-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2023Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anticancer treatment, suicide risk and possibly the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants in this population are few and often report conflicting results.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (aged 18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage).
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was November 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants, in adults (aged 18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. efficacy as a continuous outcome. Our secondary outcomes were 2. efficacy as a dichotomous outcome, 3. Social adjustment, 4. health-related quality of life and 5. dropouts. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 14 studies (1364 participants), 10 of which contributed to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Six of these compared antidepressants and placebo, three compared two antidepressants, and one three-armed study compared two antidepressants and placebo. In this update, we included four additional studies, three of which contributed data for the primary outcome. For acute-phase treatment response (six to 12 weeks), antidepressants may reduce depressive symptoms when compared with placebo, even though the evidence is very uncertain. This was true when depressive symptoms were measured as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to -0.12; 7 studies, 511 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and when measured as a proportion of people who had depression at the end of the study (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.96; 5 studies, 662 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported data on follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons, we retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and for mirtazapine versus TCAs. There was no difference between the various classes of antidepressants (continuous outcome: SSRI versus TCA: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18; 3 studies, 237 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mirtazapine versus TCA: SMD -4.80, 95% CI -9.70 to 0.10; 1 study, 25 participants). There was a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants versus placebo for the secondary efficacy outcomes (continuous outcome, response at one to four weeks; very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences for these outcomes when comparing two different classes of antidepressants, even though the evidence was very uncertain. In terms of dropouts due to any cause, we found no difference between antidepressants compared with placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; 9 studies, 889 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and between SSRIs and TCAs (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.22; 3 studies, 237 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of the heterogeneous quality of the studies, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, the available studies were few and of low quality. This review found a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants against placebo in depressed participants with cancer. However, the certainty of evidence is very low and, on the basis of these results, it is difficult to draw clear implications for practice. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which drug to prescribe may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of people with major depression, also taking into account that data on people with other serious medical conditions suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. Furthermore, this update shows that the usage of the newly US Food and Drug Administration-approved antidepressant esketamine in its intravenous formulation might represent a potential treatment for this specific population of people, since it can be used both as an anaesthetic and an antidepressant. However, data are too inconclusive and further studies are needed. We conclude that to better inform clinical practice, there is an urgent need for large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer who have depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Mirtazapine; Neoplasms; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 36999619
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011006.pub4 -
Cost Effectiveness and Resource... Apr 2022This study aims to synthesize the empirical economic evidence of pharmaceutical therapies for people with dementia. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
This study aims to synthesize the empirical economic evidence of pharmaceutical therapies for people with dementia.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis. Literature evaluating the costs and effects of drug therapies for dementia was indexed until December 2021. Quality of study was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list. Cost data were standardized to 2020 US dollars and analyzed from healthcare service and societal perspectives. Random-effects models were used to synthesize economic and clinical data, based on mean differences (MDs) and standardized MDs.
RESULTS
Ten unique studies were identified from 11,771 records. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) and memantine improved dementia-related symptoms, alongside nonsignificant savings in societal cost (AChEIs: MD-2002 [- 4944 ~ 939]; memantine: MD-6322 [- 14355 ~ 1711]). Despite decreases in cost, antidepressants of mirtazapine and sertraline and second-generation antipsychotics were limited by their significant side effects on patients' cognitive and activity functions. Subgroup analysis indicated that the impacts of AChEIs on cost were affected by different analytical perspectives, follow-up periods, and participant age.
CONCLUSIONS
AChEIs and memantine are cost-effective with improvements in dementia-related symptoms and trends of cost-savings. More empirical evidence with non-industrial sponsorships and rigorous design in different settings is warranted.
PubMed: 35443684
DOI: 10.1186/s12962-022-00354-3 -
What is the evidence for mirtazapine in treating cancer-related symptomatology? A systematic review.Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Apr 2020Cancer patients often experience multiple distressing symptoms which are challenging to manage. It would therefore be helpful to find a treatment that alleviates more... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Cancer patients often experience multiple distressing symptoms which are challenging to manage. It would therefore be helpful to find a treatment that alleviates more than one symptom, to avoid polypharmacy: mirtazapine has been used in several studies for this purpose. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of mirtazapine in alleviating one or more frequently encountered cancer-related symptoms.
METHODS
Systematic review of clinical trials in English or French. Eight databases were searched. Included studies assessed the effectiveness of mirtazapine in alleviating one or more frequently encountered cancer-related symptoms. Comparator and validated assessment tools were required. Studies were independently appraised by two investigators before data synthesis.
RESULTS
The search yielded 1898 references, from which we identified 12 relevant articles evaluating highly heterogeneous outcomes. These were two randomised-controlled (RCTs), three non-randomised controlled, and seven non-randomised non-controlled trials. In total, 392 participants were included and 185 were in RCTs. No study assessed the effectiveness of mirtazapine in alleviating symptoms at the same time, but some considered more than one symptom. Overall, the data was of poor quality, limited by small sample size and bias. However, mirtazapine showed effectiveness in treating depression, anxiety, sleep disorders, emesis and neuropathic pain. Across all studies, mirtazapine is safe to use, with drowsiness and dizziness the most common side-effects.
CONCLUSION
Study design and small sample sizes limit the ability to interpret results. Trials to assess the impact of mirtazapine or other medicines in alleviating multiple symptoms would be valuable.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Antagonists; Antidepressive Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Depression; Humans; Mirtazapine; Neoplasms; Palliative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31858251
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-019-05229-7 -
Progress in Neuro-psychopharmacology &... Jul 2022Sleep quality disturbances are a common occurrence in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and may remain after evidence-based treatment for PTSD has been implemented.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of antidepressants for sleep quality disturbances in post-traumatic stress disorder: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Sleep quality disturbances are a common occurrence in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and may remain after evidence-based treatment for PTSD has been implemented. If left untreated, sleep disturbance can perpetuate or aggravate the disorder. A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted comparing efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability among antidepressants for sleep quality improvement in PTSD, using Cochane's RoB2.0 and GRADE approach for NMA. The Cochrane Library, LILACS, PsycINFO, PTSDpubs, and PubMed Central databases were searched from inception to November 29, 2020, leading to the retrieval of 3733 reports. After the selection process, seven RCTs were included in the review (N = 600). We found low certainty of evidence (LCE) that sertraline may improve sleep quality (measured by PSQI) in adult patients with PTSD (MD -0.48, 95% CrI -0.63 to -0.32). Sertraline was as well accepted (RR 1.12, 95% CrI -0.83 to 1.52, very low certainty [VLCE]) and as well tolerated as placebo (RR 0.58, 95% CrI 0.28 to 1.14, LCE). Mirtazapine (MD -3.35, 95% CrI -9.06 to 2.39, LCE), paroxetine (MD -3.13, 95% CrI -7.47 to 1.26, VLCE), nefazodone (MD -0.25, 95% CrI -5.95 to 5.38, VLCE), and bupropion (MD -2.28, 95% CrI -4.75 to 0.21, VLCE) were similar to placebo for improving sleep quality. These antidepressants resulted in little or no benefit for sleep in PTSD. Although the NMA suggested that sertraline may improve sleep in PTSD compared to placebo, due to the low certainty, these estimates are not robust enough to guide clinical decisions.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Sertraline; Sleep Quality; Sleep Wake Disorders; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic
PubMed: 35395322
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2022.110557 -
Cancer Treatment Reviews Apr 2023Several regimens have been introduced in clinical practice in the last twenty years to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, direct comparative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several regimens have been introduced in clinical practice in the last twenty years to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, direct comparative data remain insufficient, as many new regimes lack head-to-head comparisons. In this study, through an indirect comparison, we overcome this limit by providing the most up-to-date estimate of the efficacy and safety of all combinations used for HEC-induced nausea and vomiting.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We retrieved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library until June, 30th 2022. We included phase II-III RCTs, including adults with any cancer receiving HEC, and compared different antiemetic regimes to prevent CINV. The primary outcome was the overall complete response (defined as the absence of vomiting and of the use of rescue drugs from 0 to 120 hrs since chemotherapy); secondary outcomes were acute (absence of vomiting and use of rescue medicine 0-24 hrs after chemotherapy) and delayed (24-120 hrs) response and adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 53 RCTs enrolling 22 228 patients were included. We classified the different antiemetic regimes into 21 different groups. Overall, 3- or 4-drug regimens containing a combination of dexamethasone, 5HT3 antagonists, mirtazapine or olanzapine with or without NK antagonists, yielded the highest probability to be the most effective regimen in terms of complete response. Regimens containing a combination of dexamethasone and 5-HT3 antagonist have the lowest probability of being the most effective regimen in terms of complete, acute, and delayed response.
CONCLUSION
In our network meta-analysis, 4-drug regimens with olanzapine displayed the highest probability of efficacy in terms of complete response. A 3-drug regimen with olanzapine represents a valid option in a limited resource context.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Dexamethasone; Nausea; Network Meta-Analysis; Olanzapine; Vomiting
PubMed: 36774658
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2023.102512 -
Ageing Research Reviews Mar 2022Psychotic symptoms of dementia are highly prevalent and lead to poor medical outcomes and substantial dysfunction. To date, which drug to use remains controversial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Psychotic symptoms of dementia are highly prevalent and lead to poor medical outcomes and substantial dysfunction. To date, which drug to use remains controversial without a summary of all direct or indirect comparisons of pharmacotherapy. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review with pairwise and network meta-analysis to examine efficacy and tolerability outcomes of pharmacological treatments in dementia patients. MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched systematically up to August 31, 2020. We included trials of cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs), memantine, antipsychotics, antidepressants, and mood stabilizers, with final approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. We ranked the comparative effects of all drugs against placebo with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. This analysis is based on 34 trials, which included 10,415 patients randomly assigned to 15 commonly used drug regimens. Donepezil (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.30, 95% credible interval [CrI] -0.50 to -0.12; SUCRA, 0.85), memantine (SMD -0.20, 95%CrI -0.34 to -0.07; SUCRA, 0.68) and aripiprazole (SMD -0.17, 95% CrI -0.32 to -0.02; SUCRA, 0.62) showed greater benefit than placebo, and with relatively good tolerability in network meta-analyses. Risperidone was also found to be more efficacious than placebo (SMD -0.16, 95% CrI -0.28 to -0.05; SUCRA, 0.60), but with poor tolerability (odds ratios [OR] 1.50, 95% CrI 1.06-2.26). Donepezil, memantine, haloperidol, aripiprazole and risperidone were more efficacious than quetiapine (SMDs ranged from -0.36 to -0.22). Besides, donepezil, memantine and mirtazapine were more efficacious than sertraline (SMDs ranged from -0.47 to -0.36). Most of the results were rated as "low" to "very low". Several effective treatment choices for psychotic symptoms are available across drug classes. Donepezil, memantine and aripiprazole are probably the appropriate options to consider when a pharmacological treatment is indicated. Given the limitations of the meta-analytic approach and the low methodological quality of the majority of studies, our results should be cautiously interpreted.
Topics: Aripiprazole; Dementia; Donepezil; Humans; Memantine; Network Meta-Analysis; Risperidone; United States
PubMed: 35051646
DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2022.101568 -
Alpha Psychiatry Sep 2021The aim of the article is to review systematically current researches investigating the relationship between intrauterine exposure to antidepressants and neonatal... (Review)
Review
The aim of the article is to review systematically current researches investigating the relationship between intrauterine exposure to antidepressants and neonatal hypoglycemia. This paper included studies published in electronic databases from January 2005 to July 2020. The searched keywords were as follows: antidepressants, pregnancy, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), citalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, escitalopram, sertraline, fluvoxamine, selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), venlafaxine, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), neonatal outcomes, neonatal hypoglycemia, imipramine, clomipramine, amitriptyline, bupropion, trazodone, and mirtazapine. This review examined 10 relevant studies. The odds ratio/risk ratio reported in the studies were 1.33-1.73 for any antidepressant, 1.30-1.35 for SSRI, 1.42-2.11 for SNRI, and 2.07 for TCAs. The risk of neonatal hypoglycemia in infants exposed to maternal TCAs appears to be slightly higher compared to infants exposed to maternal SSRIs. Data from current studies consistently show that exposure to maternal antidepressants during pregnancy may be related to increased risk of neonatal hypoglycemia in infants.
PubMed: 36447450
DOI: 10.1530/alphapsychiatry.2021.21143 -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2022Consistent evidence suggests residual depressive symptomology are the strongest predictors of depression relapse following cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and...
A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Network Analysis of the Residual Symptom Structure Following Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Escitalopram, Mirtazapine and Venlafaxine for Depression.
OBJECTIVE
Consistent evidence suggests residual depressive symptomology are the strongest predictors of depression relapse following cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and antidepressant medications (ADM's). Psychometric network models help detecting and understanding central symptoms that remain post-treatment, along with their complex co-occurrences. However, individual psychometric network studies show inconsistent findings. This systematic review and IPD network analysis aimed to estimate and compare the symptom network structures of residual depressive symptoms following CBT, ADM's, and their combination.
METHODS
PsycINFO, PsycArticles, and PubMed were systematically searched through October 2020 for studies that have assessed individuals with major depression at post-treatment receiving either CBT and/or ADM's (venlafaxine, escitalopram, mirtazapine). IPD was requested from eligible samples to estimate and compare residual symptom psychometric network models post-CBT and post-ADM's.
RESULTS
In total, 25 from 663 eligible samples, including 1,389 patients qualified for the IPD. Depressed mood and anhedonia were consistently central residual symptoms post-CBT and post-ADM's. For CBT, fatigue-related and anxiety symptoms were also central post-treatment. A significant difference in network structure across treatments (CBT vs. ADM) was observed for samples measuring depression severity using the MADRS. Specifically, stronger symptom occurrences were present amongst post-CBT (vs. ADM's) and amongst post-ADM's (vs. CBT). No significant difference in global strength was observed across treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
Core major depression symptoms remain central across treatments, strategies to target these symptoms should be considered. Anxiety and fatigue related complaints also remain central post-CBT. Efforts must be made amongst researchers, institutions, and journals to permit sharing of IPD. A protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020141663; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=141663).
PubMed: 35178002
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.746678 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Harmful alcohol use is defined as unhealthy alcohol use that results in adverse physical, psychological, social, or societal consequences and is among the leading risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Harmful alcohol use is defined as unhealthy alcohol use that results in adverse physical, psychological, social, or societal consequences and is among the leading risk factors for disease, disability and premature mortality globally. The burden of harmful alcohol use is increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and there remains a large unmet need for indicated prevention and treatment interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in these settings. Evidence regarding which interventions are effective and feasible for addressing harmful and other patterns of unhealthy alcohol use in LMICs is limited, which contributes to this gap in services.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of psychosocial and pharmacologic treatment and indicated prevention interventions compared with control conditions (wait list, placebo, no treatment, standard care, or active control condition) aimed at reducing harmful alcohol use in LMICs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indexed in the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, the Cochrane Clinical Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) through 12 December 2021. We searched clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Web of Science, and Opengrey database to identify unpublished or ongoing studies. We searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles for eligible studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All RCTs comparing an indicated prevention or treatment intervention (pharmacologic or psychosocial) versus a control condition for people with harmful alcohol use in LMICs were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 66 RCTs with 17,626 participants. Sixty-two of these trials contributed to the meta-analysis. Sixty-three studies were conducted in middle-income countries (MICs), and the remaining three studies were conducted in low-income countries (LICs). Twenty-five trials exclusively enrolled participants with alcohol use disorder. The remaining 51 trials enrolled participants with harmful alcohol use, some of which included both cases of alcohol use disorder and people reporting hazardous alcohol use patterns that did not meet criteria for disorder. Fifty-two RCTs assessed the efficacy of psychosocial interventions; 27 were brief interventions primarily based on motivational interviewing and were compared to brief advice, information, or assessment only. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to brief interventions given the high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Studies reporting continuous outcomes: Tau² = 0.15, Q =139.64, df =16, P<.001, I² = 89%, 3913 participants, 17 trials, very low certainty; Studies reporting dichotomous outcomes: Tau²=0.18, Q=58.26, df=3, P<.001, I² =95%, 1349 participants, 4 trials, very low certainty). The other types of psychosocial interventions included a range of therapeutic approaches such as behavioral risk reduction, cognitive-behavioral therapy, contingency management, rational emotive therapy, and relapse prevention. These interventions were most commonly compared to usual care involving varying combinations of psychoeducation, counseling, and pharmacotherapy. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to psychosocial treatments due to high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 1.15; Q = 444.32, df = 11, P<.001; I²=98%, 2106 participants, 12 trials, very low certainty). Eight trials compared combined pharmacologic and psychosocial interventions with placebo, psychosocial intervention alone, or another pharmacologic treatment. The active pharmacologic study conditions included disulfiram, naltrexone, ondansetron, or topiramate. The psychosocial components of these interventions included counseling, encouragement to attend Alcoholics Anonymous, motivational interviewing, brief cognitive-behavioral therapy, or other psychotherapy (not specified). Analysis of studies comparing a combined pharmacologic and psychosocial intervention to psychosocial intervention alone found that the combined approach may be associated with a greater reduction in harmful alcohol use (standardized mean difference (standardized mean difference (SMD))=-0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.61 to -0.24; 475 participants; 4 trials; low certainty). Four trials compared pharmacologic intervention alone with placebo and three with another pharmacotherapy. Drugs assessed were: acamprosate, amitriptyline, baclofen disulfiram, gabapentin, mirtazapine, and naltrexone. None of these trials evaluated the primary clinical outcome of interest, harmful alcohol use. Thirty-one trials reported rates of retention in the intervention. Meta-analyses revealed that rates of retention between study conditions did not differ in any of the comparisons (pharmacologic risk ratio (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.44, 247 participants, 3 trials, low certainty; pharmacologic in addition to psychosocial intervention: RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.40, 363 participants, 3 trials, moderate certainty). Due to high levels of heterogeneity, we did not calculate pooled estimates comparing retention in brief (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Q = 172.59, df = 11, P<.001; I = 94%; 5380 participants; 12 trials, very low certainty) or other psychosocial interventions (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; Q = 34.07, df = 8, P<.001; I = 77%; 1664 participants; 9 trials, very low certainty). Two pharmacologic trials and three combined pharmacologic and psychosocial trials reported on side effects. These studies found more side effects attributable to amitriptyline relative to mirtazapine, naltrexone and topiramate relative to placebo, yet no differences in side effects between placebo and either acamprosate or ondansetron. Across all intervention types there was substantial risk of bias. Primary threats to validity included lack of blinding and differential/high rates of attrition.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In LMICs there is low-certainty evidence supporting the efficacy of combined psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use relative to psychosocial interventions alone. There is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of pharmacologic or psychosocial interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use largely due to the substantial heterogeneity in outcomes, comparisons, and interventions that precluded pooling of these data in meta-analyses. The majority of studies are brief interventions, primarily among men, and using measures that have not been validated in the target population. Confidence in these results is reduced by the risk of bias and significant heterogeneity among studies as well as the heterogeneity of results on different outcome measures within studies. More evidence on the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions, specific types of psychosocial interventions are needed to increase the certainty of these results.
Topics: Humans; Male; Acamprosate; Alcoholism; Amitriptyline; Developing Countries; Disulfiram; Mirtazapine; Naltrexone; Ondansetron; Topiramate
PubMed: 37158538
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013350.pub2 -
Journal of Psychiatric Practice Jan 2023Antidepressant-induced pancreatitis is a rare, albeit serious, adverse effect, with a frequency of occurrence that is not equally distributed among antidepressant drugs....
OBJECTIVE
Antidepressant-induced pancreatitis is a rare, albeit serious, adverse effect, with a frequency of occurrence that is not equally distributed among antidepressant drugs. The goal of this study was to investigate the association and causal relationship between mirtazapine treatment of patients with depression and pancreatitis.
METHODS
The study was designed as a systematic review of the literature, accompanied by the description of a new case of mirtazapine-associated acute pancreatitis.
RESULTS
Nine cases of mirtazapine-associated pancreatitis have been reported, involving 7 female patients and 2 male patients with a mean age of 46.4 years (range: 26 to 83 y of age). All of the patients were hospitalized, with an average length of stay of 16.2 days (range: 3 to 34 d). In 6 cases, "de-challenge" followed by improvement was reported. The patients for whom the outcome was reported (7 of 9) recovered completely.
CONCLUSION
Although a rare adverse effect, mirtazapine-induced pancreatitis should be considered when patients taking mirtazapine report abdominal discomfort.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Middle Aged; Mirtazapine; Acute Disease; Depression; Pancreatitis; Antidepressive Agents; Mianserin; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic
PubMed: 36649554
DOI: 10.1097/PRA.0000000000000687