Sex differences in effectiveness and adverse effects of mood stabilizers and antipsychotics: A systematic review
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Psychiatric disorders differ in their prevalence, symptom profiles, and disease courses in men and women. However, sex differences in psychiatric disorders have not received enough attention to guide treatment recommendations. This systematic review aims to summarize sex differences in the treatment responses and adverse effects of mood stabilizers and antipsychotics transdiagnostically.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA 2020 statement (CRD42020212478). A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus databases. Studies comparing mood stabilizer or antipsychotic treatment outcomes in men and women were included. JBI critical appraisal checklists were used to assess bias risk.
RESULTS
Out of 4866 records, 129 reports (14 on mood stabilizers, 115 on antipsychotics) with varying designs were included. Sample sizes ranged from 17 to 22,774 participants (median = 147). The most common psychiatric diagnoses were schizophrenia spectrum (n = 109, 84.5 %) and bipolar disorders (n = 38, 29.5 %). Only four studies explored sex differences in mood stabilizer treatment response. In 40 articles on antipsychotic treatment response, 18 indicated no sex difference, while 16 showed females had better outcomes. Women had more adverse effects with both mood stabilizers and antipsychotics. The risk of bias was low in 84 (65.1 %) of studies.
LIMITATIONS
Substantial heterogeneity…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 22,774 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Global, regional, and national burden of hepatitis B, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019
- A meta‐analysis of anal cancer incidence by risk group: Toward a unified anal cancer risk scale
- Global fertility in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2021, with forecasts to 2100: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021
- Exercise interventions in Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- Prognostic Significance of Carbonic Anhydrase IX Expression in Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis
- Glucocorticoid Resistance: Is It a Requisite for Increased Cytokine Production in Depression? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.