-
Nutricion Hospitalaria Dec 2021Objective: to perform a systematic literature review to examine the effects of high-dose, B-complex multivitamin/mineral supplementation on physical, mental, and energy...
Objective: to perform a systematic literature review to examine the effects of high-dose, B-complex multivitamin/mineral supplementation on physical, mental, and energy outcomes in healthy and 'at-risk' (suboptimal nutritional status/subclinical symptoms at baseline) adult populations. Methods: PubMed was searched for relevant randomized controlled trials until January 2020. Results: overall, 136 publications were identified. In the seven randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies considered eligible for inclusion, supplementation in healthy populations predominantly showed improvements in perceived stress, physical stamina, concentration, and general mental health, and significant reductions in anxiety and improvements in self-reported vigour. However, not all of these outcomes were significant, and statistical correction for multiple outcomes was not commonly employed. Studies investigating brain mapping following supplementation indicated increased functional activity in brain regions related to processing of attention, executive control, and working memory during cognitive tasks. Conclusions: while there is certainly a need for further studies on the neurocognitive and physical benefits of micronutrient supplementation, this review provides generally supportive evidence for the benefits of a high-dose, B-complex multivitamin/mineral supplement in healthy and at-risk populations in terms of physical, mental, and energy outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Dietary Supplements; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vitamin B Complex
PubMed: 34530623
DOI: 10.20960/nh.03631 -
Nutrients Nov 2021There is a large and growing body of literature focusing on the use of oral magnesium (Mg) supplementation for improving glucose metabolism in people with or at risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Oral Magnesium Supplementation for Treating Glucose Metabolism Parameters in People with or at Risk of Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trials.
There is a large and growing body of literature focusing on the use of oral magnesium (Mg) supplementation for improving glucose metabolism in people with or at risk of diabetes. We therefore aimed to investigate the effect of oral Mg supplementation on glucose and insulin-sensitivity parameters in participants with diabetes or at high risk of diabetes, compared with a placebo. Several databases were searched investigating the effect of oral Mg supplementation vs placebo in patients with diabetes or conditions at high risk of diabetes. Data were reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using follow-up data of glucose and insulin-sensitivity parameters. Compared with placebo, Mg supplementation reduced fasting plasma glucose in people with diabetes. In people at high risk of diabetes, Mg supplementation significantly improved plasma glucose per se, and after a 2 h oral glucose tolerance test. Furthermore, Mg supplementation demonstrated an improvement in insulin sensitivity markers. In conclusion, Mg supplementation appears to have a beneficial role and improves glucose parameters in people with diabetes. Moreover, our work indicates that Mg supplementation may improve insulin-sensitivity parameters in those at high risk of diabetes.
Topics: Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus; Dietary Supplements; Double-Blind Method; Glucose Tolerance Test; Humans; Insulin Resistance; Magnesium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34836329
DOI: 10.3390/nu13114074 -
Cephalalgia : An International Journal... Mar 2023We performed a random-effects network meta-analysis to study the efficacy and safety of newly developed drugs for the acute treatment of migraine attacks. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy, safety and indirect comparisons of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of the literature.
BACKGROUND
We performed a random-effects network meta-analysis to study the efficacy and safety of newly developed drugs for the acute treatment of migraine attacks.
METHODS
MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase and The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 11 February 2022. Phase 3 randomized controlled trials examining all formulations of lasmiditan, rimegepant and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of adults with migraine, were included. Data were extracted following the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
Seven studies (SAMURAI, SPARTAN, CENTURION, Study 302, Study 303, ACHIEVE I and II) involving = 12,859 patients were included. All treatments were superior in efficacy to placebo. Lasmiditan 200 mg showed the highest two-hour pain freedom, while two-hour freedom from most bothersome symptom was equally achieved by the higher doses of lasmiditan (100 and 200 mg), rimegepant and the higher doses of ubrogepant (50 and 100 mg). The odds of treatment-emergent adverse events were greatest with all doses of lasmiditan.
CONCLUSION
Lasmiditan 200 mg was the most effective intervention in the treatment of migraine attacks, although it was associated with high degrees of dizziness, nausea and somnolence. Rimegepant showed slightly lower, but similar efficacy rates to lasmiditan. Ubrogepant had overall the best tolerability profile. These conclusions are limited by the absence of head-to-head comparisons, limitations of individual trials and of the meta-analysis methodology itself. CRD42022308224.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Double-Blind Method; Migraine Disorders; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36786357
DOI: 10.1177/03331024231151419 -
European Heart Journal Jan 2018Recent guidelines recommend that patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40-49% should be managed similar to LVEF ≥ 50%. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
Recent guidelines recommend that patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40-49% should be managed similar to LVEF ≥ 50%. We investigated the effect of beta-blockers according to LVEF in double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials.
METHODS AND RESULTS
Individual patient data meta-analysis of 11 trials, stratified by baseline LVEF and heart rhythm (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT0083244; PROSPERO: CRD42014010012). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death over 1.3 years median follow-up, with an intention-to-treat analysis. For 14 262 patients in sinus rhythm, median LVEF was 27% (interquartile range 21-33%), including 575 patients with LVEF 40-49% and 244 ≥ 50%. Beta-blockers reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to placebo in sinus rhythm, an effect that was consistent across LVEF strata, except for those in the small subgroup with LVEF ≥ 50%. For LVEF 40-49%, death occurred in 21/292 [7.2%] randomized to beta-blockers compared to 35/283 [12.4%] with placebo; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.59 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-1.03]. Cardiovascular death occurred in 13/292 [4.5%] with beta-blockers and 26/283 [9.2%] with placebo; adjusted HR 0.48 (95% CI 0.24-0.97). Over a median of 1.0 years following randomization (n = 4601), LVEF increased with beta-blockers in all groups in sinus rhythm except LVEF ≥50%. For patients in atrial fibrillation at baseline (n = 3050), beta-blockers increased LVEF when < 50% at baseline, but did not improve prognosis.
CONCLUSION
Beta-blockers improve LVEF and prognosis for patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm with a reduced LVEF. The data are most robust for LVEF < 40%, but similar benefit was observed in the subgroup of patients with LVEF 40-49%.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Aged; Atrial Fibrillation; Double-Blind Method; Female; Heart Failure; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke Volume
PubMed: 29040525
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx564 -
Drugs Feb 2022Brivaracetam (BRV), cenobamate (CNB), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), lacosamide (LCM) and perampanel (PER) are antiseizure medications (ASMs) approved for adjunctive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Brivaracetam (BRV), cenobamate (CNB), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), lacosamide (LCM) and perampanel (PER) are antiseizure medications (ASMs) approved for adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures. So far, no randomised controlled trial directly compared the efficacy and safety of these drugs.
OBJECTIVE
We estimated the comparative efficacy and safety of these ASMs for the treatment of focal-onset seizures in adults with epilepsy using a network meta-analysis (NMA).
METHODS
We systematically searched (June week 4, 2021) MEDLINE (accessed by PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ). There were no date limitations or language restrictions. Randomised, double-blinded, controlled, parallel-group, add-on studies that compared oral BRV, CNB, ESL, LCM, and PER versus any comparator over maintenance periods of at least 12 weeks and included adult patients with focal seizures uncontrolled by concomitant ASMs were identified. The efficacy outcomes were the proportions of patients with ≥ 50% and 100% reduction in baseline seizure frequency during the maintenance period. The tolerability outcomes were the proportions of participants who experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and experienced at least one TEAE leading to discontinuation. Effect sizes were estimated by network meta-analyses within a frequentist framework. The hierarchy of competing interventions was established using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).
RESULTS
Sixteen trials (BRV: n = 3, CNB: n = 1, ESL: n = 4, LCM: n = 4, PER: n = 4) were included, overall enrolling 4507 patients randomised to add-on active treatments (BRV = 803, CNB = 221, ESL =9 90, LCM = 1104, and PER = 1389) and 2246 to add-on placebo. Cenobamate was associated with a higher rate of ≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction than BRV [odds ratio (OR) 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-3.66], ESL (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.07-3.48), LCM (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.04-3.32), and PER (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.16-3.70). There was a not statistically significant trend favouring CNB over ESL, LCM and PER for the seizure freedom outcome. Brivaracetam (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.86) and LCM (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40-0.88) were associated with a lower proportion of participants experiencing TEAEs compared to ESL, and patients treated with PER were associated with a higher risk to experience at least one TEAE (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.02-1.96) than BRV. According to SUCRA, CNB had the greatest likelihood of being the best option for the ≥ 50% and 100% seizure frequency reduction, and BRV and LCM had the highest probabilities of being the best-tolerated treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
Cenobamate ranked best for efficacy, and BRV and LCM were best tolerated over the other comparators. Although NMAs cannot replace direct comparisons, they may support physicians in clinical decision making.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Carbamates; Chlorophenols; Dibenzazepines; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Lacosamide; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Nitriles; Pyridones; Pyrrolidinones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Tetrazoles
PubMed: 35061214
DOI: 10.1007/s40265-021-01661-4 -
PloS One 2023Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are frequently prescribed for the treatment of resistant anorexia nervosa. However, few clinical trials have been conducted so...
INTRODUCTION
Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are frequently prescribed for the treatment of resistant anorexia nervosa. However, few clinical trials have been conducted so far and no pharmacological treatment has yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic scoping review exploring the effectiveness and safety of atypical antipsychotics in anorexia nervosa (AN).
METHOD
We conducted a systematic scoping review of the effectiveness and tolerability of SGAs in the management of AN. We included articles published from January 1, 2000, through September 12, 2022 from the PubMed and PsycInfo databases and a complementary manual search. We selected articles about adolescents and adults treated for AN by four SGAs (risperidone, quetiapine, aripiprazole or olanzapine). This work complies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRIMA-ScR) and was registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository.
RESULTS
This review included 55 articles: 48 assessing the effectiveness of SGAs in AN and 7 focusing only on their tolerability and safety. Olanzapine is the treatment most frequently prescribed and studied with 7 randomized double-blind controlled trials. Other atypical antipsychotics have been evaluated much less often, such as aripiprazole (no randomized trials), quetiapine (two randomized controlled trials), and risperidone (one randomized controlled trial). These treatments are well tolerated with mild and transient adverse effects in this population at particular somatic risk.
DISCUSSION
Limitations prevent the studies both from reaching conclusive, reliable, robust, and reproducible results and from concluding whether or not SGAs are effective in anorexia nervosa. Nonetheless, they continue to be regularly prescribed in clinical practice. International guidelines suggest that olanzapine and aripiprazole can be interesting in severe or first-line resistant clinical situations.
Topics: Adult; Adolescent; Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Olanzapine; Risperidone; Aripiprazole; Quetiapine Fumarate; Anorexia Nervosa; Benzodiazepines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36928656
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278189 -
Schizophrenia Bulletin Jul 2023Psychotic experiences (PEs) are associated with increased risk for mental disorders, in particular persistent PEs. PEs therefore might be useful within intervention... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS
Psychotic experiences (PEs) are associated with increased risk for mental disorders, in particular persistent PEs. PEs therefore might be useful within intervention research. We sought to systematically determine the incidence and persistence of PEs in the general population.
STUDY DESIGN
A double-blind search of databases (Embase, Pubmed PMC, Psychinfo, Medline, and Web of Science) from inception to January 2023 and data extraction, were conducted. Study quality was assessed using the NIH assessment tool. Random effects models were conducted to calculate pooled incidence rate per person-year and proportion of persistent PEs per year. Age and study design were all examined using subgroup analyses. Demographic, risk factors, and outcomes for incidence and persistence of PEs were reported in a narrative synthesis.
STUDY RESULTS
Using a double-blind screening method for abstract (k = 5763) and full text (k = 250) were screened. In total 91 samples from 71 studies were included, of which 39 were included in a meta-analysis (incidence: k = 17, n = 56 089; persistence: k = 22, n = 81 847). Incidence rate was 0.023 per person-year (95% CI [0.0129;0.0322]). That is, for every 100 people, 2 reported first onset PEs in a year. This was highest in adolescence at 5 per 100(13-17 years). The pooled persistence rate for PEs was 31.0% (95% CI [26.65,35.35]) This was highest in adolescence at 35.8%. Cannabis was particularly associated with incidence of PEs, and persistence of PEs were associated with multiple mental disorders.
CONCLUSIONS
Each year incidence of PEs is 2 of every 100 people, and persists each year in 31% of cases, this risk is highest in adolescents.
Topics: Adolescent; Humans; Psychotic Disorders; Incidence; Mental Disorders; Risk Factors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37402250
DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbad056 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders. It is estimated that up to 30%... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders. It is estimated that up to 30% of individuals with epilepsy continue to have epileptic seizures despite treatment with an antiepileptic drug. These patients are classified as drug-resistant and require treatment with a combination of multiple antiepileptic drugs. Brivaracetam is a third-generation antiepileptic drug that is a high-affinity ligand for synaptic vesicle protein 2A. In this review we investigated the use of brivaracetam as add-on therapy for epilepsy.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of brivaracetam when used as add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant epilepsy.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update we searched the following databases on 7 September 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web); MEDLINE (Ovid) 1946 to 3 September 2021. CRS Web includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for parallel-group RCTs that recruited people of any age with drug-resistant epilepsy. We accepted studies with any level of blinding (double-blind, single-blind, or unblinded).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
In accordance with standard Cochrane methodological procedures, two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion before evaluating trial quality and extracting relevant data. The primary outcome to be assessed was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. Secondary outcomes were: seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal due to adverse events, the proportion of participants who experienced any adverse events, and drug interactions. We used an intention-to-treat population for all primary analyses, and presented results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identify any new studies for this update, therefore the results and conclusions of the review are unchanged. The previous review included six studies involving a total of 2411 participants. Only one study included participants with both focal and generalised onset seizures; the other five trials included participants with focal onset seizures only. Study participants were aged 16 to 80 years. Treatment periods ranged from 7 to 16 weeks. We judged two studies to have low risk of bias and four to have unclear risk of bias. Details on the method used for allocation concealment and how blinding was maintained were insufficient in one study each. One study did not report all outcomes prespecified in the trial protocol, and there were discrepancies in reporting in a further study. Participants receiving brivaracetam add-on were more likely to experience a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency than those receiving placebo (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.14; 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants receiving brivaracetam were more likely to attain seizure freedom; however, the evidence is of low certainty (RR 5.89, 95% CI 2.30 to 15.13; 6 studies). The incidence of treatment withdrawal for any reason was slightly greater for participants receiving brivaracetam compared to those receiving placebo (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.74; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). The risk of participants experiencing one or more adverse events did not differ significantly following treatment with brivaracetam compared to placebo (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.17; 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). However, participants receiving brivaracetam did appear to be more likely to withdraw from treatment due to adverse events compared with those receiving placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.33; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
When used as add-on therapy for individuals with drug-resistant epilepsy, brivaracetam may be effective in reducing seizure frequency and may aid patients in achieving seizure freedom. However, add-on brivaracetam is probably associated with a greater proportion of treatment withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo. It is important to note that only one of the eligible studies included participants with generalised epilepsy. None of the included studies involved participants under the age of 16, and all studies were of short duration. Consequently, the findings of this review are mainly applicable to adult patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Future research should focus on investigating the tolerability and efficacy of brivaracetam during longer-term follow-up, as well as assess the efficacy and tolerability of add-on brivaracetam in managing other types of seizures and in other age groups.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Epilepsy, Generalized; Humans; Pyrrolidinones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures
PubMed: 35285519
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011501.pub3 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Apr 2016Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have emerged as a promising option to treat articular defects and early osteoarthritis (OA) stages. However, both their potential and... (Review)
Review
Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have emerged as a promising option to treat articular defects and early osteoarthritis (OA) stages. However, both their potential and limitations for a clinical use remain controversial. Thus, the aim of this systematic review was to examine MSCs treatment strategies in clinical settings, in order to summarize the current evidence of their efficacy for the treatment of cartilage lesions and OA.Among the 60 selected studies, 7 were randomized, 13 comparative, 31 case series, and 9 case reports; 26 studies reported the results after injective administration, whereas 33 used surgical implantation. One study compared the two different modalities. With regard to the cell source, 20 studies concerned BMSCs, 17 ADSCs, 16 BMC, 5 PBSCs, 1 SDSCs, and 1 compared BMC versus PBSCs. Overall, despite the increasing literature on this topic, the evidence is still limited, in particular for high-level studies. On the other hand, the available studies allow to draw some indications. First, no major adverse events related to the treatment or to the cell harvest have been reported. Second, a clinical benefit of using MSCs therapies has been reported in most of the studies, regardless of cell source, indication, or administration method. This effectiveness has been reflected by clinical improvements and also positive MRI and macroscopic findings, whereas histologic features gave more controversial results among different studies. Third, young age, lower BMI, smaller lesion size for focal lesions, and earlier stages of OA joints have been shown to correlate with better outcomes, even though the available data strength does not allow to define clear cutoff values. Finally, definite trends can be observed with regard to the delivery method: currently cultured cells are mostly being administered by i.a. injection, while one-step surgical implantation is preferred for cell concentrates. In conclusion, while promising results have been shown, the potential of these treatments should be confirmed by reliable clinical data through double-blind, controlled, prospective and multicenter studies with longer follow-up, and specific studies should be designed to identify the best cell sources, manipulation, and delivery techniques, as well as pathology and disease phase indications.
Topics: Cartilage, Articular; Humans; Mesenchymal Stem Cell Transplantation; Osteoarthritis; Regeneration; Tissue and Organ Harvesting
PubMed: 27072345
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-016-0378-x -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jan 2016To study serious harms associated with selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To study serious harms associated with selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Mortality and suicidality. Secondary outcomes were aggressive behaviour and akathisia.
DATA SOURCES
Clinical study reports for duloxetine, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine obtained from the European and UK drug regulators, and summary trial reports for duloxetine and fluoxetine from Eli Lilly's website.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION
Double blind placebo controlled trials that contained any patient narratives or individual patient listings of harms.
DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS
Two researchers extracted data independently; the outcomes were meta-analysed by Peto's exact method (fixed effect model).
RESULTS
We included 70 trials (64,381 pages of clinical study reports) with 18,526 patients. These trials had limitations in the study design and discrepancies in reporting, which may have led to serious under-reporting of harms. For example, some outcomes appeared only in individual patient listings in appendices, which we had for only 32 trials, and we did not have case report forms for any of the trials. Differences in mortality (all deaths were in adults, odds ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 4.06), suicidality (1.21, 0.84 to 1.74), and akathisia (2.04, 0.93 to 4.48) were not significant, whereas patients taking antidepressants displayed more aggressive behaviour (1.93, 1.26 to 2.95). For adults, the odds ratios were 0.81 (0.51 to 1.28) for suicidality, 1.09 (0.55 to 2.14) for aggression, and 2.00 (0.79 to 5.04) for akathisia. The corresponding values for children and adolescents were 2.39 (1.31 to 4.33), 2.79 (1.62 to 4.81), and 2.15 (0.48 to 9.65). In the summary trial reports on Eli Lilly's website, almost all deaths were noted, but all suicidal ideation events were missing, and the information on the remaining outcomes was incomplete.
CONCLUSIONS
Because of the shortcomings identified and having only partial access to appendices with no access to case report forms, the harms could not be estimated accurately. In adults there was no significant increase in all four outcomes, but in children and adolescents the risk of suicidality and aggression doubled. To elucidate the harms reliably, access to anonymised individual patient data is needed.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depressive Disorder; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Psychomotor Agitation; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Suicidal Ideation; Suicide; Suicide Prevention
PubMed: 26819231
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i65