-
Brain Sciences Mar 2021Cognitive enhancers (CEs), also known as "smart drugs", "study aids" or "nootropics" are a cause of concern. Recent research studies investigated the use of CEs being... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Cognitive enhancers (CEs), also known as "smart drugs", "study aids" or "nootropics" are a cause of concern. Recent research studies investigated the use of CEs being taken as study aids by university students. This manuscript provides an overview of popular CEs, focusing on a range of drugs/substances (e.g., prescription CEs including amphetamine salt mixtures, methylphenidate, modafinil and piracetam; and non-prescription CEs including caffeine, cobalamin (vitamin B12), guarana, pyridoxine (vitamin B6) and vinpocetine) that have emerged as being misused. The diverted non-prescription use of these molecules and the related potential for dependence and/or addiction is being reported. It has been demonstrated that healthy students (i.e., those without any diagnosed mental disorders) are increasingly using drugs such as methylphenidate, a mixture of dextroamphetamine/amphetamine, and modafinil, for the purpose of increasing their alertness, concentration or memory.
AIM
To investigate the level of knowledge, perception and impact of the use of a range of CEs within Higher Education Institutions.
METHODOLOGY
A systematic review was conducted in adherence with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Whilst 1400 studies were identified within this study through a variety of electronic databases (e.g., 520 through PubMed, 490 through Science Direct and 390 through Scopus), 48 papers were deemed relevant and were included in this review.
RESULTS
The most popular molecules identified here included the stimulant CEs, e.g., methylphenidate, modafinil, amphetamine salt mixtures and caffeine-related compounds; stimulant CEs' intake was more prevalent among males than females; drugs were largely obtained from friends and family, as well as via the Internet. It is therefore suggested that CEs are increasingly being used among healthy individuals, mainly students without any diagnosed cognitive disorders, to increase their alertness, concentration, or memory, in the belief that these CEs will improve their performance during examinations or when studying. The impact of stimulant CEs may include tolerance, dependence and/or somatic (e.g., cardiovascular; neurological) complications.
DISCUSSION
The availability of CEs for non-medical indications in different countries is influenced by a range of factors including legal, social and ethical factors. Considering the risk factors and motivations that encourage university students to use CE drugs, it is essential to raise awareness about CE-related harms, counteract myths regarding "safe" CE use and address cognitive enhancement in an early stage during education as a preventative public health measure.
PubMed: 33802176
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci11030355 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Apr 2023A growing number of studies have shown encouraging results with omalizumab (OMA) as monotherapy and as an adjunct to oral immunotherapy (OMA+OIT) in patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A growing number of studies have shown encouraging results with omalizumab (OMA) as monotherapy and as an adjunct to oral immunotherapy (OMA+OIT) in patients with single/multiple food allergies.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of OMA or OMA+OIT in patients with immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy.
METHODS
An extensive literature search (inception to December 31, 2020) was performed to identify randomized, controlled, and observational studies that assessed OMA as monotherapy or OMA+OIT in patients with IgE-mediated food allergy. The outcomes were an increase in tolerated dose of foods, successful desensitization, sustained unresponsiveness, immunological biomarkers, severity of allergic reactions to food, quality of life (QoL), and safety. A P less than .05 was considered significant.
RESULTS
In total, 36 studies were included. The OMA monotherapy (vs pre-OMA) significantly increased the tolerated dose of multiple foods; increased the threshold of tolerated dose for milk, egg, wheat, and baked milk; improved QoL; and reduced food-induced allergic reactions (all P < .01). The OMA+OIT significantly increased the tolerated dose of multiple foods (vs placebo and pre-OMA), desensitization (vs placebo+OIT and pre-OMA) (all P ≤ .01), and improved QoL (vs pre-OMA) and immunoglobulin G4 levels (both P < .01). No major safety concerns were identified.
CONCLUSIONS
In IgE-mediated food allergy, OMA can help patients consume multiple foods and allow for food dose escalation. As an adjunct to OIT, OMA can also support high-dose desensitization and higher maintenance doses. Further studies are warranted to empirically evaluate the effect of OMA and confirm these findings.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Omalizumab; Quality of Life; Immunoglobulin E; Desensitization, Immunologic; Administration, Oral; Food Hypersensitivity; Allergens; Milk
PubMed: 36529441
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.11.036 -
Allergy May 2020Five biologicals have been approved for severe eosinophilic asthma, a well-recognized phenotype. Systematic reviews (SR) evaluated the efficacy and safety of...
Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab) for severe eosinophilic asthma. A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines - recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma.
Five biologicals have been approved for severe eosinophilic asthma, a well-recognized phenotype. Systematic reviews (SR) evaluated the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab (alphabetical order) compared to standard of care for severe eosinophilic asthma. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated for each of the biologicals. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. 19 RCTs (three RCTs for benralizumab, three RCTs for dupilumab, three RCTs for mepolizumab, five RCTs for omalizumab and five RCTs for reslizumab), including subjects 12 to 75 years old (except for omalizumab including also subjects 6-11 years old), ranging from 12 to 56 weeks were evaluated. All biologicals reduce exacerbation rates with high certainty of evidence: benralizumab incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.53 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.72), dupilumab (IRR) 0.43 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.59), mepolizumab IRR 0.49 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.66), omalizumab (IRR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.77) and reslizumab (IRR) 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.58). Benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab reduce the daily dose of oral corticosteroids (OCS) with high certainty of evidence. All evaluated biologicals probably improve asthma control, QoL and FEV , without reaching the minimal important difference (moderate certainty). Benralizumab, mepolizumab and reslizumab slightly increase drug-related adverse events (AE) and drug-related serious AE (low to very low certainty of evidence). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year value is above the willingness to pay threshold for all biologicals (moderate certainty). Potential savings are driven by decrease in hospitalizations, emergency and primary care visits. There is high certainty that all approved biologicals reduce the rate of severe asthma exacerbations and for benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab for reducing OCS. There is moderate certainty for improving asthma control, QoL, FEV . More data on long-term safety are needed together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Asthma; Biological Products; Child; Humans; Middle Aged; Omalizumab; Quality of Life; Young Adult
PubMed: 32034960
DOI: 10.1111/all.14221 -
Journal of Sleep Research Dec 2021Narcolepsy is an uncommon hypothalamic disorder of presumed autoimmune origin that usually requires lifelong treatment. This paper aims to provide evidence-based... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Narcolepsy is an uncommon hypothalamic disorder of presumed autoimmune origin that usually requires lifelong treatment. This paper aims to provide evidence-based guidelines for the management of narcolepsy in both adults and children.
METHODS
The European Academy of Neurology (EAN), European Sleep Research Society (ESRS), and European Narcolepsy Network (EU-NN) nominated a task force of 18 narcolepsy specialists. According to the EAN recommendations, 10 relevant clinical questions were formulated in PICO format. Following a systematic review of the literature (performed in Fall 2018 and updated in July 2020) recommendations were developed according to the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
A total of 10,247 references were evaluated, 308 studies were assessed and 155 finally included. The main recommendations can be summarized as follows: (i) excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) in adults-scheduled naps, modafinil, pitolisant, sodium oxybate (SXB), solriamfetol (all strong); methylphenidate, amphetamine derivatives (both weak); (ii) cataplexy in adults-SXB, venlafaxine, clomipramine (all strong) and pitolisant (weak); (iii) EDS in children-scheduled naps, SXB (both strong), modafinil, methylphenidate, pitolisant, amphetamine derivatives (all weak); (iv) cataplexy in children-SXB (strong), antidepressants (weak). Treatment choices should be tailored to each patient's symptoms, comorbidities, tolerance and risk of potential drug interactions.
CONCLUSION
The management of narcolepsy involves non-pharmacological and pharmacological approaches with an increasing number of symptomatic treatment options for adults and children that have been studied in some detail.
Topics: Adult; Cataplexy; Child; Humans; Modafinil; Narcolepsy; Sleep; Sodium Oxybate
PubMed: 34173288
DOI: 10.1111/jsr.13387 -
Biomedicines Sep 2023This umbrella review aimed to determine the various drugs used to treat trigeminal neuralgia (TN) and to evaluate their efficacies as well as side effects by surveying... (Review)
Review
This umbrella review aimed to determine the various drugs used to treat trigeminal neuralgia (TN) and to evaluate their efficacies as well as side effects by surveying previously published reviews. An online search was conducted using PubMed, CRD, EBSCO, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library with no limits on publication date or patients' gender, age, and ethnicity. Reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials pertaining to drug therapy for TN, and other relevant review articles added from their reference lists, were evaluated. Rapid reviews, reviews published in languages other than English, and reviews of laboratory studies, case reports, and series were excluded. A total of 588 articles were initially collected; 127 full-text articles were evaluated after removing the duplicates and screening the titles and abstracts, and 11 articles were finally included in this study. Except for carbamazepine, most of the drugs had been inadequately studied. Carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine continue to be the first choice for medication for classical TN. Lamotrigine and baclofen can be regarded as second-line drugs to treat patients not responding to first-line medication or for patients having intolerable side effects from carbamazepine. Drug combinations using carbamazepine, baclofen, gabapentin, ropivacaine, tizanidine, and pimozide can yield satisfactory results and improve the tolerance to the treatment. Intravenous lidocaine can be used to treat acute exaggerations and botulinum toxin-A can be used in refractory cases. Proparacaine, dextromethorphan, and tocainide were reported to be inappropriate for treating TN. Anticonvulsants are successful in managing trigeminal neuralgia; nevertheless, there have been few studies with high levels of proof, making it challenging to compare or even combine their results in a statistically useful way. New research on other drugs, combination therapies, and newer formulations, such as vixotrigine, is awaited. There is conclusive evidence for the efficacy of pharmacological drugs in the treatment of TN.
PubMed: 37892981
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11102606 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Spasticity and chronic neuropathic pain are common and serious symptoms in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). These symptoms increase with disease progression and lead... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Spasticity and chronic neuropathic pain are common and serious symptoms in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). These symptoms increase with disease progression and lead to worsening disability, impaired activities of daily living and quality of life. Anti-spasticity medications and analgesics are of limited benefit or poorly tolerated. Cannabinoids may reduce spasticity and pain in people with MS. Demand for symptomatic treatment with cannabinoids is high. A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and harms of these drugs is required.
OBJECTIVES
To assess benefit and harms of cannabinoids, including synthetic, or herbal and plant-derived cannabinoids, for reducing symptoms for adults with MS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases from inception to December 2021: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library), CINAHL (EBSCO host), LILACS, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the US National Institutes of Health clinical trial register, the European Union Clinical Trials Register, the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines databank. We hand searched citation lists of included studies and relevant reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised parallel or cross-over trials (RCTs) evaluating any cannabinoid (including herbal Cannabis, Cannabis flowers, plant-based cannabinoids, or synthetic cannabinoids) irrespective of dose, route, frequency, or duration of use for adults with MS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool for parallel RCTs and crossover trials. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: reduction of 30% in the spasticity Numeric Rating Scale, pain relief of 50% or greater in the Numeric Rating Scale-Pain Intensity, much or very much improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL), withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs) (tolerability), serious adverse events (SAEs), nervous system disorders, psychiatric disorders, physical dependence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 RCTs with 3763 participants of whom 2290 received cannabinoids. Age ranged from 18 to 60 years, and between 50% and 88% participants across the studies were female. The included studies were 3 to 48 weeks long and compared nabiximols, an oromucosal spray with a plant derived equal (1:1) combination of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) (13 studies), synthetic cannabinoids mimicking THC (7 studies), an oral THC extract of Cannabis sativa (2 studies), inhaled herbal Cannabis (1 study) against placebo. One study compared dronabinol, THC extract of Cannabis sativa and placebo, one compared inhaled herbal Cannabis, dronabinol and placebo. We identified eight ongoing studies. Critical outcomes • Spasticity: nabiximols probably increases the number of people who report an important reduction of perceived severity of spasticity compared with placebo (odds ratio (OR) 2.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 4.04; 5 RCTs, 1143 participants; I = 67%; moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute effect was 216 more people (95% CI 99 more to 332 more) per 1000 reporting benefit with cannabinoids than with placebo. • Chronic neuropathic pain: we found only one small trial that measured the number of participants reporting substantial pain relief with a synthetic cannabinoid compared with placebo (OR 4.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 16.17; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether cannabinoids reduce chronic neuropathic pain intensity. • Treatment discontinuation due to AEs: cannabinoids may increase slightly the number of participants who discontinue treatment compared with placebo (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.84; 21 studies, 3110 participants; I² = 17%; low-certainty evidence); the absolute effect is 39 more people (95% CI 15 more to 76 more) per 1000 people. Important outcomes • PGIC: cannabinoids probably increase the number of people who report 'very much' or 'much' improvement in health status compared with placebo (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.36; 8 studies, 1215 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute effect is 113 more people (95% CI 57 more to 175 more) per 1000 people reporting improvement. • HRQoL: cannabinoids may have little to no effect on HRQoL (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.02; 8 studies, 1942 participants; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • SAEs: cannabinoids may result in little to no difference in the number of participants who have SAEs compared with placebo (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.99; 20 studies, 3124 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • AEs of the nervous system: cannabinoids may increase nervous system disorders compared with placebo (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.53 to 4.44; 7 studies, 1154 participants; I² = 63%; low-certainty evidence); • Psychiatric disorders: cannabinoids may increase psychiatric disorders compared with placebo (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.88; 6 studies, 1122 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • Drug tolerance: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cannabinoids on drug tolerance (OR 3.07, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.95; 2 studies, 458 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with placebo, nabiximols probably reduces the severity of spasticity in the short-term in people with MS. We are uncertain about the effect on chronic neurological pain and health-related quality of life. Cannabinoids may increase slightly treatment discontinuation due to AEs, nervous system and psychiatric disorders compared with placebo. We are uncertain about the effect on drug tolerance. The overall certainty of evidence is limited by short-term duration of the included studies.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Adolescent; Adult; Analgesics; Cannabinoids; Cannabis; Chronic Pain; Dronabinol; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Multiple Sclerosis; Neuralgia; Plant Extracts; Quality of Life; Young Adult
PubMed: 35510826
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013444.pub2 -
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies Sep 2022Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a condition with local and referred pain characterized by trigger points (taut bands within the muscle). Ischemic compression is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a condition with local and referred pain characterized by trigger points (taut bands within the muscle). Ischemic compression is a noninvasive manual therapy technique that has been employed for the treatment of MPS in past decades. However, little attention has been devoted to this topic.
OBJECTIVES
The present review was designed to explore the efficacy of ischemic compression for myofascial pain syndrome by performing a descriptive systematic review and a meta-analysis to estimate the effect of ischemic compression on MPS.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis concerning randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with myofascial pain subjects who received ischemic compression versus placebo, sham, or usual interventions. Five databases (PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Ovid) were searched from the earliest data available to 2022.1.2. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for statistics. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk of tool 2 (RoB 2) was used to assess the quality of the included RCTs.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies were included in the systematic review, and 15 studies were included in the meta-analysis. For the pressure pain threshold (PPT) index, 11 studies and 427 subjects demonstrated statistically significant differences compared with the control at posttreatment (SMD = 0.67, 95% CI [0.35, 0.98], P < 0.0001, I = 59%). For visual analog scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS) indices, 7 studies and 251 subjects demonstrated that there was no significant difference between ischemic compression and controls posttreatment (SMD = - 0.22, 95% CI [- 0.53, 0.09], P = 0.16, I = 33%).
CONCLUSION
Ischemic compression, as a conservative and noninvasive therapy, only enhanced tolerance to pain in MPS subjects compared with inactive control. Furthermore, there was no evidence of benefit for self-reported pain. The number of currently included subjects was relatively small, so the conclusion may be changed by future studies. Big scale RCTs with more subjects will be critical in future.
Topics: Humans; Myofascial Pain Syndromes; Pain; Pain Measurement; Pain Threshold
PubMed: 36050701
DOI: 10.1186/s12998-022-00441-5 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Nov 2020Androgens play a significant role in the development of male reproductive organs. The clinical use of synthetic testosterone derivatives, such as nandrolone, is focused...
Androgens play a significant role in the development of male reproductive organs. The clinical use of synthetic testosterone derivatives, such as nandrolone, is focused on maximizing the anabolic effects and minimizing the androgenic ones. Class II anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS), including nandrolone, are rapidly becoming a widespread group of drugs used both clinically and illicitly. The illicit use of AAS is diffused among adolescent and bodybuilders because of their anabolic proprieties and their capacity to increase tolerance to exercise. This systematic review aims to focus on side effects related to illicit AAS abuse, evaluating the scientific literature in order to underline the most frequent side effects on AAS abusers' bodies. A systematic review of the scientific literature was performed using the PubMed database and the keywords "nandrolone decanoate". The inclusion criteria for articles or abstracts were English language and the presence of the following words: "abuse" or "adverse effects". After applying the exclusion and inclusion criteria, from a total of 766 articles, only 148 were considered eligible for the study. The most reported adverse effects (found in more than 5% of the studies) were endocrine effects (18 studies, 42%), such as virilization, gynecomastia, hormonal disorders, dyslipidemia, genital alterations, and infertility; cardiovascular dysfunctions (six studies, 14%) such as vascular damage, coagulation disorders, and arteriosus hypertension; skin disorders (five studies, 12%) such as pricking, acne, and skin spots; psychiatric and mood disorders (four studies, 9%) such as aggressiveness, sleep disorders and anxiety; musculoskeletal disorders (two studies, 5%), excretory disorders (two studies, 5%), and gastrointestinal disorders (two studies, 5%). Based on the result of our study, the most common adverse effects secondary to the abuse of nandrolone decanoate (ND) involve the endocrine, cardiovascular, skin, and psychiatric systems. These data could prove useful to healthcare professionals in both sports and clinical settings.
Topics: Adolescent; Anabolic Agents; Androgens; Exercise; Humans; Male; Nandrolone; Nandrolone Decanoate
PubMed: 33187340
DOI: 10.3390/medicina56110606 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Evidence is limited regarding the most effective pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression: monotherapy with an antidepressant, monotherapy with an... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Evidence is limited regarding the most effective pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression: monotherapy with an antidepressant, monotherapy with an antipsychotic, another treatment (e.g. mifepristone), or combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and last updated in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
1. To compare the clinical efficacy of pharmacological treatments for patients with an acute psychotic depression: antidepressant monotherapy, antipsychotic monotherapy, mifepristone monotherapy, and the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic versus placebo and/or each other. 2. To assess whether differences in response to treatment in the current episode are related to non-response to prior treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
A search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR); Ovid MEDLINE (1950-); Embase (1974-); and PsycINFO (1960-) was conducted on 21 February 2020. Reference lists of all included studies and related reviews were screened and key study authors contacted.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with acute major depression with psychotic features, as well as RCTs consisting of participants with acute major depression with or without psychotic features, that reported separately on the subgroup of participants with psychotic features.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies, according to criteria from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data were entered into RevMan 5.1. We used intention-to-treat data. Primary outcomes were clinical response for efficacy and overall dropout rate for harm/tolerance. Secondary outcome were remission of depression, change from baseline severity score, quality of life, and dropout rate due to adverse effects. For dichotomous efficacy outcomes (i.e. response and overall dropout), risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Regarding the primary outcome of harm, only overall dropout rates were available for all studies. If the study did not report any of the response criteria as defined above, remission as defined here could be used as an alternative. For continuously distributed outcomes, it was not possible to extract data from the RCTs. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified 3947 abstracts, but only 12 RCTs with a total of 929 participants could be included in the review. Because of clinical heterogeneity, few meta-analyses were possible. The main outcome was reduction in severity (response) of depression, not of psychosis. For depression response, we found no evidence of a difference between antidepressant and placebo (RR 8.40, 95% CI 0.50 to 142.27; participants = 27, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or between antipsychotic and placebo (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.73; participants = 201, studies = 2; very low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, we found no evidence of a difference in overall dropouts with antidepressant (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.51; participants = 27, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.08; participants = 201, studies = 2; very low-certainty evidence). No evidence suggests a difference in depression response (RR 2.09, 95% CI 0.64 to 6.82; participants = 36, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or overall dropouts (RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.18 to 18.02; participants = 36, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) between antidepressant and antipsychotic. For depression response, low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests that the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic may be more effective than antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.38; participants = 447, studies = 4), more effective than antidepressant monotherapy (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.80; participants = 245, studies = 5), and more effective than placebo (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.82; participants = 148, studies = 2). Very low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in overall dropouts between the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic versus antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; participants = 447, studies = 4), antidepressant monotherapy (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.50; participants = 245, studies = 5), or placebo alone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.18; participants = 148, studies = 2). No study measured change in depression severity from baseline, quality of life, or dropouts due to adverse events. We found no RCTs with mifepristone that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Risk of bias is considerable: we noted differences between studies with regards to diagnosis, uncertainties around randomisation and allocation concealment, treatment interventions (pharmacological differences between various antidepressants and antipsychotics), and outcome criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Psychotic depression is heavily under-studied, limiting confidence in the conclusions drawn. Some evidence indicates that combination therapy with an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than either treatment alone or placebo. Evidence is limited for treatment with an antidepressant alone or with an antipsychotic alone. Evidence for efficacy of mifepristone is lacking.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Psychotic Disorders; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 34875106
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004044.pub5 -
Acta Gastro-enterologica Belgica 2021Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is a potentially life-threatening infection in patients with liver cirrhosis and ascites. Its prevention is vital to improve prognosis... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is a potentially life-threatening infection in patients with liver cirrhosis and ascites. Its prevention is vital to improve prognosis of cirrhotic patients. The main objective of this systematic review was to evaluate what is the most efficacious and safest antibiotic prophylactic strategy.
METHODS
Studies were located by searching PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library until February 2019. Randomized controlled trials evaluating primary or secondary spontaneous bacterial peritonitis prophylaxis in cirrhotic patients with ascites were included. The selection of studies was performed in two stages: screening of titles and abstracts, and assessment of the full papers identified as relevant, considering the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted in a standardized way and synthesized qualitatively.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were included. This systematic review demonstrated that daily norfloxacin is effective as a prophylactic antibiotic for the prevention of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in patients with cirrhosis. Once weekly ciprofloxacin was not inferior to once daily norfloxacin, with good tolerance and no induced resistance. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and norfloxacin have similar efficacy for primary and secondary prophylaxis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, however, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was associated with an increased risk of developing an adverse event. Rifaximin was more effective than norfloxacin in the secondary prophylaxis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, with a significant decrease in adverse events and mortality rate.
CONCLUSIONS
Continuous long-term selective intestinal decontamination with norfloxacin is the most widely used prophylactic strategy in spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, yet other equally effective and safe options are available.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Ascites; Bacterial Infections; Humans; Liver Cirrhosis; Norfloxacin; Peritonitis
PubMed: 34217185
DOI: 10.51821/84.2.333