-
The New England Journal of Medicine Jan 2017Which medication, if any, to use to prevent the headache of pediatric migraine has not been established. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Which medication, if any, to use to prevent the headache of pediatric migraine has not been established.
METHODS
We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of amitriptyline (1 mg per kilogram of body weight per day), topiramate (2 mg per kilogram per day), and placebo in children and adolescents 8 to 17 years of age with migraine. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive one of the medications or placebo. The primary outcome was a relative reduction of 50% or more in the number of headache days in the comparison of the 28-day baseline period with the last 28 days of a 24-week trial. Secondary outcomes were headache-related disability, headache days, number of trial completers, and serious adverse events that emerged during treatment.
RESULTS
A total of 361 patients underwent randomization, and 328 were included in the primary efficacy analysis (132 in the amitriptyline group, 130 in the topiramate group, and 66 in the placebo group). The trial was concluded early for futility after a planned interim analysis. There were no significant between-group differences in the primary outcome, which occurred in 52% of the patients in the amitriptyline group, 55% of those in the topiramate group, and 61% of those in the placebo group (amitriptyline vs. placebo, P=0.26; topiramate vs. placebo, P=0.48; amitriptyline vs. topiramate, P=0.49). There were also no significant between-group differences in headache-related disability, headache days, or the percentage of patients who completed the 24-week treatment period. Patients who received amitriptyline or topiramate had higher rates of several adverse events than those receiving placebo, including fatigue (30% vs. 14%) and dry mouth (25% vs. 12%) in the amitriptyline group and paresthesia (31% vs. 8%) and weight loss (8% vs. 0%) in the topiramate group. Three patients in the amitriptyline group had serious adverse events of altered mood, and one patient in the topiramate group had a suicide attempt.
CONCLUSIONS
There were no significant differences in reduction in headache frequency or headache-related disability in childhood and adolescent migraine with amitriptyline, topiramate, or placebo over a period of 24 weeks. The active drugs were associated with higher rates of adverse events. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; CHAMP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01581281 ).
Topics: Adolescent; Amitriptyline; Anticonvulsants; Child; Double-Blind Method; Fatigue; Female; Fructose; Humans; Linear Models; Male; Migraine Disorders; Paresthesia; Placebos; Topiramate; Treatment Failure; Xerostomia
PubMed: 27788026
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1610384 -
Indian Journal of Pharmacology 2023Escitalopram, fluoxetine, and amitriptyline are the drugs commonly used in the treatment of depression. The pharmacoeconomic evaluation of these drugs becomes relevant...
INTRODUCTION
Escitalopram, fluoxetine, and amitriptyline are the drugs commonly used in the treatment of depression. The pharmacoeconomic evaluation of these drugs becomes relevant as they are prescribed for a long period of time, and depression causes a significant economic burden. The cost-minimization study would contribute to bringing down the annual treatment costs, leading to better medication adherence and ultimately better patient outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
All drug prices are mentioned in Indian National Rupee (INR). All expenses are based on 2022 pricing. No cost discounting was used because all expenditures were calculated over a year. We considered hypothetical scenarios where the patient was prescribed the lowest possible dose for depression, an equivalent antidepressant dose, a defined daily dose, and the maximum acceptable therapeutic dose for depression.
RESULTS
Annual average treatment costs of amitriptyline, escitalopram, and fluoxetine in patients with depression at baseline with equivalent dosing as mono-drug therapy were 2765.53, 2914.78, and 1422.72 rupees (INR), respectively. Savings were high when the patient was shifted to fluoxetine from either escitalopram or amitriptyline. The savings from switching to fluoxetine were 50.66% and 56.42% from escitalopram and amitriptyline, respectively.
CONCLUSION
The choice of an antidepressant depends on multiple aspects, among which the cost of treatment plays a crucial role. Among the drugs compared, fluoxetine seems to offer greater value for money. The study emphasizes that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are the most commonly prescribed antidepressants not only because of their favorable pharmacological profile but also because of their affordability.
Topics: Humans; Fluoxetine; Amitriptyline; Escitalopram; Depression; Antidepressive Agents; Health Care Costs
PubMed: 37929407
DOI: 10.4103/ijp.ijp_854_22 -
JCI Insight Feb 2021TrkB agonist drugs are shown here to have a significant effect on the regeneration of afferent cochlear synapses after noise-induced synaptopathy. The effects were...
TrkB agonist drugs are shown here to have a significant effect on the regeneration of afferent cochlear synapses after noise-induced synaptopathy. The effects were consistent with regeneration of cochlear synapses that we observed in vitro after synaptic loss due to kainic acid-induced glutamate toxicity and were elicited by administration of TrkB agonists, amitriptyline, and 7,8-dihydroxyflavone, directly into the cochlea via the posterior semicircular canal 48 hours after exposure to noise. Synaptic counts at the inner hair cell and wave 1 amplitudes in the auditory brainstem response (ABR) were partially restored 2 weeks after drug treatment. Effects of amitriptyline on wave 1 amplitude and afferent auditory synapse numbers in noise-exposed ears after systemic (as opposed to local) delivery were profound and long-lasting; synapses in the treated animals remained intact 1 year after the treatment. However, the effect of systemically delivered amitriptyline on synaptic rescue was dependent on dose and the time window of administration: it was only effective when given before noise exposure at the highest injected dose. The long-lasting effect and the efficacy of postexposure treatment indicate a potential broad application for the treatment of synaptopathy, which often goes undetected until well after the original damaging exposures.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Animals; Auditory Threshold; Cochlea; Cochlear Nerve; Coculture Techniques; Disease Models, Animal; Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain Stem; Flavones; Hair Cells, Auditory, Inner; Hearing Loss, Noise-Induced; Membrane Glycoproteins; Mice; Mice, Inbred CBA; Protein-Tyrosine Kinases; Regeneration; Synapses
PubMed: 33373328
DOI: 10.1172/jci.insight.142572 -
Drug Safety Aug 2023Time- and resource-demanding activities related to processing individual case safety reports (ICSRs) include manual procedures to evaluate individual causality with the...
Developing an Artificial Intelligence-Guided Signal Detection in the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS): A Proof-of-Concept Study Using Galcanezumab and Simulated Data.
INTRODUCTION
Time- and resource-demanding activities related to processing individual case safety reports (ICSRs) include manual procedures to evaluate individual causality with the final goal of dismissing false-positive safety signals. Eminent experts and a representative from pharmaceutical industries and regulatory agencies have highlighted the need to automatize time- and resource-demanding procedures in signal detection and validation. However, to date there is a sparse availability of automatized tools for such purposes.
OBJECTIVES
ICSRs recorded in spontaneous reporting databases have been and continue to be the cornerstone and the most important data source in signal detection. Despite the richness of this data source, the incessantly increased amount of ICSRs recorded in spontaneous reporting databases has generated problems in signal detection and validation due to the increase in resources and time needed to process cases. This study aimed to develop a new artificial intelligence (AI)-based framework to automate resource- and time-consuming steps of signal detection and signal validation, such as (1) the selection of control groups in disproportionality analyses and (2) the identification of co-reported drugs serving as alternative causes, to look to dismiss false-positive disproportionality signals and therefore reduce the burden of case-by-case validation.
METHODS
The Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) and the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system were used to automatically identify control groups within and outside the chemical subgroup of the proof-of-concept drug under investigation, galcanezumab. Machine learning, specifically conditional inference trees, has been used to identify alternative causes in disproportionality signals.
RESULTS
By using conditional inference trees, the framework was able to dismiss 20.00% of erenumab, 14.29% of topiramate, and 13.33% of amitriptyline disproportionality signals on the basis of purely alternative causes identified in cases. Furthermore, of the disproportionality signals that could not be dismissed purely on the basis of the alternative causes identified, we estimated a 15.32%, 25.39%, and 26.41% reduction in the number of galcanezumab cases to undergo manual validation in comparison with erenumab, topiramate, and amitriptyline, respectively.
CONCLUSION
AI could significantly ease some of the most time-consuming and labor-intensive steps of signal detection and validation. The AI-based approach showed promising results, however, future work is needed to validate the framework.
Topics: United States; Humans; Artificial Intelligence; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems; United States Food and Drug Administration; Amitriptyline; Topiramate; Databases, Factual
PubMed: 37300636
DOI: 10.1007/s40264-023-01317-0 -
Revista de Neurologia Apr 2022Neuropathic pain (NP) is difficult to treat due to the heterogeneity of causes, symptoms and underlying mechanisms. It constitutes a great medical need that is not... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Neuropathic pain (NP) is difficult to treat due to the heterogeneity of causes, symptoms and underlying mechanisms. It constitutes a great medical need that is not covered, and has a high number of therapeutic failures in recent randomized clinical trials.
DEVELOPMENT
This narrative review presents an update on the pharmacological treatment of NP with emphasis on the new published clinical guidelines, new drugs in development, and the new challenges that arise in the therapeutic management of this entity.
CONCLUSIONS
First-line drugs proposed include tricyclic antidepressants (particularly amitriptyline), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (particularly duloxetine), pregabalin, and gabapentin. However, the latest recommendations are still relevant and the most recent clinical studies even question the role of pregabalin as a first-line treatment. Therefore, we consider that periodic updates of the clinical guidelines in NP are necessary to better guide our daily clinical practice and rationalize the use of all available therapeutic options. Furthermore, the expansion of knowledge in NP has generated a series of challenges, such as the development of new drugs based on pathophysiological mechanisms investigated in animals, and the development of optimal therapeutic approaches in clinical trials, based more on personalized than etiological approaches.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Analgesics; Animals; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Gabapentin; Humans; Neuralgia; Pregabalin
PubMed: 35383875
DOI: 10.33588/rn.7408.2021381 -
Andrology Nov 2022Rat isolated vas deferens releases 6-nitrodopamine (6-ND), and the spasmogenic activity of this novel catecholamine is significantly reduced by tricyclic compounds such...
BACKGROUND
Rat isolated vas deferens releases 6-nitrodopamine (6-ND), and the spasmogenic activity of this novel catecholamine is significantly reduced by tricyclic compounds such as amitriptyline, desipramine, and carbamazepine and by antagonists of the α -adrenergic receptors such as doxazosin, tamsulosin, and prazosin.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the liberation of 6-ND by human epididymal vas deferens (HEVDs) and its pharmacological actions.
METHODS
The in vitro liberation of 6-ND, dopamine, noradrenaline, and adrenaline from human vas deferens was evaluated by LC-MS/MS. The contractile effect of the catecholamines in HEVDs was investigated in vitro. The action of tricyclic antidepressants was evaluated on the spasmogenic activity ellicited by the catecholamines and by the electric-field stimulation (EFS). The tissue was also incubated with the inhibitor of nitric oxide (NO) synthase L-NAME and the release of catecholamines and the contractile response to EFS were assessed.
RESULTS
6-ND is the major catecholamine released from human vas deferens and its synthesis/release is inhibited by NO inhibition. The spasmogenic activity elicited by EFS in the human vas deferens was blocked by tricyclic antidepressants only at concentrations that selectively antagonize 6-ND induced contractions of the human vas deferens, without affecting the spasmogenic activity induced by dopamine, noradrenaline, and adrenaline in this tissue. Incubation of the vas deferens with L-NAME reduced both the 6-ND release and the contractions induced by EFS.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
6-ND should be considered a major endogenous modulator of human vas deferens contractility and possibly plays a pivotal role in the emission process of ejaculation. It offers a novel and shared mechanism of action for tricyclic antidepressants and α -adrenergic receptor antagonists.
Topics: Adrenergic Antagonists; Amitriptyline; Animals; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Carbamazepine; Chromatography, Liquid; Desipramine; Dopamine; Doxazosin; Epinephrine; Humans; Male; Muscle Contraction; Muscle, Smooth; NG-Nitroarginine Methyl Ester; Nitric Oxide; Norepinephrine; Prazosin; Rats; Receptors, Adrenergic; Tamsulosin; Tandem Mass Spectrometry; Vas Deferens
PubMed: 35934935
DOI: 10.1111/andr.13263 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Harmful alcohol use is defined as unhealthy alcohol use that results in adverse physical, psychological, social, or societal consequences and is among the leading risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Harmful alcohol use is defined as unhealthy alcohol use that results in adverse physical, psychological, social, or societal consequences and is among the leading risk factors for disease, disability and premature mortality globally. The burden of harmful alcohol use is increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and there remains a large unmet need for indicated prevention and treatment interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in these settings. Evidence regarding which interventions are effective and feasible for addressing harmful and other patterns of unhealthy alcohol use in LMICs is limited, which contributes to this gap in services.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of psychosocial and pharmacologic treatment and indicated prevention interventions compared with control conditions (wait list, placebo, no treatment, standard care, or active control condition) aimed at reducing harmful alcohol use in LMICs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indexed in the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, the Cochrane Clinical Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) through 12 December 2021. We searched clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Web of Science, and Opengrey database to identify unpublished or ongoing studies. We searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles for eligible studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All RCTs comparing an indicated prevention or treatment intervention (pharmacologic or psychosocial) versus a control condition for people with harmful alcohol use in LMICs were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 66 RCTs with 17,626 participants. Sixty-two of these trials contributed to the meta-analysis. Sixty-three studies were conducted in middle-income countries (MICs), and the remaining three studies were conducted in low-income countries (LICs). Twenty-five trials exclusively enrolled participants with alcohol use disorder. The remaining 51 trials enrolled participants with harmful alcohol use, some of which included both cases of alcohol use disorder and people reporting hazardous alcohol use patterns that did not meet criteria for disorder. Fifty-two RCTs assessed the efficacy of psychosocial interventions; 27 were brief interventions primarily based on motivational interviewing and were compared to brief advice, information, or assessment only. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to brief interventions given the high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Studies reporting continuous outcomes: Tau² = 0.15, Q =139.64, df =16, P<.001, I² = 89%, 3913 participants, 17 trials, very low certainty; Studies reporting dichotomous outcomes: Tau²=0.18, Q=58.26, df=3, P<.001, I² =95%, 1349 participants, 4 trials, very low certainty). The other types of psychosocial interventions included a range of therapeutic approaches such as behavioral risk reduction, cognitive-behavioral therapy, contingency management, rational emotive therapy, and relapse prevention. These interventions were most commonly compared to usual care involving varying combinations of psychoeducation, counseling, and pharmacotherapy. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to psychosocial treatments due to high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 1.15; Q = 444.32, df = 11, P<.001; I²=98%, 2106 participants, 12 trials, very low certainty). Eight trials compared combined pharmacologic and psychosocial interventions with placebo, psychosocial intervention alone, or another pharmacologic treatment. The active pharmacologic study conditions included disulfiram, naltrexone, ondansetron, or topiramate. The psychosocial components of these interventions included counseling, encouragement to attend Alcoholics Anonymous, motivational interviewing, brief cognitive-behavioral therapy, or other psychotherapy (not specified). Analysis of studies comparing a combined pharmacologic and psychosocial intervention to psychosocial intervention alone found that the combined approach may be associated with a greater reduction in harmful alcohol use (standardized mean difference (standardized mean difference (SMD))=-0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.61 to -0.24; 475 participants; 4 trials; low certainty). Four trials compared pharmacologic intervention alone with placebo and three with another pharmacotherapy. Drugs assessed were: acamprosate, amitriptyline, baclofen disulfiram, gabapentin, mirtazapine, and naltrexone. None of these trials evaluated the primary clinical outcome of interest, harmful alcohol use. Thirty-one trials reported rates of retention in the intervention. Meta-analyses revealed that rates of retention between study conditions did not differ in any of the comparisons (pharmacologic risk ratio (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.44, 247 participants, 3 trials, low certainty; pharmacologic in addition to psychosocial intervention: RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.40, 363 participants, 3 trials, moderate certainty). Due to high levels of heterogeneity, we did not calculate pooled estimates comparing retention in brief (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Q = 172.59, df = 11, P<.001; I = 94%; 5380 participants; 12 trials, very low certainty) or other psychosocial interventions (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; Q = 34.07, df = 8, P<.001; I = 77%; 1664 participants; 9 trials, very low certainty). Two pharmacologic trials and three combined pharmacologic and psychosocial trials reported on side effects. These studies found more side effects attributable to amitriptyline relative to mirtazapine, naltrexone and topiramate relative to placebo, yet no differences in side effects between placebo and either acamprosate or ondansetron. Across all intervention types there was substantial risk of bias. Primary threats to validity included lack of blinding and differential/high rates of attrition.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In LMICs there is low-certainty evidence supporting the efficacy of combined psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use relative to psychosocial interventions alone. There is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of pharmacologic or psychosocial interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use largely due to the substantial heterogeneity in outcomes, comparisons, and interventions that precluded pooling of these data in meta-analyses. The majority of studies are brief interventions, primarily among men, and using measures that have not been validated in the target population. Confidence in these results is reduced by the risk of bias and significant heterogeneity among studies as well as the heterogeneity of results on different outcome measures within studies. More evidence on the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions, specific types of psychosocial interventions are needed to increase the certainty of these results.
Topics: Humans; Male; Acamprosate; Alcoholism; Amitriptyline; Developing Countries; Disulfiram; Mirtazapine; Naltrexone; Ondansetron; Topiramate
PubMed: 37158538
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013350.pub2 -
Canadian Family Physician Medecin de... Dec 2015
Review
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Aged; Amitriptyline; Back Pain; Humans; Middle Aged; Muscle Relaxants, Central; Pain Management
PubMed: 26668287
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Sleep bruxism is an oral activity characterized by involuntary teeth grinding or clenching during sleep. Several forms of treatment have been proposed for this disorder,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sleep bruxism is an oral activity characterized by involuntary teeth grinding or clenching during sleep. Several forms of treatment have been proposed for this disorder, including behavioural, dental and pharmacological strategies.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological therapy for the treatment of sleep bruxism compared with other drugs, no treatment or placebo.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 8, 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2014), EMBASE (1980 to August 2013) and LILACS (1982 to August 2014). We identified additional reports from the reference lists of retrieved reports and from reviews on treatment of sleep bruxism. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared drugs with other drugs, no treatment or placebo in people with sleep bruxism.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors carried out data extraction and quality assessment of the included trials independently and in duplicate. We discussed discrepancies until we reached consensus. We consulted a third review author in cases of persistent disagreement. We contacted authors of primary studies when necessary.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 18 potentially relevant RCTs, but only seven met the inclusion criteria. All studies had a small number of participants, ranging from seven to 16 people per study and had a cross-over design. Three studies were of low risk of bias, while four were of uncertain risk. Amitriptyline (three studies), bromocriptine (one study), clonidine (one study), propranolol (one study), levodopa (Prolopa®) (one study) and tryptophan (one study) were compared with placebo. Studies evaluating bromocriptine, clonidine, propranolol and levodopa reported our primary outcome of indices of bruxism motor activity.Results were imprecise and consistent with benefit, no difference or harm. These were the specific findings for each of the drugs according to specific outcomes: 1. Amitriptyline versus placebo for masseteric electromyography (EMG) activity per minute: standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.28 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.91 to 0.34; P value = 0.37), 2. bromocriptine versus placebo for bruxism episodes per hour: mean difference (MD) 0.60 (95% CI -2.93 to 4.13), bruxism bursts per hour: MD -2.00 (95% CI -53.47 to 49.47), bruxism bursts per episode: MD 0.50 (95% CI -1.85 to 2.85) or number of episodes with grinding noise: MD 2.40 (95% CI -24.00 to 28.80), 3. clonidine versus placebo for number of bruxism episodes per hour: MD -2.41 (95% CI -4.84 to 0.02), 4. propranolol versus placebo for the number of bruxism episodes per hour: MD 1.16 (95% CI -1.89 to 4.21), 5. L-tryptophan versus placebo for masseteric EMG activity per second: SMD 0.08 (95% CI -0.90 to 1.06) and 6. levodopa versus placebo for bruxism episodes per hour of sleep: MD -1.47 (95% CI -3.64 to 0.70), for bruxism bursts per episode: MD 0.06 (95% CI -2.47 to 2.59).We combined several secondary outcomes (sleep duration, masseteric EMG activity per minute and pain intensity) in a meta-analysis for comparison of amitriptyline with placebo. The results for most comparisons were uncertain because of statistical imprecision. One study reported that clonidine reduced rapid eye movement (REM) sleep stage and increased the second stage of sleep. However, results for other sleep-related outcomes with clonidine were uncertain. Adverse effects were frequent in people who took amitriptyline (5/10 had drowsiness, difficulty awakening in the morning, insomnia or xerostomia compared with 0/10 in the placebo group), as well as in people who received propranolol (7/16 had moderate-to-severe xerostomia compare with 2/16 in the placebo group). Clonidine was associated with prolonged morning hypotension in three of 16 participants. The use of preventive medication avoided any adverse effects in people treated with levodopa and bromocriptine.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient evidence on the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for the treatment of sleep bruxism. This systematic review points to the need for more, well-designed, RCTs with larger sample sizes and adequate methods of allocation, outcome assessment and duration of follow-up. Ideally, parallel RCTs should be used in future studies to avoid the bias associated with cross-over studies. There is a need to standardize the outcomes of RCTs on treatments for sleep bruxism.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Bromocriptine; Clonidine; Humans; Levodopa; Propranolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Bruxism; Tryptophan
PubMed: 25338726
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005578.pub2