7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Current antipsychotic agent use and risk of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Antipsychotic agents (APS) are widely used drugs to treat psychotic symptoms and can effectively reduce both positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia. For decades, some studies suggested that there is a relationship between using APS and the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and pulmonary embolism (PE). However, results remain inconclusive.

          Method:

          This review has been registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, ID: CDR42020155620). Relevant studies were identified among observational studies published up to 1 October 2019 in the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Random or fixed-effects models were used to calculate the pooled odds ratio (OR).

          Results:

          In total, 28 observational studies were included. The results showed that compared with non-users, current APS users have significantly increased risks of VTE [OR 1.55 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36, 1.76] and PE (OR 3.68, 95% CI 1.23, 11.05). Subgroup analyses suggested that new users were associated with a higher risk of VTE (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.81, 2.35). For individual drugs, increased risk of VTE and PE was observed in taking haloperidol, risperidone, olanzapine, prochlorperazine but not in chlorpromazine, quetiapine or aripiprazole. However, careful interpretation is needed because of high heterogeneity among studies and scarce data.

          Conclusion:

          The present comprehensive meta-analysis further indicates a significantly increased risk of VTE and PE in current APS users compared with non-users. Subgroup analyses suggest that new users are more likely to develop VTE. However, due to significant heterogeneity among studies, conclusions should be considered with caution.

          Related collections

          Most cited references61

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

          The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

            Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Ther Adv Psychopharmacol
                Ther Adv Psychopharmacol
                TPP
                sptpp
                Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                2045-1253
                2045-1261
                14 January 2021
                2021
                : 11
                : 2045125320982720
                Affiliations
                [1-2045125320982720]Department of Geriatric Psychiatry, Nanjing Brain Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
                [2-2045125320982720]Department of Geriatric Psychiatry, Nanjing Brain Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
                [3-2045125320982720]Department of Psychiatry, Nanjing Qinglongshan Hospital, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
                [4-2045125320982720]Department of Cognitive Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
                [5-2045125320982720]Department of Geriatric Psychiatry, Nanjing Brain Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
                [6-2045125320982720]Department of Geriatric Psychiatry, Nanjing Brain Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
                [7-2045125320982720]Department of Geriatric Psychiatry, Nanjing Brain Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
                [8-2045125320982720]Department of Geriatric Psychiatry, Nanjing Brain Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
                [9-2045125320982720]Department of Psychiatry, Wutaishan Hospital of Yangzhou, Yangzhou, Jiangsu, China
                [10-2045125320982720]Department of Geriatric Psychiatry, Nanjing Brain Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
                [11-2045125320982720]Institute of Neuropsychiatry, the Affiliated Brain Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
                [12-2045125320982720]Institute of Brain Functional Imaging, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
                [13-2045125320982720]Department of Neurology, Affiliated ZhongDa Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
                [14-2045125320982720]Department of Geriatric Psychiatry, Nanjing Brain Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
                [15-2045125320982720]Department of Geriatric Psychiatry, Nanjing Brain Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210029, China
                [16-2045125320982720] Present address: Nanjing Brain Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, No. 264 Guangzhou Road, Gulou District, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, 210029, People’s Republic of China
                [17-2045125320982720]Department of Psychiatry, Huai’an No. 3 People’s Hospital, Huai’an 223001, Jiangsu, China
                [18-2045125320982720] Present address: Nanjing Brain Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, No. 264 Guangzhou Road, Gulou District, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, 210029, People’s Republic of China
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4156-4852
                Article
                10.1177_2045125320982720
                10.1177/2045125320982720
                7812411
                33505665
                b3de8022-e78d-45c2-bafb-c886af30c880
                © The Author(s), 2021

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 7 June 2020
                : 19 October 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: Talent project of Jiangsu Province, China, ;
                Award ID: ZDRCA2016075
                Funded by: Social Development Foundation of Jiangsu Province, China, ;
                Award ID: No. BE2019610
                Funded by: National Natural Science Foundation of China, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100001809;
                Award ID: NSFC, No. 81971255, 81571314
                Funded by: national key research and development program of china, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100012166;
                Award ID: 2018YFC1314300 and 2016YFC1307002
                Categories
                Meta-Analysis
                Custom metadata
                January-December 2021
                ts1

                antipsychotic agents,meta-analysis,pulmonary embolism,systematic review,venous thromboembolism

                Comments

                Comment on this article