough to capture differences in response to treatment.⁷⁶ Third, we assumed that individual responses to treatment were reflected by increased variance in the treatment group. Yet, this increased variance could have also indicated the presence of subgroups who responded differently to the treatment.⁹ Such a case would argue for stratified medicine rather than personalized medicine, in which subgroups of patients receive varying treatments. As any interaction, a treatment-by-patient interaction is ultimately scale dependent, which means it can be removed by transformation of the scale.⁷⁷

Conclusions

Until the differences in individual response to treatment have been demonstrated with careful designs, the overall small differences in outcome variance suggest that the average treatment effect is a reasonable assumption for the individual patient.

Back to top

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: April 27, 2019.

Corresponding Authors: Stephanie Winkelbeiner, PhD, Center for Psychiatric Neuroscience, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, 75-59 263rd St, New York, NY 11004 (swinkelbei@northwell.edu); Philipp Homan, MD, PhD, Center for Psychiatric Neuroscience, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, 75-59 263rd St, New York, NY 11004 (phoman1@northwell.edu).

Published Online: June 3, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.1530

Author Contributions: Drs Homan and Winkelbeiner had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Winkelbeiner, Leucht, Homan.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Winkelbeiner, Homan.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Winkelbeiner, Homan.

Obtained funding: Winkelbeiner.

Administrative, technical, or material support: All authors.

Supervision: Homan.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Winkelbeiner reported grants from Swiss National Science Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr Leucht reported personal fees from LB Pharma International, H Lundbeck A/S, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, LTS Lohmann Therapy Systems, Gedeon Richter, Recordati SpA, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim and Sandoz, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Eli Lilly & Company, SanofiAventis, and Servier Laboratorie outside of the submitted work; reanalysis of a clinical trial together with Geodon Richter and the publication of its results; and honoraria from Johnson & Johnson, MSD, Angelini, and Sunovion. Dr Kane reported grants from Otsuka, Lundbeck, and Janssen, as well as other from Alkermes, Allergan, Forum, Genentech, Lundbeck, Intracellular Therapies, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Neurocrine, Otsuka, Pierre Fabre, Reviva, Roche, Sunovion, Takeda, Teva, Vanguard Research Group, and LB Pharmaceuticals outside of the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Meeting Presentation: The results of this study were presented at the World Congress of Biological Psychiatry, June 3, 2019, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Additional Contributions: The authors thank Majnu John, PhD, Department of Mathematics, Zucker School of Medicine at Northwell/Hofstra, for advice on the analysis of the current study, as well as Stephen Senn, PhD, Methodology and Statistics, Luxembourg Institute of Health, and Daniel Guinart, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Zucker School of Medicine at Northwell/Hofstra, for helpful comments on the manuscript. These individuals received no additional compensation, outside of their usual salary, for their contributions.

Additional Information: All data and code are freely available online to ensure reproducibility ().

References

1.

Garver 听DL, Holcomb 听JA, Christensen 听JD. 听Heterogeneity of response to antipsychotics from multiple disorders in the schizophrenia spectrum.听听J Clin Psychiatry. 2000;61(12):964-972. doi:

2.

Senn 听S. 听Mastering variation: variance components and personalised medicine.听听Stat Med. 2016;35(7):966-977. doi:

3.

Senn 听S. 听Trying to be precise about vagueness.听听Stat Med. 2007;26(7):1417-1430. doi:

4.

Homan 听P, Kane 听JM. 听Clozapine as an early-stage treatment.听听Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2018;138(4):279-280. doi:

5.

Hecksteden 听A, Kraushaar 听J, Scharhag-Rosenberger 听F, Theisen 听D, Senn 听S, Meyer 听T. 听Individual response to exercise training - a statistical perspective.听听J Appl Physiol (1985). 2015;118(12):1450-1459. doi:

6.

Hecksteden 听A, Pitsch 听W, Rosenberger 听F, Meyer 听T. 听Repeated testing for the assessment of individual response to exercise training.听听J Appl Physiol (1985). 2018;124(6):1567-1579. doi:

7.

Dworkin 听RH, McDermott 听MP, Farrar 听JT, O鈥機onnor 听AB, Senn 听S. 听Interpreting patient treatment response in analgesic clinical trials: implications for genotyping, phenotyping, and personalized pain treatment.听听笔补颈苍. 2014;155(3):457-460. doi:

8.

Bennett 听JH, ed. 听Statistical Inference and Analysis: Selected Correspondence of RA Fisher. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press; 1990. Cited by: Senn S. Seven myths of randomisation in clinical trials. Stat Med. 2013;32(9): 1439-1450. doi:

9.

Cort茅s 听J, Gonz谩lez 听JA, Medina 听MN, 听et al. 听Does evidence support the high expectations placed in precision medicine? A bibliographic review.听听F1000 Res. 2019;7:30. doi:

10.

Nakagawa 听S, Poulin 听R, Mengersen 听K, 听et al. 听Meta-analysis of variation: ecological and evolutionary applications and beyond.听听Methods Ecol Evol. 2015;6(2):143-152. doi:

11.

Viechtbauer 听W. 听Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package.听听J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1-48. doi:

12.

Brugger 听SP, Howes 听OD. 听Heterogeneity and homogeneity of regional brain structure in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis.听听JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(11):1104-1111. doi:

13.

Pillinger 听T, Osimo 听EF, Brugger 听S, Mondelli 听V, McCutcheon 听RA, Howes 听OD. 听A meta-analysis of immune parameters, variability, and assessment of modal distribution in psychosis and test of the immune subgroup hypothesis听[published November 8, 2018]. 听Schizophr Bull. 2018. doi:

14.

Leucht 听S, Leucht 听C, Huhn 听M, 听et al. 听Sixty years of placebo-controlled antipsychotic drug trials in acute schizophrenia: systematic review, bayesian meta-analysis, and meta-regression of efficacy predictors.听听Am J Psychiatry. 2017;174(10):927-942. doi:

15.

Leucht 听S, Davis 听JM. 听Do antipsychotic drugs lose their efficacy for relapse prevention over time?听听Br J Psychiatry. 2017;211(3):127-129. doi:

16.

Hedges 听LV, Nowell 听A. 听Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals.听听厂肠颈别苍肠别. 1995;269(5220):41-45. doi:

17.

Litman 听RE, Smith 听MA, Doherty 听JJ, 听et al. 听AZD8529, a positive allosteric modulator at the mGluR2 receptor, does not improve symptoms in schizophrenia: a proof of principle study.听听Schizophr Res. 2016;172(1-3):152-157. doi:

18.

StudyRIS. Office of Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmacy Review. NDA number: 20272. Janssen-Cilag; data on file 1996. Cited by: Leucht 听S, Leucht 听C, Huhn 听M, 听et al. 听Sixty years of placebo-controlled antipsychotic drug trials in acute schizophrenia: systematic review, bayesian meta-analysis, and meta-regression of efficacy predictors.听听Am J Psychiatry. 2017;174(10):927-942. doi:

19.

Daniel 听DG, Zimbroff 听DL, Potkin 听SG, Reeves 听KR, Harrigan 听EP, Lakshminarayanan 听M; Ziprasidone Study Group. 听Ziprasidone 80 mg/day and 160 mg/day in the acute exacerbation of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder: a 6-week placebo-controlled trial.听听狈别耻谤辞辫蝉测肠丑辞辫丑补谤尘补肠辞濒辞驳测. 1999;20(5):491-505. doi:

20.

Potkin 听SG, Litman 听RE, Torres 听R, Wolfgang 听CD. 听Efficacy of iloperidone in the treatment of schizophrenia: initial phase 3 studies.听听J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2008;28(2)(suppl 1):S4-S11. doi:

21.

Zborowski 听J, Schmitz 听P, Staser 听J, 听et al. 听Efficacy and safety of sertindole in a trial of schizophrenic patients.听听Biol Psychiatry. 1995;9(37):661-662. doi:

22.

Marder 听SR, Meibach 听RC. 听Risperidone in the treatment of schizophrenia.听听Am J Psychiatry. 1994;151(6):825-835. doi:

23.

Kane 听J, Canas 听F, Kramer 听M, 听et al. 听Treatment of schizophrenia with paliperidone extended-release tablets: a 6-week placebo-controlled trial.听听Schizophr Res. 2007;90(1-3):147-161. doi:

24.

Marder 听SR, Kramer 听M, Ford 听L, 听et al. 听Efficacy and safety of paliperidone extended-release tablets: results of a 6-week, randomized, placebo-controlled study.听听Biol Psychiatry. 2007;62(12):1363-1370. doi:

25.

Durgam 听S, Starace 听A, Li 听D, 听et al. 听An evaluation of the safety and efficacy of cariprazine in patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia: a phase II, randomized clinical trial.听听Schizophr Res. 2014;152(2-3):450-457. doi:

26.

Casey 听DE, Sands 听EE, Heisterberg 听J, Yang 听H-M. 听Efficacy and safety of bifeprunox in patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia: results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, dose-finding study.听听Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2008;200(3):317-331. doi:

27.

Potkin 听SG, Cohen 听M, Panagides 听J. 听Efficacy and tolerability of asenapine in acute schizophrenia: a placebo- and risperidone-controlled trial.听听J Clin Psychiatry. 2007;68(10):1492-1500. doi:

28.

Durgam 听S, Cutler 听AJ, Lu 听K, 听et al. 听Cariprazine in acute exacerbation of schizophrenia: a fixed-dose, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trial.听听J Clin Psychiatry. 2015;76(12):e1574-e1582. doi:

29.

Hirayasu 听Y, Tomioka 听M, Iizumi 听M, Kikuchi 听H. 听A double-blind, placebo-controlled, comparative study of paliperidone extended release (ER) tablets in patients with schizophrenia.听听Jpn J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2010;13:2077-2103.

30.

Hera021, 041-021SH. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose, 6-week trial of the efficacy and safety of asenapine compared with placebo using olanzapine positive control in subjects with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Medical review(s); 2009. Cited by: Leucht 听S, Leucht 听C, Huhn 听M, 听et al. 听Sixty years of placebo-controlled antipsychotic drug trials in acute schizophrenia: systematic review, bayesian meta-analysis, and meta-regression of efficacy predictors.听听Am J Psychiatry. 2017;174(10):927-942. doi:

31.

Ogasa 听M, Kimura 听T, Nakamura 听M, Guarino 听J. 听Lurasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia: a 6-week, placebo-controlled study.听听Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2013;225(3):519-530. doi:

32.

McEvoy 听JP, Daniel 听DG, Carson 听WH 听Jr, McQuade 听RD, Marcus 听RN. 听A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, study of the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole 10, 15 or 20 mg/day for the treatment of patients with acute exacerbations of schizophrenia.听听J Psychiatr Res. 2007;41(11):895-905. doi:

33.

Tzimos 听A, Samokhvalov 听V, Kramer 听M, 听et al. 听Safety and tolerability of oral paliperidone extended-release tablets in elderly patients with schizophrenia: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study with six-month open-label extension.听听Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2008;16(1):31-43. doi:

34.

ClinicalTrials.gov. A study of the efficacy and safety of asenapine in participants with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. Identifier: NCT01617187. . Accessed October 31, 2016.

35.

Nasrallah 听HA, Silva 听R, Phillips 听D, 听et al. 听Lurasidone for the treatment of acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia: a 6-week, randomized, placebo-controlled study.听听J Psychiatr Res. 2013;47(5):670-677. doi:

36.

Correll 听CU, Skuban 听A, Hobart 听M, 听et al. 听Efficacy of brexpiprazole in patients with acute schizophrenia: review of three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.听听Schizophr Res. 2016;174(1-3):82-92. doi:

37.

Canuso 听CM, Schooler 听N, Carothers 听J, 听et al. 听Paliperidone extended-release in schizoaffective disorder: a randomized, controlled study comparing a flexible dose with placebo in patients treated with and without antidepressants and/or mood stabilizers.听听J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2010;30(5):487-495. doi:

38.

Shen 听JH, Zhao 听Y, Rosenzweig-Lipson 听S, 听et al. 听A 6-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, comparator referenced trial of vabicaserin in acute schizophrenia.听听J Psychiatr Res. 2014;53:14-22. doi:

39.

Kane 听JM, Cohen 听M, Zhao 听J, Alphs 听L, Panagides 听J. 听Efficacy and safety of asenapine in a placebo- and haloperidol-controlled trial in patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia.听听J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2010;30(2):106-115. doi:

40.

Study93202. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Application number 21-436. Medical review(s); 2002. Cited by: Leucht 听S, Leucht 听C, Huhn 听M, 听et al. 听Sixty years of placebo-controlled antipsychotic drug trials in acute schizophrenia: systematic review, bayesian meta-analysis, and meta-regression of efficacy predictors.听听Am J Psychiatry. 2017;174(10):927-942. doi:

41.

Lieberman 听JA, Davis 听RE, Correll 听CU, 听et al. 听ITI-007 for the treatment of schizophrenia: A 4-week randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.听听Biol Psychiatry. 2016;79(12):952-961. doi:

42.

Bugarski-Kirola 听D, Wang 听A, Abi-Saab 听D, Bl盲ttler 听T. 听A phase II/III trial of bitopertin monotherapy compared with placebo in patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia: results from the CandleLyte study.听听Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2014;24(7):1024-1036. doi:

43.

van Kammen 听DP, McEvoy 听JP, Targum 听SD, Kardatzke 听D, Sebree 听TB. 听A randomized, controlled, dose-ranging trial of sertindole in patients with schizophrenia.听听Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1996;124(1-2):168-175. doi:

44.

Study94202. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Application number 21-436. Medical review(s); 2002. Cited by: Leucht 听S, Leucht 听C, Huhn 听M, 听et al. 听Sixty years of placebo-controlled antipsychotic drug trials in acute schizophrenia: systematic review, bayesian meta-analysis, and meta-regression of efficacy predictors.听听Am J Psychiatry. 2017;174(10):927-942. doi:

45.

Potkin 听SG, Saha 听AR, Kujawa 听MJ, 听et al. 听Aripiprazole, an antipsychotic with a novel mechanism of action, and risperidone vs placebo in patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.听听Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(7):681-690. doi:

46.

Litman 听RE, Smith 听MA, Desai 听DG, Simpson 听T, Sweitzer 听D, Kanes 听SJ. 听The selective neurokinin 3 antagonist AZD2624 does not improve symptoms or cognition in schizophrenia: a proof-of-principle study.听听J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2014;34(2):199-204. doi:

47.

Kinon 听BJ, Zhang 听L, Millen 听BA, 听et al; HBBI Study Group. 听A multicenter, inpatient, phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-ranging study of LY2140023 monohydrate in patients with DSM-IV schizophrenia.听听J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2011;31(3):349-355. doi:

48.

Kane 听JM, Carson 听WH, Saha 听AR, 听et al. 听Efficacy and safety of aripiprazole and haloperidol versus placebo in patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.听听J Clin Psychiatry. 2002;63(9):763-771. doi:

49.

Egan 听MF, Zhao 听X, Smith 听A, 听et al. 听Randomized controlled study of the T-type calcium channel antagonist MK-8998 for the treatment of acute psychosis in patients with schizophrenia.听听Hum Psychopharmacol. 2013;28(2):124-133. doi:

50.

Durgam 听S, Litman 听RE, Papadakis 听K, Li 听D, N茅meth 听G, Laszlovszky 听I. 听Cariprazine in the treatment of schizophrenia: a proof-of-concept trial.听听Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2016;31(2):61-68. doi:

51.

Barbato L, Newcomer J, Heisterberg J, Yeung P, Shapira N. Efficacy and metabolic profile of bifeprunox in patients with schizophrenia. Paper presented at: 11th International Congress on Schizophrenia Research; March 28 to April 1, 2007; Colorado Springs, CO.

52.

Study049. A 6-week, double-blind, randomized, fixed dose, parallel-group study of the efficacy and safety of three dose levels of SM-13496 (lurasidone) compared to placebo and haloperidol in patients with schizophrenia who are experiencing an acute exacerbation of symptoms. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; Medical review(s). 2010. Cited by: Leucht 听S, Leucht 听C, Huhn 听M, 听et al. 听Sixty years of placebo-controlled antipsychotic drug trials in acute schizophrenia: systematic review, bayesian meta-analysis, and meta-regression of efficacy predictors.听听Am J Psychiatry. 2017;174(10):927-942. doi:

53.

Meltzer 听HY, Cucchiaro 听J, Silva 听R, 听et al. 听Lurasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-and olanzapine-controlled study. Am J Psychiatry.听2011;168(9):957-967. doi:

54.

Meltzer 听HY, Barbato 听L, Heisterberg 听J, Yeung 听P, Shapira 听N. 听A randomized, doubleblind, placebo-controlled efficacy and safety study of bifeprunox as treatment for patients with acutely exacerbated schizophrenia.听听Schizophr Bull. 2007;33(2):446.

55.

Loebel 听A, Cucchiaro 听J, Sarma 听K, 听et al. 听Efficacy and safety of lurasidone 80 mg/day and 160 mg/day in the treatment of schizophrenia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trial.听听Schizophr Res. 2013;145(1-3):101-109. doi:

56.

Kane 听JM, Zukin 听S, Wang 听Y, 听et al. 听Efficacy and safety of cariprazine in acute exacerbation of schizophrenia: results from an international, phase III clinical trial.听听J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2015;35(4):367-373.

57.

Garcia 听E, Robert 听M, Peris 听F, Nakamura 听H, Sato 听N, Terazawa 听Y. 听The efficacy and safety of blonanserin compared with haloperidol in acute-phase schizophrenia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study.听听CNS Drugs. 2009;23(7):615-625. doi:

58.

Davidson 听M, Emsley 听R, Kramer 听M, 听et al. 听Efficacy, safety and early response of paliperidone extended-release tablets (paliperidone ER): results of a 6-week, randomized, placebo-controlled study.听听Schizophr Res. 2007;93(1-3):117-130. doi:

59.

Canuso 听CM, Lindenmayer 听J-P, Kosik-Gonzalez 听C, 听et al. 听A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 2 dose ranges of paliperidone extended-release in the treatment of subjects with schizoaffective disorder.听听J Clin Psychiatry. 2010;71(5):587-598. doi:

60.

Hera022, SH H 041-022. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose, 6-week trial of the efficacy and safety of asenapine compared with placebo using olanzapine positive control in subjects with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; Medical review(s); 2009.Cited by: Leucht 听S, Leucht 听C, Huhn 听M, 听et al. 听Sixty years of placebo-controlled antipsychotic drug trials in acute schizophrenia: systematic review, bayesian meta-analysis, and meta-regression of efficacy predictors.听听Am J Psychiatry. 2017;174(10):927-942. doi:

61.

Nakamura 听M, Ogasa 听M, Guarino 听J, 听et al. 听Lurasidone in the treatment of acute schizophrenia: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.听听J Clin Psychiatry. 2009;70(6):829-836. doi:

62.

Study115. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Approval package for application number 20-825. Medical review(s); 2000. Cited by: Leucht 听S, Leucht 听C, Huhn 听M, 听et al. 听Sixty years of placebo-controlled antipsychotic drug trials in acute schizophrenia: systematic review, bayesian meta-analysis, and meta-regression of efficacy predictors.听听Am J Psychiatry. 2017;174(10):927-942. doi:

63.

Beasley 听CM 听Jr, Sanger 听T, Satterlee 听W, Tollefson 听G, Tran 听P, Hamilton 听S. 听Olanzapine versus placebo: results of a double-blind, fixed-dose olanzapine trial.听听Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1996;124(1-2):159-167. doi:

64.

Lindenmayer 听J-P, Brown 听D, Liu 听S, Brecher 听M, Meulien 听D. 听The efficacy and tolerability of once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate in hospitalized patients with acute schizophrenia: a 6-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.听听Psychopharmacol Bull. 2008;41(3):11-35.

65.

Schmidt 听ME, Kent 听JM, Daly 听E, 听et al. 听A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study with JNJ-37822681, a novel, highly selective, fast dissociating D₂ receptor antagonist in the treatment of acute exacerbation of schizophrenia.听听Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2012;22(10):721-733. doi:

66.

Meltzer 听HY, Arvanitis 听L, Bauer 听D, Rein 听W; Meta-Trial Study Group. 听Placebo-controlled evaluation of four novel compounds for the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.听听Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161(6):975-984. doi:

67.

Coppola 听D, Melkote 听R, Lannie 听C, 听et al. 听Efficacy and safety of paliperidone extended release 1.5 mg/day-a double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, study in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia.听听Psychopharmacol Bull. 2011;44(2):54-72.

68.

Chouinard 听G, Jones 听B, Remington 听G, 听et al. 听A Canadian multicenter placebo-controlled study of fixed doses of risperidone and haloperidol in the treatment of chronic schizophrenic patients.听听J Clin Psychopharmacol. 1993;13(1):25-40. doi:

69.

Senn 听S. 听Seven myths of randomisation in clinical trials.听听Stat Med. 2013;32(9):1439-1450. doi:

70.

Leucht 听S, Davis 听JM. 听Enthusiasm and skepticism about using national registers to analyze psychotropic drug outcomes.听听JAMA Psychiatry. 2018;75(4):314-315. doi:

71.

Kubo 听K, Fleischhacker 听WW, Suzuki 听T, Yasui-Furukori 听N, Mimura 听M, Uchida 听H. 听Placebo effects in adult and adolescent patients with schizophrenia: combined analysis of nine RCTs.听听Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2019;139(2):108-116. doi:

72.

Hr贸bjartsson 听A, G酶tzsche 听PC. 听Is the placebo powerless? an analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment.听听N Engl J Med. 2001;344(21):1594-1602. doi:

73.

Senn 听S. 听Applying results of randomised trials to patients. N of 1 trials are needed.听听叠惭闯. 1998;317(7157):537-538. doi:

74.

Wang 听R, Lagakos 听SW, Ware 听JH, Hunter 听DJ, Drazen 听JM. 听Statistics in medicine鈥搑eporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials.听听N Engl J Med. 2007;357(21):2189-2194. doi:

75.

Araujo 听A, Julious 听S, Senn 听S. 听Understanding variation in sets of N-of-1 trials.听听PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0167167. doi:

76.

Joyce 听DW, Tracy 听DK, Shergill 听SS. 听Are we failing clinical trials? a case for strong aggregate outcomes.听听Psychol Med. 2018;48(2):177-186. doi:

77.

Gonz谩lez 听AB, Cox 听DR. 听Interpretation of interaction: a review.听听Ann Appl Stat. 2007;1(2):371-385. doi:

糖心vlog