-
Clinical Psychopharmacology and... Aug 2023Anhedonia is a core symptom of depression and of several psychiatric disorders. Anhedonia has however expanded from its original definition to encompass a spectrum of... (Review)
Review
Anhedonia is a core symptom of depression and of several psychiatric disorders. Anhedonia has however expanded from its original definition to encompass a spectrum of reward processing deficits that received much interest in the last decades. It is a relevant risk factor for possible suicidal behaviors, and that it may operate as an independent risk factor for suicidality apart from the episode severity. Anhedonia has also been linked to inflammation with a possible reciprocal deleterious effect on depression. Its neurophysiological bases mainly include alterations in striatal and prefrontal areas, with dopamine being the most involved neurotransmitter. Anhedonia is thought to have a significant genetic component and polygenic risk scores are a possible tool for predicting an individual's risk for developing anhedonia. Traditional antidepressants, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, showed a limited benefit on anhedonia, also considering their potential pro-anhedonic effect in some subjects. Other treatments may be more effective in treating anhedonia, such as agomelatine, vortioxetine, ketamine and transcranial magnetic stimulation. Psychotherapy is also widely supported, with cognitive-behavioral therapy and behavioral activation both showing benefit. In conclusion, a large body of evidence suggests that anhedonia is, at least partially, independent from depression, therefore it needs careful assessment and targeted treatment.
PubMed: 37424409
DOI: 10.9758/cpn.23.1086 -
Brain, Behavior, and Immunity Jul 2023Empirical evidence addressing the association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and long COVID would guide public health priorities and inform personal health decisions.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Empirical evidence addressing the association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and long COVID would guide public health priorities and inform personal health decisions. Herein, the co-primary objectives are to determine the differential risk of long COVID in vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients, and the trajectory of long COVID following vaccination. Of 2775 articles identified via systematic search, 17 were included, and 6 were meta-analyzed. Meta-analytic results determined that at least one vaccine dose was associated with a protective effect against long COVID (OR 0.539, 95% CI 0.295-0.987, p = 0.045, N = 257 817). Qualitative analysis revealed that trajectories of pre-existing long COVID following vaccination were mixed, with most patients reporting no changes. The evidence herein supports SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for the prevention of long COVID, and recommends long COVID patients adhere to standard SARS-CoV-2 vaccination schedules.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19 Vaccines; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Vaccination
PubMed: 36990297
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbi.2023.03.022 -
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Aug 2023ADHD is the most common neurodevelopmental disorder presenting to child and adolescent mental health, paediatric, and primary care services. Timely and effective... (Review)
Review
ADHD is the most common neurodevelopmental disorder presenting to child and adolescent mental health, paediatric, and primary care services. Timely and effective interventions to address core ADHD symptoms and co-occurring problems are a high priority for healthcare and society more widely. While much research has reported on the benefits and adverse effects of different interventions for ADHD, these individual research reports and the reviews, meta-analyses and guidelines summarizing their findings are sometimes inconsistent and difficult to interpret. We have summarized the current evidence and identified several methodological issues and gaps in the current evidence that we believe are important for clinicians to consider when evaluating the evidence and making treatment decisions. These include understanding potential impact of bias such as inadequate blinding and selection bias on study outcomes; the relative lack of high-quality data comparing different treatments and assessing long-term effectiveness, adverse effects and safety for both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments; and the problems associated with observational studies, including those based on large national registries and comparing treatments with each other. We highlight key similarities across current international clinical guidelines and discuss the reasons for divergence where these occur. We discuss the integration of these different perspective into a framework for person/family-centered evidence-based practice approach to care that aims to achieve optimal outcomes that prioritize individual strengths and impairments, as well as the personal treatment targets of children and their families. Finally, we consider how access to care for this common and impairing disorder can be improved in different healthcare systems.
Topics: Child; Humans; Adolescent; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Mental Health; Ambulatory Care Facilities
PubMed: 34677682
DOI: 10.1007/s00787-021-01871-x -
Journal of Affective Disorders Oct 2023The concurrent assessment of weight and affective psychopathology outcomes relevant to the psychopharmacology of major eating disorders (EDs), namely anorexia nervosa... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The concurrent assessment of weight and affective psychopathology outcomes relevant to the psychopharmacology of major eating disorders (EDs), namely anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), and binge eating disorder (BED), warrants systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were inquired from inception through August 31st, 2022, for RCTs documenting any psychopharmacological intervention for EDs diagnosed according to validated criteria and reporting weight and psychopathology changes. Adopted keywords were: "anorexia nervosa," "bulimia nervosa," "binge eating disorder," "antidepressant," "antipsychotic," and "mood stabilizer." No language restriction applied.
RESULTS
5122 records were identified, and 203 full-texts were reviewed. Sixty-two studies entered the qualitative synthesis (AN = 22, BN = 23, BED = 17), of which 22 entered the meta-analysis (AN = 9, BN = 10, BED = 3). Concerning BMI increase in AN, olanzapine outperformed placebo (Hedges'g = 0.283, 95%C·I. = 0.051-0.515, I = 0 %; p = .017), whereas fluoxetine failed (Hedges'g = 0.351, 95%C.I. = -0.248 to 0.95, I = 63.37 %; p = .251). Fluoxetine not significantly changed weight (Hedges'g = 0.147, 95%C.I. = -0.157-0.451, I = 0 %; p = .343), reducing binging (Hedges'g = 0.203, 95%C.I. = 0.007-0.399, I = 0 %; p = .042), and purging episodes (Hedges'g = 0.328, 95%C.I. = -0.061-0.717, I = 58.97 %; p = .099) in BN. Lisdexamfetamine reduced weight (Hedges'g = 0.259, 95%C.I. = 0.071-0.446, I = 0 %; p = .007) and binging (Hedges'g = 0.571, 95%C.I. = 0.282-0.860, I = 53.84 %; p < .001) in BED.
LIMITATIONS
Small sample size, short duration, and lack of reliable operational definitions affect most of the included sponsored RCTs.
CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy of different drugs varies across different EDs, warranting additional primary studies recording broad psychopathological and cardiometabolic outcomes besides weight, especially against established psychotherapy interventions.
Topics: Humans; Fluoxetine; Psychopharmacology; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Feeding and Eating Disorders; Bulimia Nervosa; Binge-Eating Disorder; Anorexia Nervosa; Antipsychotic Agents
PubMed: 37393954
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2023.06.068 -
Brain Sciences Aug 2023Schizophrenia is a chronic neuropsychiatric syndrome that significantly impacts daily function and quality of life. All of the available guidelines suggest a combined... (Review)
Review
Schizophrenia is a chronic neuropsychiatric syndrome that significantly impacts daily function and quality of life. All of the available guidelines suggest a combined treatment approach with pharmacologic agents and psychological interventions. However, one in three patients is a non-responder, the effect on negative and cognitive symptoms is limited, and many drug-related adverse effects complicate clinical management. As a result, discovering novel drugs for schizophrenia presents a significant challenge for psychopharmacology. This selective review of the literature aims to outline the current knowledge on the aetiopathogenesis of schizophrenia and to present the recently approved and newly discovered pharmacological substances in treating schizophrenia. We discuss ten novel drugs, three of which have been approved by the FDA (Olanzapine/Samidorphan, Lumateperone, and Pimavanserin). The rest are under clinical trial investigation (Brilaroxazine, Xanomeline/Trospium, Emraclidine, Ulotaront, Sodium Benzoate, Luvadaxistat, and Iclepertin). However, additional basic and clinical research is required not only to improve our understanding of the neurobiology and the potential novel targets in the treatment of schizophrenia, but also to establish more effective therapeutical interventions for the syndrome, including the attenuation of negative and cognitive symptoms and avoiding dopamine blockade-related adverse effects.
PubMed: 37626549
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci13081193 -
JAMA Psychiatry Aug 2023The microbiota-gut-brain axis is a promising target for novel treatments for mood disorders, such as probiotics. However, few clinical trials have been conducted, and... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
The microbiota-gut-brain axis is a promising target for novel treatments for mood disorders, such as probiotics. However, few clinical trials have been conducted, and further safety and efficacy data are needed to support this treatment approach.
OBJECTIVE
To provide acceptability and tolerability data and estimates of intervention effect size for probiotics as adjunctive treatment for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
In this single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot randomized clinical trial, adults aged 18 to 55 years with MDD taking antidepressant medication but having an incomplete response were studied. A random sample was recruited from primary and secondary care services and general advertising in London, United Kingdom. Data were collected between September 2019 and May 2022 and analyzed between July and September 2022.
INTERVENTION
Multistrain probiotic (8 billion colony-forming units per day) or placebo daily for 8 weeks added to ongoing antidepressant medication.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The pilot outcomes of the trial were retention, acceptability, tolerability, and estimates of putative treatment effect on clinical symptoms (depression: Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAMD-17] and Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology [IDS] scores; anxiety: Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale [HAMA] and General Anxiety Disorder [GAD-7] scores) to be used as indicators for a definitive trial.
RESULTS
Of 50 included participants, 49 received the intervention and were included in intent-to-treat analyses; of these, 39 (80%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 31.7 (9.8) years. A total of 24 were randomized to probiotic and 25 to placebo. Attrition was 8% (1 in the probiotic group and 3 in the placebo group), adherence was 97.2%, and there were no serious adverse reactions. For the probiotic group, mean (SD) HAMD-17 scores at weeks 4 and 8 were 11.00 (5.13) and 8.83 (4.28), respectively; IDS, 30.17 (11.98) and 25.04 (11.68); HAMA, 11.71 (5.86) and 8.17 (4.68); and GAD-7, 7.78 (4.12) and 7.63 (4.77). For the placebo group, mean (SD) HAMD-17 scores at weeks 4 and 8 were 14.04 (3.70) and 11.09 (3.22), respectively; IDS, 33.82 (9.26) and 29.64 (9.31); HAMA, 14.70 (5.47) and 10.95 (4.48); and GAD-7, 10.91 (5.32) and 9.48 (5.18). Standardized effect sizes (SES) from linear mixed models demonstrated that the probiotic group attained greater improvements in depressive symptoms according to HAMD-17 scores (week 4: SES, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.01-0.98) and IDS Self Report scores (week 8: SES, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.03-0.87) as well as greater improvements in anxiety symptoms according to HAMA scores (week 4: SES, 0.67; 95% CI, 0-0.95; week 8: SES, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.06-1.05), but not GAD-7 scores (week 4: SES, 0.57; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.82; week 8: SES, 0.32; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.65), compared with the placebo group.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The acceptability, tolerability, and estimated effect sizes on key clinical outcomes are promising and encourage further investigation of probiotics as add-on treatment for people with MDD in a definitive efficacy trial.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03893162.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Female; Male; Depressive Disorder, Major; Depression; Antidepressive Agents; Anxiety Disorders; Double-Blind Method; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37314797
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.1817 -
Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior Sep 2023Cannabis-derived compounds, such as cannabidiol (CBD) and delta-9-trans-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), are increasingly prescribed for a range of clinical indications.... (Review)
Review
Cannabis-derived compounds, such as cannabidiol (CBD) and delta-9-trans-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), are increasingly prescribed for a range of clinical indications. These phyto-cannabinoids have multiple biological targets, including the body's endocannabinoid system. There is growing scientific interest in the use of CBD, a non-intoxicating compound, to ameliorate symptoms associated with neurodevelopmental disorders. However, its suitability as a pharmaceutical intervention has not been reliably established in these clinical populations. This systematic review examines the nine published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that have probed the safety and efficacy of CBD in individuals diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, Tourette Syndrome, and complex motor disorders. Studies were identified systematically through searching four databases: Medline, CINAHL complete, PsycINFO, and EMBASE. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials involving CBD and participants with neurodevelopmental disorders. No publication year or language restrictions were applied. Relevant data were extracted from the identified list of eligible articles. After extraction, data were cross-checked between the authors to ensure consistency. Several trials indicate potential efficacy, although this possibility is currently too inconsistent across RCTs to confidently guide clinical usage. Study characteristics, treatment properties, and outcomes varied greatly across the included trials. The material lack of comparable RCTs leaves CBD's suitability as a pharmacological treatment for neurodevelopmental disorders largely undetermined. A stronger evidence base is urgently required to establish safety and efficacy profiles and guide the ever-expanding clinical uptake of cannabis-derived compounds in neurodevelopmental disorders. Prospero registration number: CRD42021267839.
Topics: Humans; Cannabidiol; Cannabinoids; Cannabis; Hallucinogens; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Dronabinol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37543051
DOI: 10.1016/j.pbb.2023.173607 -
Lancet (London, England) May 2024Regular, detailed reporting on population health by underlying cause of death is fundamental for public health decision making. Cause-specific estimates of mortality and...
Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.
BACKGROUND
Regular, detailed reporting on population health by underlying cause of death is fundamental for public health decision making. Cause-specific estimates of mortality and the subsequent effects on life expectancy worldwide are valuable metrics to gauge progress in reducing mortality rates. These estimates are particularly important following large-scale mortality spikes, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. When systematically analysed, mortality rates and life expectancy allow comparisons of the consequences of causes of death globally and over time, providing a nuanced understanding of the effect of these causes on global populations.
METHODS
The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 cause-of-death analysis estimated mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) from 288 causes of death by age-sex-location-year in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations for each year from 1990 until 2021. The analysis used 56 604 data sources, including data from vital registration and verbal autopsy as well as surveys, censuses, surveillance systems, and cancer registries, among others. As with previous GBD rounds, cause-specific death rates for most causes were estimated using the Cause of Death Ensemble model-a modelling tool developed for GBD to assess the out-of-sample predictive validity of different statistical models and covariate permutations and combine those results to produce cause-specific mortality estimates-with alternative strategies adapted to model causes with insufficient data, substantial changes in reporting over the study period, or unusual epidemiology. YLLs were computed as the product of the number of deaths for each cause-age-sex-location-year and the standard life expectancy at each age. As part of the modelling process, uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated using the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles from a 1000-draw distribution for each metric. We decomposed life expectancy by cause of death, location, and year to show cause-specific effects on life expectancy from 1990 to 2021. We also used the coefficient of variation and the fraction of population affected by 90% of deaths to highlight concentrations of mortality. Findings are reported in counts and age-standardised rates. Methodological improvements for cause-of-death estimates in GBD 2021 include the expansion of under-5-years age group to include four new age groups, enhanced methods to account for stochastic variation of sparse data, and the inclusion of COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality-which includes excess mortality associated with the pandemic, excluding COVID-19, lower respiratory infections, measles, malaria, and pertussis. For this analysis, 199 new country-years of vital registration cause-of-death data, 5 country-years of surveillance data, 21 country-years of verbal autopsy data, and 94 country-years of other data types were added to those used in previous GBD rounds.
FINDINGS
The leading causes of age-standardised deaths globally were the same in 2019 as they were in 1990; in descending order, these were, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lower respiratory infections. In 2021, however, COVID-19 replaced stroke as the second-leading age-standardised cause of death, with 94·0 deaths (95% UI 89·2-100·0) per 100 000 population. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the rankings of the leading five causes, lowering stroke to the third-leading and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to the fourth-leading position. In 2021, the highest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 occurred in sub-Saharan Africa (271·0 deaths [250·1-290·7] per 100 000 population) and Latin America and the Caribbean (195·4 deaths [182·1-211·4] per 100 000 population). The lowest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 were in the high-income super-region (48·1 deaths [47·4-48·8] per 100 000 population) and southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania (23·2 deaths [16·3-37·2] per 100 000 population). Globally, life expectancy steadily improved between 1990 and 2019 for 18 of the 22 investigated causes. Decomposition of global and regional life expectancy showed the positive effect that reductions in deaths from enteric infections, lower respiratory infections, stroke, and neonatal deaths, among others have contributed to improved survival over the study period. However, a net reduction of 1·6 years occurred in global life expectancy between 2019 and 2021, primarily due to increased death rates from COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality. Life expectancy was highly variable between super-regions over the study period, with southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania gaining 8·3 years (6·7-9·9) overall, while having the smallest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 (0·4 years). The largest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean (3·6 years). Additionally, 53 of the 288 causes of death were highly concentrated in locations with less than 50% of the global population as of 2021, and these causes of death became progressively more concentrated since 1990, when only 44 causes showed this pattern. The concentration phenomenon is discussed heuristically with respect to enteric and lower respiratory infections, malaria, HIV/AIDS, neonatal disorders, tuberculosis, and measles.
INTERPRETATION
Long-standing gains in life expectancy and reductions in many of the leading causes of death have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the adverse effects of which were spread unevenly among populations. Despite the pandemic, there has been continued progress in combatting several notable causes of death, leading to improved global life expectancy over the study period. Each of the seven GBD super-regions showed an overall improvement from 1990 and 2021, obscuring the negative effect in the years of the pandemic. Additionally, our findings regarding regional variation in causes of death driving increases in life expectancy hold clear policy utility. Analyses of shifting mortality trends reveal that several causes, once widespread globally, are now increasingly concentrated geographically. These changes in mortality concentration, alongside further investigation of changing risks, interventions, and relevant policy, present an important opportunity to deepen our understanding of mortality-reduction strategies. Examining patterns in mortality concentration might reveal areas where successful public health interventions have been implemented. Translating these successes to locations where certain causes of death remain entrenched can inform policies that work to improve life expectancy for people everywhere.
FUNDING
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Topics: Humans; Life Expectancy; Cause of Death; Global Burden of Disease; Female; COVID-19; Male; Aged; Middle Aged; Adult; Child, Preschool; Infant; Global Health; Adolescent; Young Adult; Child; Aged, 80 and over; SARS-CoV-2; Infant, Newborn; Pandemics
PubMed: 38582094
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00367-2 -
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 -
Journal of Xenobiotics Jul 2023The psychedelic renaissance has reignited interest in the therapeutic potential of psychedelics for mental health and well-being. An emerging area of interest is the... (Review)
Review
The psychedelic renaissance has reignited interest in the therapeutic potential of psychedelics for mental health and well-being. An emerging area of interest is the potential modulation of psychedelic effects by the gut microbiome-the ecosystem of microorganisms in our digestive tract. This review explores the intersection of the gut microbiome and psychedelic therapy, underlining potential implications for personalized medicine and mental health. We delve into the current understanding of the gut-brain axis, its influence on mood, cognition, and behavior, and how the microbiome may affect the metabolism and bioavailability of psychedelic substances. We also discuss the role of microbiome variations in shaping individual responses to psychedelics, along with potential risks and benefits. Moreover, we consider the prospect of microbiome-targeted interventions as a fresh approach to boost or modulate psychedelic therapy's effectiveness. By integrating insights from the fields of psychopharmacology, microbiology, and neuroscience, our objective is to advance knowledge about the intricate relationship between the microbiome and psychedelic substances, thereby paving the way for novel strategies to optimize mental health outcomes amid the ongoing psychedelic renaissance.
PubMed: 37606422
DOI: 10.3390/jox13030025