Efficacy and safety of cholinergic modulators in patients with schizophrenia: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Br J Psychiatry. 2025 May 2:1-11. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2025.44. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: One-third of schizophrenia patients show a lack of response to conventional antipsychotic drugs because of adverse effects and limited efficacy. Emerging treatments target muscarinic and nicotinic receptors, leveraging cholinergic dysfunction implicated in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia.
AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of cholinergic modulators in schizophrenia.
METHODS: Reviewers extracted data from clinical trials sourced via MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane databases and registries. Quality was assessed with a risk-of-bias tool and a random-effects model estimated effect size. Subgroup analysis, meta-regression and sensitivity analysis were performed as needed, adhering to PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS: A total of 30 randomised controlled trials (3128 participants) tested cholinergic modulators as monotherapy or adjunct therapy. They did not significantly improve Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores (standardised mean difference (SMD): -0.38; 95% CI: -0.93, 0.18; moderate certainty evidence) but did improve negative symptom scores (SMD: -0.42; 95% CI: -0.59, -0.25; moderate certainty evidence). Muscarinic agonists improved total (SMD: -0.57; 95% CI: -0.72, -0.42), positive (SMD: -0.58; 95% CI: -0.73, -0.43) and negative symptoms of PANSS (SMD: -0.40; 95% CI: -0.59, -0.21), as well as Clinical Global Impression-severity (CGI-S) (SMD: -0.48; 95% CI: -0.65, -0.31). Nicotinic agonists aided negative symptoms (SMD: -0.28; 95% CI: -0.47, -0.09) and CGI-S (SMD: -1.31; 95% CI: -2.38, -0.24). Adverse events were higher (odds ratio: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.56) in the experimental group.
CONCLUSION: Cholinergic modulators significantly improve negative symptoms, with muscarinic agonists showing improvement across symptom domains and severity, without notable differences in adverse effects from placebo. Most studies were at low bias risk; evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate.
Nat Commun. 2025 May 22;16(1):4766. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-59877-x.ABSTRACTThe IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report highlights the reliance on sustainable socio-economic pathways to meet the 1.5 °C or 2...
Alcohol Clin Exp Res (Hoboken). 2025 May 22. doi: 10.1111/acer.70076. Online ahead of print.ABSTRACTBACKGROUND: Rodent models have explored the transition from controlled goal-directed consumption to...
Int J Equity Health. 2025 May 22;24(1):146. doi: 10.1186/s12939-025-02485-4.ABSTRACTThe objective of this study is to analyze the changes in catastrophic health expenditures (CHE) and out-of-pocket...
Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2025 May 22;20(1):22. doi: 10.1186/s13011-025-00652-y.ABSTRACTBACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to assess the prevalence, drug education, and associated individual...
Acta Epileptol. 2025 May 23;7(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s42494-025-00223-5.ABSTRACTBACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder marked by a persistent tendency to generate seizures, leading to substantial cognitive,...
BMC Pediatr. 2025 May 22;25(1):410. doi: 10.1186/s12887-025-05677-7.ABSTRACTBACKGROUND: Firearm-related injuries represent a growing public health crisis disproportionately affecting Black youth in the United States. While research...
