-
Human Psychopharmacology Mar 2023The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxyzine for insomnia in adults. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxyzine for insomnia in adults.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases was conducted to identify relevant published studies through October 2022 using the search terms: hydroxyzine and sleep, insomnia, sleep disorder or sleep initiation and maintenance disorders. Studies identified for review included prospective, interventional designs or cohort trials that reported impact of hydroxyzine on sleep in adults. Animal studies, case reports, non-English articles, letters to the editor, case studies, and conference abstracts were excluded. Data were extracted using a standardized systematic process.
RESULTS
Five articles were identified for inclusion, including 1 open-label and 4 randomized controlled trials, evaluating a total of 207 patients receiving hydroxyzine 25 mg, 50 mg, or 100 mg at bedtime. Mixed efficacy was demonstrated in the sleep measures of sleep onset, sleep maintenance, and sleep quality. The most common adverse drug effect was dry mouth, although 4 of the 5 studies did not report safety outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
The studies in this review suggest hydroxyzine could be considered as a short-term treatment option for adults with insomnia for whom previous therapy was ineffective, not tolerated, or contraindicated. Additional long-term studies with an active comparator are needed to further establish its role in insomnia treatment.
Topics: Humans; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Hydroxyzine; Prospective Studies; Sleep
PubMed: 36843057
DOI: 10.1002/hup.2864 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Although combination formulas containing antihistamines, decongestants, and/or analgesics are sold over-the-counter in large quantities for the common cold, the evidence... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although combination formulas containing antihistamines, decongestants, and/or analgesics are sold over-the-counter in large quantities for the common cold, the evidence for their effectiveness is limited. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo or other active controls (excluding antibiotics) in reducing the duration of symptoms and alleviating symptoms (general feeling of illness, nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, sneezing, and cough) in children and adults with the common cold.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE via EBSCOhost, Embase, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, LILACS, and Web of Science to 10 June 2021. We searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov on 10 June 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo, other active treatment (excluding antibiotics), or no treatment in children and adults with the common cold.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We categorised the included trials according to the active ingredients.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 30 studies (6304 participants) including 31 treatment comparisons. The control intervention was placebo in 26 trials and an active substance (paracetamol, chlorphenindione + phenylpropanolamine + belladonna, diphenhydramine) in six trials (two trials had placebo as well as active treatment arms). Reporting of methods was generally poor, and there were large differences in study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Most of the included trials involved adult participants. Children were included in nine trials. Three trials included very young children (from six months to five years), and five trials included children aged 2 to 16. One trial included adults and children aged 12 years or older. The trials took place in different settings: university clinics, paediatric departments, family medicine departments, and general practice surgeries. Antihistamine-decongestant: 14 trials (1298 participants). Eight trials reported on global effectiveness, of which six studies were pooled (281 participants on active treatment and 284 participants on placebo). The odds ratio (OR) of treatment failure was 0.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.48; moderate certainty evidence); number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3.9 (95% CI 3.03 to 5.2). On the final evaluation day (follow-up: 3 to 10 days), 55% of participants in the placebo group had a favourable response compared to 70% on active treatment. Of the two trials not pooled, one showed some global effect, whilst the other showed no effect. Adverse effects: the antihistamine-decongestant group experienced more adverse effects than the control group: 128/419 (31%) versus 100/423 (13%) participants suffered one or more adverse effects (OR 1.58, 95%CI 0.78 to 3.21; moderate certainty of evidence). Antihistamine-analgesic: four trials (1608 participants). Two trials reported on global effectiveness; data from one trial were presented (290 participants on active treatment and 292 participants on ascorbic acid). The OR of treatment failure was 0.33 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.46; moderate certainty evidence); NNTB 6.67 (95% CI 4.76 to 12.5). Forty-three per cent of participants in the control group and 70% in the active treatment group were cured after six days of treatment. The second trial also showed an effect in favour of the active treatment. Adverse effects: there were not significantly more adverse effects in the active treatment group compared to placebo (drowsiness, hypersomnia, sleepiness 10/152 versus 4/120; OR 1.64 (95 % CI 0.48 to 5.59; low certainty evidence). Analgesic-decongestant: seven trials (2575 participants). One trial reported on global effectiveness: 73% of participants in the analgesic-decongestant group reported a benefit compared with 52% in the control group (paracetamol) (OR of treatment failure 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.52; moderate certainty evidence; NNTB 4.7). Adverse effects: the decongestant-analgesic group experienced significantly more adverse effects than the control group (199/1122 versus 75/675; OR 1.62 95% CI 1.18 to 2.23; high certainty evidence; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH 17). Antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant: six trials (1014 participants). Five trials reported on global effectiveness, of which two studies in adults could be pooled: global effect reported with active treatment (52%) and placebo (34%) was equivalent to a difference of less than one point on a four- or five-point scale; the OR of treatment failure was 0.47 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.67; low certainty evidence); NNTB 5.6 (95% CI 3.8 to 10.2). One trial in children aged 2 to 12 years, and two trials in adults found no beneficial effect. Adverse effects: in one trial 5/224 (2%) suffered adverse effects with the active treatment versus 9/208 (4%) with placebo. Two other trials reported no differences between treatment groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found a lack of data on the effectiveness of antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations for the common cold. Based on these scarce data, the effect on individual symptoms is probably too small to be clinically relevant. The current evidence suggests that antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations have some general benefit in adults and older children. These benefits must be weighed against the risk of adverse effects. There is no evidence of effectiveness in young children. In 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning about adverse effects associated with the use of over-the-counter nasal preparations containing phenylpropanolamine.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Analgesics; Child; Child, Preschool; Common Cold; Cough; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; United States
PubMed: 35060618
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004976.pub4 -
Pediatrics Apr 2020Several antiemetics have been used in children with acute gastroenteritis. However, there is still controversy over their use. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CONTEXT
Several antiemetics have been used in children with acute gastroenteritis. However, there is still controversy over their use.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the effectiveness and safety of antiemetics for controlling vomiting in children with acute gastroenteritis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Latin America and the Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences, and gray literature, until December 2018.
STUDY SELECTION
We selected randomized clinical trials comparing metoclopramide, ondansetron, domperidone, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, and granisetron.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis using the random-effects model.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies were included (3482 children). Ondansetron revealed the largest effect in comparison to placebo for cessation of vomiting (odds ratio = 0.28 [95% credible interval = 0.16 to 0.46]; quality of evidence: high) and for hospitalization (odds ratio = 2.93 [95% credible interval = 1.69 to 6.18]; quality of evidence: moderate). Ondansetron was the only intervention that reduced the need for intravenous rehydration and the number of vomiting episodes. When considering side effects, dimenhydrinate was the only intervention that was worse than placebo.
LIMITATIONS
Most treatment comparisons had low- or very low-quality evidence, because of risk of biases and imprecise estimates.
CONCLUSIONS
Ondansetron is the only intervention that revealed an effect on the cessation of vomiting, on preventing hospitalizations, and in reducing the need for intravenous rehydration. Ondansetron was also considered a safe intervention.
Topics: Acute Disease; Antiemetics; Child; Child, Preschool; Dexamethasone; Diarrhea; Dimenhydrinate; Domperidone; Fluid Therapy; Gastroenteritis; Granisetron; Hospitalization; Humans; Infant; Metoclopramide; Network Meta-Analysis; Ondansetron; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Regression Analysis; Vomiting
PubMed: 32132152
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2019-3260 -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2021Over the past 20 years or so, the drug misuse scenario has seen the emergence of both prescription-only and over-the-counter (OTC) medications being reported as...
Over the past 20 years or so, the drug misuse scenario has seen the emergence of both prescription-only and over-the-counter (OTC) medications being reported as ingested for recreational purposes. OTC drugs such as antihistamines, cough/cold medications, and decongestants are reportedly the most popular in being diverted and misused. While the current related knowledge is limited, the aim here was to examine the published clinical data on OTC misuse, focusing on antihistamines (e.g., diphenhydramine, promethazine, chlorpheniramine, and dimenhydrinate), dextromethorphan (DXM)- and codeine-based cough medicines, and the nasal decongestant pseudoephedrine. A systematic literature review was carried out with the help of Scopus, Web of Science databases, and the related gray literature. For data gathering purposes, both the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and PROSPERO guidelines were followed (PROSPERO identification code CRD42020209261). After completion of the selection, eligibility, and screening phases, some 92 articles were here taken into consideration; case reports, surveys, and retrospective case series analyses were included. Findings were organized according to the specific OTC recorded. Most articles focused here on DXM ( = 54) and diphenhydramine ( = 12). When specified, dosages, route(s) of administration, toxicity symptoms (including both physical and psychiatric ones), and outcomes were here reported. Results from the systematic review showed that the OTC misusing issues are both widespread worldwide and popular; vulnerable categories include adolescents and young adults, although real prevalence figures remain unknown, due to a lack of appropriate monitoring systems. Considering the potential, and at times serious, adverse effects associated with OTC misusing issues, healthcare professionals should be vigilant, and preventative actions should be designed and implemented.
PubMed: 34025478
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.657397 -
Acta Odontologica Latinoamericana : AOL Apr 2023Oral mucositis (OM) is a frequent complication in cancer patients who are undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy. It manifests as an inflammation of the oral mucosa,...
UNLABELLED
Oral mucositis (OM) is a frequent complication in cancer patients who are undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy. It manifests as an inflammation of the oral mucosa, sometimes provoking severe consequences such as eating limitations, difficulty in speaking, and possibly superinfection.
AIM
The aim of this review was to update the evidence published during the last five years on the treatment of oral mucositis induced by radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy in patients with cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
A search was conducted in Pubmed, Scielo and Scopus, using the search terms mucositis, stomatitis, therapy, treatment, oral cancer, oral squamous cell carcinoma, head and neck cancer and head and neck carcinoma, with Mesh terms and free terms, from 2017 to January 2023. The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
A total 287 articles were retrieved, of which 86 were selected by title and abstract, and 18 were included after full-text analysis. The most frequently assessed variables were OM severity, pain intensity and healing time. Treatment types were diverse, and included drugs, mouthwashes, medicines based on plant extracts, cryotherapy and low-intensity laser therapies.
CONCLUSION
Dentoxol mouthwashes, Plantago major extract, thyme honey extract, zinc oxide paste, vitamin B complex combined with GeneTime, and the consumption of L-glutamine are effective in diminishing the severity of OM. Pain intensity was lower with doxepin mouthwashes and diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwashes.
Topics: Humans; Mucositis; Radiotherapy
PubMed: 37314054
DOI: 10.54589/aol.36/1/3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Motion sickness is a syndrome that occurs as a result of passive body movement in response to actual motion, or the illusion of motion when exposed to virtual and moving... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Motion sickness is a syndrome that occurs as a result of passive body movement in response to actual motion, or the illusion of motion when exposed to virtual and moving visual environments. The most common symptoms are nausea and vomiting. Antihistamines have been used in the management of motion sickness for decades, however studies have shown conflicting results regarding their efficacy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of antihistamines in the prevention and treatment of motion sickness in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 7 December 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in susceptible adults and children in whom motion sickness was induced under natural conditions such as air, sea and land transportation. We also included studies in which motion sickness was induced under experimental conditions (analysed separately). Antihistamines were included regardless of class, route or dosage and compared to no treatment, placebo or any other pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1) the proportion of susceptible participants who did not experience any motion sickness symptoms; 2) the proportion of susceptible participants who experienced a reduction or resolution of existing symptoms. Secondary outcomes were 1) physiological measures (heart rate, core temperature and gastric tachyarrhythmia (electrogastrography)) and 2) adverse effects (sedation, impaired cognition, blurred vision). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine RCTs (658 participants). Studies were conducted across seven countries, with an overall age range of 16 to 55 years. Motion sickness was induced naturally in six studies and experimentally in four studies (rotating chair). All the naturally induced studies only evaluated first-generation antihistamines (cinnarizine and dimenhydrinate). Risk of bias across the studies varied, with mostly low risk for random sequence generation and allocation concealment, and mostly high risk for selective reporting. Only the experimentally induced studies measured physiological parameters and only the naturally induced studies evaluated adverse effects. There were no studies that clearly assessed the paediatric population. Antihistamines versus placebo or no treatment Antihistamines are probably more effective than placebo at preventing motion sickness symptoms under natural conditions (symptoms prevented: 25% placebo; 40% antihistamines) (risk ratio (RR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 2.66; 3 studies; 240 participants) (moderate-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on preventing motion sickness under experimental conditions (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.32, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.83; 2 studies; 62 participants) (very low-certainty). No studies reported results on the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms. Antihistamines may result in little or no difference in gastric tachyarrhythmia under experimental conditions (mean difference (MD) -2.2, 95% CI -11.71 to 7.31; 1 study; 42 participants) (low-certainty). No studies reported results for any other physiological measures. When compared to placebo, antihistamines may be more likely to cause sedation (sedation: 44% placebo; 66% antihistamines) (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.02; 2 studies; 190 participants) (low-certainty); they may result in little or no difference in blurred vision (blurred vision: 12.5% placebo; 14% antihistamines) (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.48; 2 studies; 190 participants) (low-certainty); and they may result in little or no difference in terms of impaired cognition (impaired cognition: 33% placebo; 29% antihistamines) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; 2 studies; 190 participants) (low-certainty). Antihistamines versus scopolamine The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on preventing motion sickness under natural conditions when compared to scopolamine (symptoms prevented: 81% scopolamine; 71% antihistamines) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.16; 2 studies; 71 participants) (very low-certainty). No studies were performed under experimental conditions. No studies reported results on the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on heart rate under natural conditions (narrative report, 1 study; 20 participants; "No difference in pulse frequency"; very low-certainty). No studies reported results for any other physiological measures. When compared to scopolamine, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on sedation (sedation: 21% scopolamine; 30% antihistamines) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.07 to 9.25; 2 studies; 90 participants) (very low-certainty) and on blurred vision (narrative report: not a significant difference; 1 study; 51 participants; very low-certainty). No studies evaluated impaired cognition. Antihistamines versus antiemetics Antihistamines may result in little or no difference in the prevention of motion sickness under experimental conditions (MD -0.20, 95% CI -10.91 to 10.51; 1 study; 42 participants) (low-certainty). The evidence is of low certainty due to imprecision as the sample size is small and the confidence interval crosses the line of no effect. No studies assessed the effects of antihistamines versus antiemetics under natural conditions. No studies reported results on the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms. Antihistamines may result in little or no difference in gastric tachyarrhythmia (MD 4.56, 95% CI -3.49 to 12.61; 1 study; 42 participants) (low-certainty). No studies reported results for any other physiological measures. No studies evaluated sedation, impaired cognition or blurred vision. One study reported physiological data for this outcome, evaluating gastric tachyarrhythmia specifically. Antihistamines may result in little or no difference in gastric tachyarrhythmia (MD 4.56, 95% CI -3.49 to 12.61; 1 study; 42 participants; low-certainty evidence). This evidence is of low certainty due to imprecision as the sample size is small and the confidence interval crosses the line of no effect. Antihistamines versus acupuncture The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of antihistamines on the prevention of motion sickness under experimental conditions when compared to acupuncture (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.57; 1 study; 100 participants) (very low-certainty). This study did not assess the prevention of motion sickness under natural conditions, nor the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms. There was no study performed under natural conditions. Physiological measures and adverse effects were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is probably a reduction in the risk of developing motion sickness symptoms under naturally occurring conditions of motion when using first-generation antihistamines, in motion sickness-susceptible adults, compared to placebo. Antihistamines may be more likely to cause sedation when compared to placebo. No studies evaluated the treatment of existing motion sickness, and there are few data on the effect of antihistamines in children. The evidence for all other outcomes and comparisons (versus scopolamine, antiemetics and acupuncture) was of low or very low certainty and we are therefore uncertain about these effects of antihistamines.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Antiemetics; Child; Cinnarizine; Dimenhydrinate; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Middle Aged; Motion Sickness; Scopolamine Derivatives; Young Adult
PubMed: 36250781
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012715.pub2 -
CNS Drugs Apr 2022Bipolar disorder (BD) is a chronic relapsing-remitting psychiatric disorder. Sleep and circadian rhythm disturbances persist during acute mood episodes of the disorder... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bipolar disorder (BD) is a chronic relapsing-remitting psychiatric disorder. Sleep and circadian rhythm disturbances persist during acute mood episodes of the disorder and during euthymia. However, the treatment potential of hypnotic agents that might be used to manage sleep disturbance in BD is not well understood. Similarly, melatonin and medications with a melatonin-receptor agonist mechanism of action may have chronotherapeutic potential for treating people with the disorder, but the impact of these substances on sleep and circadian rhythms and core symptoms in BD is unclear.
OBJECTIVE
Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the current evidence for hypnotic and melatonin/melatonin-receptor agonist pharmacotherapy for symptoms of sleep disturbance, mania, and depression in patients with BD.
METHODS
AMED, Embase, MEDLINE and PsychINFO databases were searched for studies published in English from the date of inception to 31 October 2021. Studies included in this review were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-controlled/non-randomised studies for BD that examined hypnotic medications selected based on a common pattern of usage for treating insomnia (i.e. chloral, clomethiazole, diphenhydramine, doxepin, doxylamine, promethazine, suvorexant, zaleplon, zolpidem, zopiclone, and eszopiclone) and melatonin and the melatonin-receptor agonist drugs ramelteon and agomelatine. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2 and AXIS tools. Pooled effect sizes for RCT outcomes were estimated using random-effects models.
RESULTS
A total of eleven studies (six RCTs and five experimental feasibility studies) involving 1279 participants were included. Each study examined melatonin or melatonin-receptor agonists. No studies of hypnotics were found that fulfilled the review inclusion criteria. Pilot feasibility studies suggested beneficial treatment effects for symptoms of sleep disturbance, depression, and mania. However, the pooled effect of the two available RCT studies assessing sleep quality via Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index scores was not statistically significant (g = - 0.04 [95% CI - 0.81 to 0.73]) and neither was the pooled effect for depressive symptoms (four studies; g = - 0.10 [95% CI - 0.27 to 0.08]). Some RCT evidence suggests ramelteon might prevent relapse into depression in BD. The largest efficacy signal detected was for manic symptoms (four studies; g = - 0.44 [95% CI - 1.03 to 0.14]) but there was substantial heterogeneity between studies and patient characteristics. In the two RCTs assessing manic symptoms during acute mania, adjunctive melatonin demonstrated superior treatment effects versus placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a paucity of studies examining pharmacological interventions for sleep and circadian rhythm disturbance in BD. Few studies assessed sleep-related symptoms, and none quantitatively examined endogenous melatonin patterns or other circadian rhythms. Melatonin may be a promising candidate for the adjunctive treatment of bipolar mania. However, dose-finding studies and studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm its efficacy. We recommend parallel monitoring of sleep and circadian rhythms in future trials. Chronobiology-informed trial designs are needed to improve the quality of future studies.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42020167528).
Topics: Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Mania; Melatonin; Sleep; Sleep Wake Disorders
PubMed: 35305257
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-022-00911-7 -
Supportive care and antiviral treatments in primary herpetic gingivostomatitis: a systematic review.Clinical Oral Investigations Nov 2023Herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) is the main pathogen responsible for herpes infections. In 13-30% of the cases, primary HSV-1 leads to the primary herpetic... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) is the main pathogen responsible for herpes infections. In 13-30% of the cases, primary HSV-1 leads to the primary herpetic gingivostomatitis (PHGS), often a self-limiting infection; however, it can limit the ability to drink/eat with, sometimes, the need for hospitalization. Multiple therapeutic methods have been proposed. This systematic review aims to collect and critically appraise the available evidence about the clinical management of PHGS.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Literature search including three databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase), study design, and data analysis were performed following PRISMA guidelines, according to the PICO tool (PROSPERO n° CRD42023391386). Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 and ROBINS-I.
RESULTS
Five studies on a total of 364 patients (average age: 7.6 years) were identified. The treatment regimens were summarized in acyclovir; acyclovir + honey; fluids and analgesic; maalox + diphenhydramine; lidocaine; chlorhexidine (CHX); CHX + ialuronic acid; CHX + Mucosyte®; antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT); topical antiviral; topical antiviral + aPDT; and others.
CONCLUSIONS
Although PHGS is a disease with a high worldwide prevalence, the lack of consensus about therapeutic management indicates gaps in existing evidence. Most of the proposed treatment consists in symptomatic drugs with empiric regimens which are ineffective for the viral replication. The main limit to realize randomized clinical trial is due to the rapid onset and remission of the disease. In fact, the diagnostic delay, estimated in 72 h, decreases the effectiveness of any antiviral drugs.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Out of the five studies included in this systematic review, only one was able to provide some weak evidence that ACV is an effective treatment, improving healing of oral lesions and reducing duration of symptoms.
Topics: Humans; Child; Stomatitis, Herpetic; Delayed Diagnosis; Antiviral Agents; Acyclovir; Lidocaine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37733027
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05250-5 -
Molecular Psychiatry Sep 2023Antipsychotic-induced sialorrhea carries a significant burden, but evidence-based treatment guidance is incomplete, warranting network meta-analysis (NMA) of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Antipsychotic-induced sialorrhea carries a significant burden, but evidence-based treatment guidance is incomplete, warranting network meta-analysis (NMA) of pharmacological interventions for antipsychotic-related sialorrhea. PubMed Central/PsycInfo/Cochrane Central database/Clinicaltrials.gov/WHO-ICTRP and the Chinese Electronic Journal Database (Qikan.cqvip.com) were searched for published/unpublished RCTs of antipsychotic-induced sialorrhea (any definition) in adults, up to 06/12/2023. We assessed global/local inconsistencies, publication bias, risk of bias (RoB2), and confidence in the evidence, conducting subgroup/sensitivity analyses. Co-primary efficacy outcomes were changes in saliva production (standardized mean difference/SMD) and study-defined response (risk ratios/RRs). The acceptability outcome was all-cause discontinuation (RR). Primary nodes were molecules; the mechanism of action (MoA) was secondary. Thirty-four RCTs entered a systematic review, 33 NMA (n = 1958). All interventions were for clozapine-induced sialorrhea in subjects with mental disorders. Regarding individual agents and response, metoclopramide (RR = 3.11, 95% C.I. = 1.39-6.98), cyproheptadine, (RR = 2.76, 95% C.I. = 2.00-3.82), sulpiride (RR = 2.49, 95% C.I. = 1.65-3.77), propantheline (RR = 2.39, 95% C.I. = 1.97-2.90), diphenhydramine (RR = 2.32, 95% C.I. = 1.88-2.86), benzhexol (RR = 2.32, 95% C.I. = 1.59-3.38), doxepin (RR = 2.30, 95% C.I. = 1.85-2.88), amisulpride (RR = 2.23, 95% C.I. = 1.30-3.81), chlorpheniramine (RR = 2.20, 95% C.I. = 1.67-2.89), amitriptyline (RR = 2.09, 95% C.I. = 1.34-3.26), atropine, (RR = 2.03, 95% C.I. = 1.22-3.38), and astemizole, (RR = 1.70, 95% C.I. = 1.28-2.26) outperformed placebo, but not glycopyrrolate or ipratropium. Across secondary nodes (k = 28, n = 1821), antimuscarinics (RR = 2.26, 95% C.I. = 1.91-2.68), benzamides (RR = 2.23, 95% C.I. = 1.75-3.10), TCAs (RR = 2.23, 95% C.I. = 1.83-2.72), and antihistamines (RR = 2.18, 95% C.I. = 1.83-2.59) outperformed placebo. In head-to-head comparisons, astemizole and ipratropium were outperformed by several interventions. All secondary nodes, except benzamides, outperformed the placebo on the continuous efficacy outcome. For nocturnal sialorrhea, neither benzamides nor atropine outperformed the placebo. Active interventions did not differ significantly from placebo regarding constipation or sleepiness/drowsiness. Low-confidence findings prompt caution in the interpretation of the results. Considering primary nodes' co-primary efficacy outcomes and head-to-head comparisons, efficacy for sialorrhea is most consistent for the following agents, decreasing from metoclopramide through cyproheptadine, sulpiride, propantheline, diphenhydramine, benzhexol, doxepin, amisulpride, chlorpheniramine, to amitriptyline, and atropine (the latter not for nocturnal sialorrhea). Shared decision-making with the patient should guide treatment decisions regarding clozapine-related sialorrhea.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Clozapine; Sulpiride; Amisulpride; Sialorrhea; Doxepin; Amitriptyline; Network Meta-Analysis; Propantheline; Trihexyphenidyl; Metoclopramide; Chlorpheniramine; Astemizole; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Cyproheptadine; Diphenhydramine; Ipratropium; Atropine Derivatives
PubMed: 37821573
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-023-02266-x -
Movement Disorders Clinical Practice Jul 2022To present a case of refractory medication-induced tremor successfully treated with deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the thalamic ventral intermediate nucleus (Vim) and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To present a case of refractory medication-induced tremor successfully treated with deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the thalamic ventral intermediate nucleus (Vim) and to propose a medical and surgical treatment algorithm based on a systematical review of the literature.
METHODS
Patient data were retrospectively collected. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Subjective and objective data were pooled for analysis by classifying them into 5 predefined categories(no, minimal, moderate, good, and excellent effects).
RESULTS
The patient presented with lithium-induced bilateral progressive hand tremor lasting 25 years. After DBS, he reported excellent tremor suppression until the last follow-up (36 months after Vim-DBS). For the review, 34 of 140 studies were included and evaluated (178 unique subjects, 31 different treatments). A good-to-excellent tremor suppression (50%-100%) in at least 50% of subjects was achieved using propranolol (12 studies, 50% of 56 subjects), tetrabenazine (5 studies, 51% of 13 subjects), and metoprolol (4 studies, 75% of 8 subjects). The effect of benztropine and diphenhydramine was none or only minimal to moderate (up to 50% improvement; both: 3 studies, 50% of 4 patients). One article reported minimal-to-moderate effectiveness after DBS of the ventral oral posterior nucleus of the thalamus. Methods were highly heterogeneous. All studies scored grade III or IV quality of evidence, which was insufficient for recommendations (level U).
CONCLUSION
Treatment decision making should be performed on a case-by-case basis considering the low level of evidence, and we propose a practically oriented treatment algorithm. Propranolol, tetrabenazine, and metoprolol might be effective. For selected and refractory cases, DBS might be considered.
PubMed: 35844282
DOI: 10.1002/mdc3.13463