-
Ideggyogyaszati Szemle Jan 2019Tension type headache, the most common type of primary headaches, affects approximately 80% of the population. Mainly because of its high prevalence, the socio-economic... (Review)
Review
Tension type headache, the most common type of primary headaches, affects approximately 80% of the population. Mainly because of its high prevalence, the socio-economic consequences of tension type headache are significant. The pain in tension type headache is usually bilateral, mild to moderate, is of a pressing or tightening quality, and is not accompanied by other symptoms. Patients with frequent or daily occurrence of tension type headache may experience significant distress because of the condition. The two main therapeutic avenues of tension type headache are acute and prophylactic treatment. Simple or combined analgesics are the mainstay of acute treatment. Prophylactic treatment is needed in case of attacks that are frequent and/or difficult to treat. The first drugs of choice as preventatives of tension type headache are tricyclic antidepressants, with a special focus on amitriptyline, the efficacy of which having been documented in multiple double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Among other antidepressants, the efficacy of mirtazapine and venlafaxine has been documented. There is weaker evidence about the efficacy of gabapentine, topiramate, and tizanidin. Non-pharmacological prophylactic methods of tension type headache with a documented efficacy include certain types of psychotherapy and acupuncture.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Humans; Tension-Type Headache
PubMed: 30785242
DOI: 10.18071/isz.72.0013 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent and disabling disorder. Evidence that PTSD is characterised by specific psychobiological dysfunctions has contributed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent and disabling disorder. Evidence that PTSD is characterised by specific psychobiological dysfunctions has contributed to a growing interest in the use of medication in its treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of medication for reducing PTSD symptoms in adults with PTSD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 11, November 2020); MEDLINE (1946-), Embase (1974-), PsycINFO (1967-) and PTSDPubs (all available years) either directly or via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR). We also searched international trial registers. The date of the latest search was 13 November 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacotherapy for adults with PTSD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors (TW, JI, and NP) independently assessed RCTs for inclusion in the review, collated trial data, and assessed trial quality. We contacted investigators to obtain missing data. We stratified summary statistics by medication class, and by medication agent for all medications. We calculated dichotomous and continuous measures using a random-effects model, and assessed heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
We include 66 RCTs in the review (range: 13 days to 28 weeks; 7442 participants; age range 18 to 85 years) and 54 in the meta-analysis. For the primary outcome of treatment response, we found evidence of beneficial effect for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.74; 8 studies, 1078 participants), which improved PTSD symptoms in 58% of SSRI participants compared with 35% of placebo participants, based on moderate-certainty evidence. For this outcome we also found evidence of beneficial effect for the noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant (NaSSA) mirtazapine: (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.94; 1 study, 26 participants) in 65% of people on mirtazapine compared with 22% of placebo participants, and for the tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) amitriptyline (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.96; 1 study, 40 participants) in 50% of amitriptyline participants compared with 17% of placebo participants, which improved PTSD symptoms. These outcomes are based on low-certainty evidence. There was however no evidence of beneficial effect for the number of participants who improved with the antipsychotics (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.67; 2 studies, 43 participants) compared to placebo, based on very low-certainty evidence. For the outcome of treatment withdrawal, we found evidence of a harm for the individual SSRI agents compared with placebo (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.87; 14 studies, 2399 participants). Withdrawals were also higher for the separate SSRI paroxetine group compared to the placebo group (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.29; 5 studies, 1101 participants). Nonetheless, the absolute proportion of individuals dropping out from treatment due to adverse events in the SSRI groups was low (9%), based on moderate-certainty evidence. For the rest of the medications compared to placebo, we did not find evidence of harm for individuals dropping out from treatment due to adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this review support the conclusion that SSRIs improve PTSD symptoms; they are first-line agents for the pharmacotherapy of PTSD, based on moderate-certainty evidence. The NaSSA mirtazapine and the TCA amitriptyline may also improve PTSD symptoms, but this is based on low-certainty evidence. In addition, we found no evidence of benefit for the number of participants who improved following treatment with the antipsychotic group compared to placebo, based on very low-certainty evidence. There remain important gaps in the evidence base, and a continued need for more effective agents in the management of PTSD.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Amitriptyline; Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Antipsychotic Agents; Humans; Middle Aged; Mirtazapine; Paroxetine; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Young Adult
PubMed: 35234292
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002795.pub3 -
JAMA Network Open May 2022Amitriptyline is an established medication used off-label for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran are the only pharmacological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Amitriptyline is an established medication used off-label for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran are the only pharmacological agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat fibromyalgia.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the comparative effectiveness and acceptability associated with pharmacological treatment options for fibromyalgia.
DATA SOURCES
Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were conducted on November 20, 2018, and updated on July 29, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing amitriptyline or any FDA-approved doses of investigated drugs.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
This study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline. Four independent reviewers extracted data using a standardized data extraction sheet and assessed quality of RCTs. A random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to January 2021.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Comparative effectiveness and acceptability (defined as discontinuation of treatment owing to adverse drug reactions) associated with amitriptyline (off-label), pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran (on-label) in reducing fibromyalgia symptoms. The following doses were compared: 60-mg and 120-mg duloxetine; 150-mg, 300-mg, 450-mg, and 600-mg pregabalin; 100-mg and 200-mg milnacipran; and amitriptyline. Effect sizes are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). Findings were considered statistically significant when the 95% CrI did not include the null value (0 for SMD and 1 for OR). Relative treatment ranking using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was also evaluated.
RESULTS
A total of 36 studies (11 930 patients) were included. The mean (SD) age of patients was 48.4 (10.4) years, and 11 261 patients (94.4%) were women. Compared with placebo, amitriptyline was associated with reduced sleep disturbances (SMD, -0.97; 95% CrI, -1.10 to -0.83), fatigue (SMD, -0.64; 95% CrI, -0.75 to -0.53), and improved quality of life (SMD, -0.80; 95% CrI, -0.94 to -0.65). Duloxetine 120 mg was associated with the highest improvement in pain (SMD, -0.33; 95% CrI, -0.36 to -0.30) and depression (SMD, -0.25; 95% CrI, -0.32 to -0.17) vs placebo. All treatments were associated with inferior acceptability (higher dropout rate) than placebo, except amitriptyline (OR, 0.78; 95% CrI, 0.31 to 1.66). According to the SUCRA-based relative ranking of treatments, duloxetine 120 mg was associated with higher efficacy for treating pain and depression, while amitriptyline was associated with higher efficacy for improving sleep, fatigue, and overall quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These findings suggest that clinicians should consider how treatments could be tailored to individual symptoms, weighing the benefits and acceptability, when prescribing medications to patients with fibromyalgia.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fatigue; Female; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Milnacipran; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain; Pregabalin; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 35587348
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.12939 -
Lancet (London, England) Nov 2023Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are managed in primary care. When first-line therapies for IBS are ineffective, the UK National Institute for Health... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment in primary care (ATLANTIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.
BACKGROUND
Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are managed in primary care. When first-line therapies for IBS are ineffective, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline suggests considering low- dose tricyclic antidepressants as second-line treatment, but their effectiveness in primary care is unknown, and they are infrequently prescribed in this setting.
METHODS
This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment [ATLANTIS]) was conducted at 55 general practices in England. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with Rome IV IBS of any subtype, and ongoing symptoms (IBS Severity Scoring System [IBS-SSS] score ≥75 points) despite dietary changes and first-line therapies, a normal full blood count and C-reactive protein, negative coeliac serology, and no evidence of suicidal ideation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to low-dose oral amitriptyline (10 mg once daily) or placebo for 6 months, with dose titration over 3 weeks (up to 30 mg once daily), according to symptoms and tolerability. Participants, their general practitioners, investigators, and the analysis team were all masked to allocation throughout the trial. The primary outcome was the IBS-SSS score at 6 months. Effectiveness analyses were according to intention-to-treat; safety analyses were on all participants who took at least one dose of the trial medication. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN48075063) and is closed to new participants.
FINDINGS
Between Oct 18, 2019, and April 11, 2022, 463 participants (mean age 48·5 years [SD 16·1], 315 [68%] female to 148 [32%] male) were randomly allocated to receive low-dose amitriptyline (232) or placebo (231). Intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of low-dose amitriptyline in IBS-SSS score between groups at 6 months (-27·0, 95% CI -46·9 to -7·10; p=0·0079). 46 (20%) participants discontinued low-dose amitriptyline (30 [13%] due to adverse events), and 59 (26%) discontinued placebo (20 [9%] due to adverse events) before 6 months. There were five serious adverse reactions (two in the amitriptyline group and three in the placebo group), and five serious adverse events unrelated to trial medication.
INTERPRETATION
To our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a tricyclic antidepressant in IBS ever conducted. Titrated low-dose amitriptyline was superior to placebo as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care across multiple outcomes, and was safe and well tolerated. General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with IBS whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies, with appropriate support to guide patient-led dose titration, such as the self-titration document developed for this trial.
FUNDING
National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant reference 16/162/01).
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Middle Aged; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Amitriptyline; England; Double-Blind Method; Primary Health Care; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37858323
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01523-4 -
Clinical Rheumatology Jul 2022Treatment recommendations for fibromyalgia (FM) include a range of predominantly pharmacological treatment options designed to ensure the maintenance of symptoms and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Treatment recommendations for fibromyalgia (FM) include a range of predominantly pharmacological treatment options designed to ensure the maintenance of symptoms and improvement in the quality of life of these patients. Our aim is to identify and compare the efficacy of amitriptyline (AMT), duloxetine (DLX), and pregabalin (PGB) for reducing pain intensity by 30% (R30%) and 50% (R50%) in adult patients with fibromyalgia. The review was conducted in the Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases up to February 2022. This study included systematic reviews (SR) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) targeting adult patients over 18 years of age diagnosed with fibromyalgia according to the criteria of scientific societies, which include the basic clinical diagnosis characterized by the presence of pressure sensitivity in at least 11 of the 18 tender points, in addition to the presence of widespread musculoskeletal pain for a period longer than 3 months and a general assessment of the patient's health status. Pregnant women and children or adolescents were excluded. The Rob 2.0 tool from the Cochrane Collaboration was used to assess the risk of bias in RCTs. The quality of evidence of the reviews included was assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-GRADE. A meta-analysis for the evidence network was performed using the Bayesian approach, which allows simultaneous comparison of all treatment options (medication and dose). The different treatments were ranked according to the response rate according to the surface under the curve (SUCRA), which was expressed as a percentage. The results were presented in tables and figures. The protocol with the detailed methods was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021229264). Eight systematic reviews were identified, and, from these, 15 clinical trials comparing AMT (n = 273), DLX (n = 2595), and PGB (n = 3,506) against placebo were selected. For the outcome R30%, PGB 450 mg was superior to DLX 30 mg and PGB 150 mg, while DLX 20 mg and 30 mg were not superior to placebo. For the outcome R50%, AMT 25 mg was superior to all other alternatives evaluated. The calculation of the SUCRA indicated that PGB 450 mg was the best performance option for R30% and AMT 25 mg for R50%. PGB 150 mg was the drug with the worst performance in the two outcomes evaluated. The drugs evaluated showed benefits for pain reduction in patients with fibromyalgia. In the absence of direct comparison studies, indirect comparison meta-analyses are an important resource for assisting in clinical decision-making. Our data only provide an indicator of the effectiveness of the three drugs evaluated, but as with other health conditions, tolerability and safety are important for the decision-making process and clinical management. In this regard, we encourage caution in interpreting our data.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Female; Humans; Amitriptyline; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fibromyalgia; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain; Pregabalin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35347488
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-022-06129-8 -
FP Essentials Oct 2018Tension-type headache (TTH) is the most common primary headache disorder, with a worldwide lifetime prevalence of 46% to 78%. TTH causes greater disability and accounts... (Review)
Review
Tension-type headache (TTH) is the most common primary headache disorder, with a worldwide lifetime prevalence of 46% to 78%. TTH causes greater disability and accounts for more missed work days than migraine. The etiology of TTH is thought to be multifactorial, involving genetic and environmental factors. The three subtypes of TTH are infrequent episodic, frequent episodic, and chronic. Patients typically describe headache pain as pressing, dull, and with the sensation of a tight band around the head. Nonprescription analgesics are indicated for management of episodic TTH. Prophylaxis should be considered for patients with chronic TTH, with very frequent episodic TTH, at risk of medication overuse headache, and who are unable to tolerate effective doses of first-line drugs. Amitriptyline is recommended as a first-line drug for prophylaxis. (This is an off-label use of amitriptyline.) Physical and integrative therapies for TTH management include electromyography biofeedback, cognitive behavioral therapy, exercise, massage, and trigger point injection.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Biofeedback, Psychology; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Diagnosis, Differential; Disability Evaluation; Electromyography; Exercise Therapy; Family Practice; Humans; Injections; Integrative Medicine; Massage; Tension-Type Headache; Trigger Points
PubMed: 30346680
DOI: No ID Found -
Health Technology Assessment... Oct 2022The mainstay of treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain is pharmacotherapy, but the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline is not... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
The mainstay of treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain is pharmacotherapy, but the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline is not based on robust evidence, as the treatments and their combinations have not been directly compared.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the most clinically beneficial, cost-effective and tolerated treatment pathway for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.
DESIGN
A randomised crossover trial with health economic analysis.
SETTING
Twenty-one secondary care centres in the UK.
PARTICIPANTS
Adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain with a 7-day average self-rated pain score of ≥ 4 points (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10).
INTERVENTIONS
Participants were randomised to three commonly used treatment pathways: (1) amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, (2) duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin and (3) pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline. Participants and research teams were blinded to treatment allocation, using over-encapsulated capsules and matching placebos. Site pharmacists were unblinded.
OUTCOMES
The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average 24-hour Numeric Rating Scale score between pathways, measured during the final week of each pathway. Secondary end points included 7-day average daily Numeric Rating Scale pain score at week 6 between monotherapies, quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-36 items), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score, the proportion of patients achieving 30% and 50% pain reduction, Brief Pain Inventory - Modified Short Form items scores, Insomnia Severity Index score, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory score, tolerability (scale 0-10), Patient Global Impression of Change score at week 16 and patients' preferred treatment pathway at week 50. Adverse events and serious adverse events were recorded. A within-trial cost-utility analysis was carried out to compare treatment pathways using incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years from an NHS and social care perspective.
RESULTS
A total of 140 participants were randomised from 13 UK centres, 130 of whom were included in the analyses. Pain score at week 16 was similar between the arms, with a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin and a mean difference of 0.0 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.4 to 0.4 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin. Results for tolerability, discontinuation and quality of life were similar. The adverse events were predictable for each drug. Combination therapy (weeks 6-16) was associated with a further reduction in Numeric Rating Scale pain score (mean 1.0 points, 98.3% confidence interval 0.6 to 1.3 points) compared with those who remained on monotherapy (mean 0.2 points, 98.3% confidence interval -0.1 to 0.5 points). The pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline pathway had the fewest monotherapy discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events and was most commonly preferred (most commonly preferred by participants: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, 24%; duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin, 33%; pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, 43%; = 0.26). No single pathway was superior in cost-effectiveness. The incremental gains in quality-adjusted life-years were small for each pathway comparison [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -0.002 (95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.007) quality-adjusted life-years, amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline -0.006 (95% confidence interval -0.002 to 0.014) quality-adjusted life-years and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline 0.007 (95% confidence interval 0.0002 to 0.015) quality-adjusted life-years] and incremental costs over 16 weeks were similar [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -£113 (95% confidence interval -£381 to £90), amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £155 (95% confidence interval -£37 to £625) and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £141 (95% confidence interval -£13 to £398)].
LIMITATIONS
Although there was no placebo arm, there is strong evidence for the use of each study medication from randomised placebo-controlled trials. The addition of a placebo arm would have increased the duration of this already long and demanding trial and it was not felt to be ethically justifiable.
FUTURE WORK
Future research should explore (1) variations in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain management at the practice level, (2) how OPTION-DM (Optimal Pathway for TreatIng neurOpathic paiN in Diabetes Mellitus) trial findings can be best implemented, (3) why some patients respond to a particular drug and others do not and (4) what options there are for further treatments for those patients on combination treatment with inadequate pain relief.
CONCLUSIONS
The three treatment pathways appear to give comparable patient outcomes at similar costs, suggesting that the optimal treatment may depend on patients' preference in terms of side effects.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The trial is registered as ISRCTN17545443 and EudraCT 2016-003146-89.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, and will be published in full in ; Vol. 26, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Pregabalin; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Amitriptyline; Quality of Life; Neuralgia; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 36259684
DOI: 10.3310/RXUO6757 -
ACS Chemical Neuroscience Feb 2021Amitriptyline was the second tricyclic antidepressant to appear on the market for major depressive disorder under the brand name Elavil in 1961. Since its emergence,... (Review)
Review
Amitriptyline was the second tricyclic antidepressant to appear on the market for major depressive disorder under the brand name Elavil in 1961. Since its emergence, amitriptyline has been an effective therapeutic in various disease states and disorders but has also been a concerning source of cardiotoxicity. Amitriptyline inhibits serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake as well as produces off-target activity at histaminergic, muscarinic, and various other receptors. Its role as a modulator of monoamines helped further establish the monoamine theory to understand various mood disorders, paving the way for the now more common selective serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. In this review, we will discuss amitriptyline's synthesis, manufacturing information, drug metabolism, pharmacology, adverse effects, and its history and importance in therapy to present amitriptyline as a true classic in chemical neuroscience.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Serotonin; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 33438398
DOI: 10.1021/acschemneuro.0c00467 -
Handbook of Clinical Neurology 2024Migraine headache is highly prevalent and the most common neurologic disorder, affecting one billion people worldwide. It is also the most disabling condition in people... (Review)
Review
Migraine headache is highly prevalent and the most common neurologic disorder, affecting one billion people worldwide. It is also the most disabling condition in people under 50, with a huge impact on working ability, family, and social life. Access to effective preventive medication is important and may be considered if the patient has 6 or more migraine days per month, ineffective abortive agents, or disability on 2 or more days per month. Propranolol, metoprolol, candesartan, topiramate, divalproex, lisinopril, amitriptyline, and venlafaxine have the strongest evidence to support for use. Flunarizine and pizotifen may also be effective. Selection of preventive treatments is based on individual characteristics, comorbid conditions, efficacy, contraindications, side effects, cost, compliance, and drug. An adequate trial of migraine prophylaxis is usually 2 months at the target dose, and it is always important to re-evaluate indication for prophylactic use after a period of time.
Topics: Humans; Administration, Oral; Amitriptyline; Migraine Disorders; Propranolol; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 38307673
DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-823357-3.00009-4 -
Zhejiang Da Xue Xue Bao. Yi Xue Ban =... Aug 2022To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in treatment of depression disorder in children and adolescents by network meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in treatment of depression disorder in children and adolescents by network meta-analysis.
METHODS
Databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CBM, CNKI and Wanfang Data were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) related to antidepressants in treatment of children and adolescents with depression from inception to December 2021. Quality assessment and data extraction from the included RCTs were performed. Statistical analyses of efficacy and tolerability were conducted with Stata 15.1 software. Surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCAR) was used to rank the value of the antidepressants.
RESULTS
A total of 33 RCTs were included in 32 articles, involving 6949 patients. There are 13 antidepressants used in total, including amitriptyline, vilazodone, fluoxetine, selegiline, paroxetine, imipramine, desipramine, sertraline, nortriptyline, escitalopram, citalopram, venlafaxine and duloxetine. The results of network meta-analysis showed that the efficacy of duloxetine ( =1.95, 95% 1.41-2.69), fluoxetine ( =1.73, 95% 1.40-2.14), venlafaxine ( =1.37, 95% 1.04-1.80) and escitalopram ( =1.48, 95% : 1.12-1.95) were significantly higher than that of placebos (all <0.05); the probability cumulative ranks were duloxetine (87.0%), amitriptyline (83.3%), fluoxetine (79.0%), escitalopram (62.7%), etc. The results showed that the intolerability of patients receiving imipramine ( =0.15, 95% 0.08-0.27), sertraline ( =0.33, 95% 0.16-0.71), venlafaxine ( =0.35, 95% 0.17-0.72), duloxetine ( =0.35, 95% 0.17-0.73) and paroxetine ( =0.52, 95% 0.30-0.88) were significantly higher than that of placebos (all <0.05), and the probability cumulative ranks were imipramine (95.7%), sertraline (69.6%), venlafaxine (68.6%), duloxetine (68.2%), etc. Conclusion: Among 13 antidepressants, duloxetine, fluoxetine, escitalopram and venlafaxine are significantly better than placebo in terms of efficacy, but duloxetine and venlafaxine are less well tolerated.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Humans; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fluoxetine; Sertraline; Paroxetine; Amitriptyline; Imipramine; Depression; Escitalopram; Network Meta-Analysis; Depressive Disorder, Major; Antidepressive Agents
PubMed: 37202104
DOI: 10.3724/zdxbyxb-2022-0145