Stefan Leucht1, Myrto Samara, Stephan Heres, Maxine X Patel, Scott W Woods, John M Davis. 1. *To whom correspondence should be addressed; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Ismaningerstr. 22, 81675 Munich, Germany; tel: +49-89-4140-4249, fax: +49-89-4140-4888, e-mail: Stefan.Leucht@lrz.tum.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinicians need to know the right antipsychotic dose for optimized treatment, and the concept of dose equivalence is important for many clinical and scientific purposes. METHODS: We refined a method presented in 2003, which was based on the minimum effective doses found in fixed-dose studies. We operationalized the selection process, updated the original findings, and expanded them by systematically searching more recent literature and by including 13 second-generation antipsychotics. To qualify for the minimum effective dose, a dose had to be significantly more efficacious than placebo in the primary outcome of at least one randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose trial. In a sensitivity analysis, 2 positive trials were required. The minimum effective doses identified were subsequently used to derive olanzapine, risperidone, haloperidol, and chlorpromazine equivalents. RESULTS: We reviewed 73 included studies. The minimum effective daily doses/olanzapine equivalents based on our primary approach were: aripiprazole 10 mg/1.33, asenapine 10 mg/1.33, clozapine 300 mg/40, haloperidol 4 mg/0.53, iloperidone 8 mg/1.07, lurasidone 40 mg/5.33, olanzapine 7.5 mg/1, paliperidone 3 mg/0.4, quetiapine 150 mg/20, risperidone 2 mg/0.27, sertindole 12 mg/1.60, and ziprasidone 40 mg/5.33. For amisulpride and zotepine, reliable estimates could not be derived. CONCLUSIONS: This method for determining antipsychotic dose equivalence entails an operationalized and evidence-based approach that can be applied to the various antipsychotic drugs. As a limitation, the results are not applicable to specific populations such as first-episode or refractory patients. We recommend that alternative methods also be updated in order to minimize further differences between the methods and risk of subsequent bias.
BACKGROUND: Clinicians need to know the right antipsychotic dose for optimized treatment, and the concept of dose equivalence is important for many clinical and scientific purposes. METHODS: We refined a method presented in 2003, which was based on the minimum effective doses found in fixed-dose studies. We operationalized the selection process, updated the original findings, and expanded them by systematically searching more recent literature and by including 13 second-generation antipsychotics. To qualify for the minimum effective dose, a dose had to be significantly more efficacious than placebo in the primary outcome of at least one randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose trial. In a sensitivity analysis, 2 positive trials were required. The minimum effective doses identified were subsequently used to derive olanzapine, risperidone, haloperidol, and chlorpromazine equivalents. RESULTS: We reviewed 73 included studies. The minimum effective daily doses/olanzapine equivalents based on our primary approach were: aripiprazole 10 mg/1.33, asenapine 10 mg/1.33, clozapine 300 mg/40, haloperidol 4 mg/0.53, iloperidone 8 mg/1.07, lurasidone 40 mg/5.33, olanzapine 7.5 mg/1, paliperidone 3 mg/0.4, quetiapine 150 mg/20, risperidone 2 mg/0.27, sertindole 12 mg/1.60, and ziprasidone 40 mg/5.33. For amisulpride and zotepine, reliable estimates could not be derived. CONCLUSIONS: This method for determining antipsychotic dose equivalence entails an operationalized and evidence-based approach that can be applied to the various antipsychotic drugs. As a limitation, the results are not applicable to specific populations such as first-episode or refractory patients. We recommend that alternative methods also be updated in order to minimize further differences between the methods and risk of subsequent bias.
Authors: Mark E Schmidt; Justine M Kent; Ella Daly; Luc Janssens; Nancy Van Osselaer; Gitta Hüsken; Ion-George Anghelescu; Luc Van Nueten Journal: Eur Neuropsychopharmacol Date: 2012-03-31 Impact factor: 4.600
Authors: David M Gardner; Andrea L Murphy; Heather O'Donnell; Franca Centorrino; Ross J Baldessarini Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2010-04-01 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Junghee Lee; Eric A Reavis; Stephen A Engel; Lori L Altshuler; Mark S Cohen; David C Glahn; Keith H Nuechterlein; Jonathan K Wynn; Michael F Green Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Joya N Hampton; Hanan D Trotman; Jean Addington; Carrie E Bearden; Kristin S Cadenhead; Tyrone D Cannon; Barbara A Cornblatt; Daniel H Mathalon; Thomas H McGlashan; Ming T Tsuang; Diana O Perkins; Larry J Seidman; Scott W Woods; Elaine F Walker Journal: Stress Health Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 3.519