岸 太郎

We conducted a random-effects model network meta-analysis to examine differences between lemborexant and suvorexant in efficacy and safety outcomes for treating patients with insomnia. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL from their inception until April/28/2020. Primary outcomes were subjective time to sleep onset (sTSO), subjective total sleep time (sTST), and subjective wake-after-sleep onset (sWASO) at week 1. Four double-blind, randomized controlled trials were identified (n = 3237; 72.4% female; mean age 58.0 years). The treatment arm consisted of lemborexant 10 mg/d (LEM10, n = 592), lemborexant 5 mg/d (LEM5, n = 589), suvorexant 20/15 mg/d (SUV20/15, n = 493), zolpidem tartrate extended release 6.25 mg/d (ZOL6.25, n = 263), and placebo (n = 1300). All active treatments outperformed placebo regarding sTSO at week 1; standardized mean differences (95% credible interval): LEM10 = -0.51 (-0.63, -0.39), LEM5 = -0.48 (-0.60, -0.36), SUV20/15 = -0.21 (-0.33, -0.10), and ZOL6.25 = -0.30 (-0.46, -0.14); sTST at week 1: LEM10 = -0.58 (-0.70, -0.45), LEM5 = -0.33 (-0.46, -0.21), SUV20/15 = -0.34 (-0.46, -0.23), and ZOL6.25 = -0.42 (-0.59, -0.25); and sWASO at week 1: LEM10 = -0.42 (-0.57, -0.28), LEM5 = -0.26 (-0.40, -0.11), SUV20/15 = -0.18 (-0.32, -0.05), and ZOL6.25 = -0.37 (-0.56, -0.18). Although no significant differences were found in discontinuation due to adverse events between each active drug and placebo, LEM10 and SUV20/15 were associated with greater somnolence compared with placebo. LEM10 had the largest effect size compared with placebo for all primary outcomes, although with a risk of somnolence.

This study investigated factors associated with discontinuation in double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (DBRPCTs) of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for acute schizophrenia, with a view to establishing what factors were associated with all-cause discontinuation. 77 eligible studies (96 comparisons; n = 22,678) were included in this study. Thirty-one factors potentially affecting all-cause discontinuation, related to the participants, study design, and drugs, were included in a meta-regression analysis that examined the factors associated with discontinuation rates in treatment and placebo groups and/or the treatment-placebo group difference in discontinuation. Smaller improvements in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total scores from baseline to endpoint were associated with higher discontinuation rates in both the treatment and placebo groups, and smaller response rates in the treatment group were associated with higher discontinuation rates in the treatment group. These factors were also associated with the treatment-placebo group difference in discontinuation. Although the risk of weight gain from SGA use was not associated with discontinuation rates in either the treatment or placebo groups, SGAs with a risk of weight gain were associated with a larger treatment-placebo group difference in discontinuation, although the reason is unknown. Factors associated with discontinuation rates in both treatment and placebo groups did not influence the treatment-placebo group difference in discontinuation. The efficacy and the risk of weight gain of SGAs seemed to influence treatment-placebo group difference in discontinuation in DBRPCTs of SGAs for acute schizophrenia.

INTRODUCTION: Considering that the efficacy results of the Japan lurasidone phase 3 trials for acute schizophrenia were inconsistent, we conducted a systematic review and a random-effect model network meta-analysis of those trials to examine whether lurasidone was beneficial for the treatment of Japanese patients with acute schizophrenia. METHODS: The study included the double-blind, randomized trial in Japan that included patients with acute schizophrenia. Efficacy outcomes were improvement of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score (PANSS-T, primary), positive (PANSS-P), negative (PANSS-N), and general (PANSS-G) subscale scores; and Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S) score and response rate. Other outcomes were discontinuation rates and incidence of individual adverse events. RESULTS: We included four studies (n = 1,608). Although both lurasidone 40 mg/d (LUR40) and 80 mg/d (LUR80) outperformed placebo in PANSS-T [standardized mean difference (95% credible interval): LUR40 = -0.298 (-0.420, -0.176), LUR80 = -0.170 (-0.320, -0.019)], PANSS-P, and CGI-S scores, LUR40 but not LUR80 outperformed placebo in PANSS-N and PANSS-G scores and response rate. LUR40 outperformed LUR80 regarding PANSS-G score. Both LUR40 and LUR80 were associated with a higher incidence of akathisia, somnolence, and increased body weight compared with placebo. Compared with placebo, LUR40 was associated with a higher incidence of weight gain (≥7%), and LUR80 was associated with a higher incidence of dystonia and weight loss (≥7%) and higher Drug-Induced Extrapyramidal Symptoms Scale score. CONCLUSIONS: Both LUR40 and LUR80 improved overall symptoms in Japanese patients with acute schizophrenia. However, LUR80 seemed to have a risk of extrapyramidal symptoms.

RATIONALE: It remains unclear whether using N-acetylcysteine as an adjunctive treatment has any benefit for bipolar depression and major depressive disorder. OBJECTIVES: A systematic review and random-effect meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trials was conducted to explore the clinical question. METHODS: Outcomes included improvement in depression scale scores (primary), Young Mania Rating Scale score, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale score, Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S) score, Global Assessment of Functioning Scale score, Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale score, Range of Impaired Functioning Tool score, Streamed Longitudinal Interval Clinical Evaluation for the Longitudinal Interview Follow-Up Evaluation score, quality of life scales scores, and the incidence of all-cause discontinuation and individual adverse events. RESULTS: Seven studies (n = 728, 8-24 weeks, mean age = 46.81, % female = 58.45%) were included. N-acetylcysteine did not improve depressive symptoms compared with placebo (N = 7, n = 579, standardized mean difference (SMD) = - 0.12, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = - 0.38, 0.14, p = 0.38, I2 = 52.74%). The meta-regression analysis detected an association between effect size and publication year (coefficient = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.00, 0.11, p = 0.04, I2 = 27.56%). Although N-acetylcysteine was superior to placebo in CGI-S score (N = 6, n = 563, SMD = - 0.28, 95% CI = - 0.47, - 0.10, p < 0.01, I2 = 14.88%), there was no significant difference in the other efficacy outcomes between the treatment groups. Although N-acetylcysteine was associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with placebo (N = 4, n = 537, risk ratio = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.37, 2.32, p < 0.01, I2 = 0.00%, number needed to treat to harm = 7), there was no significant difference in all-cause discontinuation and other safety outcomes between the treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Although N-acetylcysteine decreased CGI-S score, no specific improvements in symptoms were identified.

BACKGROUND: The exact recurrence rate of bipolar disorder in patients receiving lithium maintenance phase treatment and the modifiers associated with recurrence are still unknown. METHODS: We searched Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL from inception until April 28, 2020. Outcomes included recurrence rate of any mood episode, depressive episodes, and manic/hypomanic/mixed episodes; all-cause discontinuation rate; and discontinuation rate due to adverse events. A random-effects model, single-group summary meta-analysis was conducted. A meta-regression analysis to examine whether the modifiers (total number of patients, %female, mean age, duration of study, duration of preliminary phase, publication year, bipolar disorder type, mood status at recruitment, presence of a placebo arm, sponsorship, enrichment design, number of treatment arms, and risk of bias for blinding or randomization) were associated with the event rate of the outcomes was also performed. RESULTS: We identified 21 randomized trials (n = 1,415; mean study duration, 78.40 ± 32.10 weeks; %female, 54.85%; mean age, 43.47 ± 4.88 years). The event rates (95% confidence interval [CI]) were as follows: recurrence of any mood episode, 39.8% (32.8%, 47.1%); depressive episodes, 25.6% (18.8%, 34.0%); manic/hypomanic/mixed episodes, 18.5% (13.7%, 24.7%); all-cause discontinuation rate, 67.0% (57.2%, 75.5%); and discontinuation rate due to adverse events, 8.7% (5.1%, 14.7%). After adjusting for multiple testing, our meta-regression analysis showed association only between the all-cause discontinuation rate and presence of a placebo arm. CONCLUSIONS: The recurrence rate of depressive episodes seemed to be higher than the recurrence rate of manic/hypomanic/mixed episodes. The all-cause discontinuation rate was high. However, the studies included in our meta-analysis were of short duration.

INTRODUCTION: Several reports of the effectiveness of the use of psychostimulants for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are available. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted including double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Outcomes were the improvement of apathy scales score (primary), mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score, activities of daily living scale score, Zarit burden interview score, all-cause discontinuation, discontinuation due to adverse events, and incidence of at least 1 adverse event. RESULTS: Three methylphenidate studies and 1 modafinil study were identified (n=156). Results from combined psychostimulants were superior to placebo in the improvement of apathy scales score (standardized mean differences [SMD]=-0.63 (-1.22, -0.04), p=0.04, all studies) and the MMSE score (SMD=-0.58 (-1.14, -0.02), p=0.04, 3 methylphenidate studies). The modafinil study was excluded from the meta-analysis for the improvement of apathy scales score; therefore, the effect size increased (SMD=-0.82 (-1.43, -0.20), p=0.009). However, no significant differences were observed in terms of other outcomes, including safety outcomes between the treatment groups. DISCUSSION: Methylphenidate would be effective in treating apathy and cognitive impairment in AD patients.

Purpose: The kynurenine (KYN) pathway can directly or indirectly influence cerebral volume and neural integrity in patients with major depression (MD). The aim of the present study was to investigate neural network systems and the KYN pathway in patients with first-episode, drug-naïve MD. Patients and Methods: Twenty right-handed drug-naïve patients, with MD diagnosed using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision, Research Version, were included in this study. Magnetic resonance imaging scans and scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression were assessed, and serum sampling was performed prior to the start of pharmacological treatment. Image processing and data analysis were performed according to our recently published procedure. Serum metabolomes were measured in the cation and anion modes of CE-FTMS-based metabolome analysis. Results: We found that serum KYN levels were positively correlated with the Z-scores of the salience network but not with those of the central executive network or default mode network. No associations were observed between serum glutamate levels and the Z-score of any of the three networks. Conclusion: Our results indicate that serum KYN levels might affect the activity of the salience network in first-episode, drug-naïve patients with MD.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis included double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of brexpiprazole adjunctive treatment (0.5-3 mg/d) for major depressive disorder where antidepressant treatment had failed. METHODS: The outcomes were the response rate (primary), remission rate (secondary), Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score (secondary), Sheehan Disability Scale scores (secondary), Clinical Global Impression-Improvement/Severity scores, discontinuation rate, and individual adverse events. A subgroup meta-analysis of the data at week 6 compared outcomes by dose >2 mg/d or ≤2 mg/d (2 mg/d is the recommended dose). RESULTS: We identified 9 studies (n = 3391). Compared with placebo, brexpiprazole (any dose) was superior for response rate (risk ratio [RR] = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 0.89-0.97, number needed to treat = 17), remission rate (RR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.93-0.98, number needed to treat = 25), Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score (standardized mean difference = -0.20, 95% CI = -0.29, -0.11), Sheehan Disability Scale score (standardized mean difference = -0.12, 95% CI = -0.21, -0.04), and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement/Severity scores but was associated with a higher discontinuation rate, akathisia, insomnia, restlessness, somnolence, and weight increase. Doses >2 mg/d had a significantly higher RR for response rate than ≤2 mg/d (0.96 vs 0.89); moreover, compared with placebo, doses >2 mg/d were associated with higher incidences of akathisia (RR = 4.58) and somnolence (RR = 7.56) as well as were marginally associated with a higher incidence of weight increase (RR = 3.14, P = .06). Compared with placebo, doses ≤2 mg/d were associated with higher incidences of akathisia (RR = 2.28) and weight increase (RR = 4.50). CONCLUSIONS: Brexpiprazole adjunctive treatment is effective for major depressive disorder when antidepressant treatment fails. At 6 weeks, doses ≤2 mg/d presented a better risk/benefit balance than >2 mg/d.

AIM: There have been no previous reports on the efficacy and safety of suvorexant for insomnia in people with psychiatric disorders. METHODS: This one-week, prospective, single-arm, clinical trial of fixed dose of suvorexant (20 mg if ages 18-64 or 15 mg if age ≥ 65 years) for insomnia included 57 patients with psychiatric disorders who had experienced any of the following insomnia symptoms for four or more nights during the week prior to the start of the study: total sleep time (TST) <6 hours, time to sleep onset (TSO) ≥30 minutes, or two or more episodes of wake after sleep onset. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 49.4 ± 17.3 years; 54.4% were women, 49.1% had a major depressive disorder, and 77.2% completed the trial. Compared with the baseline scores (the mean scores for the two days before the start of the study), taking suvorexant was associated with significant improvements in TST, TSO, wake time after sleep onset, and the patients' sleep satisfaction level at week 1. Adverse events included at least one adverse event (43.9%), sleepiness (28.8%), fatigue (11.5%), nightmares (5.8%), headache (3.8%), dizziness (3.8%), and vomiting (1.9%). CONCLUSION: Suvorexant was beneficial for the treatment of insomnia in people with psychiatric disorders. However, this study was of short duration and included only a relatively small number of patients. A larger, long-term study is needed to investigate the efficacy and safety of suvorexant for insomnia in people with psychiatric disorders.

OBJECTIVE: It is unknown whether there are differences in efficacy and safety between quetiapine extended-release, 300 mg/d (QUEXR300), and olanzapine, 5-20 mg/d (OLA), for Japanese patients with bipolar depression. METHODS: We conducted a Bayesian analysis of data from phase 3 studies in Japan of QUEXR300 and OLA. Outcomes were remission rate (primary), response rate, improvement on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores, discontinuation rate, and incidence of individual adverse events. We calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) and the risk ratio (RR) and 95% credible interval (95% CrI) for continuous and dichotomous data, respectively. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between QUEXR300 and OLA for any of the efficacy outcomes. QUEXR300 was associated with a higher incidence of somnolence than OLA (RR = 5.517; 95% CrI = 1.563, 19.787), while OLA was associated with greater increase body weight (SMD = -0.488; 95% CrI = -0.881, -0.089) and blood prolactin levels (SMD = -0.642; 95% CrI = -1.073, -0.213) than QUEXR300, and a greater decrease in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (SMD = -0.408; 95% CrI = -0.785, -0.030) than QUEXR300. CONCLUSION: Although the two drugs' efficacy did not differ, OLA increased the risk of metabolic syndrome and QUEXR300 the risk of somnolence. A large scale, long-term, head-to-head comparison study of QUEXR300 vs OLA for Japanese patients with bipolar depression is needed to confirm the results of the current study.

AIM: Whether patients with adult bipolar disorder (BD) who have been clinically stabilized with lithium or lamotrigine should continue this medication is not established fully. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of lithium and lamotrigine for maintenance treatment in clinically stable patients with adult BD. METHODS: This meta-analysis included only double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials with an enrichment design that selected patients who responded acutely to lithium or lamotrigine. Reports prior to November 15, 2018, were retrieved from the PubMed/Cochrane Library/Embase. The primary outcome was the relapse rate due to any mood episode at the study endpoint. Other outcomes were relapse rates due to a manic/hypomanic/mixed episode or depression at the study endpoint, discontinuation rate, death, and death by suicide. Risk ratios (RRs) (95% confidence intervals) were calculated. When the random-effects model showed significant differences between groups, the number-needed-to-treat (NNT) was estimated. RESULTS: The search retrieved two studies regarding lithium (N = 218) and four evaluating lamotrigine (N = 706). Both drugs were superior to placebo for reducing the relapse rate due to any mood episode [lithium: RR = 0.52 (0.41-0.66), P < 0.00001, I2  = 0%, NNT = 2.3 (1.6-4.2); lamotrigine: RR = 0.81 (0.70-0.93), P = 0.004, I2  = 0%, NNT = 8.3 (5.0-25.0)] and all-cause discontinuation. There were no significant differences in other outcomes between lithium or lamotrigine and the placebo groups. CONCLUSION: Both drugs showed benefit for preventing relapse in clinically stable patients with adult BD. However, the number of studies and patients in this analysis was small.

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety/tolerability of quetiapine extended-release 300 mg/day (QUEXR300), quetiapine immediate-release 600 mg/day (QUEIR600), and quetiapine immediate-release 300 mg/day (QUEIR300) formulations for treating bipolar depression. A random-effect network meta-analysis of 8-week, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trials was used to determine the most optimal agent for intervention. Remission rate was set as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were response rate, improvement in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score, discontinuation rate, and the incidence of individual adverse events. Seven eligible studies including 3267 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The QUEIR600, QUEIR300, and QUEXR300 groups were superior to the placebo group in every efficacy outcome; however, there were no significant differences in the efficacy outcomes among the treatment groups. All treatment groups exhibited higher incidences of extrapyramidal symptoms, dry mouth, somnolence, constipation, and increase in body weight than the placebo group. The QUEIR600 and QUEIR300 groups had higher incidences of dizziness than the placebo group. The QUEIR600 group had a higher discontinuation rate due to adverse events than the placebo group, and the QUEIR300 group had higher blood HbA1c levels than the placebo group. The QUEIR600 and QUEXR300 groups had higher incidences of ≥7% weight gain than the placebo group. The QUEXR300 group had a higher incidence of fatigue than the QURIR300 and placebo groups. In conclusion, there were no significant differences in the efficacies of QUEIR600, QUEIR300, and QUEXR300 in treating bipolar depression; moreover, tolerance to QUEIR600 might be worse than the other treatments.

BACKGROUND: Discontinuation of antipsychotics predisposes patients with remitted/stable first-episode psychosis (FEP) to a higher risk of relapse, but it remains unclear how long discontinuation increases the relapse rate in these patients compared with maintenance. METHODS: This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared relapse rates in FEP patients between antipsychotic treatment discontinuation and maintenance groups at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12 (primary), and 18-24 months. The risk ratio (RR) and numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) were calculated using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Ten RCTs were identified (n = 776; mean study duration, 18.6 ± 6.0 months). The antipsychotics were discontinued abruptly in four RCTs (which reported data only at 12 months) and after tapering off gradually over several months (mean length, 3 months) in six RCTs. Compared with the discontinuation group, the maintenance group experienced significantly fewer relapses at all time points except 1 month [RR (NNT): 2 months, 0.49 (13); 3 months, 0.46 (9); 6 months, 0.55 (6); 9 months, 0.48 (3); 12 months, 0.47 (3); and 18-24 months, 0.57 (4)]. The maintenance group was associated with higher discontinuation due to adverse events (RR, 2.61; NNH, not significant). CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining antipsychotic treatment prevented relapse for up to 24 months in FEP patients. Discontinuation of antipsychotics for ⩾2 months significantly increased the risk of relapse. However, 45.7% of patients who discontinued antipsychotics for 12 months (39.4% after 18-24 months) did not experience a relapse.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing blonanserin with other antipsychotics (amisulpride, aripiprazole, haloperidol, paliperidone, and risperidone). METHODS: Weighted mean difference (WMD), risk ratio, and number needed to harm (NNH) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using random-effects model. RESULTS: Ten RCTs (n=1521) were included in this study. Blonanserin was superior to aripiprazole in improvement of Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total scores (WMD=-10.62, 95% CI=-17.67 to -3.560, p=0.003). Blonanserin was associated with a higher incidence of all-cause discontinuation (RR=1.373, 95% CI=1.088-1.734, p=0.008, NNH=11), akathisia, extrapyramidal disorder, and agitation/excitement and a lower risk of hyperprolactinemia compared with risperidone + paliperidone. DISCUSSION: The current meta-analytic study did not update the comparison of blonanserin vs. haloperidol because there were no new RCTs. Our results suggest that the efficacy of blonanserin for schizophrenia is comparable with that of other antipsychotics, and blonanserin seems to be well tolerated.

Objective: IL-6 and catecholamines play roles in the pathophysiology of major depressive disorder (MDD). Aim: The present study investigated associations between plasma IL-6 and plasma catecholamine metabolites in patients with MDD. Participants and methods: A total of 148 patients (male/female 65/83, age 49.5±12.1 years) who met the criteria for MDD based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV and 40 participants as healthy controls (HC; male/female 23/17, age 44.0±10.5 years) were enrolled in the present study. Plasma levels of 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol (MHPG) and homovanillic acid (HVA) were analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography, and plasma IL-6 levels were measured using ELISA. Results: No correlations were observed among plasma IL-6 levels, MHPG levels, and HVA levels in patients with MDD. Plasma IL-6 levels in patients with MDD were significantly higher than in the HC. A positive correlation was found between plasma IL-6 levels and Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression-17 scores. Conclusion: No correlations existed between plasma IL-6 levels and plasma catecholamine metabolite levels in patients with MDD, and the severity of depressive state was related to plasma IL-6 levels in MDD.

Purpose: Compared with healthy subjects (HS), patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) exhibit volume differences that affect the volume changes in several areas such as the limbic, cortical, subcortical, and white matter. Catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) is a methylation enzyme that catalyzes endogenous catecholamines. The Val158Met polymorphism of COMT has been reported to affect the dopamine (DA) levels, which plays an important role in psychiatric diseases. However, the relationships among both DA levels, COMT genotype, and brain morphology are complicated and controversial. In previous studies that investigated the hippocampal subfields, the greatest brain abnormalities in MDD patients were observed in Cornu Ammonis (CA)1 and the subiculum, followed by that in CA2-3. We have prospectively demonstrated the relationship between the single-nucleotide polymorphism of the Val158Met COMT gene (rs4680) and the hippocampal subfields in drug-naive MDD patients. Patients and methods: In this study, we compared 27 MDD patients and 42 HS who were divided into groups based on their COMT genotype. The effects of the diagnosis, genotype, and genotype-diagnosis interaction related to CA1 and the subiculum volumes, as well as the whole-brain cortical thickness, were evaluated by performing a FreeSurfer statistical analysis of high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings. Results: The results revealed that there was a statistically significant interaction between the effects of diagnosis and genotype on the right subiculum (a component of the hippocampus). Conclusion: This Val158Met COMT polymorphism may influence the subiculum volume in drug-naive, first-episode MDD patients.

Background: A genome-wide association study using megadata identified 17 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in candidate genes for major depressive disorder (MDD). These MDD susceptibility polymorphisms may affect white matter (WM) integrity. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between WM alterations and 17 SNPs in candidate genes for MDD in the first depressive episode of drug-naive MDD patients using a tract-based spatial statistics (TBSS) method. Methods: Thirty-five drug-naive MDD patients with a first depressive episode and 47 age-and sex-matched healthy subjects underwent diffusion tensor imaging scans and genotyping. The genotype-diagnosis interactions related to WM integrity were evaluated using TBSS for the 17 SNPs. Results: For the anterior thalamic radiation, cingulum, corticospinal tract, inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus, inferior longitudinal fasciculus, superior longitudinal fasciculus, uncinate fasciculus, forceps major, and forceps minor, the genotype effect significantly differed between diagnosis groups (P<0.05, family-wise error corrected) in only one SNP, rs301806, in the arginine-glutamic acid dipeptide (RE) repeats (RERE) gene. Conclusion: The RERE polymorphism was associated with WM alterations in first-episode and drug-naive MDD patients, which may be at least partially related to the manifestation of MDD. Future studies are needed to explore the gene-environment interactions with regard to individual WM integrity.

Rationale: This study aims to examine whether folate/folic acid/methylfolate/folinic acid supplemented to antipsychotics (FA + AP) is beneficial in schizophrenia treatment. Objective: We conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of FA + AP for schizophrenia. Methods: The primary outcome was an improvement in total symptoms. Other outcomes were psychopathology subscales (positive, negative, general, and depressive symptoms), discontinuation due to all-cause and adverse events, and individual adverse events. The meta-analysis evaluated the effect size based on a random-effects model. Results: Although we included ten RCTs with 925 patients in total (seven folic acid RCTs (n = 789), two methylfolate RCTs (n = 96), and one folinic acid RCT (n = 40)) in the systematic review, only seven RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled FA + AP treatments were not superior to placebo + AP in the improvement of total (N = 7, n = 340 standardized mean difference (SMD) = − 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) = − 0.41, 0.02, p = 0.08, I2 = 0%), positive, general, or depressive symptoms. Pooled FA + AP treatments were more effective than placebo + AP for negative symptoms (N = 5, n = 281 SMD = −0.25, 95% CI = −0.49, −0.01, p = 0.04, I2 = 0%). Although pooled FA + AP treatments were associated with a lower incidence of serious adverse events than placebo treatments (N = 4, n = 241 risk ratio = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.12–0.82, p = 0.02, I2 = 0% number needed to harm = not significant), there were no significant differences in other safety outcomes between both treatments. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that pooled FA + AP treatment improves negative symptoms in schizophrenia patients. Moreover, this treatment was well tolerated. However, because our results might exhibit a small-study effect, future studies with a larger sample should be conducted to obtain more robust results.

Background: There are complicated interactions between catecholaminergic neurons and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) in the brain. However, no reports have addressed the relationship among 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol (MHPG), homovanillic acid (HVA), and BDNF in the blood. Objective: This paper sought to investigate correlations between serum BDNF and plasma levels of MHPG and HVA in people with major depression (MD). Materials and methods: A total of 148 patients (male/female 65/83, age 49.5 ± 12.1 years old) who satisfied criteria for MD based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV were enrolled in the present study. Plasma levels of MHPG and HVA were analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography, and serum BDNF was measured using ELISA. Results: No interactions were observed between plasma HVA levels (mean ± SD = 4.5 ± 1.5 ng/mL) and age, sex, HAMD scores, or serum BDNF levels (mean ± SD = 9.8 ± 2.9 ng/mL). No correlations were not also observed between plasma MHPG levels (mean ± SD = 5.9 ± 2.1 ng/mL) and age, sex, the HAMD17 scores (mean ± SD = 22.2 ± 2.9 ng/mL), or serum BDNF levels. Serum BDNF levels were negatively associated with HAMD17 scores. Conclusion: The results suggest that there are no significant correlations between catecholamine metabolites and BDNF in the blood for MDD patients.

A comprehensive meta-analysis of statin add-on therapy in the antipsychotic treatment of schizophrenia was conducted. Data from previous studies, prior to 8/21/2017, was obtained from Scopus, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library. Both a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted with patient data from randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) to compare statins with placebo in order to calculate effect size. Across the five RCTs (mean duration: 9.2 weeks), 236 adult patients with schizophrenia were randomly selected to receive either placebo (n=117) or statins (n=119). Pooled statin add-on therapy showed significant superiority over placebo in the improvement of Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores (mean difference=−1.96 95% confidence interval, −2.94 to −0.98 p&lt 0.0001 I2=0% N=4, n=174). However, there were no statistically significant differences in other efficacy outcomes between the two treatment groups. Statin did not have a significant difference in its incidence of discontinuation or have individual adverse events compared to placebo. Our results suggest that statins may have considerable potential as an add-on therapy for schizophrenia. However, determining the effectiveness of this treatment in clinical practice requires future investigation due to limitations of the current evidence-base including small sample, potential for publication and selection biases and short duration of follow-up.

A ccumulating evidence suggests that brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) is associated with the pathophysiology of major depressive disorder (MDD). In this mini review, we explored the association between BDNF and MDD using meta-analytic evidence. Our findings indicated that the Val66Met polymorphism in the BDNF gene was not associated with MDD or hippocampal volume in patients with MDD. However, plasma/serum levels of BDNF were decreased in patients with acute MDD compared with healthy controls. Both antidepressant treatment and electroconvulsive therapy increased plasma and serum levels of BDNF in patients with MDD. Val66Met polymorphism in the BDNF gene was associated with an antidepressant response in patients with MDD. Taken together, we did not detect any plausible evidence regarding Val66Met polymorphism in the BDNF gene contributing to a risk of MDD. However, peripheral BDNF levels are decreased in patients with MDD, and the polymorphisms are associated with treatment response. In conclusion, BDNF is best understood to be a biomarker for the state of MDD and its treatment response rather than a risk factor for MDD.

We performed a meta-analysis to determine whether combination therapy with serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) and memantine (MEM) was beneficial for the treatment of obsessive- compulsive disorder. This study included three double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. MEM+SRI was superior to placebo+SRI with regard to response rate [primary outcome, n = 97 risk ratio = 0.22 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 0.12-0.42 p &lt 0.00001 I 2 = 0% number needed to treat = 2], the Yale- Brown Obsessive- Compulsive Scale total [standardized mean difference (SMD) = - 4.56 95% CI = - 8.50, - 0.62 p = 0.02], obsession subscale (SMD = - 4.39 95% CI = - 5.94, - 2.85 p &lt 0.00001), and compulsion subscale score (SMD = - 4.60 95% CI = - 7.64, - 1.55 p = 0.003). No significant differences in any safety outcome were found between the groups.

初発精神病性障害は、精神病症状による著しい行動障害を初めて呈した状態である。本稿では、「統合失調症薬物治療ガイドライン」における初発精神病性障害への対応の特徴と実践的使用法を概説する。ガイドラインは、臨床疑問(clinical question:CQ)に答える形で作成されており、初発精神病性障害では4つのCQが設定されている。CQ1-1では初発精神病性障害患者に対して抗精神病薬を選択する際に参考となるエビデンス、CQ1-2では適切な用量について、CQ1-3では適切な治療効果判定期間について、CQ1-4では再発予防における治療継続期間についてそれぞれ検討し、推奨を述べている。ガイドラインの実践的使用法として、各CQの推奨の背景を理解し、薬物療法のリスクとベネフィットを十分患者と家族に説明した上で、共同作業的に医療行為を進めていくのが望ましい。(著者抄録)

No systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the use of Z-drug for schizophrenia are available. Randomized, placebo-controlled, or non-pharmacological intervention-controlled trials published before 03/20/2017 were retrieved from major healthcare databases and clinical trial registries. A meta-analysis including only randomized, placebo-controlled trials was performed. Efficacy outcomes were measured as improvement in overall schizophrenia symptoms, total sleep time, and wake after sleep onset. Safety/acceptability outcomes were discontinuation rate and individual adverse events. Four trials [1 alpidem placebo-controlled study (n = 66), 2 eszopiclone placebo-controlled studies (n = 60), and 1 eszopiclone, shallow needling-controlled study (n = 96)] were identified. The meta-analysis showed no significant differences in any outcome between pooled Z-drug and placebo treatment groups. For individual studies, alpidem was superior to placebo in improving the overall schizophrenia symptoms. One of the eszopiclone studies showed that eszopiclone was superior to placebo in improving the Insomnia Severity Index scores. Another eszopiclone study showed that eszopiclone did not differ from shallow needling therapy in improving both schizophrenia- and insomnia-related symptoms. Although this study failed to show significant benefits for the use of Z-drug in the treatment of schizophrenia, it showed that short-term use of eszopiclone is an acceptable method for treating persistent insomnia among these patients.

We examined whether memantine add-on to antipsychotic treatment is beneficial in schizophrenia treatment. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to achieve stronger evidence on the efficacy and safety of memantine add-on for treating schizophrenia. We analyzed double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of memantine add-on treatment in schizophrenia patients receiving antipsychotics. The primary outcomes were amelioration of negative symptoms and all-cause discontinuation. Dichotomous outcomes are presented as risk ratios (RRs), and continuous outcomes are presented as mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs). Eight studies (n = 448) were included. Although memantine add-on treatment was superior to placebo for ameliorating negative symptoms (SMD = -0.96, p = 0.006, I (2) = 88%; N = 7, n = 367) in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale general subscale (MD = -1.62, p = 0.002, I (2) = 0%; N = 4, n = 151) and Mini-Mental Status Examination score (MD = -3.07, p &lt; 0.0001, I (2) = 21%; N = 3, n = 83), there were no statistically significant differences in the amelioration of overall (SMD = -0.75, p = 0.06, I (2) = 86%; N = 5, n = 271), positive (SMD = -0.46, p = 0.07, I (2) = 80%; N = 7, n = 367), and depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.127, p = 0.326, I (2) = 0%; N = 4, n = 201); all-cause discontinuation (RR = 1.34, p = 0.31, I (2) = 0%; N = 8, n = 448); and individual adverse events (fatigue, dizziness, headache, nausea, constipation) between the groups. For negative symptoms, the significant heterogeneity disappeared when risperidone studies alone were considered (I (2) = 0%). However, memantine add-on treatment remained superior to placebo (SMD = -1.29, p = 0.00001). Meta-regression analysis showed that patient age was associated with memantine-associated amelioration of negative symptoms (slope = 0.171, p = 0.0206). Memantine add-on treatment may be beneficial for treating psychopathological symptoms (especially negative symptoms) in schizophrenia patients. The negative-symptom effect size may be associated with younger adult schizophrenia patients.

Individuals with s/s genotype of serotonin transporter gene-linked promotor region (5-HTTLPR), which appear with a high frequency in Japanese, exhibit more diagnosable depression in relation to stressful life events than those with the s/l or l/l genotype. We prospectively investigated the brain volume changes in first-episode and medication naive major depression disorder patients (MDD) with the s/s genotype in Japanese. We assessed the differences between 27 MDD with the s/s genotype and 44 healthy subjects (HS) with the same genotype using a whole-brain voxel-by-voxel statistical analysis of MRI. Gray matter volume in a brain region with significant clusters obtained via voxel-based morphometry analysis were measured and, as an exploratory analysis, evaluated for relationships to the subcategory scores (core, sleep, activity, psychic, somatic anxiety, delusion) of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and the Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS). The brain volume in the left insula lobe was significantly smaller in the MDD than in the HS. The left insula lobe volume correlated negatively with the "psychic" score of HAM-D and the SRRS. In a Japanese population with the s/s genotype, we found an atrophy of the insula in the MDD, which might be associated with "psychic" symptom and stress events.

No comprehensive meta-analysis has been performed concerning the efficacy and tolerability of Z-drug adjunctive therapy in antidepressant-treated major depressive disorder (MDD) patients. Randomized, placebo-, or antidepressant-alone-controlled trials of Z-drugs in MDD patients were included. The primary outcome measures for efficacy and safety were remission rate and all-cause discontinuation, respectively. The secondary outcome measures were response rate, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) total score improvement, discontinuation due to inefficacy and adverse events, and individual adverse effects. Risk ratio (RR), number needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH), 95 % confidence intervals, and standardized mean difference (SMD) were calculated. We identified six studies [antidepressants were selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and venlafaxine, mean duration of study was 10.5 weeks, mean age of patients (mean +/- standard deviation) was 44.4 +/- 11.8 years old, total n = 2089, eszopiclone + antidepressants = 642, placebo + antidepressants = 930, antidepressants alone = 112, and zolpidem + antidepressants = 405]. Pooled Z-drug + antidepressants was superior to placebo + antidepressants regarding the remission rate (RR = 0.85, NNT = 10). Although pooled Z-drug + antidepressants was also superior to placebo + antidepressants/antidepressants alone regarding HAMD score improvement (SMD = -0.23), there was not significant difference in response rate and discontinuation due to inefficacy between groups. There was no difference in all-cause discontinuation between groups. Although there was also no difference in discontinuation due to adverse events between groups, pooled Z-drug + antidepressants was associated with a higher incidence of at least one adverse event (RR = 1.09, NNH = 20) and dizziness (RR = 1.76, NNH = 25) compared with the placebo + antidepressants/antidepressants alone. In conclusion, Z-drugs + antidepressants improves the treatment efficacy for MDD compared with the placebo + antidepressants/antidepressants alone. However, the therapy requires close monitoring of adverse events, particularly dizziness.

Objective: There are no direct comparisons between escitalopram and paroxetine controlled release in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Methods: We conducted a 24-week, rater-masked, randomized trial of escitalopram (5–20 mg/day) versus paroxetine controlled release (12.5–50 mg/day) in patients with MDD (UMIN000011191). Patients with the diagnosis of moderate-to-severe MDD (a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAMD-17], with total score at baseline being $20) were recruited to participate in a parallel, randomized, controlled trial. The primary outcome for efficacy was an improvement in the 21-item HAMD (HAMD-21) total score at 24 weeks. The secondary outcomes were the response, remission, and discontinuation rates and the incidence of individual adverse events. Results: A total of 88 patients with MDD (males, 61.4% mean age, 40.8�13.4 years) were recruited. The discontinuation rate was 58.0% (escitalopram, 55.8% paroxetine controlled release, 60.0%). Both escitalopram and paroxetine controlled-release treatment groups exhibited significant reduction in the HAMD-21 total score at 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks from the baseline. However, there were no significant differences in the HAMD-21 total score, response rate, remission rate, and discontinuation rate at any time point between the groups. In addition, there were no significant differences in the incidence of any individual adverse events (eg, nausea, vomiting, and somnolence) between the treatment groups. Conclusion: Our results suggest that escitalopram and paroxetine controlled release had similar efficacy and safety profiles in patients with MDD. One of the primary limitations of this study is the small sample size.

Background: The relative efficacy and tolerability of antipsychotics for schizophrenia are considerably well studied. This study aimed to examine whether previous findings could be replicated in a genetically distinct and homogenous group (ie, Japanese patients with schizophrenia) and whether previous findings could be extended to a broader range of antipsychotics with previously unclear relative efficacy and tolerability. Methods: Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed in which randomized trials comparing any of the following interventions were included: second-generation antipsychotics, haloperidol, or placebo. The primary outcomes for efficacy and acceptability were the response rate and all-cause discontinuation. The secondary outcomes included the improvement of Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores, discontinuation because of adverse events, and individual adverse events. Results: Eighteen relevant studies were identified (total n=3,446; aripiprazole =267, blonanserin =285, clozapine =47, clocapramine =295, haloperidol =857, mosapramine =493, olanzapine =179, paliperidone =136, perospirone =146, placebo =138, quetiapine =212, and risperidone =338; mean study duration =8.33 +/- 1.41 weeks). In primary outcomes, olanzapine and paliperidone showed efficacy than placebo, and olanzapine and paliperidone showed superior acceptability compared with placebo. There were differences in the incidences of individual adverse events (the best antipsychotic: extrapyramidal symptoms = olanzapine, hyperprolactinemia-related symptoms = quetiapine, sedation = paliperidone, and weight change = blonanserin) among antipsychotics. Conclusion: Although the current analysis exclusively included Japanese patients with schizophrenia, no remarkable differences were observed in efficacy and safety compared with previous meta-analyses. Diverse hierarchies in safety outcomes also support the implication that individual risk expectations for adverse events can guide clinical decisions. However, the sample size was relatively limited. Additional efficacy and safety data are required to fully obtain a conclusive understanding.

Objective: There are no direct comparisons between escitalopram and paroxetine controlled release in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Methods: We conducted a 24-week, rater-masked, randomized trial of escitalopram (5-20 mg/day) versus paroxetine controlled release (12.5-50 mg/day) in patients with MDD (UMIN000011191). Patients with the diagnosis of moderate-to-severe MDD (a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAMD-17], with total score at baseline being &gt;= 20) were recruited to participate in a parallel, randomized, controlled trial. The primary outcome for efficacy was an improvement in the 21-item HAMD (HAMD-21) total score at 24 weeks. The secondary outcomes were the response, remission, and discontinuation rates and the incidence of individual adverse events. Results: A total of 88 patients with MDD (males, 61.4%; mean age, 40.8 +/- 13.4 years) were recruited. The discontinuation rate was 58.0% (escitalopram, 55.8%; paroxetine controlled release, 60.0%). Both escitalopram and paroxetine controlled-release treatment groups exhibited significant reduction in the HAMD-21 total score at 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks from the baseline. However, there were no significant differences in the HAMD-21 total score, response rate, remission rate, and discontinuation rate at any time point between the groups. In addition, there were no significant differences in the incidence of any individual adverse events (eg, nausea, vomiting, and somnolence) between the treatment groups. Conclusion: Our results suggest that escitalopram and paroxetine controlled release had similar efficacy and safety profiles in patients with MDD. One of the primary limitations of this study is the small sample size.

Background: Memantine is effective in the treatment of behavioral disturbances in patients with Alzheimer's disease. It has not yet been fully determined which behavioral disturbances respond best to memantine. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of memantine vs control (placebo or usual care) for the treatment of individual behavioral disturbances (delusion, hallucination, agitation/aggression, dysphoria, anxiety/phobia, euphoria, apathy, disinhibition, irritability/lability, aberrant motor activity/activity disturbances, nighttime disturbance/diurnal rhythm disturbances, and eating disturbances). Randomized controlled studies of memantine in patients with Alzheimer's disease were included in this study. To evaluate these outcomes, standardized mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), based upon a random-effects model was evaluated in the meta-analysis. Results: A total of 11 studies (n=4,261; memantine vs placebo: N=4, n=1,500; memantine + cholinesterase inhibitors [M + ChEIs] vs ChEIs: N=7, n=2,761) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to control, memantine showed significant improvement in agitation/aggression (SMD=-0.11; 95% CIs=-0.20, -0.03; P=0.01; I-2=47%), delusion (SMD =-0.12; 95% CIs=-0.18, -0.06; P=0.0002; I-2=0%), disinhibition (SMD=-0.08; 95% CIs=-0.15, -0.00; P=0.04; I-2=0%), and nighttime disturbance/diurnal rhythm disturbances (SMD=-0.10; 95% CIs=-0.18, -0.02; P=0.02; I-2=36%). Memantine was also marginally superior to control in hallucination (SMD=-0.06; 95% CIs=-0.12, 0.01; P=0.07; I-2=0%) and irritability/lability (SMD=-0.09; 95% CIs=-0.19, 0.01; P=0.07; I-2=42%). Memantine is similar to control in dysphoria, anxiety/phobia, euphoria, apathy, and eating disturbance. Conclusion: The meta-analysis suggest that memantine has benefits for the treatment of most of the behavioral disturbances in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Memantine does not deteriorate negative symptoms as behavioral disturbances in patients with Alzheimer's disease.

Background: The clinical benefit of memantine for Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains inconclusive. Objective: We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy/safety of memantine in AD. Methods: We included randomized trials of memantine for AD patients. Cognitive function scores (CF), behavioral disturbances scores (BD), and all-cause discontinuation were used as primary measures. Effect size based on a random-effects model was evaluated in the meta-analyses. Results: Thirty studies (n = 7,567; memantine versus placebo: N = 11, n = 3,298; memantine + cholinesterase inhibitors (M+ChEIs) versus ChEIs: N = 17, n = 4,175) were identified. Memantine showed a significant improvement in CF [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.24, 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) = -0.34, -0.15, p &lt; 0.00001, I-2 = 35%] and BD (SMD = -0.16, 95% CIs = -0.29, -0.04, p = 0.01, I-2 = 52%) compared with placebo. In the sensitivity analysis including only patients with moderate-severe AD, memantine was superior to the placebo in reducing BD without considerable heterogeneity (SMD = -0.20, 95% CIs = -0.34, -0.07, p = 0.003, I-2 = 36%). Compared with ChEIs, M+ ChEIs showed a greater reduction in BD (SMD = -0.20, 95% CIs = -0.36, -0.03, p = 0.02, I-2 = 77%) and a trend of CF improvement (SMD = -0.11, 95% CIs = -0.22, 0.01, p = 0.06, I-2 = 56%). However, in the sensitivity analysis of double-blind, placebo-controlled studies only, M+ ChEIs showed a significant reduction in BD compared with ChEIs without considerable heterogeneity(SMD = -0.11, 95% CIs = -0.21, -0.01, p = 0.04, I-2 = 40%). When performing the sensitivity analysis of donepezil studies only, M+ ChEIs was superior to ChEIs in improving CF without considerable heterogeneity (SMD = -0.18, 95% CIs = -0.31, -0.05, p = 0.006, I-2 = 49%). No differences were detected in all-cause discontinuation between the groups. Conclusions: The meta-analyses suggest the credible efficacy and safety of memantine in treating AD when used alone or in combination with ChEIs.

Background: There is uncertainty about the efficacy and tolerability of zonisamide for Parkinson's disease (PD). Objective: We performed a meta-analysis of zonisamide treatment in PD patients who received antiparkinson drugs such as levodopa. Methods: The primary outcome measures were the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part III scores, wearing-off time, and discontinuation rate due to all causes. Secondary outcome measures were UPDRS total and subscale scores; discontinuation rates due to adverse events, inefficacy, and death; and individual adverse events. Results: Four randomized placebo-controlled trials including 1,068 PD patients were analyzed. All studies were conducted in Japan. UPDRS Part III scores were significantly lower with zonisamide than with placebo (weighted mean difference [WMD], -2.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]; -4.20 to -0.92; p = 0.002). Further, zonisamide significantly decreased the wearing-off time compared with placebo (standardized mean difference, -0.24; 95% CI, -0.39 to -0.09; p = 0.001). Discontinuation rates due to all causes were similar between the zonisamide and placebo groups (risk ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.84; p = 0.16). While zonisamide also decreased both UPDRS Part II (off-time) and UPDRS total scores compared to placebo (UPDRS Part II [off-time] scores: WMD, -0.79; UPDRS total scores: WMD, -2.51), there were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes between the two groups. Conclusions: Our results suggested that zonisamide combination therapy was beneficial in treating motor symptoms in PD patients receiving antiparkinson drugs and was well tolerated in Japanese patients. Future studies in populations other than the Japanese are needed.

This study aimed to perform a comprehensive meta-analysis of topiramate-augmen- tation therapy in patients with schizophrenia receiving antipsychotic agents. Data published up to June 20, 2016 were obtained from the PubMed, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases. Twelve randomized controlled trials comparing topiramate to placebo or antipsychotic only were included (n=676 patients). The primary outcome was change in overall symptoms. Relative risk (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD), along with 95% confidence intervals, were calculated using random effects model for each outcome. Topiramate-augmentation therapy was superior to the control for decreasing overall symptoms (SMD −0.55, 95% confidence interval −0.86 to −0.24 P=0.001 I2=55%, eight comparisons, n=380), positive symptoms (SMD −0.4), negative symptoms (SMD −0.47), and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale general subscale scores (SMD −0.67). Furthermore, topiramate-augmentation therapy decreased weight (SMD −0.69) and body mass index (SMD −0.95) compared with the control. Topiramate was similar to the control with respect to discontinuation due to all causes (RR 1.19), inefficacy (RR 1.71), and adverse events (RR 1.09). Topiramate was associated with higher incidence of paresthesia (RR 2.67) and attention difficulty (RR 8.97) compared with the control. Our results seemed to suggest that topiramate-augmentation therapy improves the psychopathology of schizophrenia with good tolerability and has the additional advantage of weight maintenance. However, because there were some limitations (numbers of studies and patients included in the meta-analysis were small, some studies used completer analysis, Chinese studies were included in the meta-analysis, and studies that had a risk of bias were included in the meta-analysis) in this study, we cannot apply the results of this study in daily clinical practice.