-
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 -
The Journal of Laryngology and Otology Sep 2023Vestibular migraine is in the process of recognition as an individual clinical entity. At present, no guidelines exist for its management. This study aimed to conduct a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Vestibular migraine is in the process of recognition as an individual clinical entity. At present, no guidelines exist for its management. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of available prophylactic medication.
METHOD
literature search was performed using PubMed, Ovid and Embase databases. Qualitative and quantitative analysis were performed as well as risk of bias analysis. Meta-analysis for the mean differences for pre- and post-treatment impact based on Dizziness Handicap Inventory and Vertigo Symptom Scale were performed. Proportionate transformation meta-analysis for the successful event rate based on complete symptoms control was explored.
RESULTS
Thirteen publications were identified: 3 were randomised, controlled trials and 10 were non-randomised, controlled trials. Propranolol and venlafaxine improved the Vertigo Symptom Scale score by -13.31 points and -4.16 points, respectively, and the Dizziness Handicap Inventory score by -32.24 and -21.24, respectively. Only propranolol achieved statistically significant impact with 60 per cent of patients achieving complete symptom control.
CONCLUSION
Propranolol should be offered as the first-line treatment for vestibular migraine followed by venlafaxine. Amitriptyline, flunarizine and cinnarizine showed a trend for symptom improvement, but this was not statistically significant.
Topics: Humans; Dizziness; Propranolol; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Vertigo; Migraine Disorders
PubMed: 36200521
DOI: 10.1017/S0022215122001979 -
The American Journal of Psychiatry Jan 2024The authors investigated the clinical outcomes of commonly used antidepressants among older adults who initiated first-time antidepressants for depression by analyzing...
OBJECTIVE
The authors investigated the clinical outcomes of commonly used antidepressants among older adults who initiated first-time antidepressants for depression by analyzing the 1-year risk of selected clinically relevant outcomes.
METHODS
This cohort study used nationwide Danish registry data and included all older adults who redeemed a first-time (since 1995) antidepressant prescription with an indication of depression between 2006 and 2017. Only the 10 most frequently redeemed antidepressants were included in the analyses. Outcomes included discontinuation, switching, augmentation, psychiatric hospital contacts, suicide attempt or self-harm, fall-related injuries, cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using Poisson regression models, controlling for potential confounders.
RESULTS
The study sample included 93,883 older adults (mean age, 78.0 years, SD=7.5 years; 56% female). The most frequently prescribed antidepressants were selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (citalopram, 47.04%; escitalopram, 11.81%; fluoxetine, 0.55%; paroxetine, 0.52%; sertraline, 11.17%), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (duloxetine, 0.71%; venlafaxine, 1.54%), a tricyclic antidepressant (amitriptyline, 1.86%), and two atypical antidepressants (mianserin, 1.93%; mirtazapine, 22.87%). Compared with users of sertraline (the reference drug in this analysis, as Danish guidelines recommend it as the first-choice treatment for depression), users of most of the other nine antidepressants had a significantly higher risk of discontinuation (e.g., mirtazapine: IRR=1.55, 95% CI=1.50-1.61; venlafaxine: IRR=1.22, 95% CI=1.12-1.32), switching (amitriptyline: IRR=1.45, 95% CI=1.15-1.81; venlafaxine: IRR=1.47, 95% CI=1.20-1.80), augmentation, cardiovascular events, and mortality. Overall, mirtazapine and venlafaxine users had the most adverse outcomes compared with sertraline users. These results remained consistent in analyses stratified by sex and age (≤75 years vs. >75 years).
CONCLUSIONS
This real-world evidence suggests that clinical outcomes may vary among initiators of commonly used antidepressants in older adults, which may inform benefit-risk evaluation at treatment initiation, and highlights the importance of careful selection of antidepressant treatment.
Topics: Female; Humans; Aged; Male; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Sertraline; Depression; Cohort Studies; Mirtazapine; Amitriptyline; Antidepressive Agents; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Cardiovascular Diseases; Denmark
PubMed: 37849303
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.20230356 -
American Family Physician Mar 2024Diabetic peripheral neuropathy occurs in up to 50% of patients with diabetes mellitus and increases the risk of diabetic foot ulcers and infections. Consistent screening...
Diabetic peripheral neuropathy occurs in up to 50% of patients with diabetes mellitus and increases the risk of diabetic foot ulcers and infections. Consistent screening and clear communication are essential to decrease disparities in assessment of neuropathic symptoms and diagnosis. Physicians should address underlying risk factors such as poor glycemic control, vitamin B12 deficiency, elevated blood pressure, and obesity to reduce the likelihood of developing neuropathy. First-line drug therapy for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy includes duloxetine, gabapentin, amitriptyline, and pregabalin; however, these medications do not restore sensation to affected extremities. Evidence for long-term benefit and safety of first-line treatment options is lacking. Second-line drug therapy includes nortriptyline, imipramine, venlafaxine, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, topical lidocaine, and topical capsaicin. Periodic, objective monitoring of medication response is critical because patients may not obtain desired pain reduction, adverse effects are common, and serious adverse effects can occur. Opioids should generally be avoided. Nondrug therapies with low- to moderate-quality evidence include exercise and neuromodulation with spinal cord stimulation or transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Peripheral transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation is well tolerated and inexpensive, but benefits are modest. Other treatments, such as acupuncture, alpha-lipoic acid, acetyl-L-carnitine, cannabidiol, and onabotulinumtoxinA need further study in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy.
Topics: Humans; Diabetic Neuropathies; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Capsaicin; Gabapentin; Pregabalin; Pain; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 38574212
DOI: No ID Found -
Drug Research Oct 2023Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide. Premature menopause and hot flashes are the main complications of breast cancer treatments. About 40 to 50... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide. Premature menopause and hot flashes are the main complications of breast cancer treatments. About 40 to 50 percent of breast cancer women who undergo chemotherapy are experiencing premature menopause symptoms, including hot flashes. Some endocrine therapies such as tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors are associated with induction or aggravating hot flashes. Hot flashes are often debilitating and significantly impair daily functions. Therefore many therapeutic options have been studied so far for the management of this adverse effect. However, there are still some clinical challenges in managing hot flashes in patients with breast cancer.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of venlafaxine and citalopram on hot flashes in breast cancer women receiving tamoxifen.
DESIGN
We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in forty-one, 35 to 65 years old female patients. The study lasted for four weeks, and the follow-up was for two months. Venlafaxine and citalopram treatments started with doses of 37.5 mg or 10 mg, respectively. Venlafaxine and citalopram dosages were increased in the second week to 75 and 20 mg, respectively. The study was conducted during the year 2017.
KEY RESULTS
The results indicated that the total efficacy was significantly different in groups receiving citalopram, venlafaxine, and placebo. Total efficacy in the placebo group, venlafaxine, and citalopram was 14.3, 53.8, and 64.3%, respectively (p=0.02). During the second week, the efficacy in groups receiving citalopram, venlafaxine, and placebo was 57.1, 53.8, and 14.3%, respectively (p=0.04). Generally, both citalopram and venlafaxine were well tolerated. The associated adverse effects were mild to moderate in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Although citalopram was associated with more adverse effects, including constipation, it was more effective in reducing the frequency of hot flashes when compared to venlafaxine or placebo.
Topics: Female; Humans; Adult; Middle Aged; Aged; Citalopram; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Hot Flashes; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Breast Neoplasms; Menopause, Premature; Tamoxifen; Double-Blind Method; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37647930
DOI: 10.1055/a-2061-7020 -
CNS Drugs Sep 2023Although one of the major presentations of vestibular migraine is dizziness with/without unsteady gait, it is still classified as one of the migraine categories.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Although one of the major presentations of vestibular migraine is dizziness with/without unsteady gait, it is still classified as one of the migraine categories. However, in contrast to ordinary migraine, vestibular migraine patients have distinct characteristics, and the detailed treatment strategy for vestibular migraine is different and more challenging than ordinary migraine treatment. Currently, there is no conclusive evidence regarding its management, including vestibular migraine prophylaxis.
AIM
The objective of this current network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and acceptability of individual treatment strategies in patients with vestibular migraine.
METHODS
The PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, Web of Science, ClinicalKey, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with a final literature search date of 30 December 2022. Patients diagnosed with vestibular migraine were included. The PICO of the current study included (1) patients with vestibular migraine; (2) intervention: any active pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic intervention; (3) comparator: placebo-control, active control, or waiting list; and (4) outcome: changes in migraine frequency or severity. This NMA of RCTs of vestibular migraine treatment was conducted using a frequentist model. We arranged inconsistency and similarity tests to re-examine the assumption of NMA, and also conducted a subgroup analysis focusing on RCTs of pharmacological treatment for vestibular migraine management. The primary outcome was changes in the frequency of vestibular migraines, while the secondary outcomes were changes in vestibular migraine severity and acceptability. Acceptability was set as the dropout rate, which was defined as the participant leaving the study before the end of the trial for any reason. Two authors independently evaluated the risk of bias for each domain using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.
RESULTS
Seven randomized controlled trials (N = 828, mean age 37.6 years, 78.4% female) and seven active regimens were included. We determined that only valproic acid (standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.69, -0.54), propranolol (SMD -1.36, 95% CI -2.55, -0.17), and venlafaxine (SMD -1.25, 95% CI -2.32, -0.18) were significantly associated with better improvement in vestibular migraine frequency than the placebo/control groups. Furthermore, among all the investigated pharmacologic/non-pharmacologic treatments, valproic acid yielded the greatest decrease in vestibular migraine frequency among all the interventions. In addition, most pharmacologic/non-pharmacologic treatments were associated with similar acceptability (i.e. dropout rate) as those of the placebo/control groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The current study provides evidence that only valproic acid, propranolol, and venlafaxine might be associated with beneficial efficacy in vestibular migraine treatment.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
CRD42023388343.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Migraine Disorders; Network Meta-Analysis; Propranolol; Valproic Acid; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 37676473
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-023-01037-0 -
Psychological Medicine Jul 2023Although a large variety of antidepressants agents (AD) with different mechanisms of action are available, no significant differences in efficacy and safety have been... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although a large variety of antidepressants agents (AD) with different mechanisms of action are available, no significant differences in efficacy and safety have been shown. However, there have been few attempts to incorporate data on subjective experiences under different AD.
METHOD
We conducted a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the posts from the website www.askapatient.com from different AD. We reviewed a random sample of 1000 posts.
RESULT
After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included a final sample of 450 posts, 50 on each of the most used AD: sertraline, citalopram, paroxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, venlafaxine, duloxetine, mirtazapine, and bupropion. Bupropion, citalopram, and venlafaxine had the higher overall satisfaction ratings. Sertraline, paroxetine, and fluoxetine had high reports of emotional blunting, while bupropion very few. Overall satisfaction with AD treatment was inversely associated with the presence of the following side-effects: suicidality, irritability, emotional blunting, cognitive disturbances, and withdrawal symptoms. After adjusting for confounders, only emotional blunting was shown to be more frequently reported by users of serotonergic agents, as compared to non-serotoninergic agents.
CONCLUSION
This research points out that the subjective experience of patients under treatment should be taken into consideration when selecting an AD as differences between agents were evident. In contrast to the more frequent treatment decisions, users might prefer receiving a non-serotoninergic agent over a serotonergic one due to their lower propensity to produce emotional blunting.
Topics: Humans; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Citalopram; Paroxetine; Fluoxetine; Bupropion; Sertraline; Antidepressive Agents
PubMed: 35346413
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291722000678 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry Mar 2024There are no recommendations based on the efficacy of specific drugs for the treatment of psychotic depression. To address this evidence gap, we did a network... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There are no recommendations based on the efficacy of specific drugs for the treatment of psychotic depression. To address this evidence gap, we did a network meta-analysis to assess and compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for psychotic depression.
METHODS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to Nov 23, 2023 for randomised controlled trials published in any language that assessed pharmacological treatments for individuals of any age with a diagnosis of a major depressive episode with psychotic features, in the context of major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder in any setting. We excluded continuation or maintenance trials. We screened the study titles and abstracts identified, and we extracted data from relevant studies after full-text review. If full data were not available, we requested data from study authors twice. We analysed treatments for individual drugs (or drug combinations) and by grouping them on the basis of mechanisms of action. The primary outcomes were response rate (ie, the proportion of participants who responded to treatment) and acceptability (ie, the proportion who discontinued treatment for any reason). We calculated risk ratios and did separate frequentist network meta-analyses by using random-effects models. The risk of bias of individual studies was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the confidence in the evidence with the Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023392926.
FINDINGS
Of 6313 reports identified, 16 randomised controlled trials were included in the systematic review, and 14 were included in the network meta-analyses. The 16 trials included 1161 people with psychotic depression (mean age 50·5 years [SD 11·4]). 516 (44·4%) participants were female and 422 (36·3%) were male; sex data were not available for the other 223 (19·2%). 489 (42·1%) participants were White, 47 (4·0%) were African American, and 12 (1·0%) were Asian; race or ethnicity data were not available for the other 613 (52·8%). Only the combination of fluoxetine plus olanzapine was associated with a higher proportion of participants with a treatment response compared with placebo (risk ratio 1·91 [95% CI 1·27-2·85]), with no differences in terms of safety outcomes compared with placebo. When treatments were grouped by mechanism of action, the combination of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor with a second-generation antipsychotic was associated with a higher proportion of treatment responses than was placebo (1·89 [1·17-3·04]), with no differences in terms of safety outcomes. In head-to-head comparisons of active treatments, a significantly higher proportion of participants had a response to amitriptyline plus perphenazine (3·61 [1·23-10·56]) and amoxapine (3·14 [1·01-9·80]) than to perphenazine, and to fluoxetine plus olanzapine compared with olanzapine alone (1·60 [1·09-2·34]). Venlafaxine, venlafaxine plus quetiapine (2·25 [1·09-4·63]), and imipramine (1·95 [1·01-3·79]) were also associated with a higher proportion of treatment responses overall. In head-to-head comparisons grouped by mechanism of action, antipsychotic plus antidepressant combinations consistently outperformed monotherapies from either drug class in terms of the proportion of participants with treatment responses. Heterogeneity was low. No high-risk instances were identified in the bias assessment for our primary outcomes.
INTERPRETATION
According to the available evidence, the combination of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and a second-generation antipsychotic-and particularly of fluoxetine and olanzapine-could be the optimal treatment choice for psychotic depression. These findings should be taken into account in the development of clinical practice guidelines. However, these conclusions should be interpreted cautiously in view of the low number of included studies and the limitations of these studies.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Depressive Disorder, Major; Fluoxetine; Perphenazine; Network Meta-Analysis; Bipolar Disorder; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Depression; Antipsychotic Agents; Olanzapine
PubMed: 38360024
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(24)00006-3 -
Journal of Clinical PsychopharmacologyThis systematic review aimed to investigate the clinical manifestations and characteristics of venlafaxine-associated rhabdomyolysis.
PURPOSE
This systematic review aimed to investigate the clinical manifestations and characteristics of venlafaxine-associated rhabdomyolysis.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Elsevier, Science Direct, Embase, Springer Link, Wiley Online Library, CNKI, and Wanfang databases from the date of database inception to January 2023. Previously reported cases of venlafaxine-associated rhabdomyolysis were identified, and relevant data from these cases were collected for descriptive statistical analysis. Cases that met the inclusion criteria were evaluated to determine the correlation between adverse reactions and venlafaxine.
RESULTS
A total of 12 patients with venlafaxine-associated rhabdomyolysis were included. None of these patients had a history of muscle pain or discomfort. Of the 12 patients, 5 patients received venlafaxine at doses of ≤225 mg/d, whereas the remaining 7 patients received doses exceeding 225 mg/d. The main clinical symptoms included myalgia, muscle weakness, and renal injury. All 12 patients discontinued venlafaxine and received symptomatic care.
CONCLUSIONS
Venlafaxine, used either as a monotherapy or in combination with other drugs, may be associated with rhabdomyolysis. Creatine kinase levels may normalize or significantly decrease after discontinuation of venlafaxine and symptomatic treatment.
Topics: Rhabdomyolysis; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Humans; Male; Adult; Female; Middle Aged; Creatine Kinase; Myalgia
PubMed: 38506608
DOI: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001838 -
The Journal of Maternal-fetal &... Dec 2023Antidepressant medications are used by increasing numbers of pregnant women. The evidence on the relationship between antidepressant use during pregnancy and the risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Antidepressant medications are used by increasing numbers of pregnant women. The evidence on the relationship between antidepressant use during pregnancy and the risk for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is inconsistent. We perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the GDM risk associated with antidepressant exposure during pregnancy.
METHODS
We systematically searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases until December 2021. We sought observational studies assessing the association between gestational antidepressant use and GDM.
RESULTS
Five observational studies were included in the analysis. Mothers exposed to antidepressants during pregnancy were at a significantly increased risk for GDM (relative risk [RR] 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.30; < .001). However, after considering confounding by indication, we observed no significant effect of antidepressant use during pregnancy on the risk of GDM (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1-1.28; = .054; = 0%). Independent of clinical indication, subgroup analysis based on individual antidepressants suggested that the risk was increased by venlafaxine or amitriptyline use, but not by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.
CONCLUSIONS
The significant association between antidepressant exposure during pregnancy and GDM may be overestimated due to confounding by indication. However, the evidence remains insufficient, particularly for specific drug classes.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Diabetes, Gestational; Antidepressive Agents; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Amitriptyline
PubMed: 36599445
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2022.2162817