-
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Jul 2020Hypnotics (HYP) and benzodiazepines (BZD) are medicines prescribed for the insomnia treatment. Many patients present difficulties in discontinuing the treatment once...
BACKGROUND
Hypnotics (HYP) and benzodiazepines (BZD) are medicines prescribed for the insomnia treatment. Many patients present difficulties in discontinuing the treatment once established. Melatonin (MLT) has been prescribed as a treatment for BZD/HYP detoxification.
AIMS
The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy of MLT and MLT agonists (melatoninergics) in improving the rate of BZD and/or HYP discontinuation among adults with primary insomnia attempting to discontinue BZD and/or HYP. The secondary objective is to evaluate the partial efficacy of melatoninergic drugs in the discontinuation of BZD and/or HYP consumption in subjects that could not stop their consumption.
METHOD
A search on Web of Science and Scopus was carried out from database inception to July 1st, 2019.
RESULTS
Three hundred and forty-nine articles were identified but only four were included in the final review. Two were cohort prospective, one placebo-control double blind and one double blind placebo-control cross-over designed study. Total withdrawal (TW) ranged from 0% to 25% in the placebo arm and from 64.3% to 77.8% in the MLT arm. In cohort studies TW figures ranged from 30.8% to 65%. Partial withdrawal ranged between 20% and 30.8% of patients that did not achieve TW with reduction figures of diazepam equivalent dose ranging from 25% to 75%.
CONCLUSION
MLT has a place in the physician armamentarium to treat the suspension/reduction of BZD/HYP consumption in patients with primary insomnia.
Topics: Adult; Benzodiazepines; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cross-Over Studies; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Male; Melatonin; Middle Aged; Observational Studies as Topic; Prospective Studies; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 32409111
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.107994 -
BMC Psychiatry Nov 2021Social cognition is an important area of mental functioning relevant to psychiatric disorders and social functioning, that may be affected by psychiatric drug...
INTRODUCTION
Social cognition is an important area of mental functioning relevant to psychiatric disorders and social functioning, that may be affected by psychiatric drug treatments. The aim of this review was to investigate the effects of medications with sedative properties, on social cognition.
METHOD
This systematic review included experimental and neuroimaging studies investigating drug effects on social cognition. Data quality was assessed using a modified Downs and Black checklist (Trac et al. CMAJ 188: E120-E129, 2016). The review used narrative synthesis to analyse the data.
RESULTS
40 papers were identified for inclusion, 11 papers investigating benzodiazepine effects, and 29 investigating antipsychotic effects, on social cognition. Narrative synthesis showed that diazepam impairs healthy volunteer's emotion recognition, with supporting neuroimaging studies showing benzodiazepines attenuate amygdala activity. Studies of antipsychotic effects on social cognition gave variable results. However, many of these studies were in patients already taking medication, and potential practice effects were identified due to short-term follow-ups.
CONCLUSION
Healthy volunteer studies suggest that diazepam reduces emotional processing ability. The effects of benzodiazepines on other aspects of social cognition, as well as the effects of antipsychotics, remain unclear. Interpretations of the papers in this review were limited by variability in measures, small sample sizes, and lack of randomisation. More robust studies are necessary to evaluate the impact of these medications on social cognition.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Humans; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Schizophrenia; Social Cognition
PubMed: 34844572
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-021-03545-z -
European Neuropsychopharmacology : the... Jul 2020One problem areas of animal models and tests for neuropsychiatric disorders is unclear reproducibility, including both internal and external validity. One way to examine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Similarities and dissimilarities in the effects of benzodiazepines and specific serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the defensive marble burying test: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
One problem areas of animal models and tests for neuropsychiatric disorders is unclear reproducibility, including both internal and external validity. One way to examine external validity is with systematic reviews and meta-analyses, a standard practice in clinical research that is relatively neglected in preclinical research. Considering the need to evaluate the validity and reproducibility of frequently used animal models, this study presents a meta-analysis of the effects of prototypic benzodiazepines and specific serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the mouse defensive marble burying test (MBT). These drug groups were selected because although they differ in their biological targets as well as in their clinical use, they are both commonly used for the treatment of anxiety disorders. A PubMed literature search was performed to identify studies that examined the effects of benzodiazepines (diazepam, alprazolam, chlordiazepoxide, clonazepam) or SSRIs (fluoxetine, citalopram, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, paroxetine) in the MBT in mice. For benzodiazepines, 73 experiments were included. Benzodiazepines effect size was 2.04 and Q statistics was 1959 with a significant correlation between dose and effect size (r = 0.31, p = 0.007). For SSRIs we identified 47 experiments. Effect size of SSRIs was 2.24 and Q statistics was 493.38. No correlation was found between dose and effect size (r = 0.23, p = 0.12). The current results support the external validity of the defensive marble burying test as a screening test for anxiolytic effects. However, these results indicate that significant attention should be given to the administration schedules of benzodiazepines and SSRIs.
Topics: Animals; Anxiety; Benzodiazepines; Disease Models, Animal; Drug Administration Schedule; Mice; Motor Activity; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 32456852
DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2020.04.007 -
The International Journal of... Jan 2021Status epilepticus (SE) is a common neurologic emergency. The present study constitutes a meta-analysis of published randomized control trials (RCTs) evaluating the use... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Status epilepticus (SE) is a common neurologic emergency. The present study constitutes a meta-analysis of published randomized control trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of intravenous sodium valproate (VPA) in SE. MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were comprehensively searched, while retrieved RCTs and meta-analyses were manually screened. Prespecified outcome measures included seizure-cessation, 24 h-efficacy, constitute (liver enzyme increase, arrhythmias, bone-marrow suppression, hypotension and respiratory depression) and severe (life-threatening) adverse events (AEs). Evidence synthesis was performed when appropriate, using Random-Effects (RE) or Fixed-Effects (FE) model based on heterogeneity between trials (homogeneity assumed when PQ > 0.1 and I < 50%). Outcomes were assessed using Odds-Ratios (ORs) and 95%Confidence-Intervals (95% CIs). Every available comparison was investigated in terms of efficacy and tolerability.Thirteen studies were retrieved and five comparisons were available, four of which involved two or more studies. Results were compatible with no significant difference between VPA and Phenytoin both in terms of efficacy and tolerability [seizure-cessation: FE-OR = 1.99, 95% CI = (0.83-4.75), 24 h-efficacy: FE-OR = 1.32, 95% CI = (0.60-2.89), composite AEs: FE-OR = 0.45, 95% CI = (0.17-1.21)]. Phenobarbital proved more commonly associated with composite AEs than VPA [seizure-cessation: RE-OR = 0.68, 95% CI = (0.05-9.44), 24 h-efficacy: RE-OR = 0.88, 95% CI = (0.02-33.9), composite AEs: FE-OR = 0.26, 95% CI = (0.09-0.82), severe AEs: FE-OR = 0.30, 95% CI = (0.04-2.28)]. Diazepam was determined inferior to VPA concerning safety issues [seizure-termination: FE-OR = 0.77, 95% CI = (0.34-1.79), severe respiratory depression: FE-OR = 0.06, 95% CI = (0.01-0.48), severe hypotension: FE-OR = 0.09, 95% CI = (0.01-0.72)]. The combination of Lorazepam (LZP) with VPA and the combination of LZP with Levetiracetam presented no difference in efficacy [24h-efficacy: FE-OR = 0.68, 95% CI = (0.37-1.24)]. Although, additional high-quality RCTs are warranted, according to our results, VPA can be considered a safe and effective option in the management of SE.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Anticonvulsants; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Status Epilepticus; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 32075481
DOI: 10.1080/00207454.2020.1732967 -
American Journal of Therapeutics 2020Adjustment disorder requires therapeutic intervention because of its complications, which include a significant risk of suicide, but evidence-based therapeutic...
BACKGROUND
Adjustment disorder requires therapeutic intervention because of its complications, which include a significant risk of suicide, but evidence-based therapeutic guidelines are not available.
AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY
The main problem is related to answer to the following question: What is the optimal therapeutic approach to adjustment disorder? In this respect we review all randomized controlled trials that aimed to investigate therapeutic interventions for adjustment disorder in adult populations.
DATA SOURCES
Comprehensive search of the electronic database PubMed (January 1980-June 2019). The review included clinical trials that aimed to investigate a psychological or pharmacological treatment for adjustment disorder in adult population and reported outcome data for therapeutic interventions.
RESULTS
The search identified 23 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. Pharmacotherapy interventions were the focus of 11 studies that used various medications and dosages including viloxazine, lormetazepam, S-adenosylmethionine, pivagabine, trazodone, clorazepate, etifoxine, lorazepam, diazepam, afobazole, and plant extracts (Kava-kava, Euphytose, and Ginkgo biloba) on a total number of 1020 patients. Psychotherapy interventions were identified in 12 studies that used mirror therapy, short-term dynamic psychotherapy, yoga meditation, body-mind-spirit technique, mindfulness, bibliotherapy (self-help manual), humor training, and cognitive behavioral therapy.
CONCLUSIONS
Psychotherapy seems indicated for mildly symptomatic adjustment disorder. Given the fact that adjustment disorder with severe symptoms is associated with a high risk of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts, clinicians must consider the potential benefit of using psychotropic agents such as benzodiazepines, antidepressants, or etifoxine.
Topics: Adjustment Disorders; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Complementary Therapies; Humans; Psychotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 32520732
DOI: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001170 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Impaction of a soft food bolus in the oesophagus causes dysphagia and regurgitation. If the bolus does not pass spontaneously, then the patient is at risk of aspiration,...
BACKGROUND
Impaction of a soft food bolus in the oesophagus causes dysphagia and regurgitation. If the bolus does not pass spontaneously, then the patient is at risk of aspiration, dehydration, perforation, and death. Definitive management is with endoscopic intervention, recommended within 24 hours. Prior to endoscopy, many patients undergo a period of observation, awaiting spontaneous disimpaction, or may undergo enteral or parenteral treatments to attempt to dislodge the bolus. There is little consensus as to which of these conservative strategies is safe and effective to be used in this initial period, before resorting to definitive endoscopic management for persistent impaction.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of non-endoscopic conservative treatments in the management of soft food boluses impacted within the oesophagus.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases, using relevant search terms: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. The date of the search was 18 August 2019. We screened the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews on the topic to identify any additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of the management of acute oesophageal soft food bolus impaction, in adults and children, reporting the incidence of disimpaction (confirmed radiologically or clinically by return to oral diet) without the need for endoscopic intervention. We did not include studies focusing on sharp or solid object impaction.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 890 unique records through the electronic searches. We excluded 809 clearly irrelevant records and retrieved 81 records for further assessment. We subsequently included one randomised controlled trial that met the eligibility criteria, which was conducted in four Swedish centres and randomised 43 participants to receive either intravenous diazepam followed by glucagon, or intravenous placebos. The effect of the active substances compared with placebo on rates of disimpaction without intervention is uncertain, as the numbers from this single study were small, and the rates were similar (38% versus 32%; risk ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 2.75, P = 0.69). The certainty of the evidence using GRADE for this outcome is low. Data on adverse events were lacking.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently inadequate data to recommend the use of any enteral or parenteral treatments in the management of acute oesophageal soft food bolus impaction. There is also inadequate data regarding potential adverse events from the use of these treatments, or from potential delays in definitive endoscopic management. Caution should be exercised when using any conservative management strategies in these patients.
Topics: Conservative Treatment; Deglutition Disorders; Diazepam; Food; Gastrointestinal Agents; Glucagon; Humans; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Muscle Relaxants, Central; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32391954
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007352.pub3 -
Clinical Drug Investigation Jan 2021The optimal choice for first- and second-line antiseizure medications for pediatric patients with convulsive status epilepticus remains ambiguous. The present study... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
The optimal choice for first- and second-line antiseizure medications for pediatric patients with convulsive status epilepticus remains ambiguous. The present study aimed to estimate the comparative effect on the efficacy and safety of different antiseizure medications in pediatric patients with status epilepticus and provide evidence for clinical practice.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for eligible randomized controlled trials. Inclusion criteria included: (1) pediatric patients; (2) diagnosis of status epilepticus; and (3) randomized controlled trials. Exclusion criteria were: (1) mixed population without a pediatric subgroup analysis; (2) not status epilepticus; (3) received the study drug prior to admission; (4) sample size fewer than 30; and (5) not randomized controlled trials. Primary outcome was seizure cessation. Secondary outcomes were seizure recurrence within 24 h, respiratory depression, and admission to an intensive care unit. The hierarchy of competing antiseizure medications was presented using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve.
RESULTS
Eight first-line antiseizure medication studies involving 1686 participants and eight second-line antiseizure medication studies involving 1711 participants were eligible for analysis. Midazolam, diazepam, lorazepam, and paraldehyde were administered as first-line antiseizure medications. Valproate, phenobarbital, phenytoin, fosphenytoin, and levetiracetam were investigated as second-line antiseizure medications. No significant differences were observed across first- and second-line antiseizure medications. Midazolam ranked the best for primary and secondary outcomes among the first-line antiseizure medications. Phenobarbital ranked the best for seizure cessation and a lower risk of admission to the intensive care unit. Valproate had superiority in preventing recurrence within 24 h. Levetiracetam had the lowest probability of developing respiratory depression.
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrated the hierarchy of competing interventions. Midazolam could be a better option for first-line treatment. Phenobarbital, levetiracetam, and valproate had their respective superiority in the second-line intervention. This study may provide useful information for clinical decision making under different circumstances.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Child; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Status Epilepticus
PubMed: 33145680
DOI: 10.1007/s40261-020-00975-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2021Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties, weight loss, seizures and neurodevelopmental problems.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of using an opioid for treatment of NAS due to withdrawal from opioids in newborn infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We ran an updated search on 17 September 2020 in CENTRAL via Cochrane Register of Studies Web and MEDLINE via Ovid. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for eligible trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi- and cluster-RCTs which enrolled infants born to mothers with opioid dependence and who were experiencing NAS requiring treatment with an opioid.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 trials (1110 infants) with NAS secondary to maternal opioid use in pregnancy. Seven studies at low risk of bias were included in sensitivity analysis. Opioid versus no treatment / usual care: a single trial (80 infants) of morphine and supportive care versus supportive care alone reported no difference in treatment failure (risk ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 4.07; very low certainty evidence). No infant had a seizure. The trial did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. Morphine increased days hospitalisation (mean difference (MD) 15.00, 95% CI 8.86 to 21.14; very low certainty evidence) and treatment (MD 12.50, 95% CI 7.52 to 17.48; very low certainty evidence), but decreased days to regain birthweight (MD -2.80, 95% CI -5.33 to -0.27) and duration (minutes) of supportive care each day (MD -197.20, 95% CI -274.15 to -120.25). Morphine versus methadone: there was no difference in treatment failure (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.67; 2 studies, 147 infants; low certainty evidence). Seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study reported no difference in days hospitalisation (MD 1.40, 95% CI -3.08 to 5.88; 116 infants; low certainty evidence), whereas data from two studies found an increase in days treatment (MD 2.71, 95% CI 0.22 to 5.21; 147 infants; low certainty) for infants treated with morphine. A single study reported no difference in breastfeeding, adverse events, or out of home placement. Morphine versus sublingual buprenorphine: there was no difference in treatment failure (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.74; 3 studies, 113 infants; very low certainty evidence). Neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. There was moderate certainty evidence of an increase in days hospitalisation (MD 11.45, 95% CI 5.89 to 17.01; 3 studies, 113 infants), and days treatment (MD 12.79, 95% CI 7.57 to 18.00; 3 studies, 112 infants) for infants treated with morphine. A single adverse event (seizure) was reported in infants exposed to buprenorphine. Morphine versus diluted tincture of opium (DTO): a single study (33 infants) reported no difference in days hospitalisation, days treatment or weight gain (low certainty evidence). Opioid versus clonidine: a single study (31 infants) reported no infant with treatment failure in either group. This study did not report seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability. There was low certainty evidence for no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment. This study did not report adverse events. Opioid versus diazepam: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of an opioid (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80; 2 studies, 86 infants; low certainty evidence). Seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study of 34 infants comparing methadone versus diazepam reported no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment (very low certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported. Opioid versus phenobarbital: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of an opioid (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.74; 6 studies, 458 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis found a reduction in treatment failure in trials titrating morphine to ≧ 0.5 mg/kg/day (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.45; 3 studies, 230 infants), whereas a single study using morphine < 0.5 mg/kg/day reported no difference compared to use of phenobarbital (subgroup difference P = 0.05). Neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study (111 infants) of paregoric versus phenobarbital reported seven infants with seizures in the phenobarbital group, whereas no seizures were reported in two studies (170 infants) comparing morphine to phenobarbital. There was no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment. A single study (96 infants) reported no adverse events in either group. Opioid versus chlorpromazine: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of morphine versus chlorpromazine (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.62; 1 study, 90 infants; moderate certainty evidence). No seizures were reported in either group. There was low certainty evidence for no difference in days treatment. This trial reported no adverse events in either group. None of the included studies reported time to control of NAS. Data for duration and severity of NAS were limited, and we were unable to use these data in quantitative synthesis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to supportive care alone, the addition of an opioid may increase duration of hospitalisation and treatment, but may reduce days to regain birthweight and the duration of supportive care each day. Use of an opioid may reduce treatment failure compared to phenobarbital, diazepam or chlorpromazine. Use of an opioid may have little or no effect on duration of hospitalisation or treatment compared to use of phenobarbital, diazepam or chlorpromazine. The type of opioid used may have little or no effect on the treatment failure rate. Use of buprenorphine probably reduces duration of hospitalisation and treatment compared to morphine, but there are no data for time to control NAS with buprenorphine, and insufficient evidence to determine safety. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness and safety of clonidine.
Topics: Buprenorphine; Chlorpromazine; Clonidine; Diazepam; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant, Newborn; Methadone; Morphine; Narcotics; Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome; Opioid-Related Disorders; Opium; Phenobarbital; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34231914
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002059.pub4 -
The Pharmacogenomics Journal Dec 2021Variable responses to medications complicates perioperative care. As a potential solution, we evaluated and synthesized pharmacogenomic evidence that may inform...
Variable responses to medications complicates perioperative care. As a potential solution, we evaluated and synthesized pharmacogenomic evidence that may inform anesthesia and pain prescribing to identify clinically actionable drug/gene pairs. Clinical decision-support (CDS) summaries were developed and were evaluated using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. We found that 93/180 (51%) of commonly-used perioperative medications had some published pharmacogenomic information, with 18 having actionable evidence: celecoxib/diclofenac/flurbiprofen/ibuprofen/piroxicam/CYP2C9, codeine/oxycodone/tramadol CYP2D6, desflurane/enflurane/halothane/isoflurane/sevoflurane/succinylcholine/RYR1/CACNA1S, diazepam/CYP2C19, phenytoin/CYP2C9, succinylcholine/mivacurium/BCHE, and morphine/OPRM1. Novel CDS summaries were developed for these 18 medications. AGREE II mean ± standard deviation scores were high for Scope and Purpose (95.0 ± 2.8), Rigor of Development (93.2 ± 2.8), Clarity of Presentation (87.3 ± 3.0), and Applicability (86.5 ± 3.7) (maximum score = 100). Overall mean guideline quality score was 6.7 ± 0.2 (maximum score = 7). All summaries were recommended for clinical implementation. A critical mass of pharmacogenomic evidence exists for select medications commonly used in the perioperative setting, warranting prospective examination for clinical utility.
Topics: Analgesics; Anesthetics; Clinical Decision-Making; Decision Support Techniques; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Perioperative Care; Pharmacogenetics; Pharmacogenomic Testing; Pharmacogenomic Variants; Predictive Value of Tests; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34376788
DOI: 10.1038/s41397-021-00248-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Conversion and dissociative disorders are conditions where people experience unusual neurological symptoms or changes in awareness or identity. However, symptoms and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Conversion and dissociative disorders are conditions where people experience unusual neurological symptoms or changes in awareness or identity. However, symptoms and clinical signs cannot be explained by a neurological disease or other medical condition. Instead, a psychological stressor or trauma is often present. The symptoms are real and can cause significant distress or problems with functioning in everyday life for the people experiencing them.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of psychosocial interventions of conversion and dissociative disorders in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted database searches between 16 July and 16 August 2019. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other databases, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials that compared psychosocial interventions for conversion and dissociative disorders with standard care, wait list or other interventions (pharmaceutical, somatic or psychosocial). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We selected, quality assessed and extracted data from the identified studies. Two review authors independently performed all tasks. We used standard Cochrane methodology. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. We assessed and downgraded the evidence according to the GRADE system for risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness, inconsistency and publication bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 studies (16 with parallel-group designs and one with a cross-over design), with 894 participants aged 18 to 80 years (female:male ratio 3:1). The data were separated into 12 comparisons based on the different interventions and comparators. Studies were pooled into the same comparison when identical interventions and comparisons were evaluated. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded as a consequence of potential risk of bias, as many of the studies had unclear or inadequate allocation concealment. Further downgrading was performed due to imprecision, few participants and inconsistency. There were 12 comparisons for the primary outcome of reduction in physical signs. Inpatient paradoxical intention therapy compared with outpatient diazepam: inpatient paradoxical intention therapy did not reduce conversive symptoms compared with outpatient diazepam at the end of treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.28; 1 study, 30 participants; P = 0.12; very low-quality evidence). Inpatient treatment programme plus hypnosis compared with inpatient treatment programme: inpatient treatment programme plus hypnosis did not reduce severity of impairment compared with inpatient treatment programme at the end of treatment (MD -0.49 (negative value better), 95% CI -1.28 to 0.30; 1 study, 45 participants; P = 0.23; very low-quality evidence). Outpatient hypnosis compared with wait list: outpatient hypnosis might reduce severity of impairment compared with wait list at the end of treatment (MD 2.10 (higher value better), 95% CI 1.34 to 2.86; 1 study, 49 participants; P < 0.00001; low-quality evidence). Behavioural therapy plus routine clinical care compared with routine clinical care: behavioural therapy plus routine clinical care might reduce the number of weekly seizures compared with routine clinical care alone at the end of treatment (MD -21.40 (negative value better), 95% CI -27.88 to -14.92; 1 study, 18 participants; P < 0.00001; very low-quality evidence). Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) compared with standard medical care: CBT did not reduce monthly seizure frequency compared to standard medical care at end of treatment (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 6.19; 1 study, 16 participants; P = 0.53; very low-quality evidence). CBT did not reduce physical signs compared to standard medical care at the end of treatment (MD -4.75 (negative value better), 95% CI -18.73 to 9.23; 1 study, 61 participants; P = 0.51; low-quality evidence). CBT did not reduce seizure freedom compared to standard medical care at end of treatment (RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.30 to 17.88; 1 trial, 16 participants; P = 0.41; very low-quality evidence). Psychoeducational follow-up programmes compared with treatment as usual (TAU): no study measured reduction in physical signs at end of treatment. Specialised CBT-based physiotherapy inpatient programme compared with wait list: no study measured reduction in physical signs at end of treatment. Specialised CBT-based physiotherapy outpatient intervention compared with TAU: no study measured reduction in physical signs at end of treatment. Brief psychotherapeutic intervention (psychodynamic interpersonal treatment approach) compared with standard care: brief psychotherapeutic interventions did not reduce conversion symptoms compared to standard care at end of treatment (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.00; 1 study, 19 participants; P = 0.14; very low-quality evidence). CBT plus adjunctive physical activity (APA) compared with CBT alone: CBT plus APA did not reduce overall physical impacts compared to CBT alone at end of treatment (MD 5.60 (negative value better), 95% CI -15.48 to 26.68; 1 study, 21 participants; P = 0.60; very low-quality evidence). Hypnosis compared to diazepam: hypnosis did not reduce symptoms compared to diazepam at end of treatment (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.24; 1 study, 40 participants; P = 0.22; very low-quality evidence). Outpatient motivational interviewing (MI) and mindfulness-based psychotherapy compared with psychotherapy alone: psychotherapy preceded by MI might decrease seizure frequency compared with psychotherapy alone at end of treatment (MD 41.40 (negative value better), 95% CI 4.92 to 77.88; 1 study, 54 participants; P = 0.03; very low-quality evidence). The effect on the secondary outcomes was reported in 16/17 studies. None of the studies reported results on adverse effects. In the studies reporting on level of functioning and quality of life at end of treatment the effects ranged from small to no effect.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The results of the meta-analysis and reporting of single studies suggest there is lack of evidence regarding the effects of any psychosocial intervention on conversion and dissociative disorders in adults. It is not possible to draw any conclusions about potential benefits or harms from the included studies.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Conversion Disorder; Diazepam; Humans; Hypnosis; Middle Aged; Psychotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 32681745
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005331.pub3