-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Fluphenazine is one of the first drugs to be classed as an 'antipsychotic' and has been widely available for five decades. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fluphenazine is one of the first drugs to be classed as an 'antipsychotic' and has been widely available for five decades.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of oral fluphenazine with placebo for the treatment of schizophrenia. To evaluate any available economic studies and value outcome data.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (23 July 2013, 23 December 2014, 9 November 2016 and 28 December 2017 ) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. There is no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought all randomised controlled trials comparing oral fluphenazine with placebo relevant to people with schizophrenia. Primary outcomes of interest were global state and adverse effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For the effects of interventions, a review team inspected citations and abstracts independently, ordered papers and re-inspected and quality assessed trials. We extracted data independently. Dichotomous data were analysed using fixed-effect risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were excluded if more than 50% of people were lost to follow-up, but, where possible, mean differences (MD) were calculated. Economic studies were searched and reliably selected by an economic review team to provide an economic summary of available data. Where no relevant economic studies were eligible for inclusion, the economic review team valued the already-included effectiveness outcome data to provide a rudimentary economic summary.
MAIN RESULTS
From over 1200 electronic records of 415 studies identified by our initial search and this updated search, we excluded 48 potentially relevant studies and included seven trials published between 1964 and 1999 that randomised 439 (mostly adult participants). No new included trials were identified for this review update. Compared with placebo, global state outcomes of 'not improved or worsened' were not significantly different in the medium term in one small study (n = 50, 1 RCT, RR 1.12 CI 0.79 to 1.58, very low quality of evidence). The risk of relapse in the long term was greater in two small studies in people receiving placebo (n = 86, 2 RCTs, RR 0.39 CI 0.05 to 3.31, very low quality of evidence), however with high degree of heterogeneity in the results. Only one person allocated fluphenazine was reported in the same small study to have died on long-term follow-up (n = 50, 1 RCT, RR 2.38 CI 0.10 to 55.72, low quality of evidence). Short-term extrapyramidal adverse effects were significantly more frequent with fluphenazine compared to placebo in two other studies for the outcomes of akathisia (n = 227, 2 RCTs, RR 3.43 CI 1.23 to 9.56, moderate quality of evidence) and rigidity (n = 227, 2 RCTs, RR 3.54 CI 1.76 to 7.14, moderate quality of evidence). For economic outcomes, we valued outcomes for relapse and presented them in additional tables.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The findings in this review confirm much that clinicians and recipients of care already know, but they provide quantification to support clinical impression. Fluphenazine's global position as an effective treatment for psychoses is not threatened by the outcome of this review. However, fluphenazine is an imperfect treatment and if accessible, other inexpensive drugs less associated with adverse effects may be an equally effective choice for people with schizophrenia.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Akathisia, Drug-Induced; Antipsychotic Agents; Fluphenazine; Humans; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 29893410
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006352.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016Risperidone is the first new-generation antipsychotic drug made available in the market in its generic form. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Risperidone is the first new-generation antipsychotic drug made available in the market in its generic form.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical effects, safety and cost-effectiveness of risperidone compared with placebo for treating schizophrenia.
SEARCH METHODS
On 19th October 2015, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We checked the references of all included studies and contacted industry and authors of included studies for relevant studies and data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing oral risperidone with placebo treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened studies, assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR), and the 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and the 95% CI. We created a 'Summary of findings table' using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).
MAIN RESULTS
The review includes 15 studies (N = 2428). Risk of selection bias is unclear in most of the studies, especially concerning allocation concealment. Other areas of risk such as missing data and selective reporting also caused some concern, although not affected on the direction of effect of our primary outcome, as demonstrated by sensitivity analysis. Many of the included trials have industry sponsorship of involvement. Nonetheless, generally people in the risperidone group are more likely to achieve a significant clinical improvement in mental state (6 RCTs, N = 864, RR 0.64, CI 0.52 to 0.78, very low-quality evidence). The effect withstood, even when three studies with >50% attrition rate were removed from the analysis (3 RCTs, N = 589, RR 0.77, CI 0.67 to 0.88). Participants receiving placebo were less likely to have a clinically significant improvement on Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI) than those receiving risperidone (4 RCTs, N = 594, RR 0.69, CI 0.57 to 0.83, very low-quality evidence). Overall, the risperidone group was 31% less likely to leave early compared to placebo group (12 RCTs, N = 2261, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.78, low-quality evidence), but Incidence of significant extrapyramidal side effect was more likely to occur in the risperidone group (7 RCTs, N = 1511, RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.15, very low-quality evidence).When risperidone and placebo were augmented with clozapine, there is no significant differences between groups for clinical response as defined by a less than 20% reduction in PANSS/BPRS scores (2 RCTs, N = 98, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.42, low-quality evidence) and attrition (leaving the study early for any reason) (3 RCTs, N = 167, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.42, low quality evidence). One study measured clinically significant responses using the CGI, no effect was evident (1 RCT, N = 68, RR 1.12 95% CI 0.87 to 1.44, low quality evidence). No data were available for extrapyramidal adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on low quality evidence, risperidone appears to be benefitial in improving mental state compared with placebo, but it also causes more adverse events. Eight out of the 15 included trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies. The currently available evidence isvery low to low quality.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antipsychotic Agents; Humans; Placebos; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 27977041
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006918.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Orthostatic hypotension is an excessive fall in blood pressure (BP) while standing and is the result of a decrease in cardiac output or defective or inadequate...
BACKGROUND
Orthostatic hypotension is an excessive fall in blood pressure (BP) while standing and is the result of a decrease in cardiac output or defective or inadequate vasoconstrictor mechanisms. Fludrocortisone is a mineralocorticoid that increases blood volume and blood pressure. Fludrocortisone is considered the first- or second-line pharmacological therapy for orthostatic hypotension alongside mechanical and positional measures such as increasing fluid and salt intake and venous compression methods. However, there has been no Cochrane Review of the benefits and harms of this drug for this condition.
OBJECTIVES
To identify and evaluate the benefits and harms of fludrocortisone for orthostatic hypotension.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 11 November 2019: Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. We also searched trials registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all studies evaluating the benefits and harms of fludrocortisone compared to placebo, another drug for orthostatic hypotension, or studies without comparators, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and observational studies. We included studies in people with orthostatic hypotension due to a chronic peripheral neuropathy, a central autonomic neuropathy, or autonomic failure from other causes, but not medication-induced orthostatic hypotension or orthostatic hypotension from acute volume depletion or blood loss.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used Cochrane methodological procedures for most of the review. We developed and used a tool to prioritize observational studies that offered the best available evidence where there are gaps in the evidence from RCTs. We assessed the certainty of evidence for fludrocortisone versus placebo using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 studies of 513 participants, including three cross-over RCTs and 10 observational studies (three cohort studies, six case series and one case-control study). The included RCTs were small (total of 28 participants in RCTs), short term (two to three weeks), only examined fludrocortisone for orthostatic hypotension in people with two conditions (diabetes and Parkinson disease), and had variable risk of bias (two had unclear risk of bias and one had low risk of bias). Heterogeneity in participant populations, comparators and outcome assessment methods prevented meta-analyses of the RCTs. We found very low-certainty evidence about the effects of fludrocortisone versus placebo on drop in BP in people with diabetes (-26 mmHg versus -39 mmHg systolic; -7 mmHg versus -11 mmHg diastolic; 1 cross-over study, 6 participants). For people with Parkinson disease, we found very-low certainty evidence about the effects of fludrocortisone on drop in BP compared to pyridostigmine (-14 mmHg versus -22.1 mmHg diastolic; P = 0.036; 1 cross-over study, 9 participants) and domperidone (no change after treatment in either group; 1 cross-over study, 13 participants). For orthostatic symptoms, we found very low-certainty evidence for fludrocortisone versus placebo in people with diabetes (4 out of 5 analyzed participants had improvements in orthostatic symptoms, 1 cross-over study, 6 participants), for fludrocortisone versus pyridostigmine in people with Parkinson disease (orthostatic symptoms unchanged; 1 cross-over study, 9 participants) or fludrocortisone versus domperidone (improvement to 6 for both interventions on the Composite Autonomic Symptom Scale-Orthostatic Domain (COMPASS-OD); 1 cross-over study, 13 participants). Evidence on adverse events was also very low-certainty in both populations, but indicated side effects were minimal. Observational studies filled some gaps in evidence by examining the effects in larger groups of participants, with more diverse conditions, over longer periods of time. One cohort study (341 people studied retrospectively) found fludrocortisone may not be harmful in the long term for familial dysautonomia. However, it is unclear if this translates to long-term improvements in BP drop or a meaningful improvement in orthostatic symptoms.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of fludrocortisone on blood pressure, orthostatic symptoms or adverse events in people with orthostatic hypotension and diabetes or Parkinson disease. There is a lack of information on long-term treatment and treatment of orthostatic hypotension in other disease states. There is a need for standardized reporting of outcomes and for standardization of measurements of blood pressure in orthostatic hypotension.
Topics: Bias; Diabetes Mellitus; Domperidone; Dysautonomia, Familial; Fludrocortisone; Humans; Hypotension, Orthostatic; Observational Studies as Topic; Parkinson Disease; Pyridostigmine Bromide; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34000076
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012868.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016In the 1940s reserpine, refined from a plant extract that had been used for centuries, began to be used as a treatment for people with mental disorders and was one of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In the 1940s reserpine, refined from a plant extract that had been used for centuries, began to be used as a treatment for people with mental disorders and was one of the very first antipsychotic drugs. Its irreversible pharmacological potency and adverse effects meant that it has been withdrawn in the UK and its role has been superceded by 'newer' compounds. The effects of reserpine are of historical interest although there are some reports of it still being used in highly specialist situations in psychiatry. Chlorpromazine is also an old drug but it is still used for treatment of people with schizophrenia.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the effects of two old medications (reserpine and chlorpromazine) for people with schizophrenia. Reserpine is now rarely used while chlorpromazine remains on the essential list of drugs of the World Health Organization (WHO).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (24 March 2016).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised clinical trials focusing on chlorpromazine versus reserpine for schizophrenia that presented useable data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
The review currently includes nine studies with an average 60 participants per study. All of these studies are now over 60 years old, conducted between 1955 and 1962. When chlorpromazine was compared with reserpine for people with schizophrenia, improvement in global state was better at short term for those receiving chlorpromazine (n = 781, 6 RCTs, RR 'not improved' 0.75 95% CI 0.62 to 0.92, low-quality evidence). Short-term improvement in paranoid distortion was measured using the Multidimensional Scale for Rating Psychiatric Patients (MSRPP). Data showed no clear difference between treatment groups (n = 19, 1 RCT, RR 1.33 95% CI 0.62 to 2.89, very low-quality evidence). There was no difference in functioning: occupational adjustment, medium term (n = 40, 1 RCT, RR 0.83 95% CI 0.47 to 1.47, moderate-quality evidence) and general behaviour (n = 98, 1 RCT, RR 0.79 CI 0.41 to 1.53, moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events were poorly reported. For 'toxic reaction' there was, again, no obvious difference between the two compounds (n = 210, 3 RCTs, RR 1.68 95% CI 0.43 to 6.54, moderate-quality evidence), and this also applied to leaving the study early (n = 229, 4 RCTs, RR 1.16 95% CI 0.94 to 1.42, moderate-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Judged by standards of today, the evidence is largely of limited quality. However, some of these 1950s studies are remarkable in their foresight and clarity. Reserpine did have some effect on global state - but chlorpromazine did seem to perform better. Important issues regarding adverse effects were not really addressed by these trials. Chlorpromazine remains on the WHO list of essential drugs. Reserpine is now almost obsolete, although, probably as a result of evidence other than that reported in the pioneering trials used in this review.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Chlorpromazine; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reserpine; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 27124109
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012122.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Vestibular migraine is a form of migraine where one of the main features is recurrent attacks of vertigo. These episodes are often associated with other features of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Vestibular migraine is a form of migraine where one of the main features is recurrent attacks of vertigo. These episodes are often associated with other features of migraine, including headache and sensitivity to light or sound. The unpredictable and severe attacks of vertigo can lead to a considerable reduction in quality of life. The condition is estimated to affect just under 1% of the population, although many people remain undiagnosed. A number of pharmacological interventions have been used, or proposed to be used, at the time of a vestibular migraine attack to help reduce the severity or resolve the symptoms. These are predominantly based on treatments that are in use for headache migraine, with the belief that the underlying pathophysiology of these conditions is similar. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions used to relieve acute attacks of vestibular migraine.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 September 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with definite or probable vestibular migraine comparing triptans, ergot alkaloids, dopamine antagonists, antihistamines, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, gepants (CGRP receptor antagonists), magnesium, paracetamol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with either placebo or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) improvement in headache, 6) improvement in other migrainous symptoms and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: < 2 hours, 2 to 12 hours, > 12 to 72 hours. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs with a total of 133 participants, both of which compared the use of triptans to placebo for an acute attack of vestibular migraine. One study was a parallel-group RCT (of 114 participants, 75% female). This compared the use of 10 mg rizatriptan to placebo. The second study was a smaller, cross-over RCT (of 19 participants, 70% female). This compared the use of 2.5 mg zolmitriptan to placebo. Triptans may result in little or no difference in the proportion of people whose vertigo improves at up to two hours after taking the medication. However, the evidence was very uncertain (risk ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.07; 2 studies; based on 262 attacks of vestibular migraine treated in 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any evidence on the change in vertigo using a continuous scale. Only one of the studies assessed serious adverse events. No events were noted in either group, but as the sample size was small we cannot be sure if there are risks associated with taking triptans for this condition (0/75 receiving triptans, 0/39 receiving placebo; 1 study; 114 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for interventions used to treat acute attacks of vestibular migraine is very sparse. We identified only two studies, both of which assessed the use of triptans. We rated all the evidence as very low-certainty, meaning that we have little confidence in the effect estimates and cannot be sure if triptans have any effect on the symptoms of vestibular migraine. Although we identified sparse information on potential harms of treatment in this review, the use of triptans for other conditions (such as headache migraine) is known to be associated with some adverse effects. We did not identify any placebo-controlled randomised trials for other interventions that may be used for this condition. Further research is needed to identify whether any interventions help to improve the symptoms of vestibular migraine attacks and to determine if there are side effects associated with their use.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Migraine Disorders; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Vertigo; Headache; Tryptamines
PubMed: 37042545
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015322.pub2 -
Journal of Psychiatric Research Jun 2024Variability in hepatic cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes such as 2C19 and 2D6 may influence side-effect and efficacy outcomes for antipsychotics. Aripiprazole and... (Review)
Review
Variability in hepatic cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes such as 2C19 and 2D6 may influence side-effect and efficacy outcomes for antipsychotics. Aripiprazole and risperidone are two commonly prescribed antipsychotics, metabolized primarily through CYP2D6. Here, we aimed to provide an overview of the effect of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 on side-effects of aripiprazole and risperidone, and expand on existing literature by critically examining methodological issues associated with pharmacogenetic studies. A PRISMA compliant search of six electronic databases (Pubmed, PsychInfo, Embase, Central, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) identified pharmacogenetic studies on aripiprazole and risperidone. 2007 publications were first identified, of which 34 were included. Quality of literature was estimated using Newcastle-Ottowa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) and revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The average NOS score was 5.8 (range: 3-8) for risperidone literature and 5 for aripiprazole (range: 4-6). All RCTs on aripiprazole were rated as high risk of bias, and four out of six for risperidone literature. Study populations ranged from healthy volunteers to inpatient individuals in psychiatric units and included adult and pediatric samples. All n = 34 studies examined CYP2D6. Only one study genotyped for CYP2C19 and found a positive association with neurological side-effects of risperidone. Most studies did not report any relationship between CYP2D6 and any side-effect outcome. Heterogeneity between and within studies limited the ability to synthesize data and draw definitive conclusions. Studies lacked statistical power due to small sample size, selective genotyping methods, and study design. Large-scale randomized trials with multiple measurements, providing robust evidence on this topic, are suggested.
Topics: Humans; Aripiprazole; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2D6; Risperidone; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C19; Antipsychotic Agents
PubMed: 38631139
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.04.001 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Functional dyspepsia (FD) has been a worldwide complaint. More effective therapies are needed with fewer adverse effects than are seen with conventional medications.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Functional dyspepsia (FD) has been a worldwide complaint. More effective therapies are needed with fewer adverse effects than are seen with conventional medications. Acupuncture, as a traditional therapeutic method, has been widely used for functional gastrointestinal disorders in the East. Manual acupuncture and electroacupuncture have been recognized treatments for FD, but to date, no robust evidence has been found for the effectiveness and safety of these interventions in the treatment of this condition.
OBJECTIVES
This review was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of manual acupuncture and electroacupuncture in the treatment of FD.
SEARCH METHODS
Trials meeting the inclusion criteria were identified through electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Chinese Biology Medicine Disc (CBMdisc), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the Wanfang Database, the VIP Database, and six trial registries. Handsearching was done to screen the reference sections of potential trials and reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if investigators reported efficacy and safety of manual acupuncture or electroacupuncture for patients with FD diagnosed by Rome II or Rome III criteria, compared with medications, blank control, or sham acupuncture.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted by independent review authors. Study limitations were assessed by using the tool of The Cochrane Collabration for assessing risk of bias. For dichotomous data, risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) would be applied, and for continuous data, mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs. A fixed-effect model was applied in the meta-analysis, or a descriptive analysis was performed. The quality of evidence for the outcome measure was assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods.
MAIN RESULTS
Seven studies were included in the review, involving 542 participants with FD (212 males and 330 females). These studies generally had an unclear risk of bias based on inadequate descriptions of allocation concealment and a high risk of bias based on lack of blinding. None of the studies reported on outcomes of the Functional Digestive Disorder Quality of Life questionnaire (FDDQL), the Satisfaction With Dyspepsia Related Health scale (SODA), the Digestive Health Status Instrument (DHSI), or effective/inefficient rate and symptom recurrence six months from completion of acupuncture treatment.Four RCTs of acupuncture versus medications (cisapride, domperidone, and itopride) were included in the review. No statistically significant difference was noted in the reduction in FD symptom scores and the frequency of FD attack by manual acupuncture, manual-electroacupuncture, or electroacupuncture compared with medications. In three trials of acupuncture versus sham acupuncture, all descriptive or quantitative analysis results implied that acupuncture could improve FD symptom scores and scores on the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), and the Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) more or as significantly as sham acupuncture. With regard to adverse effects, acupuncture was superior to cisapride treatment (one study; all minor events), but no statistically significant difference was reported between acupuncture and sham acupuncture. No adverse effects data were reported in studies examining manual acupuncture versus domperidone, manual-electroacupuncture versus domperidone, or electroacupuncture versus itopride.Nevertheless, all evidence was of low or very low quality. The body of evidence identified cannot yet permit a robust conclusion regarding the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for FD.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It remains unknown whether manual acupuncture or electroacupuncture is more effective or safer than other treatments for patients with FD.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Benzamides; Benzyl Compounds; Cisapride; Domperidone; Dyspepsia; Electroacupuncture; Female; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25306866
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008487.pub2 -
Bipolar Disorders Jun 2022Cognitive impairments are an emerging treatment target in mood disorders, but currently there are no evidence-based pro-cognitive treatments indicated for patients in... (Review)
Review
Randomised controlled cognition trials in remitted patients with mood disorders published between 2015 and 2021: A systematic review by the International Society for Bipolar Disorders Targeting Cognition Task Force.
BACKGROUND
Cognitive impairments are an emerging treatment target in mood disorders, but currently there are no evidence-based pro-cognitive treatments indicated for patients in remission. With this systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) Targeting Cognition Task force provides an update of the most promising treatments and methodological recommendations.
METHODS
The review included RCTs of candidate pro-cognitive interventions in fully or partially remitted patients with major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder. We followed the procedures of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Searches were conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycInfo, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from January 2015, when two prior systematic reviews were conducted, until February 2021. Two independent authors reviewed the studies with the Revised Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool for Randomised trials.
RESULTS
We identified 16 RCTs (N = 859) investigating cognitive remediation (CR; k = 6; N = 311), direct current or repetitive magnetic stimulation (k = 3; N = 127), or pharmacological interventions (k = 7; N = 421). CR showed most consistent cognitive benefits, with two trials showing improvements on primary outcomes. Neuromodulatory interventions revealed no clear efficacy. Among pharmacological interventions, modafinil and lurasidone showed early positive results. Sources of bias included small samples, lack of pre-screening for objective cognitive impairment, no primary outcome and no information on allocation sequence masking.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence for pro-cognitive treatments in mood disorders is emerging. Recommendations are to increase sample sizes, pre-screen for impairment in targeted domain(s), select one primary outcome, aid transfer to real-world functioning, investigate multimodal interventions and include neuroimaging.
Topics: Bipolar Disorder; Cognition; Cognitive Dysfunction; Humans; Lurasidone Hydrochloride; Mood Disorders
PubMed: 35174594
DOI: 10.1111/bdi.13193 -
Critical Care (London, England) Aug 2023Haloperidol is frequently used in critically ill patients with delirium, but evidence for its effects has been sparse and inconclusive. By including recent trials, we... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Haloperidol is frequently used in critically ill patients with delirium, but evidence for its effects has been sparse and inconclusive. By including recent trials, we updated a systematic review assessing effects of haloperidol on mortality and serious adverse events in critically ill patients with delirium.
METHODS
This is an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials investigating haloperidol versus placebo or any comparator in critically ill patients with delirium. We adhered to the Cochrane handbook, the PRISMA guidelines and the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation statements. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and proportion of patients with one or more serious adverse events or reactions (SAEs/SARs). Secondary outcomes were days alive without delirium or coma, delirium severity, cognitive function and health-related quality of life.
RESULTS
We included 11 RCTs with 15 comparisons (n = 2200); five were placebo-controlled. The relative risk for mortality with haloperidol versus placebo was 0.89; 96.7% CI 0.77 to 1.03; I = 0% (moderate-certainty evidence) and for proportion of patients experiencing SAEs/SARs 0.94; 96.7% CI 0.81 to 1.10; I = 18% (low-certainty evidence). We found no difference in days alive without delirium or coma (moderate-certainty evidence). We found sparse data for other secondary outcomes and other comparators than placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Haloperidol may reduce mortality and likely result in little to no change in the occurrence of SAEs/SARs compared with placebo in critically ill patients with delirium. However, the results were not statistically significant and more trial data are needed to provide higher certainty for the effects of haloperidol in these patients.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
CRD42017081133, date of registration 28 November 2017.
Topics: Humans; Haloperidol; Coma; Critical Illness; Quality of Life; Delirium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37633991
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-023-04621-4 -
Palliative & Supportive Care Feb 2016Akathisia is a neuropsychiatric syndrome characterized by subjective and objective restlessness. It is a common side effect in patients taking antipsychotics and other... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Akathisia is a neuropsychiatric syndrome characterized by subjective and objective restlessness. It is a common side effect in patients taking antipsychotics and other psychotropics. Patients with delirium are frequently treated with antipsychotic medications that are well known to induce akathisia as a side effect. However, the prevalence, phenomenology, and management of akathisia in patients with delirium remain largely unknown. The purpose of this review was to examine the medical literature in order to establish the current state of knowledge regarding the prevalence of antipsychotic-induced akathisia in patients with delirium.
METHOD
A systematic review of the literature was conducted using the EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases. Ten studies addressing the incidence of akathisia in patients taking antipsychotic medication for delirium were identified and included in our review.
RESULTS
The included studies reported a variable prevalence of antipsychotic-induced akathisia. A higher prevalence was found in patients taking haloperidol. Among atypical antipsychotics, paliperidone and ziprasidone were associated with a higher risk of akathisia. The risk for akathisia appeared to be a dose-related phenomenon.
SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS
Studies using specific scales for evaluation of akathisia in delirium are lacking. Some populations, such as patients with cancer or terminally ill patients in palliative care settings taking antipsychotics for the treatment of delirium, could be at higher risk for development of akathisia as a side effect.
Topics: Akathisia, Drug-Induced; Antipsychotic Agents; Delirium; Haloperidol; Humans; Prevalence; Risperidone
PubMed: 26087817
DOI: 10.1017/S1478951515000784