REVIEW ARTICLE |
Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK
Department of Diabetic Medicine, King's College Hospital, London, UK
Clinical Neurosciences Division, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
Endocrinology and Metabolism Sub-division, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, USA
Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, UK
Correspondence: M. Smith, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London SE5 9RJ, UK. Email: m.smith{at}iop.kcl.ac.uk
R.P. has received fees for speaking and consulting from makers of antipsychotics, including Eli Lilly and Company, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Pfizer, Janssen and Astra Zeneca. R.H. has received educational grants and fees for lecturing and consultancy work from Eli Lilly and Company, Bristol Myers Squibb and GlaxoSmithKline.
|
|
|---|
The increased prevalence of diabetes in schizophrenia is partly attributed to antipsychotic treatment, in particular second-generation antipsychotics, but the evidence has not been systematically reviewed.
Aims
Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing diabetes risk for different antipsychotics in people with schizophrenia.
Method
We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, CINAHL and Web of Knowledge until September 2006. Studies were eligible for inclusion if the design was cross-sectional, case–control, cohort or a controlled trial in individuals with schizophrenia or related psychotic disorders, where second-generation antipsychotics (defined as clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone and quetiapine) were compared with first-generation antipsychotics and diabetes was an outcome. Data were pooled using random effects inverse variance weighted meta-analysis.
Results
Of the studies that met the inclusion criteria (n=14), 11 had sufficient data to include in the meta-analysis. Four of these were retrospective cohort studies. The relative risk of diabetes in patients with schizophrenia prescribed one of the second-generation v. first-generation antipsychotics was 1.32 (95% CI 1.15–1.51). There were insufficient data to include aripiprazole, ziprasidone and amisulpride in this analysis.
Conclusions
There is tentative evidence that the second-generation antipsychotics included in this study are associated with a small increased risk for diabetes compared with first-generation antipsychotics in people with schizophrenia. Methodological limitations were found in most studies, leading to heterogeneity and difficulty interpreting data. Regardless of type of antipsychotic, screening for diabetes in all people with schizophrenia should be routine.
|
|
|---|
The prevalence of diabetes has been reported to be two- to threefold higher in people with schizophrenia than the general population.4–8 The reason for this increase is not well understood but likely to be multifactorial.9
There has been increasing concern that antipsychotics, especially the second-generation type, are also associated with an increased risk for diabetes in people with schizophrenia.10–12 Despite this increase in case reports, commentaries and editorials, there has been no systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Establishing the evidence base for this apparent phenomenon which is of increasing concern to psychiatrists and people with schizophrenia is crucial prior to developing guidelines for diabetes screening and management.
We conducted a systematic review of the evidence for an association between diabetes and type of antipsychotic medication, and carried out a meta-analysis of the relative risk of diabetes in people with schizophrenia who were prescribed second-generation antipsychotics, compared with those who were prescribed first-generation antipsychotics.
|
|
|---|
Studies were excluded according to the criteria shown in Fig. 1. Studies funded by pharmaceutical companies were included, and coded as such, whether fully or partially funded.
![]() View larger version (12K): [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide] |
Fig. 1 Flow chart of systematic review.
|
The proceedings of conferences during 2000–2005 on diabetes (American Diabetes Association, Diabetes UK, European Association for the Study of Diabetes, International Diabetes Federation) and psychiatry (American Psychiatric Association, Schizophrenia Research) were hand and electronically searched in the relevant sections.
The reference lists of included studies and reviews were searched for any additional studies. Although clozapine was first introduced in 1956 and withdrawn shortly after because of severe side-effects, there was a small risk of not detecting pre-1966 studies (when MEDLINE began), which was addressed by checking reference lists.
Corresponding authors and experts in the field were contacted for additional information on published and unpublished studies.
Data extraction
The abstracts of studies identified by electronic searches were examined by
M.S. If unclear, the original article was retrieved, reviewed and discussed
with co-investigators.
Data were extracted from papers selected for further review. Foreign papers were translated by doctors who were native speakers in that language.
Using a standardised data extraction sheet, we recorded and coded the following information (if available) from studies: country of origin; study design; setting; total sample size (and total number taking second-generation and first-generation antipsychotics); classification and method of assessment of schizophrenia; ascertainment of antipsychotic exposures; assessment and classification of outcome (diabetes); follow-up period; age; type of confounders adjusted; and source of funding. An attempt to retrieve missing data in the published article was made by contacting the author for correspondence on at least two occasions by email or letter.
Quality assessment
There is no consensus standardised method for the quality assessment of
observational studies. We adapted the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies
in Epidemiology
(MOOSE)14 and
Strengthening of the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology
(STROBE)15
guidelines to assess and code the quality of the studies.
A study method was considered as high-quality if the following criteria were present:
All other descriptions, or lack of any description, were coded as low-quality.
Setting and funding status of the studies were recorded but not coded for quality as it was difficult to assess with confidence how this could have introduced a bias.
We did not summarise the quality of studies with a score as this approach has been criticised as allocating equal weight to different aspects of methodology.18
Statistical analysis
Quantitative data from studies of high quality were pooled using random
effects inverse variance weighted
meta-analysis19 in
Stata, version 9 for Windows. Where available, approximate relative risks
(odds ratios or hazard ratios) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals
(CIs) for diabetes, which compared second-generation antipsychotics with
first-generation antipsychotics, were used from each study. Where results were
given after different adjustments for confounding factors, the result for the
largest confounding set was used. If only numbers with diabetes by drug type
were available, these were first used to compute unadjusted odds ratios and
corresponding 95% CIs for that study. Where no diabetes events occurred in any
drug group, the study was excluded from the meta-analysis. Some studies gave
separate results for different second-generation drugs but no overall result.
In these cases, meta-analysis was used to create a pooled result, over all
second-generation drugs, for that study only. This result was carried forward
to the overall meta-analysis. The percentage of heterogeneity between studies
not attributable to random noise was estimated using Higgins'
I-squared
statistic.19
|
|
|---|
Of the 14 studies, 10 were based in a hospital setting, 1 was based in primary care and 3 comprised a mixed hospital and primary care setting. Seven studies used a health administration or health insurance database.8,20–25 Only 1 study used a database designed for conducting research.26
The majority of study designs were either cross-sectional (n=4), retrospective cohort (n=4) or case–control (n=2) with only a handful using prospective design (n=3). The majority used consecutive or convenience sample selection, with two studies using random selection (Table DS1).
Nine (64.3%) studies used a classification system for schizophrenia (ICD, DSM–IV) but the majority were based on a clinical assessment with only one study using a research diagnostic interview, namely the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–III–R27 (Table DS1). The average age was 45.0 years (s.d.=7.7) (n=12 studies with age data).
Second-generation antipsychotics included in these studies were clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone and quetiapine, with clozapine studied on its own in four of the studies.5,23,28,29 Although sulpiride is classified as a second-generation antipsychotic in one paper,30 it is classified as a first-generation in the BNF and therefore was excluded from our list of second-generation antipsychotics.
The diagnosis of diabetes mellitus was according to WHO31 guidelines in 3 (21.4%) studies,5,28,30 ICD–9 diagnosis in 5 (35.7%) studies,8,20,21,23,25 and ADA guidelines in 3 (21.4%) studies.29,32,33 Most of the studies ensured that there was no evidence of diabetes prior to antipsychotic use but certain studies did not clearly differentiate between new and existing cases of diabetes.8,29,30 In addition, some studies used prescription of diabetes medication for diagnosis of diabetes.20,21,23–26
Excluding cross-sectional studies, follow-up periods ranged from 2 to 62 months and the median duration of follow-up from the start of the study was 12 months (interquartile range 2.6–16.8 months).
Most studies did not adjust for confounders in the methods or analysis. Studies also did not adjust for all risk factors for diabetes (Table DS1).
There were 7 studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry.20–22,24–26,33 One study was translated into English.32
Our meta-analysis found an overall relative risk of a diagnosis of diabetes in people with schizophrenia prescribed a second-generation antipsychotic of 1.32 (95% CI 1.15–1.51) compared with being prescribed a first-generation antipsychotic (Fig. 2). The percentage of variability across studies that is attributable to heterogeneity rather than chance was 80% (95% CI 66–89) and the test for heterogeneity was highly significant (P<0.001). Both these results suggest that there is considerable variation between the studies.
![]() View larger version (9K): [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide] |
Fig. 2 Forest plot of relative risks and 95% CIs for diabetes in patients on
first-generation antipsychotics compared with second-generation
antipsychotics. Estimates are at the centre of the boxes, which are drawn in
proportion to the standard errors; lines show 95% CIs. Arrows denote
censoring. The diamond shows the combined (pooled) estimate at its centre; its
horizontal points lie at the 95% confidence limits for the combined
estimate.
|
|
|
|---|
Strengths and limitations
The strengths of our review are that the study is based on principles
derived from the Cochrane Collaboration methods, such as an a priori
protocol. In addition, established Cochrane Collaboration search strategies
were adapted as well as hand searching of references of relevant papers,
including non-English ones. Experts in the field were contacted for missing
data and further information. We also conducted separate analyses comparing
individual second-generation antipsychotics with first-generation
antipsychotics to take account of the unequal distribution and potentially
different diabetogenic potential of individual drugs.
A possible limitation of our review is that we used a narrow search strategy which may have excluded well-designed studies that focused on related outcomes other than diabetes, such as weight gain or insulin levels. Although cardiovascular risk factors other than diabetes mellitus such as abnormal lipid metabolism, blood pressure and obesity may also have a significant effect on the physical health of patients with schizophrenia, we chose to focus on diabetes and exclude metabolic syndrome. Although the diagnosis of diabetes is relatively uniform, no such consensus exists for metabolic syndrome.9 We also chose to exclude homoeostasis model assessment as an outcome as it is a research tool and its validity for predicting diabetes remains unclear. We excluded patients taking antipsychotics when the clinical indication was not clear.35 We excluded studies of mixed psychiatric populations where subgroups of patients with schizophrenia who developed diabetes could not be distinguished.36–41
This led to some studies that included people with schizophrenia being excluded. The rationale for including only schizophrenia and related illnesses, and excluding all other psychiatric illnesses or studies which did not state diagnosis, was the importance of considering schizophrenia as an independent risk factor for diabetes. Studies that did not compare a second-generation antipsychotic with a first-generation antipsychotic, but instead to another second-generation antipsychotic or placebo were excluded.42–45 We included all second-generation antipsychotics but there were no studies that met our eligibility criteria for the more recent drugs such as ziprasidone, amisulpride and aripiprazole, which have been suggested to be less diabetogenic in some case reports.46,47 Future studies comparing their diabetogenic profiles are awaited.
Quality of studies
We found that the average duration of studies was around 12 months with
three studies having a follow up of only 3 months or less. It could be that
these studies did not follow up their patients for long enough, perhaps
several years, to capture the long-term risk for diabetes and this may have
led to an underestimation of our findings. However, there is also some
evidence that the diabetogenic effects are rapid in onset – within the
first few months.48
It is possible that there may be several glucose-metabolism-altering
mechanisms, a short- and a long-term process, and studies with repeated
measurements over several years could help to elucidate the diabetogenic
patterns.
Most studies included in this review were retrospective or pharmacoepidemiological using large databases. Limitations in analysing data from such studies, mainly due to the quality of clinical data recorded, exist. Database studies do not rely on a standardised method of diagnosing diabetes mellitus. Random blood glucose measures were often used, highlighting the difficulty of obtaining fasting blood samples from this patient group. Furthermore, utilisation of established diagnostic guidelines for diabetes such as those provided by the WHO17 or ADA16 was inconsistent. Prescription of hypoglycaemic medication as a method of diagnosis may exclude patients receiving non-pharmacological treatment for diabetes such as those on diet alone. It may also include some people receiving metformin for other indications such as polycystic ovarian syndrome. Little evidence existed that the diagnosis of diabetes in databases was reliable or valid. The date of the first listed claim may not represent the actual date of onset of diabetes as the diagnosis may have been previously made but recorded elsewhere.
The techniques and methods used to diagnose schizophrenia cannot be inferred accurately from the databases. We observed that not all antipsychotics were included in the databases. This may be a reflection of the country where the study was undertaken and the availability of, and preference for, one type of antipsychotic over another. Many of the databases were of specific populations and mainly in the USA, which may limit their generalisability to other populations. In addition, a number of studies had only a few weeks or months of observation which may have captured those individuals who have rapid weight gain but which may be too short a time to identify later onset of diabetes.
Association between antipsychotics and diabetes
The first observation of an association between antipsychotics and diabetes
occurred over 50 years ago, but renewed interest in this link has developed
with second-generation antipsychotics in the past decade. Second-generation
antipsychotics have been shown to reduce extrapyramidal side-effects and are
beneficial to many
patients.49
However, the concerns that second-generation antipsychotics may also increase
the risk of metabolic dysregulation must also be carefully considered.
As the majority of studies were cross-sectional or retrospective cohort in design, it is not possible to determine the direction of the association between second-generation antipsychotics and diabetes. Our review highlights that most studies were limited in quality with none of the studies fulfilling all of the quality criteria; five studies had four or fewer quality criteria (Table DS1). Any association detected in this review is likely to be significantly biased. The possibility of residual confounding also cannot be dismissed. One residual confounder not reported in any of the studies was whether an increased amount of screening occurred in those on second-generation antipsychotics compared with first-generation antipsychotics, owing to greater clinical awareness. This is important because of the high prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes in people with schizophrenia, among whom as many as 75% of cases of diabetes may be missed.50
Our review found that second-generation antipsychotics were associated with a 30% increased risk of diabetes compared with first-generation antipsychotics in people with schizophrenia – this is probably a biased observation33,51 with the true association probably being smaller. This review was unable to find sufficient evidence to differentiate the risk associated with individual antipsychotics, nor did the studies we identified help shed any light on causal mechanisms. Our review emphasises that, to date, the evidence is very poor and should not be used alone as a guideline for or switching antipsychotic medications or implementing diabetes screening and management protocols for schizophrenia until further evidence comes to light.
In epidemiological terms, a relative risk of less than 2 is considered low, whereas a relative risk of greater than 3 is considered high.51 This is an important clinical issue to consider when treating patients with antipsychotic medication. Importantly, clinicians should implement protocols for identifying physical illnesses, in particular diabetes, in people with schizophrenic illnesses, while also reviewing the rationale and dosage of prescribing antipsychotic medication both in terms of treatment of psychotic symptoms and risk of diabetes. Our review has identified the key confounders and methodological issues that need to be considered in evaluating the association between diabetes and antipsychotic medication in schizophrenia. There also remains an urgent need for continuing to identify and understand the biological pathways and increase the epidemiological evidence base for diabetes in schizophrenia. In particular, randomised controlled trials comparing first- and second-generation drugs should consider the implications of their study's power to detect differences in onset of diabetes as an adverse event, bearing in mind these events are likely to be rare.
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
Related articles in BJP:
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
L. L. Lipscombe, L. Levesque, A. Gruneir, H. D. Fischer, D. N. Juurlink, S. S. Gill, N. Herrmann, J. E. Hux, G. M. Anderson, and P. A. Rochon Antipsychotic Drugs and Hyperglycemia in Older Patients With Diabetes Arch Intern Med, July 27, 2009; 169(14): 1282 - 1289. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Tyrer From the Editor's desk The British Journal of Psychiatry, May 1, 2009; 194(5): 478 - 478. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Smith and R. Porter Antipsychotics and risk of diabetes in schizophrenia The British Journal of Psychiatry, February 1, 2009; 194(2): 186 - 187. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
Read all eLetters
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||