-
Deutsches Arzteblatt International Apr 2018Headache, like dizziness, is one of the more common presenting complaints in outpatient care and in the emergency room. More than 200 varieties of headache have been... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Headache, like dizziness, is one of the more common presenting complaints in outpatient care and in the emergency room. More than 200 varieties of headache have been described, and the false impression may arise that the diagnosis and treatment of these syndromes is a highly challenging task.
METHODS
This review is based on pertinent articles retrieved by a selective search in PubMed.
RESULTS
In primary headache, the headache is not a symptom but a disease in its own right. There are four types of primary headache: migraine, tension headache, trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia, and other primary headache disorders. By definition, the physical examination is normal, including the neurological examination. Secondary headache, in contrast, is a symptom of another disease (e.g., a tumor or cerebral hemorrhage). Triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) are the drugs usually given for the acute treatment and prophylaxis of migraine. In tension headache, NSAID are given acutely, and tricyclic drugs for prophylaxis. There are various options for the treatment of trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia syndromes such as cluster headache and paroxysmal hemicrania. For group 4 headaches (other primary headache disorders), the treatment must be chosen on an individual basis; indomethacin is often effective.
CONCLUSION
If the patient is clearly suffering from none of the four types of primary headache, the problem must be a headache of a secondary nature, potentially reflecting a dangerous underlying disease. The treatment of headache is usually successful and thus highly rewarding for physicians of all medical specialties.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Antihypertensive Agents; Headache; Humans; Metoprolol; Migraine Disorders; Propranolol; Research Design; Tension-Type Headache; Trigeminal Autonomic Cephalalgias
PubMed: 29789115
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2018.0299 -
The Journal of Headache and Pain Oct 2022Multiple clinical trials with different exercise protocols have demonstrated efficacy in the management of migraine. However, there is no head-to-head comparison of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple clinical trials with different exercise protocols have demonstrated efficacy in the management of migraine. However, there is no head-to-head comparison of efficacy between the different exercise interventions.
METHODS
A systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed involving all clinical trials which determined the efficacy of exercise interventions in reducing the frequency of monthly migraine. Medical journal search engines included Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus spanning all previous years up to July 30, 2022. Both aerobic and strength/resistance training protocols were included. The mean difference (MD, 95% confidence interval) in monthly migraine frequency from baseline to end-of-intervention between the active and control arms was used as an outcome measure. Efficacy evidence from direct and indirect comparisons was combined by conducting a random effects model network meta-analysis. The efficacy of the three exercise protocols was compared, i.e., moderate-intensity aerobic exercise, high-intensity aerobic exercise, and strength/resistance training. Studies that compared the efficacy of migraine medications (topiramate, amitriptyline) to exercise were included. Additionally, the risk of bias in all included studies was assessed by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias version 2 (RoB2).
RESULTS
There were 21 published clinical trials that involved a total of 1195 migraine patients with a mean age of 35 years and a female-to-male ratio of 6.7. There were 27 pairwise comparisons and 8 indirect comparisons. The rank of the interventions was as follows: strength training (MD = -3.55 [- 6.15, - 0.95]), high-intensity aerobic exercise (-3.13 [-5.28, -0.97]), moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (-2.18 [-3.25, -1.11]), topiramate (-0.98 [-4.16, 2.20]), placebo, amitriptyline (3.82 [- 1.03, 8.68]). The RoB2 assessment showed that 85% of the included studies demonstrated low risk of bias, while 15% indicated high risk of bias for intention-to-treat analysis. Sources of high risk of bias include randomization process and handling of missing outcome data.
CONCLUSION
Strength training exercise regimens demonstrated the highest efficacy in reducing migraine burden, followed by high-intensity aerobic exercise.
Topics: Adult; Amitriptyline; Exercise; Female; Humans; Male; Migraine Disorders; Network Meta-Analysis; Resistance Training; Topiramate
PubMed: 36229774
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-022-01503-y -
The Journal of Headache and Pain May 2023While there are several trials that support the efficacy of various drugs for migraine prophylaxis against placebo, there is limited evidence addressing the comparative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
While there are several trials that support the efficacy of various drugs for migraine prophylaxis against placebo, there is limited evidence addressing the comparative safety and efficacy of these drugs. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to facilitate comparison between drugs for migraine prophylaxis.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to August 13, 2022, for randomized trials of pharmacological treatments for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and rated the certainty (quality) of evidence as either high, moderate, low, or very low using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
We identified 74 eligible trials, reporting on 32,990 patients. We found high certainty evidence that monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor (CGRP(r)mAbs), gepants, and topiramate increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo. We found moderate certainty evidence that beta-blockers, valproate, and amitriptyline increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, and low certainty evidence that gabapentin may not be different from placebo. We found high certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, valproate and amitriptyline lead to substantial adverse events leading to discontinuation, moderate certainty evidence that topiramate, beta-blockers, and gabapentin increase adverse events leading to discontinuation, and moderate to high certainty evidence that (CGRP(r)mAbs) and gepants do not increase adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
(CGRP(r)mAbs) have the best safety and efficacy profile of all drugs for migraine prophylaxis, followed closely by gepants.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Topiramate; Valproic Acid; Gabapentin; Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide; Network Meta-Analysis; Amitriptyline; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Migraine Disorders
PubMed: 37208596
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-023-01594-1 -
JAMA Network Open May 2022Amitriptyline is an established medication used off-label for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran are the only pharmacological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Amitriptyline is an established medication used off-label for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran are the only pharmacological agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat fibromyalgia.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the comparative effectiveness and acceptability associated with pharmacological treatment options for fibromyalgia.
DATA SOURCES
Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were conducted on November 20, 2018, and updated on July 29, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing amitriptyline or any FDA-approved doses of investigated drugs.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
This study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline. Four independent reviewers extracted data using a standardized data extraction sheet and assessed quality of RCTs. A random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to January 2021.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Comparative effectiveness and acceptability (defined as discontinuation of treatment owing to adverse drug reactions) associated with amitriptyline (off-label), pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran (on-label) in reducing fibromyalgia symptoms. The following doses were compared: 60-mg and 120-mg duloxetine; 150-mg, 300-mg, 450-mg, and 600-mg pregabalin; 100-mg and 200-mg milnacipran; and amitriptyline. Effect sizes are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). Findings were considered statistically significant when the 95% CrI did not include the null value (0 for SMD and 1 for OR). Relative treatment ranking using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was also evaluated.
RESULTS
A total of 36 studies (11 930 patients) were included. The mean (SD) age of patients was 48.4 (10.4) years, and 11 261 patients (94.4%) were women. Compared with placebo, amitriptyline was associated with reduced sleep disturbances (SMD, -0.97; 95% CrI, -1.10 to -0.83), fatigue (SMD, -0.64; 95% CrI, -0.75 to -0.53), and improved quality of life (SMD, -0.80; 95% CrI, -0.94 to -0.65). Duloxetine 120 mg was associated with the highest improvement in pain (SMD, -0.33; 95% CrI, -0.36 to -0.30) and depression (SMD, -0.25; 95% CrI, -0.32 to -0.17) vs placebo. All treatments were associated with inferior acceptability (higher dropout rate) than placebo, except amitriptyline (OR, 0.78; 95% CrI, 0.31 to 1.66). According to the SUCRA-based relative ranking of treatments, duloxetine 120 mg was associated with higher efficacy for treating pain and depression, while amitriptyline was associated with higher efficacy for improving sleep, fatigue, and overall quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These findings suggest that clinicians should consider how treatments could be tailored to individual symptoms, weighing the benefits and acceptability, when prescribing medications to patients with fibromyalgia.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fatigue; Female; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Milnacipran; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain; Pregabalin; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 35587348
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.12939 -
Lancet (London, England) Nov 2023Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are managed in primary care. When first-line therapies for IBS are ineffective, the UK National Institute for Health... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment in primary care (ATLANTIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.
BACKGROUND
Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are managed in primary care. When first-line therapies for IBS are ineffective, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline suggests considering low- dose tricyclic antidepressants as second-line treatment, but their effectiveness in primary care is unknown, and they are infrequently prescribed in this setting.
METHODS
This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment [ATLANTIS]) was conducted at 55 general practices in England. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with Rome IV IBS of any subtype, and ongoing symptoms (IBS Severity Scoring System [IBS-SSS] score ≥75 points) despite dietary changes and first-line therapies, a normal full blood count and C-reactive protein, negative coeliac serology, and no evidence of suicidal ideation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to low-dose oral amitriptyline (10 mg once daily) or placebo for 6 months, with dose titration over 3 weeks (up to 30 mg once daily), according to symptoms and tolerability. Participants, their general practitioners, investigators, and the analysis team were all masked to allocation throughout the trial. The primary outcome was the IBS-SSS score at 6 months. Effectiveness analyses were according to intention-to-treat; safety analyses were on all participants who took at least one dose of the trial medication. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN48075063) and is closed to new participants.
FINDINGS
Between Oct 18, 2019, and April 11, 2022, 463 participants (mean age 48·5 years [SD 16·1], 315 [68%] female to 148 [32%] male) were randomly allocated to receive low-dose amitriptyline (232) or placebo (231). Intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of low-dose amitriptyline in IBS-SSS score between groups at 6 months (-27·0, 95% CI -46·9 to -7·10; p=0·0079). 46 (20%) participants discontinued low-dose amitriptyline (30 [13%] due to adverse events), and 59 (26%) discontinued placebo (20 [9%] due to adverse events) before 6 months. There were five serious adverse reactions (two in the amitriptyline group and three in the placebo group), and five serious adverse events unrelated to trial medication.
INTERPRETATION
To our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a tricyclic antidepressant in IBS ever conducted. Titrated low-dose amitriptyline was superior to placebo as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care across multiple outcomes, and was safe and well tolerated. General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with IBS whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies, with appropriate support to guide patient-led dose titration, such as the self-titration document developed for this trial.
FUNDING
National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant reference 16/162/01).
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Middle Aged; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Amitriptyline; England; Double-Blind Method; Primary Health Care; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37858323
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01523-4 -
World Journal of Psychiatry Jun 2023Available pharmacotherapies for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are reviewed based on clinical and research experience, highlighting some older drugs with emerging... (Review)
Review
Available pharmacotherapies for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are reviewed based on clinical and research experience, highlighting some older drugs with emerging evidence. Several medications show efficacy in ASD, though controlled studies in ASD are largely lacking. Only risperidone and aripiprazole have Federal Drug Administration approval in the United States. Methylphenidate (MPH) studies showed lower efficacy and tolerability for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) than in the typically developing (TD) population; atomoxetine demonstrated lower efficacy but comparable tolerability to TD outcomes. Guanfacine improved hyperactivity in ASD comparably to TD. Dex-troamphetamine promises greater efficacy than MPH in ASD. ADHD medications reduce impulsive aggression in youth, and may also be key for this in adults. Controlled trials of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors citalopram and fluoxetine demonstrated poor tolerability and lack of efficacy for repetitive behaviors. Trials of antiseizure medications in ASD remain inconclusive, however clinical trials may be warranted in severely disabled individuals showing bizarre behaviors. No identified drugs treat ASD core symptoms; oxytocin lacked efficacy. Amitriptyline and loxapine however, show promise. Loxapine at 5-10 mg daily resembled an atypical antipsychotic in positron emission tomography studies, but may be weight-sparing. Amitriptyline at approximately 1 mg/ kg/day used cautiously, shows efficacy for sleep, anxiety, impulsivity and ADHD, repetitive behaviors, and enuresis. Both drugs have promising neurotrophic properties.
PubMed: 37383284
DOI: 10.5498/wjp.v13.i6.262 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016Incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) is one of the most common skin problems in adults who are incontinent for urine, stool, or both. In practice, products and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) is one of the most common skin problems in adults who are incontinent for urine, stool, or both. In practice, products and procedures are the same for both prevention and treatment of IAD.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of various products and procedures to preventand treat incontinence-associated dermatitis in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 28 September 2016). Additionally we searched other electronic databases: CENTRAL(2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE (January 1946 to May Week 3 2015), MEDLINE In-Process (inception to 26 May 2015), CINAHL(December 1981 to 28 May 2015), Web of Science (WoS; inception to 28 May 2015) and handsearched conference proceedings (to June 2015) and the reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted authors and experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, performed in any healthcare setting, with included participants over 18 years of age, with or without IAD. We included trials comparing the (cost) effectiveness of topical skin care products such as skin cleansers, moisturisers, and skin protectants of different compositions and skin care procedures aiming to prevent and treat IAD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-texts, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included trials.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 trials with 1295 participants in a qualitative synthesis. Participants were incontinent for urine, stool, or both, and were residents in a nursing home or were hospitalised.Eleven trials had a small sample size and short follow-up periods. .The overall risk of bias in the included studies was high. The data were not suitable for meta-analysis due to heterogeneity in participant population, skin care products, skin care procedures, outcomes, and measurement tools.Nine trials compared different topical skin care products, including a combination of products. Two trials tested a structured skin care procedure. One trial compared topical skin care products alongside frequencies of application. One trial compared frequencies of application of topical skin care products.We found evidence in two trials, being of low and moderate quality, that soap and water performed poorly in the prevention and treatment of IAD (primary outcomes of this review). The first trial indicated that the use of a skin cleanser might be more effective than the use of soap and water (risk ratio (RR) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.87; low quality evidence). The second trial indicated that a structured skin care procedure, being a washcloth with cleansing, moisturising, and protecting properties, might be more effective than soap and water (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.79; moderate quality evidence). Findings from the other trials, all being of low to very low quality, suggest that applying a leave-on product (moisturiser, skin protectant, or a combination) might be more effective than not applying a leave-on product. No trial reported on the third primary outcome 'number of participants not satisfied with treatment' or on adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Little evidence, of very low to moderate quality, exists on the effects of interventions for preventing and treating IAD in adults. Soap and water performed poorly in the prevention and treatment of IAD. Application of leave-on products (moisturisers, skin protectants, or a combination) and avoiding soap seems to be more effective than withholding these products. The performance of leave-on products depends on the combination of ingredients, the overall formulation and the usage (e.g. amount applied). High quality confirmatory trials using standardised, and comparable prevention and treatment regimens in different settings/regions are required. Furthermore, to increase the comparability of trial results, we recommend the development of a core outcome set, including validated measurement tools. The evidence in this review is current up to 28 September 2016.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Adult; Amitriptyline; Dermatitis; Dermatologic Agents; Fecal Incontinence; Humans; Petrolatum; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin Care; Skin Cream; Soaps; Urinary Incontinence; Zinc Oxide
PubMed: 27841440
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011627.pub2 -
Pain Physician Nov 2018Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a commonly encountered disease entity following chemotherapy for cancer treatment. Although only duloxetine is...
BACKGROUND
Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a commonly encountered disease entity following chemotherapy for cancer treatment. Although only duloxetine is recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) for the treatment of CIPN in 2014, the evidence of the clinical outcome for new pharmaceutic therapies and non-pharmaceutic treatments has not been clearly determined.
OBJECTIVE
To provide a comprehensive review and evidence-based recommendations on the treatment of CIPN.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review of each treatment regimen in patients with CIPN.
METHODS
The literature on the treatment of CIPN published from 1990 to 2017 was searched and reviewed. The 2011 American Academy of Neurology Clinical Practice Guidelines Process Manual was used to grade the evidence and risk of bias. We reviewed and updated the recommendations of the ASCO in 2014, and evaluated new approaches for treating CIPN.
RESULTS
A total of 26 treatment options in 35 studies were identified. Among these, 7 successful RCTs, 6 failed RCTs, 18 prospective studies, and 4 retrospective studies were included. The included studies examined not only pharmacologic therapy but also other modalities, including laser therapy, scrambler therapy, magnetic field therapy and acupuncture, etc. Most of the included studies had small sample sizes, and short follow-up periods. Primary outcome measures were highly variable across the included studies. No studies were prematurely closed owing to its adverse effects.
LIMITATIONS
The limitations of this systematic review included relatively poor homogeneous, with variations in timing of treatment, primary outcomes, and chemotherapeutic agents used.
CONCLUSION
The evidence is considered of moderate benefit for duloxetine. Photobiomodulation, known as low level laser therapy, is considered of moderate benefit based on the evidence review. Evidence did not support the use of lamotrigine and topical KA (4% ketamine and 2% amitriptyline). The evidence for tricyclic antidepressants was inconclusive as amitriptyline showed no benefit but nortriptyline had insufficient evidence. Further research on CIPN treatment is needed with larger sample sizes, long-term follow-up, standardized outcome measurements, and standardized treatment timing.
KEY WORDS
Chemotherapy-induced neuropathy, peripheral neuropathy, chemotherapy-tumor, neuropathic pain, chronic pain, toxicology, treatment, reduction of pain, level of evidence.
Topics: Adult; Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Neuralgia; Pain Management; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 30508986
DOI: No ID Found