Comparative efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of augmentation agents in XXXX : systematic review and network meta-analysis.

@entity1 @entity2812 @entity5633 @entity7690 @entity13217 @entity1089 @entity6145 @entity1091 @entity752 @entity1037 @entity1770 @entity2727 @entity1090
OBJECTIVE: To comparatively analyze the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of various augmentation agents in adult @entity1 with @entity13217 . DATA SOURCES: An electronic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EBSCO, PsycINFO, EAGLE, and NTIS for trials published up to December 2013 was conducted. Several clinical trial registry agencies and US Food and Drug Administration reports were also reviewed. No language, publication date, or publication status restrictions were imposed. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials comparing 11 augmentation agents ( @entity1770 , @entity752 , @entity5633 , @entity2812 , @entity1091 , @entity2727 , @entity1037 , @entity7690 , @entity1089 , @entity1090 , and @entity6145 ) with each other and with placebo for adult @entity13217 were included. DATA EXTRACTION: The proportion of @entity1 who responded to treatment was defined as primary efficacy, and the proportion of all-cause discontinuation and side-effects discontinuation were respectively defined as acceptability and tolerability, which were assessed with odds ratios (ORs) and a Bayesian random-effects model with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). RESULTS: A total of 48 trials consisting of 6,654 @entity1 were eligible. In terms of the primary efficacy, @entity1089 (OR = 1.92; 95% CrI, 1.39-3.13), @entity1770 (OR = 1.85; 95% CrI, 1.27-2.27), @entity6145 (OR = 1.84; 95% CrI, 1.06-3.56), and @entity1091 (OR = 1.56; 95% CrI, 1.05-2.55) were significantly more effective than placebo. Sensitivity analyses indicated that efficacy estimates for @entity1770 and @entity1089 were more robust than those for @entity6145 and @entity1091 . In terms of acceptability, no significant difference was found between active agents and placebo. In terms of tolerability, compared to placebo, @entity1089 (OR = 3.85; 95% CrI, 1.92-8.33), @entity1037 (OR = 3.36; 95% CrI, 1.60-8.61), @entity1770 (OR = 2.51; 95% CrI, 1.11-7.69), and @entity1091 (OR = 2.30; 95% CrI, 1.04-6.03) were significantly less well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: @entity1089 and @entity1770 appear to be the most robust evidence-based options for augmentation therapy in @entity1 with @entity13217 , but clinicians should interpret these findings cautiously in light of the evidence of potential treatment-related side effects.
