-
Asian Spine Journal Dec 2019Antidepressant drugs can be advantageous in treating psychiatric and non-psychiatric illnesses, including spinal disorders. However, spine surgeons remain unfamiliar...
Antidepressant drugs can be advantageous in treating psychiatric and non-psychiatric illnesses, including spinal disorders. However, spine surgeons remain unfamiliar with the advantages and disadvantages of the use of antidepressant drugs as a part of the medical management of diseases of the spine. Our review article describes a systematic method using the PubMed/Medline database with a specific set of keywords to identify such benefits and drawbacks based on 17 original relevant articles published between January 2000 and February 2018; this provides the community of spine surgeons with available cumulative evidence contained within two tables illustrating both observational (10 studies; three cross-sectional, three case-control, and four cohort studies) and interventional (seven randomized clinical trials) studies. While tricyclic antidepressants (e.g., amitriptyline) and duloxetine can be effective in the treatment of neuropathic pain caused by root compression, venlafaxine may be more appropriate for patients with spinal cord injury presenting with depression and/or nociceptive pain. Despite the potential associated consequences of a prolonged hospital stay, higher cost, and controversial reports regarding the lowering of bone mineral density in the elderly, antidepressants may improve patient satisfaction and quality of life following surgery, and reduce postoperative pain and risk of delirium. The preoperative treatment of preexisting psychiatric diseases, such as anxiety and depression, can improve outcomes for patients with spinal cord injury-related disabilities; however, a preoperative platelet function assay is advocated prior to major spine surgical procedures to protect against significant intraoperative blood loss, as serotonergic antidepressants (e.g., selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) and bupropion can increase the likelihood of bleeding intraoperatively due to drug-induced platelet dysfunction. This comprehensive review of this evolving topic can assist spine surgeons in better understanding the benefits and risks of antidepressant drugs to optimize outcomes and avoid potential hazards in a spine surgical setting.
PubMed: 31422644
DOI: 10.31616/asj.2018.0237 -
Medicine May 2021Psychotropic drugs are frequently used for functional dyspepsia (FD); however, the efficacy of these drugs for treating FD remains controversial. We aimed to... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Psychotropic drugs are frequently used for functional dyspepsia (FD); however, the efficacy of these drugs for treating FD remains controversial. We aimed to comprehensively compare the relative efficacies of different psychotropic drugs for FD in adults.To conduct this study, we searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases on March 10, 2019, and conducted a frequentist network meta-analysis on the search results. The primary outcome was treatment efficacy estimated by the proportion of patients who achieved a certain percentage decrease in symptoms or who dropped below the threshold of the global FD symptom scores. The secondary outcome was acceptability, defined as all-cause discontinuation. Odds ratios (ORs) were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).We deemed 10 trials to be eligible for analysis, and these trials included 970 participants and 10 psychotropic drugs. Flupentixol + melitracen (F + M) (OR, 10.00; 95% CI, 1.59 to 62.73), tandospirone (3.24, 1.38 to 7.60), imipramine (2.21, 1.02 to 4.79), and amitriptyline (1.71, 1.06 to 3.09) were significantly superior to placebo. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, the most effective treatment was F + M (89.0%), whereas the least effective was R137696 (13.6%). In terms of acceptability, escitalopram (0.32, 0.11 to 0.92) was ranked as the worst drug (12.6%), followed by imipramine and sertraline.The present network meta-analysis suggests that F + M, tandospirone, imipramine, and amitriptyline are more effective than placebo as treatment for FD. Our results indicate that among the ten psychotropic drugs included, F + M is likely to be the most effective drug for alleviating dyspepsia symptoms.
Topics: Dyspepsia; Humans; Psychotropic Drugs
PubMed: 34011118
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000026046 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2017Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as importantWe designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents.As the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can occur in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) relating to genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, and for other unknown reasons.Antiepileptic (anticonvulsant) drugs, which were originally developed to treat convulsions in people with epilepsy, have in recent years been used to provide pain relief in adults for many chronic painful conditions and are now recommended for the treatment of chronic pain in the WHO list of essential medicines. Known side effects of antiepileptic drugs range from sweating, headache, elevated temperature, nausea, and abdominal pain to more serious effects including mental or motor function impairment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of antiepileptic drugs used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews as well as online clinical trial registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, by any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any antiepileptic drug with placebo or an active comparator.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods if data were available. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two studies with a total of 141 participants (aged 7 to 18 years) with chronic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-I), or fibromyalgia. One study investigated pregabalin versus placebo in participants with fibromyalgia (107 participants), and the other study investigated gabapentin versus amitriptyline in participants with CRPS-I or neuropathic pain (34 participants). We were unable to perform any quantitative analysis.Risk of bias for the two included studies varied, due to issues with randomisation (low to unclear risk), blinding of outcome assessors (low to unclear risk), reporting bias (low to unclear risk), the size of the study populations (high risk), and industry funding in the 'other' domain (low to unclear risk). We judged the remaining domains of sequence generation, blinding of participants and personnel, and attrition as low risk of bias. Primary outcomesOne study (gabapentin 900 mg/day versus amitriptyline 10 mg/day, 34 participants, for 6 weeks) did not report our primary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).The second study (pregabalin 75 to 450 mg/day versus placebo 75 to 450 mg/day, 107 participants, for 15 weeks) reported no significant change in pain scores for pain relief of 30% or greater between pregabalin 18/54 (33.3%), and placebo 16/51 (31.4%), P = 0.83 (very low-quality evidence). This study also reported Patient Global Impression of Change, with the percentage of participants feeling "much or very much improved" with pregabalin 53.1%, and placebo 29.5% (very low-quality evidence).We downgraded the evidence by three levels to very low for one of two reasons: due to the fact that there was no evidence to support or refute the use of the intervention, or that there were too few data and the number of events was too small to be meaningful. Secondary outcomesIn one small study, adverse events were uncommon: gabapentin 2 participants (2 adverse events); amitriptyline 1 participant (1 adverse event) (6-week trial). The second study reported a higher number of adverse events: pregabalin 38 participants (167 adverse events); placebo 34 participants (132 adverse events) (15-week trial) (very low-quality evidence).Withdrawals due to adverse events were infrequent in both studies: pregabalin (4 participants), placebo (4 participants), gabapentin (2 participants), and amitriptyline (1 participant) (very low-quality evidence).Serious adverse events were reported in both studies. One study reported only one serious adverse event (cholelithiasis and major depression resulting in hospitalisation in the pregabalin group) and the other study reported no serious adverse events (very low-quality evidence).There were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).We downgraded the evidence by three levels to very low due to too few data and the fact that the number of events was too small to be meaningful.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review identified only two small studies, with insufficient data for analysis.As we could undertake no meta-analysis, we were unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we could not comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.We know from adult randomised controlled trials that some antiepileptics, such as gabapentin and pregabalin, can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions.We found no evidence to support or refute the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.
Topics: Adolescent; Amines; Amitriptyline; Anticonvulsants; Child; Chronic Pain; Complex Regional Pain Syndromes; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Fibromyalgia; Gabapentin; Humans; Neuralgia; Pregabalin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 28779491
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012536.pub2 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2022To provide an updated analysis of the efficacy and safety of drugs for the management of neuropathic pain (NP) after spinal cord injury (SCI) based on Bayesian network...
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of 11 Drugs as Therapies for Adults With Neuropathic Pain After Spinal Cord Injury: A Bayesian Network Analysis Based on 20 Randomized Controlled Trials.
OBJECTIVE
To provide an updated analysis of the efficacy and safety of drugs for the management of neuropathic pain (NP) after spinal cord injury (SCI) based on Bayesian network analysis.
METHODS
A Bayesian network meta-analysis of literature searches within PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases from their inception to February 21 2021 was conducted without language restrictions. Paired and network meta-analyses of random effects were used to estimate the total standardized mean deviations (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs).
RESULTS
A total of 1,133 citations were identified and 20 RCTs (including 1,198 patients) involving 11 drugs and placebos for post-SCI NP selected. The 5 outcomes from all 11 drugs and placebos had no inconsistencies after Bayesian network analysis. BTX-A gave the most effective pain relief for the 4 weeks, following a primary outcome. No significant differences were found among drugs with regard to adverse events of the primary outcome. Gabapentin, BTX-A, and pregabalin were found to be the most helpful in relieving secondary outcomes of mental or sleep-related symptoms with differences in SMDs, ranging from -0.63 to -0.86. Tramadol triggered more serious adverse events than any of the other drugs with differences in ORs ranging from 0.09 to 0.11.
CONCLUSION
BTX-A, gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, ketamine, lamotrigine, and duloxetine were all effective for NP management following SCI. Lamotrigine and gabapentin caused fewer side effects and had better efficacy in relieving mental or sleep-related symptoms caused by SCI-related NP. Tramadol, levetiracetam, carbamazepine, and cannabinoids could not be recommended due to inferior safety or efficacy.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
[https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2020-7-0061/], identifier [INPLASY202070061].
PubMed: 35386408
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.818522 -
Medicine Jun 2024Chaihu-Shugan-San (CSS), a Traditional Chinese Medicine formula, has been widely used for treating depression since the Ming Dynasty, as recorded in Jingyue Quanshu, but... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chaihu-Shugan-San (CSS), a Traditional Chinese Medicine formula, has been widely used for treating depression since the Ming Dynasty, as recorded in Jingyue Quanshu, but its effectiveness and safety lack comprehensive and objective evaluation. Based on our meta-analysis, we aimed to adequately evaluate the efficacy and risk of CSS by considering the latest clinical literature.
METHODS
Multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SinoMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP, and Wanfang, were used to collect clinical data. The quality of the included clinical studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and the data were meta-analyzed using Review Manager 5.0 and Stata 17. The data were obtained from a genome-wide association study, and Mendelian randomization (MR) was performed using R Software 4.3.2 with the TwoSampleMR and MR Pleiotropy RESidual Sum and Outlier packages.
RESULTS
A total of 15 studies with 1034 patients and 6 antidepressant drugs were included in this work. Meta-analyses revealed that drug combinations of CSS and antidepressants significantly improved depressive symptoms (weighted mean difference = -4.21; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.62--2.81), increased the effective rate (odds ratio [OR] = 3.82; 95% CI: 2.44-6.83), and reduced side effects (OR = -3.55; 95% CI: -5.66--1.43) compared with antidepressant monotherapy. Additionally, compared with antidepressant monotherapy, CSS alone exhibited fewer side effects (95% CI:-9.25--6.95). Like antidepressants, CSS also improved depressive symptoms (weighted mean difference = -0.05; 95% CI: -0.63--0.52) and increased the effective rate (OR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.52-2.20). Additionally, MR was used to evaluate the safety of traditional antidepressants, as there was a causal association between amitriptyline and body mass index.
CONCLUSION
This analysis demonstrated that compared with traditional antidepressants, CSS combined with antidepressants was more effective and safer for treating depressed patients. MR showed that a causal relationship may exist between amitriptyline and body mass index. Therefore, clinicians should carefully consider the advantages and potential drawbacks of Traditional Chinese Medicine and classic drugs to serve patients better.
Topics: Humans; Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Plant Extracts; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38941409
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038668 -
Palliative Medicine Jan 2018Combining antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs with opioids has resulted in increased pain relief when used for neuropathic pain in non-cancer conditions. However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Combining antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs with opioids has resulted in increased pain relief when used for neuropathic pain in non-cancer conditions. However, evidence to support their effectiveness in cancer pain is lacking.
AIM
To determine if there is additional benefit when opioids are combined with antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs for cancer pain.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomised control trials comparing opioid analgesia in combination with antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs versus opioid monotherapy were sought. Data on pain and adverse events were extracted. Data were pooled using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analyses, and heterogeneity was assessed.
RESULTS
Seven randomised controlled trials that randomised 605 patients were included in the review. Patients' pain was described as neuropathic cancer pain, cancer bone pain and non-specific cancer pain. Four randomised controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis in which opioid in combination with either gabapentin or pregabalin was compared with opioid monotherapy. The pooled standardised mean difference was 0.16 (95% confidence interval, -0.19, 0.51) showing no significant difference in pain relief between the groups. Adverse events were more frequent in the combination arms. Data on amitriptyline, fluvoxamine and phenytoin were inconclusive.
CONCLUSION
Combining opioid analgesia with gabapentinoids did not significantly improve pain relief in patients with tumour-related cancer pain compared with opioid monotherapy. Due to the heterogeneity of patient samples, benefit in patients with definite neuropathic cancer pain cannot be excluded. Clinicians should balance the small likelihood of benefit in patients with tumour-related cancer pain against the increased risk of adverse effects of combination therapy.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Analgesics, Opioid; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Cancer Pain; Drug Combinations; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neuralgia
PubMed: 28604172
DOI: 10.1177/0269216317711826 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Aug 2015The aim was to investigate associations between drugs with anticholinergic effects (DACEs) and cognitive impairment, falls and all-cause mortality in older adults. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
The aim was to investigate associations between drugs with anticholinergic effects (DACEs) and cognitive impairment, falls and all-cause mortality in older adults.
METHODS
A literature search using CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase and PubMed databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort and case-control studies examining the use of DACEs in subjects ≥65 years with outcomes on falls, cognitive impairment and all-cause mortality. Retrieved articles were published on or before June 2013. Anticholinergic exposure was investigated using drug class, DACE scoring systems (anticholinergic cognitive burden scale, ACB; anticholinergic drug scale, ADS; anticholinergic risk scale, ARS; anticholinergic component of the drug burden index, DBIAC ) or assessment of individual DACEs. Meta-analyses were performed to pool the results from individual studies.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria (total 124 286 participants). Exposure to DACEs as a class was associated with increased odds of cognitive impairment (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.16, 1.73). Olanzapine and trazodone were associated with increased odds and risk of falls (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.05, 4.44; RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.60, 1.97, respectively), but amitriptyline, paroxetine and risperidone were not (RR 1.73, 95% CI 0.81, 2.65; RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.81, 2.79; RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.59, 3.26, respectively). A unit increase in the ACB scale was associated with a doubling in odds of all-cause mortality (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.82, 2.33) but there were no associations with the DBIAC (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55, 1.42) or the ARS (OR 3.56, 95% CI 0.29, 43.27).
CONCLUSIONS
Certain individual DACEs or increased overall DACE exposure may increase the risks of cognitive impairment, falls and all-cause mortality in older adults.
Topics: Accidental Falls; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bias; Cholinergic Antagonists; Cognition Disorders; Female; Humans; Male
PubMed: 25735839
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12617 -
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia E... Sep 2022To evaluate the effect of neuromodulatory drugs on the intensity of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in women.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effect of neuromodulatory drugs on the intensity of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in women.
DATA SOURCES
Searches were carried out in the PubMed, Cochrane Central, Embase, Lilacs, OpenGrey, and Clinical Trials databases.
SELECTION OF STUDIES
The searches were carried out by two of the authors, not delimiting publication date or original language. The following descriptors were used: OR , associated with MESH/ENTREE/DeCS: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and , with the Boolean operator . Case reports and systematic reviews were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION
The following data were extracted: author, year of publication, setting, type of study, sample size, intervention details, follow-up time, and results.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of 218 articles were found, with 79 being excluded because they were repeated, leaving 139 articles for analysis: 90 were excluded in the analysis of the titles, 37 after reading the abstract, and 4 after reading the articles in full, and 1 could not be found, therefore, leaving 7 articles that were included in the review.
CONCLUSION
Most of the studies analyzed have shown pain improvement with the help of neuromodulators for chronic pain. However, no improvement was found in the study with the highest statistical power. There is still not enough evidence that neuromodulatory drugs reduce the intensity of pain in women with CPP.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Chronic Pain; Citalopram; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Female; Gabapentin; Humans; Imipramine; Norepinephrine; Nortriptyline; Pelvic Pain; Pregabalin; Serotonin; Sertraline; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 36044916
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1755459 -
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia E... Feb 2018Interstitial cystitis (IC), including bladder pain syndrome (BPS), is a chronic and debilitating disease that mainly affects women. It is characterized by pelvic pain...
Interstitial cystitis (IC), including bladder pain syndrome (BPS), is a chronic and debilitating disease that mainly affects women. It is characterized by pelvic pain associated with urinary urgency, frequency, nocturia and negative urine culture, with normal cytology. In 2009, the Society for Urodynamics and Female Urology (SUFU) defined the term IC/BPS as "an unpleasant sensation (pain, pressure, and discomfort) perceived to be related to the urinary bladder, associated with lower urinary tract symptoms for more than 6 weeks duration, in the absence of infection or other identifiable causes." This is the definition used by the American Urological Association (AUA) in the most recent guidelines on IC/BPS. Interstitial cystitis may be sufficiently severe to have a devastating effect on the quality of life, but it may also be associated with moderate symptoms whose effects are less debilitating. Although there are several clinical trials to assess oral and intravesical therapies, the treatment for IC remains far from ideal. This systematic assessment evaluates published randomized clinical trials on oral medications used to treat symptoms of BPS. This study was performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) method. Two independent reviewers screened the studies to determine their inclusion or exclusion and to perform the methodological analysis. The inclusion criteria included randomized studies published between April of 1988 and April of 2016 that used oral medications to treat symptoms of BPS or IC. According to the systematic review performed, we should consider pentosan polysulfate as one of the best options of oral drugs for the treatment of BPS symptoms. However, this drug is not an available option in Brazil. Orally administered amitriptyline is an efficacious medical treatment for BPS, and it should be the first treatment offered.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Brazil; Cystitis, Interstitial; Female; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29241263
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1609049 -
The Journal of Headache and Pain Apr 2024Acupuncture showed better improvement than sham acupuncture in reducing attack frequency of tension-type headache (TTH), but its effectiveness relative to first-line... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
Acupuncture showed better improvement than sham acupuncture in reducing attack frequency of tension-type headache (TTH), but its effectiveness relative to first-line drugs for TTH is unknown, which impedes the recommendation of acupuncture for patients who are intolerant to drugs for TTH. We aimed to estimate the relative effectiveness between acupuncture and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) through indirect treatment comparison (ITC) meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library from database inception until April 13, 2023. Randomized controlled trials of TCAs or acupuncture in the prevention of TTH in adults were included. The primary outcome was headache frequency. The secondary outcomes were headache intensity, responder rate, and adverse event rate. Bayesian random-effect models were used to perform ITC meta-analysis, and confidence of evidence was evaluated by using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
A total of 34 trials involving 4426 participants were included. Acupuncture had similar effect with TCAs in decreasing TTH frequency (amitriptyline: mean difference [MD] -1.29, 95% CI -5.28 to 3.02; amitriptylinoxide: MD -0.05, 95% CI -6.86 to 7.06) and reducing TTH intensity (amitriptyline: MD 2.35, 95% CI -1.20 to 5.78; clomipramine: MD 1.83, 95% CI -4.23 to 8.20). Amitriptyline had a higher rate of adverse events than acupuncture (OR 4.73, 95% CI 1.42 to 14.23).
CONCLUSION
Acupuncture had similar effect as TCAs in reducing headache frequency of TTH, and acupuncture had a lower adverse events rate than amitriptyline, as shown by very low certainty of evidence.
Topics: Humans; Tension-Type Headache; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Acupuncture Therapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38679721
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-024-01776-5