-
The American Journal of Psychiatry Jan 2023The aim of this study was to catalog and evaluate response biomarkers correlated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) symptoms to improve clinical trials. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to catalog and evaluate response biomarkers correlated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) symptoms to improve clinical trials.
METHODS
A systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus was conducted in April 2020. Seven criteria were applied to focus on original research that includes quantifiable response biomarkers measured alongside ASD symptoms. Interventional studies or human studies that assessed the correlation between biomarkers and ASD-related behavioral measures were included.
RESULTS
A total of 5,799 independent records yielded 280 articles for review that reported on 940 biomarkers, 755 of which were unique to a single publication. Molecular biomarkers were the most frequently assayed, including cytokines, growth factors, measures of oxidative stress, neurotransmitters, and hormones, followed by neurophysiology (e.g., EEG and eye tracking), neuroimaging (e.g., functional MRI), and other physiological measures. Studies were highly heterogeneous, including in phenotypes, demographic characteristics, tissues assayed, and methods for biomarker detection. With a median total sample size of 64, almost all of the reviewed studies were only powered to identify biomarkers with large effect sizes. Reporting of individual-level values and summary statistics was inconsistent, hampering mega- and meta-analysis. Biomarkers assayed in multiple studies yielded mostly inconsistent results, revealing a "replication crisis."
CONCLUSIONS
There is currently no response biomarker with sufficient evidence to inform ASD clinical trials. This review highlights methodological imperatives for ASD biomarker research necessary to make definitive progress: consistent experimental design, correction for multiple comparisons, formal replication, sharing of sample-level data, and preregistration of study designs. Systematic "big data" analyses of multiple potential biomarkers could accelerate discovery.
Topics: Humans; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Biomarkers; Phenotype; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Research Design
PubMed: 36475375
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.21100992 -
Psychiatria Polska 2016BPSD (Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms in Dementia) affects virtually all patients with dementia. The aim of this review is to present information on epidemiology,... (Review)
Review
BPSD (Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms in Dementia) affects virtually all patients with dementia. The aim of this review is to present information on epidemiology, consequences and evidence-based non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment approaches. The review also covers recent literature derived from a systematic literature Medline search on BPSD. Results indicate that BPSD are major risk factors for an earlier placement of affected individuals in nursing homes and a potentially more severe course of dementia over time. Treatment of BPSD is complex and includes both strategies.
Topics: Aggression; Anticonvulsants; Antipsychotic Agents; Behavioral Symptoms; Clinical Protocols; Conduct Disorder; Dementia; Dopamine Antagonists; Female; Geriatric Psychiatry; Humans; Male; Neurocognitive Disorders; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 27847922
DOI: 10.12740/PP/64477 -
World Psychiatry : Official Journal of... Jun 2020Mental disorders frequently begin in childhood or adolescence. Psychotropic medications have various indications for the treatment of mental dis-orders in this age...
Safety of 80 antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-attention-deficit/hyperactivity medications and mood stabilizers in children and adolescents with psychiatric disorders: a large scale systematic meta-review of 78 adverse effects.
Mental disorders frequently begin in childhood or adolescence. Psychotropic medications have various indications for the treatment of mental dis-orders in this age group and are used not infrequently off-label. However, the adverse effects of these medications require special attention during developmentally sensitive periods of life. For this meta-review, we systematically searched network meta-analyses and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), individual RCTs, and cohort studies reporting on 78 a priori selected adverse events across 19 categories of 80 psychotropic medications - including antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications and mood stabilizers - in children and adolescents with mental disorders. We included data from nine network meta-analyses, 39 meta-analyses, 90 individual RCTs, and eight cohort studies, including 337,686 children and adolescents. Data on ≥20% of the 78 adverse events were available for six antidepressants (sertraline, escitalopram, paroxetine, fluoxetine, venlafaxine and vilazodone), eight antipsychotics (risperidone, quetiapine, aripiprazole, lurasidone, paliperidone, ziprasidone, olanzapine and asenapine), three anti-ADHD medications (methylphenidate, atomoxetine and guanfacine), and two mood stabilizers (valproate and lithium). Among these medications with data on ≥20% of the 78 adverse events, a safer profile emerged for escitalopram and fluoxetine among antidepressants, lurasidone for antipsychotics, methylphenidate among anti-ADHD medications, and lithium among mood stabilizers. The available literature raised most concerns about the safety of venlafaxine, olanzapine, atomoxetine, guanfacine and valproate. Nausea/vomiting and discontinuation due to adverse event were most frequently associated with antidepressants; sedation, extrapyramidal side effects, and weight gain with antipsychotics; anorexia and insomnia with anti-ADHD medications; sedation and weight gain with mood stabilizers. The results of this comprehensive and updated quantitative systematic meta-review of top-tier evidence regarding the safety of antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-ADHD medications and mood stabilizers in children and adolescents can inform clinical practice, research and treatment guidelines.
PubMed: 32394557
DOI: 10.1002/wps.20765 -
European Psychiatry : the Journal of... Jan 2019New research suggests that, rather than representing a core feature of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), emotional processing difficulties reflect co-occurring... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
New research suggests that, rather than representing a core feature of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), emotional processing difficulties reflect co-occurring alexithymia. Autistic individuals with alexithymia could therefore represent a specific subgroup of autism who may benefit from tailored interventions. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to explore the nature and prevalence of alexithymia in autism using the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS).
METHODS
Online scientific databases were searched systematically for studies on ASD popu lations using the TAS. Meta-analyses were performed to evaluate differences in scores between the ASD and neurotypical groups, and to determine the prevalence of alexithymia in these populations.
RESULTS
15 articles comparing autistic and neurotypical (NT) groups were identified. Autistic people scored significantly higher on all scores compared to the NT group. There was also a higher prevalence of alexithymia in the ASD group (49.93% compared to 4.89%), with a significantly increased risk of alexithymia in autistic participants.
CONCLUSIONS
This review highlights that alexithymia is common, rather than universal, in ASD, supporting a growing body of evidence that co-occurring autism and alexithymia represents a specific subgroup in the ASD population that may have specific clinical needs. More research is needed to understand the nature and implications of co-occurring ASD and alexithymia.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Affective Symptoms; Autistic Disorder; Comorbidity; Emotional Adjustment; Female; Humans; Male; Prevalence; Psychological Tests
PubMed: 30399531
DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2018.09.004 -
Psychiatry Research Sep 2023Major depressive disorder [MDD] is expected to be the leading cause of overall global burden of disease by the year 2030 [WHO]. Non-response to first line... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Major depressive disorder [MDD] is expected to be the leading cause of overall global burden of disease by the year 2030 [WHO]. Non-response to first line pharmacological and psychotherapeutic antidepressive treatments is substantial, with treatment-resistant depression [TRD] affecting approximately one third of depressed patients. There is an urgent need for rapid acting and effective treatments in this population. Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation [rTMS] is an non-invasive treatment option for patients with MDD or TRD. Recent studies have proposed new paradigms of TMS, one paradigm is accelerated intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation [aiTBS].
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review assesses the efficacy, safety and tolerability of aiTBS in patients with MDD.
METHODS
This review was registered with PROSPERO [ID number: 366556]. A systematic literature review was performed using Pubmed, Web of Science and PsycINFO. Case reports/series, open-label and randomized controlled trials [RCTs] were eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria; full text publication available in English describing a form of aiTBS for MDD or TRD. aiTBS was defined as at least three iTBS treatments sessions per day, during at least four days for one week.
RESULTS
32 studies were identified describing aiTBS in MDD, 13 studies described overlapping samples. Six articles from five unique studies met eligibility criteria; two open-label studies and three RCTs [two double blind and one quadruple blind]. Response rates directly after treatment ranged from 20.0% to 86.4% and remission rates ranged from 10.0 to 86.4%. Four weeks after treatment response rates ranged from 0.0% to 66.7% and remission rates ranged from 0.0% to 57.1%. Three articles described a significant reduction in suicidality scores. aiTBS was well tolerated and safe, with no serious adverse events reported.
CONCLUSIONS
aiTBS is a promising form of non-invasive brain stimulation [NIBS] with rapid antidepressant and antisuicidal effects in MDD. Additionally, aiTBS was well tolerated and safe. However, the included studies had small samples sizes and differed in frequency, intersession interval, neuro localization and stimulation intensity. Replication studies and larger RCTs are warranted to establish efficacy, safety and long term effects.
Topics: Humans; Depressive Disorder, Major; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant; Stereotaxic Techniques; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37625365
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2023.115429 -
European Journal of Pain (London,... Jan 2023Phantom limb pain (PLP) concerns >50% of amputees and has a negative impact on their rehabilitation, mental health and quality of life. Mirror therapy (MT) is a... (Review)
Review
Effect of mirror therapy in the treatment of phantom limb pain in amputees: A systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled trials does not find any evidence of efficacy.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Phantom limb pain (PLP) concerns >50% of amputees and has a negative impact on their rehabilitation, mental health and quality of life. Mirror therapy (MT) is a promising strategy, but its effectiveness remains controversial. We performed a systematic review to: (i) evaluate the effectiveness of MT versus placebo in reducing PLP, and (ii) determine MT effect on disability and quality of life.
DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT
We selected randomized-controlled trials in five databases (Medline, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PEDro and Embase) that included patients with unilateral lower or upper limb amputation and PLP and that compared the effects on PLP of MT versus a placebo technique. The primary outcome was PLP intensity changes and the secondary outcomes were PLP duration, frequency, patients' disability and quality of life.
RESULTS
Among the five studies included, only one reported a significant difference between the MT group and control group, with a positive MT effect at week 4. Only one study assessed MT effect on disability and found a significant improvement in the MT group at week 10 and month 6.
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review did not allow concluding that MT reduces PLP and disability in amputees. This lack of strong evidence is probably due to (i) the low methodological quality of the included studies, and (ii) the lack of statistical power. Future trials should include a higher number of patients, increase the number and frequency of MT sessions, have a long-term follow-up and improve the methodological quality.
SIGNIFICANCE
Recent meta-analyses concluded that MT is effective for reducing phantom limb pain. Conversely, the present systematic review that included only studies with the best level of evidence did not find any evidence about its effectiveness for this condition. We identified many ways to improve future randomized-controlled trials on this topic: increasing the number of participants, reducing the intra-group heterogeneity, using a suitable placebo and intensifying the MT sessions and frequency.
Topics: Humans; Phantom Limb; Quality of Life; Mirror Movement Therapy; Amputees; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36094758
DOI: 10.1002/ejp.2035 -
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Sep 2017Somatic disorders occur more often in adult psychiatric patients than in the general adult population. However, in child and adolescent psychiatry this association is... (Review)
Review
Somatic disorders occur more often in adult psychiatric patients than in the general adult population. However, in child and adolescent psychiatry this association is unclear, mainly due to a lack of integration of existing data. To address this issue, we here present a systematic review on medical comorbidity in the two major developmental disorders autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and formulate clinical recommendations. The literature was searched using the PubMed and PsycINFO databases (2000-1 May 2016) with the keywords "[((child and adolescent) AND (Autism OR Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder* OR ADHD)) AND ("Cardiovascular Diseases" [Mesh] OR "Endocrine System Diseases" [Mesh] OR "Immune System Diseases" [Mesh] OR "Neurobehavioral Manifestations" [Mesh] OR "Gastrointestinal Disorders" [Mesh] OR Somatic OR Autoimmune disease OR Nervous system disease OR Infection OR Infectious disease)]. Two raters independently assessed the quality of the eligible studies. The initial search identified 5278 articles. Based on inclusion and exclusion criteria 104 papers were selected and subsequently subjected to a quality control. This quality was assessed according to a standardized and validated set of criteria and yielded 29 studies for inclusion. This thorough literature search provides an overview of relevant articles on medical comorbidity in ADHD and/or ASD, and shows that medical disorders in these children and adolescents appear to be widespread. Those who work with children with ASD and/or ADHD should be well aware of this and actively promote routine medical assessment. Additionally, case-control studies and population-based studies are needed to provide reliable prevalence estimates. Future studies should furthermore focus on a broader evaluation of medical disorders in children and adolescents with ADHD and/or ASD to improve treatment algorithm in this vulnerable group.
Topics: Adolescent; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Child; Child, Preschool; Comorbidity; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Humans; Male
PubMed: 28674760
DOI: 10.1007/s00787-017-1020-0 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry Nov 2023Side-effects of psychiatric medication impair quality of life and functioning. Furthermore, they contribute to morbidity, mortality, stigma, and poor treatment...
BACKGROUND
Side-effects of psychiatric medication impair quality of life and functioning. Furthermore, they contribute to morbidity, mortality, stigma, and poor treatment concordance resulting in relapse of psychiatric illness. Guidelines recommend discussing side-effects with patients when making treatment decisions, but a synthesis of antidepressant and antipsychotic side-effects to guide this process is missing, and considering all side-effects is a complex, multidimensional process. We aimed to create comprehensive databases of antipsychotic and antidepressant side-effects, and a digital tool to support database navigation.
METHODS
To create the databases, we did an umbrella review of Embase, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE from database inception to June 26, 2023. We included meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials examining antipsychotic monotherapy in the treatment of schizophrenia or antidepressant monotherapy in the treatment of major depressive disorder. We included meta-analyses in adults (aged ≥18 years) that assessed drugs with a common comparator. The search was complemented by a review of national and international guidelines and consensus statements for the treatment of major depressive disorder and schizophrenia in adults. Effect sizes for antipsychotic and antidepressant side-effects were extracted from meta-analyses examining the largest number of drugs. In cases of incomplete meta-analytic coverage, data were imputed on the basis of guideline-derived ordinal rankings or, if imputation was not possible, ordinal scores were extracted. Both meta-analytic and ordinal outcomes were normalised to provide values between 0 and 1. We then constructed a digital tool, the Psymatik Treatment Optimizer, to combine the side-effect databases with side-effect concerns of an individual user, to enable users to select side-effects of concern and the relative degree of concern for each side-effect. Concern weightings and the side-effect databases are synthesised via a multicriteria decision analysis method (technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal situation, or TOPSIS).
FINDINGS
Of 3724 citations, 14 articles containing 68 meta-analyses of individual side-effects met inclusion criteria. After review of 19 guidelines, seven provided ordinal data. Antipsychotic data were extracted from five studies (11 meta-analyses, n=65 594 patients) and four guidelines, and antidepressant data were extracted from three guidelines. The resultant databases included data on 32 antipsychotics (14 side-effects) and 37 antidepressants (nine side-effects). The databases highlighted the clinical dilemma associated with balancing side-effects, with avoidance of one side-effect (eg, weight gain for antipsychotics) increasing the risk of others (eg, akathisia). To aid with this dilemma, the Psymatik Treatment Optimizer synthesises the side-effect databases with individual user-defined concern weights. After computing up to 5851 pairwise comparisons for antidepressants and 5142 pairwise comparisons for antipsychotics, Psymatik ranks treatments in order of preference for the individual user, with the output presented in a heatmap.
INTERPRETATION
By facilitating collaborative, personalised, and evidence-based prescribing decisions, the side-effect databases and digital application supports care delivery that is consistent with international regulatory guidance for the treatment of schizophrenia and depression, and it therefore has promise for informing psychiatric practice and improving outcomes.
FUNDING
National Institute for Health and Care Research, Maudsley Charity, Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Adolescent; Antipsychotic Agents; Depressive Disorder, Major; Quality of Life; Antidepressive Agents; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 37774723
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(23)00262-6 -
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Revue... May 2023Given the increasing acceptability and legalization of cannabis in some jurisdictions, clinicians need to improve their understanding of the effect of cannabis use on... (Review)
Review
Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) Task Force Report: A Systematic Review and Recommendations of Cannabis use in Bipolar Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder.
BACKGROUND
Given the increasing acceptability and legalization of cannabis in some jurisdictions, clinicians need to improve their understanding of the effect of cannabis use on mood disorders.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this task force report is to examine the association between cannabis use and incidence, presentation, course and treatment of bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, and the treatment of comorbid cannabis use disorder.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, searching PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to October 2020 focusing on cannabis use and bipolar disorder or major depressive disorder, and treatment of comorbid cannabis use disorder. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and clinical considerations were integrated to generate Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments recommendations.
RESULTS
Of 12,691 publications, 56 met the criteria: 23 on bipolar disorder, 21 on major depressive disorder, 11 on both diagnoses and 1 on treatment of comorbid cannabis use disorder and major depressive disorder. Of 2,479,640 participants, 12,502 were comparison participants, 73,891 had bipolar disorder and 408,223 major depressive disorder without cannabis use. Of those with cannabis use, 2,761 had bipolar disorder and 5,044 major depressive disorder. The lifetime prevalence of cannabis use was 52%-71% and 6%-50% in bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, respectively. Cannabis use was associated with worsening course and symptoms of both mood disorders, with more consistent associations in bipolar disorder than major depressive disorder: increased severity of depressive, manic and psychotic symptoms in bipolar disorder and depressive symptoms in major depressive disorder. Cannabis use was associated with increased suicidality and decreased functioning in both bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder. Treatment of comorbid cannabis use disorder and major depressive disorder did not show significant results.
CONCLUSION
The data indicate that cannabis use is associated with worsened course and functioning of bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder. Future studies should include more accurate determinations of type, amount and frequency of cannabis use and select comparison groups which allow to control for underlying common factors.
Topics: Humans; Bipolar Disorder; Depressive Disorder, Major; Cannabis; Marijuana Abuse; Canada; Anxiety; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 35711159
DOI: 10.1177/07067437221099769 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2023A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset and reaches a peak within 10 minutes. The main symptoms involve bodily systems, such as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset and reaches a peak within 10 minutes. The main symptoms involve bodily systems, such as racing heart, chest pain, sweating, shaking, dizziness, flushing, churning stomach, faintness and breathlessness. Other recognised panic attack symptoms involve fearful cognitions, such as the fear of collapse, going mad or dying, and derealisation (the sensation that the world is unreal). Panic disorder is common in the general population with a prevalence of 1% to 4%. The treatment of panic disorder includes psychological and pharmacological interventions, including antidepressants and benzodiazepines.
OBJECTIVES
To compare, via network meta-analysis, individual drugs (antidepressants and benzodiazepines) or placebo in terms of efficacy and acceptability in the acute treatment of panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. To rank individual active drugs for panic disorder (antidepressants, benzodiazepines and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To rank drug classes for panic disorder (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), mono-amine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and benzodiazepines (BDZs) and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To explore heterogeneity and inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence in a network meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, CENTRAL, CDSR, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and PsycINFO to 26 May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people aged 18 years or older of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. We included trials that compared the effectiveness of antidepressants and benzodiazepines with each other or with a placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data and continuous data as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD): response to treatment (i.e. substantial improvement from baseline as defined by the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), total number of dropouts due to any reason (as a proxy measure of treatment acceptability: dichotomous outcome), remission (i.e. satisfactory end state as defined by global judgement of the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), panic symptom scales and global judgement (continuous outcome), frequency of panic attacks (as recorded, for example, by a panic diary; continuous outcome), agoraphobia (dichotomous outcome). We assessed the certainty of evidence using threshold analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
Overall, we included 70 trials in this review. Sample sizes ranged between 5 and 445 participants in each arm, and the total sample size per study ranged from 10 to 1168. Thirty-five studies included sample sizes of over 100 participants. There is evidence from 48 RCTs (N = 10,118) that most medications are more effective in the response outcome than placebo. In particular, diazepam, alprazolam, clonazepam, paroxetine, venlafaxine, clomipramine, fluoxetine and adinazolam showed the strongest effect, with diazepam, alprazolam and clonazepam ranking as the most effective. We found heterogeneity in most of the comparisons, but our threshold analyses suggest that this is unlikely to impact the findings of the network meta-analysis. Results from 64 RCTs (N = 12,310) suggest that most medications are associated with either a reduced or similar risk of dropouts to placebo. Alprazolam and diazepam were associated with a lower dropout rate compared to placebo and were ranked as the most tolerated of all the medications examined. Thirty-two RCTs (N = 8569) were included in the remission outcome. Most medications were more effective than placebo, namely desipramine, fluoxetine, clonazepam, diazepam, fluvoxamine, imipramine, venlafaxine and paroxetine, and their effects were clinically meaningful. Amongst these medications, desipramine and alprazolam were ranked highest. Thirty-five RCTs (N = 8826) are included in the continuous outcome reduction in panic scale scores. Brofaromine, clonazepam and reboxetine had the strongest reductions in panic symptoms compared to placebo, but results were based on either one trial or very small trials. Forty-one RCTs (N = 7853) are included in the frequency of panic attack outcome. Only clonazepam and alprazolam showed a strong reduction in the frequency of panic attacks compared to placebo, and were ranked highest. Twenty-six RCTs (N = 7044) provided data for agoraphobia. The strongest reductions in agoraphobia symptoms were found for citalopram, reboxetine, escitalopram, clomipramine and diazepam, compared to placebo. For the pooled intervention classes, we examined the two primary outcomes (response and dropout). The classes of medication were: SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs. For the response outcome, all classes of medications examined were more effective than placebo. TCAs as a class ranked as the most effective, followed by BDZs and MAOIs. SSRIs as a class ranked fifth on average, while SNRIs were ranked lowest. When we compared classes of medication with each other for the response outcome, we found no difference between classes. Comparisons between MAOIs and TCAs and between BDZs and TCAs also suggested no differences between these medications, but the results were imprecise. For the dropout outcome, BDZs were the only class associated with a lower dropout compared to placebo and were ranked first in terms of tolerability. The other classes did not show any difference in dropouts compared to placebo. In terms of ranking, TCAs are on average second to BDZs, followed by SNRIs, then by SSRIs and lastly by MAOIs. BDZs were associated with lower dropout rates compared to SSRIs, SNRIs and TCAs. The quality of the studies comparing antidepressants with placebo was moderate, while the quality of the studies comparing BDZs with placebo and antidepressants was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In terms of efficacy, SSRIs, SNRIs (venlafaxine), TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs may be effective, with little difference between classes. However, it is important to note that the reliability of these findings may be limited due to the overall low quality of the studies, with all having unclear or high risk of bias across multiple domains. Within classes, some differences emerged. For example, amongst the SSRIs paroxetine and fluoxetine seem to have stronger evidence of efficacy than sertraline. Benzodiazepines appear to have a small but significant advantage in terms of tolerability (incidence of dropouts) over other classes.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Panic Disorder; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Paroxetine; Fluoxetine; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Alprazolam; Clomipramine; Reboxetine; Clonazepam; Desipramine; Network Meta-Analysis; Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Benzodiazepines; Diazepam
PubMed: 38014714
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012729.pub3