-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2014Antidepressants are widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage), usually in doses below those at which they exert antidepressant effects. An... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Antidepressants are widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage), usually in doses below those at which they exert antidepressant effects. An earlier review that included all antidepressants for neuropathic pain is being replaced by new reviews of individual drugs examining individual neuropathic pain conditions.Desipramine is a tricyclic antidepressant that is occasionally used for treating neuropathic pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy of desipramine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and to assess the associated adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 29 April 2014, and the reference lists of retrieved papers and other reviews. We also used our own hand searched database to identify older studies, and two clinical trials databases for ongoing or unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks duration comparing desipramine with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 years and over. We included only full journal publication articles.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted the efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence was derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts, at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design); second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison; and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants and considered very likely to be biased or that used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.
MAIN RESULTS
Five studies treated 177 participants with painful diabetic neuropathy (104) or postherpetic neuralgia (73). The mean or median ages in the studies were 55 to 72 years. Four studies used a cross-over, and one a parallel group design; 145 participants were randomised to receive desipramine 12.5 mg to 250 mg daily, with most taking 100 mg to 150 mg daily following titration. Comparators were placebo in three studies (an 'active placebo' in two studies), fluoxetine, clomipramine (one study each), and amitriptyline (two studies), and treatment was for two to six weeks. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study provided first or second tier evidence for any outcome. No data were available on the proportion of people with at least 50% or 30% reduction in pain, but data were available from three studies for our other primary outcome of Patient Global Impression of Change, reported as patient evaluation of pain relief that was 'complete' or 'a lot'. No pooling of data was possible, but third tier evidence in individual studies indicated some improvement in pain relief with desipramine compared with placebo, although this was very low quality evidence, derived mainly from group mean data and completer analyses in small, short duration studies where major bias was possible. There were too few participants in comparisons of desipramine with another active treatment to draw any conclusions.All studies reported some information about adverse events, but reporting was inconsistent and fragmented. Participants taking desipramine experienced more adverse events, and a higher rate of withdrawal due to adverse events, than did participants taking placebo (very low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review found little evidence to support the use of desipramine to treat neuropathic pain. There was very low quality evidence of benefit and harm, but this came from studies that were methodologically flawed and potentially subject to major bias. Effective medicines with much greater supportive evidence are available. There may be a role for desipramine in patients who have not obtained pain relief from other treatments.
Topics: Aged; Amitriptyline; Analgesics; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Chronic Pain; Clomipramine; Desipramine; Diabetic Neuropathies; Fluoxetine; Humans; Middle Aged; Neuralgia, Postherpetic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25246131
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011003.pub2 -
Alpha Psychiatry Sep 2021The aim of the article is to review systematically current researches investigating the relationship between intrauterine exposure to antidepressants and neonatal... (Review)
Review
The aim of the article is to review systematically current researches investigating the relationship between intrauterine exposure to antidepressants and neonatal hypoglycemia. This paper included studies published in electronic databases from January 2005 to July 2020. The searched keywords were as follows: antidepressants, pregnancy, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), citalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, escitalopram, sertraline, fluvoxamine, selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), venlafaxine, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), neonatal outcomes, neonatal hypoglycemia, imipramine, clomipramine, amitriptyline, bupropion, trazodone, and mirtazapine. This review examined 10 relevant studies. The odds ratio/risk ratio reported in the studies were 1.33-1.73 for any antidepressant, 1.30-1.35 for SSRI, 1.42-2.11 for SNRI, and 2.07 for TCAs. The risk of neonatal hypoglycemia in infants exposed to maternal TCAs appears to be slightly higher compared to infants exposed to maternal SSRIs. Data from current studies consistently show that exposure to maternal antidepressants during pregnancy may be related to increased risk of neonatal hypoglycemia in infants.
PubMed: 36447450
DOI: 10.1530/alphapsychiatry.2021.21143 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2015Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition with a biopsychosocial aetiology. Fibromyalgia is characterized by chronic widespread musculoskeletal pain,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition with a biopsychosocial aetiology. Fibromyalgia is characterized by chronic widespread musculoskeletal pain, sleep problems, cognitive dysfunction, and fatigue. Patients often report high disability levels and poor quality of life. Since there is no specific treatment that alters the pathogenesis of fibromyalgia, drug therapy focuses on pain reduction and improvement of other aversive symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
The objective was to assess the benefits and harms of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of fibromyalgia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2014), EMBASE (1946 to June 2014), and the reference lists of reviewed articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected all randomized, double-blind trials of SSRIs used for the treatment of fibromyalgia symptoms in adult participants. We considered the following SSRIs in this review: citalopram, fluoxetine, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, and sertraline.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three authors extracted the data of all included studies and assessed the risks of bias of the studies. We resolved discrepancies by discussion.
MAIN RESULTS
The quality of evidence was very low for each outcome. We downgraded the quality of evidence to very low due to concerns about risk of bias and studies with few participants. We included seven placebo-controlled studies, two with citalopram, three with fluoxetine and two with paroxetine, with a median study duration of eight weeks (4 to 16 weeks) and 383 participants, who were pooled together.All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias. There was a small (10%) difference in patients who reported a 30% pain reduction between SSRIs (56/172 (32.6%)) and placebo (39/171 (22.8%)) risk difference (RD) 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.20; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 10, 95% CI 5 to 100; and in global improvement (proportion of patients who reported to be much or very much improved: 50/168 (29.8%) of patients with SSRIs and 26/162 (16.0%) of patients with placebo) RD 0.14, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.23; NNTB 7, 95% CI 4 to 17.SSRIs did not statistically, or clinically, significantly reduce fatigue: standard mean difference (SMD) -0.26, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.03; 7.0% absolute improvement on a 0 to 10 scale, 95% CI 14.6% relative improvement to 0.8% relative deterioration; nor sleep problems: SMD 0.03, 95 % CI -0.26 to 0.31; 0.8 % absolute deterioration on a 0 to 100 scale, 95% CI 8.3% relative deterioration to 6.9% relative improvement.SSRIs were superior to placebo in the reduction of depression: SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.14; 7.6% absolute improvement on a 0 to 10 scale, 95% CI 2.7% to 13.8% relative improvement; NNTB 13, 95% CI 7 to 37. The dropout rate due to adverse events was not higher with SSRI use than with placebo use (23/146 (15.8%) of patients with SSRIs and 14/138 (10.1%) of patients with placebo) RD 0.04, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.14. There was no statistically or clinically significant difference in serious adverse events with SSRI use and placebo use (3/84 (3.6%) in patients with SSRIs and 4/84 (4.8%) and patients with placebo) RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.05.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no unbiased evidence that SSRIs are superior to placebo in treating the key symptoms of fibromyalgia, namely pain, fatigue and sleep problems. SSRIs might be considered for treating depression in people with fibromyalgia. The black box warning for increased suicidal tendency in young adults aged 18 to 24, with major depressive disorder, who have taken SSRIs, should be considered when appropriate.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Citalopram; Fibromyalgia; Fluoxetine; Humans; Melatonin; Musculoskeletal Pain; Paroxetine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Syndrome
PubMed: 26046493
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011735 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2016This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems and fatigue. It affects approximately 2% of the general population. Up to 70% of patients with fibromyalgia meet the criteria for a depressive or anxiety disorder. People often report high disability levels and poor health-related quality of life. Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and disability, and improving health-related quality of life. Antipsychotics might reduce fibromyalgia and associated mental health symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of antipsychotics in fibromyalgia in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE and EMBASE to 20 May 2016, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews and two clinical trial registries. We also contacted trial authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected controlled trials of at least four weeks duration of any formulation of antipsychotics used for the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted the data from all included studies and two review authors independently assessed study risks of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. We derived first tier evidence from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for drop-outs, at least 200 participants in the comparison, eight to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier evidence from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and that we considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that we considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. We rated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of four studies with 296 participants.Three studies with 206 participants compared quetiapine, an atypical (second-generation) antipsychotic, with placebo. One study used a cross-over design and two studies a parallel-group design. Study duration was eight or 12 weeks. Quetiapine was used in all studies with a bedtime dosage between 50 and 300 mg/day. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias and we judged them to be at moderate risk of bias overall. The primary outcomes in this review were participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) much or very much improved, withdrawal due to adverse events (tolerability) and serious adverse events (safety).Second tier evidence indicated that quetiapine was not statistically superior to placebo in the number of participants with a 50% or more pain reduction (very low quality evidence). No study reported data on PGIC. A greater proportion of participants on quetiapine reported a 30% or more pain reduction (risk difference (RD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.23; number needed to treat for an additional benefit (NNTB) 8, 95% CI 5 to 100) (very low quality evidence). A greater proportion of participants on quetiapine reported a clinically relevant improvement of health-related quality of life compared to placebo ( RD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.31; NNTB 5, 95% CI 3 to 20) (very low quality evidence). Quetiapine was statistically superior to placebo in reducing sleep problems (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.67, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.23), depression (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.04) and anxiety (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.11) (very low quality evidence). Quetiapine was statistically superior to placebo in reducing the risk of withdrawing from the study due to a lack of efficacy (RD -0.14, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.05) (very low quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference between quetiapine and placebo in the proportion of participants withdrawing due to adverse events (tolerability) (very low quality evidence), in the frequency of serious adverse events (safety) (very low quality evidence) and in the proportion of participants reporting dizziness and somnolence as an adverse event (very low quality evidence). In more participants in the quetiapine group a substantial weight gain was noted (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.15; number needed to treat for an additional harm (NNTH) 12, 95% CI 6 to 50) (very low quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels to a very low quality rating because of limitations of study design, indirectness (patients with major medical diseases and mental disorders were excluded) and imprecision (fewer than 400 patients were analysed).One parallel design study with 90 participants compared quetiapine (50 to 300 mg/day flexible at bedtime) to amitriptyline (10 to 75 mg/day flexible at bedtime). The study had three major risks of bias and we judged it to be at moderate risk of bias overall. We downgraded the quality of evidence by two levels to a low quality rating because of indirectness (patients with major medical diseases and mental disorders were excluded) and imprecision (fewer than 400 patients were analysed). Third tier evidence indicated no statistically significant differences between the two drugs. Both drugs did not statistically significantly differ in the reduction of average scores for pain, fatigue, sleep problems, depression, anxiety and for limitations of health-related quality of life and in the proportion of participants reporting dizziness, somnolence and weight gain as a side effect (low quality evidence). Compared to amitriptyline, more participants left the study due to adverse events (low quality evidence). No serious adverse events were reported (low quality evidence).We found no relevant study with other antipsychotics than quetiapine in fibromyalgia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Very low quality evidence suggests that quetiapine may be considered for a time-limited trial (4 to 12 weeks) to reduce pain, sleep problems, depression and anxiety in fibromyalgia patients with major depression. Potential side effects such as weight gain should be balanced against the potential benefits in shared decision making with the patient.
Topics: Adult; Amitriptyline; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Antipsychotic Agents; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Wake Disorders
PubMed: 27251337
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011804.pub2 -
European Urology Open Science Oct 2023Radiotherapy of the pelvis is a widely used method for the treatment of malignancies, and local complications including pain following pelvic radiation therapy are... (Review)
Review
The Benefits and Harms of Pharmacological Treatment for Postradiation Pelvic Pain: A Systematic Review by the European Association of Urology Chronic Pelvic Pain Panel with Recommendations for Clinical Practice.
CONTEXT
Radiotherapy of the pelvis is a widely used method for the treatment of malignancies, and local complications including pain following pelvic radiation therapy are acknowledged complications.
OBJECTIVE
The primary objective is to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of pharmacological therapies on postradiation pelvic pain.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic review of the use of different pharmacological treatments in the management of post-radiation pelvic pain was conducted (PROSPERO-ID: CRD42021249026). Comprehensive searches of EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane library were performed for publications between January 1980 and April 2021. The primary outcomes were improvement in pain and adverse events following treatment. The secondary outcomes included quality of life, bowel function, and urinary function.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
After screening 1514 abstracts, four randomised controlled trials were identified, enrolling 355 patients with bladder and anorectal subtypes of postradiotherapy chronic pelvic pain (CPP). A narrative synthesis was performed as heterogeneity of included studies precluded a meta-analysis. A single study reported a significant reduction in pain after 6 mo in patients with bladder pain syndrome treated with hyaluronic acid or hyperbaric oxygen. Anorectal pain was reported to be reduced by the application of 4% formalin, but the use of hyperbaric oxygen in postradiotherapy anorectal pain remains controversial. Adverse event reporting was generally poor. Studies looking at medications used routinely in guidelines for neuropathic pain, such as gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, and duloxetine, were absent or of poor quality when it came to postradiation pelvic pain.
CONCLUSIONS
Beneficial effects of hyperbaric oxygen or formalin on pain, quality of life, and functional symptoms were seen in patients with certain CPP subtypes, but the current evidence level is too weak to allow recommendations about the use of any pharmacological treatment for postradiation pelvic pain.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Different pharmacological treatments are used to treat pain after radiotherapy, but current studies are of insufficient quality to determine whether these should be recommended and many chronic pelvic pain subtypes are not covered. Further research is needed.
PubMed: 37711669
DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.08.009 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Harmful alcohol use is defined as unhealthy alcohol use that results in adverse physical, psychological, social, or societal consequences and is among the leading risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Harmful alcohol use is defined as unhealthy alcohol use that results in adverse physical, psychological, social, or societal consequences and is among the leading risk factors for disease, disability and premature mortality globally. The burden of harmful alcohol use is increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and there remains a large unmet need for indicated prevention and treatment interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in these settings. Evidence regarding which interventions are effective and feasible for addressing harmful and other patterns of unhealthy alcohol use in LMICs is limited, which contributes to this gap in services.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of psychosocial and pharmacologic treatment and indicated prevention interventions compared with control conditions (wait list, placebo, no treatment, standard care, or active control condition) aimed at reducing harmful alcohol use in LMICs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indexed in the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, the Cochrane Clinical Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) through 12 December 2021. We searched clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Web of Science, and Opengrey database to identify unpublished or ongoing studies. We searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles for eligible studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All RCTs comparing an indicated prevention or treatment intervention (pharmacologic or psychosocial) versus a control condition for people with harmful alcohol use in LMICs were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 66 RCTs with 17,626 participants. Sixty-two of these trials contributed to the meta-analysis. Sixty-three studies were conducted in middle-income countries (MICs), and the remaining three studies were conducted in low-income countries (LICs). Twenty-five trials exclusively enrolled participants with alcohol use disorder. The remaining 51 trials enrolled participants with harmful alcohol use, some of which included both cases of alcohol use disorder and people reporting hazardous alcohol use patterns that did not meet criteria for disorder. Fifty-two RCTs assessed the efficacy of psychosocial interventions; 27 were brief interventions primarily based on motivational interviewing and were compared to brief advice, information, or assessment only. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to brief interventions given the high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Studies reporting continuous outcomes: Tau² = 0.15, Q =139.64, df =16, P<.001, I² = 89%, 3913 participants, 17 trials, very low certainty; Studies reporting dichotomous outcomes: Tau²=0.18, Q=58.26, df=3, P<.001, I² =95%, 1349 participants, 4 trials, very low certainty). The other types of psychosocial interventions included a range of therapeutic approaches such as behavioral risk reduction, cognitive-behavioral therapy, contingency management, rational emotive therapy, and relapse prevention. These interventions were most commonly compared to usual care involving varying combinations of psychoeducation, counseling, and pharmacotherapy. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to psychosocial treatments due to high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 1.15; Q = 444.32, df = 11, P<.001; I²=98%, 2106 participants, 12 trials, very low certainty). Eight trials compared combined pharmacologic and psychosocial interventions with placebo, psychosocial intervention alone, or another pharmacologic treatment. The active pharmacologic study conditions included disulfiram, naltrexone, ondansetron, or topiramate. The psychosocial components of these interventions included counseling, encouragement to attend Alcoholics Anonymous, motivational interviewing, brief cognitive-behavioral therapy, or other psychotherapy (not specified). Analysis of studies comparing a combined pharmacologic and psychosocial intervention to psychosocial intervention alone found that the combined approach may be associated with a greater reduction in harmful alcohol use (standardized mean difference (standardized mean difference (SMD))=-0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.61 to -0.24; 475 participants; 4 trials; low certainty). Four trials compared pharmacologic intervention alone with placebo and three with another pharmacotherapy. Drugs assessed were: acamprosate, amitriptyline, baclofen disulfiram, gabapentin, mirtazapine, and naltrexone. None of these trials evaluated the primary clinical outcome of interest, harmful alcohol use. Thirty-one trials reported rates of retention in the intervention. Meta-analyses revealed that rates of retention between study conditions did not differ in any of the comparisons (pharmacologic risk ratio (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.44, 247 participants, 3 trials, low certainty; pharmacologic in addition to psychosocial intervention: RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.40, 363 participants, 3 trials, moderate certainty). Due to high levels of heterogeneity, we did not calculate pooled estimates comparing retention in brief (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Q = 172.59, df = 11, P<.001; I = 94%; 5380 participants; 12 trials, very low certainty) or other psychosocial interventions (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; Q = 34.07, df = 8, P<.001; I = 77%; 1664 participants; 9 trials, very low certainty). Two pharmacologic trials and three combined pharmacologic and psychosocial trials reported on side effects. These studies found more side effects attributable to amitriptyline relative to mirtazapine, naltrexone and topiramate relative to placebo, yet no differences in side effects between placebo and either acamprosate or ondansetron. Across all intervention types there was substantial risk of bias. Primary threats to validity included lack of blinding and differential/high rates of attrition.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In LMICs there is low-certainty evidence supporting the efficacy of combined psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use relative to psychosocial interventions alone. There is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of pharmacologic or psychosocial interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use largely due to the substantial heterogeneity in outcomes, comparisons, and interventions that precluded pooling of these data in meta-analyses. The majority of studies are brief interventions, primarily among men, and using measures that have not been validated in the target population. Confidence in these results is reduced by the risk of bias and significant heterogeneity among studies as well as the heterogeneity of results on different outcome measures within studies. More evidence on the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions, specific types of psychosocial interventions are needed to increase the certainty of these results.
Topics: Humans; Male; Acamprosate; Alcoholism; Amitriptyline; Developing Countries; Disulfiram; Mirtazapine; Naltrexone; Ondansetron; Topiramate
PubMed: 37158538
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013350.pub2 -
Neuropsychopharmacology Reports Dec 2022Depression is a common disorder that affects patients' quality of life and incurs health system costs. Due to the resistance to treat depression, better understanding of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Depression is a common disorder that affects patients' quality of life and incurs health system costs. Due to the resistance to treat depression, better understanding of neurophysiology was considered; one of the implications is the glutamatergic system. This study aims to systematically review clinical trials investigating the antidepressant effects of kainate receptor antagonists.
METHODS
The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021213912). Scopus, ISI, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and two trial registries were searched for randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of topiramate, phenobarbital, and other ten barbiturates in depression. The difference with control groups in terms of changing depressive symptoms was the primary outcome.
RESULTS
Nine trials were identified, in which 784 patients were studied. The efficacy of thiopental was comparable to that of imipramine, with fewer side effects. When administered with electroconvulsive therapy, it had fewer to similar effects and fewer side effects than ketamine. Both monotherapy and adjunctive therapy with topiramate were effective and tolerable in treating depressed patients. Phenobarbital had therapeutic effects compared to imipramine and amitriptyline with fewer side effects.
CONCLUSION
Regarding the glutamatergic hypothesis of depression and obtained promising results, further studies of kainate receptor antagonists in high-quality trials are recommended. Given the high prevalence of depression in epileptic patients, more problems with its treatment, and the fact that the studied agents were anticonvulsants, it is recommended that future studies prioritize depressed-epileptic patients.
Topics: Humans; Depression; Imipramine; Phenobarbital; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Kainic Acid; Topiramate
PubMed: 35912516
DOI: 10.1002/npr2.12284 -
Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs Jul 2022This article reviews research on post-acute alcohol withdrawal syndrome (PAWS) management.
OBJECTIVE
This article reviews research on post-acute alcohol withdrawal syndrome (PAWS) management.
METHOD
We conducted a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Revision and Meta-Analyses)-guided scoping review of the published PAWS literature, searching six electronic databases (from their inception through December 2020) for English-language randomized and nonrandomized studies.
RESULTS
A total of 16 treatment studies met the inclusion criteria. The strength of evidence overall for pharmacologic treatments is low, with often only short-term results being reported, small treatment samples used, or inconsistent results found. However, for negative affect and sleep symptoms, more evidence supports using gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin) and anticonvulsants (carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine). Although preliminary data support acamprosate, there were no controlled trials. Despite an older treatment trial showing some positive data for amitriptyline for mood, the clinical measures used were problematic, and side effects and safety profile limit its utility. Finally, there is no evidence that melatonin and other agents (homatropine, Proproten-100) show PAWS symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS
Although there is some evidence for targeted pharmacotherapy for treating specific PAWS symptoms, there are few recent, robust, placebo-controlled trials, and the level of evidence for treatment efficacy is low.
Topics: Alcoholism; Anticonvulsants; Benzodiazepines; Gabapentin; Humans; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 35838423
DOI: 10.15288/jsad.2022.83.470 -
Spinal Cord Series and Cases Jul 2022Systematic review.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review evaluates all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted on assessing the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic therapies for the treatment of Spinal Cord Injury (SCI)-associated pain.
METHODS
The PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane library online databases were searched from 1946 to May 2019 using specific search terms for SCI, pain, and RCTs meeting predetermined inclusion criteria. The efficacy outcome of interest was pain reduction, discontinuations, and adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
Of 2746 records identified through database searching, 703 duplicates were deleted. 1814 were excluded, the full text of the remaining 230 articles was reviewed, and finally, 28 papers were selected for drafting. The most studied medications were pregabalin, gabapentin, amitriptyline, and ketamine. Pregabalin, gabapentin, and amitriptyline reduced VAS by more than 30%, and ketamine reduced VAS by 40%. Oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, alfentanil, tramadol, and morphine added to clonidine, baclofen, and botulinum toxin type A (BTA) significantly reduced pain compared with placebo. On the other hand, valproate, levetiracetam, trazodone, and duloxetine did not significantly alleviate SCI-associated pain compared to placebo. The risks of AEs and discontinuations in anticonvulsants were the least, while it was highest in analgesics.
CONCLUSIONS
Studies of SCI-associated pain were few, small, heterogenic in measures and values, and did not allow quantitative comparisons of efficacy. However, available data suggested pregabalin and gabapentin led to a more marked reduction in SCI-associated pain with fewer AEs. Additional clinical studies are needed to assess the effect of established and novel management options.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Anticonvulsants; Gabapentin; Humans; Ketamine; Pain; Pregabalin; Spinal Cord Injuries
PubMed: 35788127
DOI: 10.1038/s41394-022-00529-3 -
Pain and Therapy Jun 2021Peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) arises either acutely or in the chronic phase of a lesion or disease of the peripheral nervous system and is associated with a notable... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) arises either acutely or in the chronic phase of a lesion or disease of the peripheral nervous system and is associated with a notable disease burden. The management of PNP is often challenging. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate current evidence, derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have assessed pharmacological interventions for the treatment of PNP due to polyneuropathy (PN).
METHODS
A systematic search of the PubMed database led to the identification of 538 papers, of which 457 were excluded due to not meeting the eligibility criteria, and two articles were identified through screening of the reference lists of the 81 eligible studies. Ultimately, 83 papers were included in this systematic review.
RESULTS
The best available evidence for the management of painful diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) is for amitriptyline, duloxetine, gabapentin, pregabalin and venlafaxine as monotherapies and oxycodone as add-on therapy (level II of evidence). Tramadol appears to be effective when used as a monotherapy and add-on therapy in patients with PN of various etiologies (level II of evidence). Weaker evidence (level III) is available on the effectiveness of several other agents discussed in this review for the management of PNP due to PN.
DISCUSSION
Response to treatment may be affected by the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms that are involved in the pathogenesis of the PN and, therefore, it is very important to thoroughly investigate patients presenting with PNP to determine the causes of this neuropathy. Future RCTs should be conducted to shed more light on the use of pharmacological approaches in patients with other forms of PNP and to design specific treatment algorithms.
PubMed: 33145709
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-020-00210-3