-
Lancet (London, England) Jul 2022Behavioural, cognitive, and pharmacological interventions can all be effective for insomnia. However, because of inadequate resources, medications are more frequently... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Behavioural, cognitive, and pharmacological interventions can all be effective for insomnia. However, because of inadequate resources, medications are more frequently used worldwide. We aimed to estimate the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for the acute and long-term treatment of adults with insomnia disorder.
METHODS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and websites of regulatory agencies from database inception to Nov 25, 2021, to identify published and unpublished randomised controlled trials. We included studies comparing pharmacological treatments or placebo as monotherapy for the treatment of adults (≥18 year) with insomnia disorder. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (ie, quality of sleep measured by any self-rated scale), treatment discontinuation for any reason and due to side-effects specifically, and safety (ie, number of patients with at least one adverse event) both for acute and long-term treatment. We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PU4QJ.
FINDINGS
We included 170 trials (36 interventions and 47 950 participants) in the systematic review and 154 double-blind, randomised controlled trials (30 interventions and 44 089 participants) were eligible for the network meta-analysis. In terms of acute treatment, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more efficacious than placebo (SMD range: 0·36-0·83 [CINeMA estimates of certainty: high to moderate]). Benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more efficacious than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD 0·27-0·71 [moderate to very low]). Intermediate-acting benzodiazepines, long-acting benzodiazepines, and eszopiclone had fewer discontinuations due to any cause than ramelteon (OR 0·72 [95% CI 0·52-0·99; moderate], 0·70 [0·51-0·95; moderate] and 0·71 [0·52-0·98; moderate], respectively). Zopiclone and zolpidem caused more dropouts due to adverse events than did placebo (zopiclone: OR 2·00 [95% CI 1·28-3·13; very low]; zolpidem: 1·79 [1·25-2·50; moderate]); and zopiclone caused more dropouts than did eszopiclone (OR 1·82 [95% CI 1·01-3·33; low]), daridorexant (3·45 [1·41-8·33; low), and suvorexant (3·13 [1·47-6·67; low]). For the number of individuals with side-effects at study endpoint, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were worse than placebo, doxepin, seltorexant, and zaleplon (OR range 1·27-2·78 [high to very low]). For long-term treatment, eszopiclone and lemborexant were more effective than placebo (eszopiclone: SMD 0·63 [95% CI 0·36-0·90; very low]; lemborexant: 0·41 [0·04-0·78; very low]) and eszopiclone was more effective than ramelteon (0.63 [0·16-1·10; very low]) and zolpidem (0·60 [0·00-1·20; very low]). Compared with ramelteon, eszopiclone and zolpidem had a lower rate of all-cause discontinuations (eszopiclone: OR 0·43 [95% CI 0·20-0·93; very low]; zolpidem: 0·43 [0·19-0·95; very low]); however, zolpidem was associated with a higher number of dropouts due to side-effects than placebo (OR 2·00 [95% CI 1·11-3·70; very low]).
INTERPRETATION
Overall, eszopiclone and lemborexant had a favorable profile, but eszopiclone might cause substantial adverse events and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive. Doxepin, seltorexant, and zaleplon were well tolerated, but data on efficacy and other important outcomes were scarce and do not allow firm conclusions. Many licensed drugs (including benzodiazepines, daridorexant, suvorexant, and trazodone) can be effective in the acute treatment of insomnia but are associated with poor tolerability, or information about long-term effects is not available. Melatonin, ramelteon, and non-licensed drugs did not show overall material benefits. These results should serve evidence-based clinical practice.
FUNDING
UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.
Topics: Adult; Benzodiazepines; Doxepin; Eszopiclone; Humans; Melatonin; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Zolpidem
PubMed: 35843245
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00878-9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Insomnia disorder is a subjective condition of unsatisfactory sleep (e.g. sleep onset, maintenance, early waking, impairment of daytime functioning). Insomnia disorder... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Insomnia disorder is a subjective condition of unsatisfactory sleep (e.g. sleep onset, maintenance, early waking, impairment of daytime functioning). Insomnia disorder impairs quality of life and is associated with an increased risk of physical and mental health problems including anxiety, depression, drug and alcohol abuse, and increased health service use. hypnotic medications (e.g. benzodiazepines and 'Z' drugs) are licensed for sleep promotion, but can induce tolerance and dependence, although many people remain on long-term treatment. Antidepressant use for insomnia is widespread, but none is licensed for insomnia and the evidence for their efficacy is unclear. This use of unlicensed medications may be driven by concern over longer-term use of hypnotics and the limited availability of psychological treatments.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of antidepressants for insomnia in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
This review incorporated the results of searches to July 2015 conducted on electronic bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1950 to 2015), Embase (1980 to 2015) and PsycINFO (1806 to 2015). We updated the searches to December 2017, but these results have not yet been incorporated into the review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults (aged 18 years or older) with a primary diagnosis of insomnia and all participant types including people with comorbidities. Any antidepressant as monotherapy at any dose whether compared with placebo, other medications for insomnia (e.g. benzodiazepines and 'Z' drugs), a different antidepressant, waiting list control or treatment as usual.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and extracted data using a data extraction form. A third review author resolved disagreements on inclusion or data extraction.
MAIN RESULTS
The search identified 23 RCTs (2806 participants).Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) compared with placebo: three studies (135 participants) compared SSRIs with placebo. Combining results was not possible. Two paroxetine studies showed significant improvements in subjective sleep measures at six (60 participants, P = 0.03) and 12 weeks (27 participants, P < 0.001). There was no difference in the fluoxetine study (low quality evidence).There were either no adverse events or they were not reported (very low quality evidence).Tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) compared with placebo: six studies (812 participants) compared TCA with placebo; five used doxepin and one used trimipramine. We found no studies of amitriptyline. Four studies (518 participants) could be pooled, showing a moderate improvement in subjective sleep quality over placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.56 to -0.21) (moderate quality evidence). Moderate quality evidence suggested that TCAs possibly improved sleep efficiency (mean difference (MD) 6.29 percentage points, 95% CI 3.17 to 9.41; 4 studies; 510 participants) and increased sleep time (MD 22.88 minutes, 95% CI 13.17 to 32.59; 4 studies; 510 participants). There may have been little or no impact on sleep latency (MD -4.27 minutes, 95% CI -9.01 to 0.48; 4 studies; 510 participants).There may have been little or no difference in adverse events between TCAs and placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21; 6 studies; 812 participants) (low quality evidence).'Other' antidepressants with placebo: eight studies compared other antidepressants with placebo (one used mianserin and seven used trazodone). Three studies (370 participants) of trazodone could be pooled, indicating a moderate improvement in subjective sleep outcomes over placebo (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.02). Two studies of trazodone measured polysomnography and found little or no difference in sleep efficiency (MD 1.38 percentage points, 95% CI -2.87 to 5.63; 169 participants) (low quality evidence).There was low quality evidence from two studies of more adverse effects with trazodone than placebo (i.e. morning grogginess, increased dry mouth and thirst).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We identified relatively few, mostly small studies with short-term follow-up and design limitations. The effects of SSRIs compared with placebo are uncertain with too few studies to draw clear conclusions. There may be a small improvement in sleep quality with short-term use of low-dose doxepin and trazodone compared with placebo. The tolerability and safety of antidepressants for insomnia is uncertain due to limited reporting of adverse events. There was no evidence for amitriptyline (despite common use in clinical practice) or for long-term antidepressant use for insomnia. High-quality trials of antidepressants for insomnia are needed.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Fluoxetine; Humans; Mianserin; Paroxetine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Trazodone
PubMed: 29761479
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010753.pub2 -
Drugs May 2023Pharmacological treatment is common in practice and widely used for the management of insomnia. However, evidence comparing the relative effectiveness, safety, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pharmacological treatment is common in practice and widely used for the management of insomnia. However, evidence comparing the relative effectiveness, safety, and certainty of evidence among drug classes and individual drugs for insomnia are still lacking. This study aimed to determine the relative effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of drugs for insomnia.
METHODS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov, from inception to January 10, 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials that compared insomnia drugs with placebo or an active comparator in adults with insomnia. We conducted random-effects frequentist network meta-analyses to summarize the evidence, and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty, categorize interventionsand present the findings.
RESULTS
A total of 148 articles met our eligibility criteria; these included 153 trials which enrolled 46,412 participants and assessed 36 individual drugs from eight drug classes. Compared with placebo, both subjectively and objectively measured total sleep time were significantly improved with non-benzodiazepine (subjective: mean difference [MD] 25.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 15.49-34.64, low certainty; objective: MD 22.34, 95% CI 7.64-37.05, high certainty), antidepressants (subjective: MD 54.40, 95% CI 34.96-75.83, low certainty; objective: MD 35.64, 95% CI 13.05-58.24, high certainty), and orexin receptor antagonists (subjective: MD 21.62, 95% CI 0.84-42.40, high certainty; objective: MD 31.81, 95% CI 2.66-60.95, high certainty); of which doxepin, almorexant, suvorexant, and lemborexant were among the relatively effective drugs with relatively good tolerability and lower risks of any adverse events (AEs). Both subjectively and objectively measured sleep onset latency were significantly shortened with non-benzodiazepines (subjective: MD - 10.12, 95% CI - 13.84 to - 6.40, moderate certainty; objective: MD - 12.11, 95% CI - 19.31 to - 4.90, moderate certainty) and melatonin receptor agonists (subjective: MD - 7.73, 95% CI - 15.21 to - 0.26, high certainty; objective: MD - 7.04, 95% CI - 12.12 to - 1.95, moderate certainty); in particular, zopiclone was among the most effective drugs with a lower risk of any AEs but worse tolerability. Non-benzodiazepines could significantly decrease both subjective and objective measured wake time after sleep onset (subjective: MD - 16.67, 95% CI - 21.79 to - 11.56, moderate certainty; objective: MD - 13.92, 95% CI - 22.71 to - 5.14, moderate certainty).
CONCLUSIONS
Non-benzodiazepines probably improve total sleep time, sleep onset latency, and wake time after sleep onset. Other insomnia drug classes and individual drugs also showed potential benefits in improving insomnia symptoms. However, the choice of insomnia drugs should be based on the phenotype of insomnia presented, as well as each drug's safety and tolerability. Protocol registration PROSPERO (CRD42019138790).
Topics: Humans; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Antidepressive Agents; Sleep
PubMed: 36947394
DOI: 10.1007/s40265-023-01859-8 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Feb 2019Urticarial vasculitis (UV) is a difficult-to-treat condition characterized by long-lasting urticarial rashes and histopathologic findings of leukocytoclastic vasculitis....
Urticarial vasculitis (UV) is a difficult-to-treat condition characterized by long-lasting urticarial rashes and histopathologic findings of leukocytoclastic vasculitis. Treatment is dictated by the severity of skin and systemic involvement and the underlying systemic disease. This is a comprehensive systematic review of the efficacy of current UV treatment options. We searched for relevant studies in 7 databases, including MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. In total, 261 eligible studies and 789 unique patients with UV were included in the systematic review. Most patients with UV are adult women with chronic (≥6 weeks) and systemic disease. UV is mostly idiopathic but can be associated with drugs, malignancy, autoimmunity, and infections. It usually resolves with their withdrawal or cure. Corticosteroids are effective for the treatment of skin symptoms in more than 80% of patients with UV. However, their long-term administration can lead to potentially serious adverse effects. The addition of immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive agents often allows corticosteroid tapering and improves the efficacy of therapy. Biologicals, including omalizumab, as well as corticosteroids, cyclophosphamide, dapsone, mycophenolate mofetil, plasmapheresis, colchicine, hydroxychloroquine, intravenous immunoglobulin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and cyclosporine, can be effective for both skin and systemic symptoms in patients with UV. H-antihistamines, montelukast, danazol, H-antihistamines, pentoxifylline, doxepin, and tranexamic acid are not effective in most patients with UV. As of yet, no drugs have been approved for UV, and management recommendations are based mostly on case reports and retrospective studies. Prospective studies investigating the effects of treatment on the signs and symptoms of UV are needed.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Animals; Biological Therapy; Female; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Male; Omalizumab; Skin; Urticaria; Vasculitis
PubMed: 30268388
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2018.09.007 -
Sleep Medicine Reviews Apr 2018Restless legs syndrome is commonly co-morbid with medical conditions that are treated with antidepressant medications, such as depression, anxiety, fibromyalgia, and... (Review)
Review
Restless legs syndrome is commonly co-morbid with medical conditions that are treated with antidepressant medications, such as depression, anxiety, fibromyalgia, and chronic insomnia disorder. Evidence from case reports and cross-sectional studies suggests that antidepressants may induce or worsen restless legs syndrome and increase periodic limb movements. We undertook a systematic review of the literature to identify and collate all prospective studies that measured restless legs syndrome symptoms and/or periodic limb movements following the introduction of an antidepressant. Eighteen studies were eligible for inclusion. Current data indicate that onset or exacerbation of restless legs syndrome and rise in frequency of periodic limb movements are uncommon following the initiation of an antidepressant. Among the various antidepressants, mirtazapine may be associated with higher rates of restless legs syndrome and periodic limb movements. One small study of normal volunteers suggested that venlafaxine may be associated with an increase in restless legs syndrome symptoms and periodic limb movements. Sertraline, fluoxetine, and amitriptyline appear to increase periodic limb movements that do not disrupt sleep and are thus unlikely to be clinically significant. On the other hand, bupropion may reduce restless legs syndrome symptoms, at least in the short term. Sedating antidepressants such as trazodone, nefazodone, and doxepin do not seem to aggravate periodic limb movements. The current evidence is limited by poor study design, inadequate use of standardized questionnaires, and heterogeneous populations studied for variable lengths of time. Future research should attempt to remedy these shortcomings.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Comorbidity; Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Prospective Studies; Restless Legs Syndrome; Sleep
PubMed: 28822709
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2017.06.002 -
Acta Odontologica Latinoamericana : AOL Apr 2023Oral mucositis (OM) is a frequent complication in cancer patients who are undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy. It manifests as an inflammation of the oral mucosa,...
UNLABELLED
Oral mucositis (OM) is a frequent complication in cancer patients who are undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy. It manifests as an inflammation of the oral mucosa, sometimes provoking severe consequences such as eating limitations, difficulty in speaking, and possibly superinfection.
AIM
The aim of this review was to update the evidence published during the last five years on the treatment of oral mucositis induced by radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy in patients with cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
A search was conducted in Pubmed, Scielo and Scopus, using the search terms mucositis, stomatitis, therapy, treatment, oral cancer, oral squamous cell carcinoma, head and neck cancer and head and neck carcinoma, with Mesh terms and free terms, from 2017 to January 2023. The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
A total 287 articles were retrieved, of which 86 were selected by title and abstract, and 18 were included after full-text analysis. The most frequently assessed variables were OM severity, pain intensity and healing time. Treatment types were diverse, and included drugs, mouthwashes, medicines based on plant extracts, cryotherapy and low-intensity laser therapies.
CONCLUSION
Dentoxol mouthwashes, Plantago major extract, thyme honey extract, zinc oxide paste, vitamin B complex combined with GeneTime, and the consumption of L-glutamine are effective in diminishing the severity of OM. Pain intensity was lower with doxepin mouthwashes and diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwashes.
Topics: Humans; Mucositis; Radiotherapy
PubMed: 37314054
DOI: 10.54589/aol.36/1/3 -
CNS Drugs Apr 2022Bipolar disorder (BD) is a chronic relapsing-remitting psychiatric disorder. Sleep and circadian rhythm disturbances persist during acute mood episodes of the disorder... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bipolar disorder (BD) is a chronic relapsing-remitting psychiatric disorder. Sleep and circadian rhythm disturbances persist during acute mood episodes of the disorder and during euthymia. However, the treatment potential of hypnotic agents that might be used to manage sleep disturbance in BD is not well understood. Similarly, melatonin and medications with a melatonin-receptor agonist mechanism of action may have chronotherapeutic potential for treating people with the disorder, but the impact of these substances on sleep and circadian rhythms and core symptoms in BD is unclear.
OBJECTIVE
Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the current evidence for hypnotic and melatonin/melatonin-receptor agonist pharmacotherapy for symptoms of sleep disturbance, mania, and depression in patients with BD.
METHODS
AMED, Embase, MEDLINE and PsychINFO databases were searched for studies published in English from the date of inception to 31 October 2021. Studies included in this review were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-controlled/non-randomised studies for BD that examined hypnotic medications selected based on a common pattern of usage for treating insomnia (i.e. chloral, clomethiazole, diphenhydramine, doxepin, doxylamine, promethazine, suvorexant, zaleplon, zolpidem, zopiclone, and eszopiclone) and melatonin and the melatonin-receptor agonist drugs ramelteon and agomelatine. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2 and AXIS tools. Pooled effect sizes for RCT outcomes were estimated using random-effects models.
RESULTS
A total of eleven studies (six RCTs and five experimental feasibility studies) involving 1279 participants were included. Each study examined melatonin or melatonin-receptor agonists. No studies of hypnotics were found that fulfilled the review inclusion criteria. Pilot feasibility studies suggested beneficial treatment effects for symptoms of sleep disturbance, depression, and mania. However, the pooled effect of the two available RCT studies assessing sleep quality via Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index scores was not statistically significant (g = - 0.04 [95% CI - 0.81 to 0.73]) and neither was the pooled effect for depressive symptoms (four studies; g = - 0.10 [95% CI - 0.27 to 0.08]). Some RCT evidence suggests ramelteon might prevent relapse into depression in BD. The largest efficacy signal detected was for manic symptoms (four studies; g = - 0.44 [95% CI - 1.03 to 0.14]) but there was substantial heterogeneity between studies and patient characteristics. In the two RCTs assessing manic symptoms during acute mania, adjunctive melatonin demonstrated superior treatment effects versus placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a paucity of studies examining pharmacological interventions for sleep and circadian rhythm disturbance in BD. Few studies assessed sleep-related symptoms, and none quantitatively examined endogenous melatonin patterns or other circadian rhythms. Melatonin may be a promising candidate for the adjunctive treatment of bipolar mania. However, dose-finding studies and studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm its efficacy. We recommend parallel monitoring of sleep and circadian rhythms in future trials. Chronobiology-informed trial designs are needed to improve the quality of future studies.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42020167528).
Topics: Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Mania; Melatonin; Sleep; Sleep Wake Disorders
PubMed: 35305257
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-022-00911-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2024Postburn pruritus (itch) is a common and distressing symptom experienced on healing or healed burn or donor site wounds. Topical, systemic, and physical treatments are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postburn pruritus (itch) is a common and distressing symptom experienced on healing or healed burn or donor site wounds. Topical, systemic, and physical treatments are available to control postburn pruritus; however, it remains unclear how effective these are.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for treating postburn pruritus in any care setting.
SEARCH METHODS
In September 2022, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries and scanned references of relevant publications to identify eligible trials. There were no restrictions with respect to language, publication date, or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people with postburn pruritus to compare an intervention for postburn pruritus with any other intervention, placebo or sham intervention, or no intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 RCTs assessing 21 interventions with 1166 randomised participants. These 21 interventions can be grouped into six categories: neuromodulatory agents (such as doxepin, gabapentin, pregabalin, ondansetron), topical therapies (such as CQ-01 hydrogel, silicone gel, enalapril ointment, Provase moisturiser, beeswax and herbal oil cream), physical modalities (such as massage therapy, therapeutic touch, extracorporeal shock wave therapy, enhanced education about silicone gel sheeting), laser scar revision (pulsed dye laser, pulsed high-intensity laser, fractional CO2 laser), electrical stimulation (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation), and other therapies (cetirizine/cimetidine combination, lemon balm tea). Most RCTs were conducted at academic hospitals and were at a high risk of performance, attrition, and detection bias. While 24 out of 25 included studies reported change in burn-related pruritus, secondary outcomes such as cost-effectiveness, pain, patient perception, wound healing, and participant health-related quality of life were not reported or were reported incompletely. Neuromodulatory agents versus antihistamines or placebo There is low-certainty evidence that doxepin cream may reduce burn-related pruritus compared with oral antihistamine (mean difference (MD) -2.60 on a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS), 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.79 to -1.42; 2 studies, 49 participants). A change of 2 points represents a minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Due to very low-certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether doxepin cream impacts the incidence of somnolence as an adverse event compared to oral antihistamine (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.25; 1 study, 24 participants). No data were reported on pain in the included study. There is low-certainty evidence that gabapentin may reduce burn-related pruritus compared with cetirizine (MD -2.40 VAS, 95% CI -4.14 to -0.66; 1 study, 40 participants). A change of 2 points represents a MCID. There is low-certainty evidence that gabapentin reduces the incidence of somnolence compared to cetirizine (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.38; 1 study, 40 participants). No data were reported on pain in the included study. There is low-certainty evidence that pregabalin may result in a reduction in burn-related pruritus intensity compared with cetirizine with pheniramine maleate (MD -0.80 VAS, 95% CI -1.24 to -0.36; 1 study, 40 participants). A change of 2 points represents a MCID. There is low-certainty evidence that pregabalin reduces the incidence of somnolence compared to cetirizine (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.69; 1 study, 40 participants). No data were reported on pain in the included study. There is moderate-certainty evidence that ondansetron probably results in a reduction in burn-related pruritus intensity compared with diphenhydramine (MD -0.76 on a 0 to 10 numeric analogue scale (NAS), 95% CI -1.50 to -0.02; 1 study, 38 participants). A change of 2 points represents a MCID. No data were reported on pain and adverse events in the included study. Topical therapies versus relevant comparators There is moderate-certainty evidence that enalapril ointment probably decreases mean burn-related pruritus compared with placebo control (MD -0.70 on a 0 to 4 scoring table for itching, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.36; 1 study, 60 participants). No data were reported on pain and adverse events in the included study. Physical modalities versus relevant comparators Compared with standard care, there is low-certainty evidence that massage may reduce burn-related pruritus (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.86, 95% CI -1.45 to -0.27; 2 studies, 166 participants) and pain (SMD -1.32, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.98). These SMDs equate to a 4.60-point reduction in pruritus and a 3.74-point reduction in pain on a 10-point VAS. A change of 2 VAS points in itch represents a MCID. No data were reported on adverse events in the included studies. There is low-certainty evidence that extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) may reduce burn-related pruritus compared with sham stimulation (SMD -1.20, 95% CI -1.65 to -0.75; 2 studies, 91 participants). This equates to a 5.93-point reduction in pruritus on a 22-point 12-item Pruritus Severity Scale. There is low-certainty evidence that ESWT may reduce pain compared with sham stimulation (MD 2.96 on a 0 to 25 pressure pain threshold (PPT), 95% CI 1.76 to 4.16; 1 study, 45 participants). No data were reported on adverse events in the included studies. Laser scar revision versus untreated or placebo controls There is moderate-certainty evidence that pulsed high-intensity laser probably results in a reduction in burn-related pruritus intensity compared with placebo laser (MD -0.51 on a 0 to 1 Itch Severity Scale (ISS), 95% CI -0.64 to -0.38; 1 study, 49 participants). There is moderate-certainty evidence that pulsed high-intensity laser probably reduces pain compared with placebo laser (MD -3.23 VAS, 95% CI -5.41 to -1.05; 1 study, 49 participants). No data were reported on adverse events in the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate to low-certainty evidence on the effects of 21 interventions. Most studies were small and at a high risk of bias related to blinding and incomplete outcome data. Where there is moderate-certainty evidence, practitioners should consider the applicability of the evidence for their patients.
Topics: Humans; Pruritus; Burns; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Bias; Antipruritics
PubMed: 38837237
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013468.pub2 -
Sleep Medicine Reviews Feb 2015Doxepin, a sedating tricyclic drug, at 3 mg and 6 mg doses was recently approved by the U.S. food and drug administration (FDA) for the treatment of insomnia. The... (Review)
Review
Doxepin, a sedating tricyclic drug, at 3 mg and 6 mg doses was recently approved by the U.S. food and drug administration (FDA) for the treatment of insomnia. The objective of this systematic review was to obtain a precise summary of the efficacy and safety of doxepin as a hypnotic. We searched key databases and trial registers up to March 2014 and contacted pharmaceutical companies and the FDA for unpublished data. A total of nine randomized placebo-controlled trials were analyzed. Six studies were on doxepin 1-6 mg/d, two on doxepin 25-300 mg/d, and one on ramelteon 8 mg and doxepin 3 mg combined. All low-dose studies were industry-sponsored. We found that low-dose doxepin had a small to medium effect size against placebo for sleep maintenance and sleep duration but not for sleep initiation at both immediate and short-term posttreatment. There was no significant next-day residual effect with low-dose doxepin. Headache and somnolence were the most common side effects. We concluded that low-dose doxepin for 1-2 nights appeared to be safe and effective in improving sleep. However, a clear conclusion on its short-term benefits and risks as well as withdrawal effects was not possible due to the small number of studies.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Doxepin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Indenes; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Treatment Outcome; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration; Young Adult
PubMed: 25047681
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2014.06.001 -
European Journal of Pain (London,... Jan 2016Many treatment modalities are used for itch treatment in daily medical practices without adequate evidence of their efficacy. The purpose of this study was to provide an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Many treatment modalities are used for itch treatment in daily medical practices without adequate evidence of their efficacy. The purpose of this study was to provide an evidence-based review of the literature as to the clinical benefits of systemic anti-itch treatments.
DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT
We performed a systematic review and, when appropriate, meta-analysis from available placebo-controlled randomized controlled trails (RCTs). A systematic search of the literature was performed using Pub Med, Cochrane Library and EMBASE. The primary outcome was the change in the itch score comparing the intervention group and placebo group. The meta-analysis method was used to calculate the pooled outcome of each treatment modality.
RESULTS
Twenty-six eligible RCTs were included. We found evidence for the effectiveness of: naltrexone (in cholestatic itch and atopic eczema), nalfurafine (in uraemic itch), gabapentin (in uraemic itch) and ursodeoxycholic acid (in intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy). The results of two RCTs with naltrexone in uremic itch are conflicting. On the other hand, we did not find any benefit from ondansetron (in cholestatic and uraemic itch), ergocalciferol (in uraemic itch), colesevelam (in cholestatic itch) or gabapentin (in cholestatic itch). The possible effectiveness of sertraline, paroxetine, cromolyn sodium, zinc sulphate, omega-3 fatty acid, montelukast, doxepin and rifampin need to be confirmed from future large studies, because the available evidence is insufficient.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings from this study suggest the effective therapeutic approaches for itch. The major limitations are that there are small numbers of available RCTs and methodological differences across studies.
Topics: Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pruritus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26416344
DOI: 10.1002/ejp.766