-
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2020Midazolam is recommended by health guidelines for sedation and hypnosis in children. Oral solution is a suitable dosage form for children. But there is no conclusive...
Midazolam is recommended by health guidelines for sedation and hypnosis in children. Oral solution is a suitable dosage form for children. But there is no conclusive evidence for sedative-hypnosis and antianxiety effects by midazolam oral solution in children. Relevant studies were identified through searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, International Pharmaceuticals, four Chinese electronic databases, and relevant lists. Two reviewers independently selected trials, assessed trial quality, and extracted the data. Eighty-nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing midazolam oral solution with placebo or blank ( = 33), dexmedetomidine ( = 15), ketamine ( = 11), different midazolam doses ( = 10), midazolam injection ( = 8), chloral hydrate ( = 7), diazepam ( = 5), NO ( = 5), triclofos ( = 4), butorphanol ( = 2), fentanyl ( = 2), hydroxyzine ( = 1), and thiopental ( = 1) were identified. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the success rate and duration of sedation and hypnosis between midazolam oral and injectable solution ( > 0.05). The success rate of sedation and hypnosis of midazolam was higher than that of ketamine [risk ratio (RR) = 1.32, 95% CI (1.07, 1.62), = 0%, < 0.01]. No significant difference was found in the success rate of sedation and hypnosis, mask acceptance, and parental separation between midazolam oral solution and dexmedetomidine ( > 0.05), and the result of one cohort study was consistent. The results of RCTs and a prospective cohort study showed that the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADR) was 19.57% (189/966). Incidence of adverse reactions between dose groups of (0.25, 0.5] and (0.5, 1.0] mg/kg was similar [Pf (95% CI) = 0.10 (0.04, 0.24) and Pf (95% CI) = 0.09 (0.02, 0.39), respectively], higher than that of the dose group of (0, 0.25] mg/kg [Pf (95% CI) = 0.01 (0.00, 0.19)]. Available evidence suggests that midazolam oral solution is as good as midazolam injection and dexmedetomidine and is better than ketamine. Based on efficacy and safety results, an oral midazolam solution dose of 0.5-1 mg/kg is recommended for children.
PubMed: 32256348
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.00225 -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2023Postictal agitation (PIA) after electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a serious clinical problem estimated to occur in 7-36% of patients and recur in 19-54% of patients....
BACKGROUND
Postictal agitation (PIA) after electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a serious clinical problem estimated to occur in 7-36% of patients and recur in 19-54% of patients. PIA has the potential to cause dangerous situations for the patient and staff members aside from the financial impact. To date, it is unclear which pharmacological interventions should be used in the management of PIA. This study aimed to systematically review the (preventative) pharmacological treatment options for PIA after ECT.
METHOD
A systematic search was done in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception until 10 November 2022. We included randomized trials with any pharmacological intervention or comparison and a predefined outcome measure on PIA. Studies that solely included patients with neurodegenerative disorders or stroke were excluded. Data quality was assessed with the RoB2 and GRADE. Meta-analysis was performed if possible. This study was registered on PROSPERO under CRD42021262323.
RESULTS
We screened 2,204 articles and included 14 studies. Dexmedetomidine was investigated in 10 studies. Alfentanil, lignocaine, esmolol, midazolam, propofol, ketamine, haloperidol, and diazepam were each studied in only one study. Meta-analysis revealed an OR of 0.45 (0.32-0.63), a moderate effect size, in favor of dexmedetomidine than placebo to prevent PIA with very low heterogeneity (I = 0%). The certainty of the evidence was moderate. The other interventions studied were all found to have low certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSION
For clinical practice, we believe that our results indicate that dexmedetomidine should be considered for the prevention of PIA in patients that have previously experienced PIA.
PubMed: 37151968
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1170931 -
Journal of Neurology Jul 2022Convulsive status epilepticus is the most severe form of epilepsy and requires urgent treatment. We synthesised the current evidence on first-line treatments for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Convulsive status epilepticus is the most severe form of epilepsy and requires urgent treatment. We synthesised the current evidence on first-line treatments for controlling seizures in adults with convulsive status epilepticus before, or at, arrival at hospital.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing antiepileptic drugs offered to adults as first-line treatments. Major electronic databases were searched.
RESULTS
Four RCTs (1234 adults) were included. None were conducted in the UK and none assessed the use of buccal or intranasal midazolam. Both intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam administered by paramedics were more effective than placebo and, notably, intramuscular midazolam was non-inferior to intravenous lorazepam. Overall, median time to seizure cessation from drug administration varied from 2 to 15 min. Rates of respiratory depression among participants receiving active treatments ranged from 6.4 to 10.6%. Mortality ranged from 2 to 7.6% in active treatment groups and 6.2 to 15.5% in control groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Intravenous and intramuscular benzodiazepines are safe and effective in this clinical context. Further research is needed to establish the most clinically and cost-effective first-line treatment and preferable mode of administration. Head-to-head trials comparing buccal versus intranasal midazolam versus rectal diazepam would provide useful information to inform the management of the first stage of convulsive status epilepticus in adults, especially when intravenous or intramuscular access is not feasible. Approaches to improve adherence to clinical guidelines on the use of currently available benzodiazepines for the first-line treatment of convulsive status epilepticus should also be considered.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Diazepam; Humans; Lorazepam; Midazolam; Seizures; Status Epilepticus
PubMed: 35094154
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-022-10979-2 -
BMJ Open Jan 2021It can be challenging to manage patients who are anxious during dental procedures. There is a lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of oral sedation in...
OBJECTIVES
It can be challenging to manage patients who are anxious during dental procedures. There is a lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of oral sedation in adults. This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of oral sedation in patients undergoing dental procedures.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
METHODS
Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) compared the oral use of benzodiazepines and other medications with a placebo or other oral agents in adult patients. A search of the Cochrane (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (via Ovid) databases was conducted, without any restrictions on language or date of publication. The primary outcomes included the adverse effects and anxiety level. The secondary outcomes included sedation, satisfaction with the treatment, heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure and oxygen saturation. Reviewers, independently and in pairs, assessed each citation for eligibility, performed the data extraction and assessed the risk of bias. A narrative synthesis of the data was provided.
RESULTS
A number of RCTs (n=327 patients) assessed the use of benzodiazepines (n=9) and herbal medicines (n=3). We found good satisfaction with treatment after the use of midazolam 7.5 mg or clonidine 150 µg and reduced anxiety with alprazolam (0.5 and 0.75 mg). Midazolam 15 mg promoted greater anxiety reduction than L. 260 mg, while 100 mg and 500 mg were more effective than a placebo. More patients reported adverse effects with midazolam 15 mg. Diazepam 15 mg and 100 mg promoted less change in the heart rate and blood pressure than a placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the limitations of the findings due to the quality of the included studies and the different comparisons made between interventions, further RCTs are required to confirm the effectiveness and safety of oral sedation in dentistry.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42017057142.
Topics: Adult; Alprazolam; Anesthesia; Benzodiazepines; Diazepam; Humans; Midazolam
PubMed: 33495257
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043363 -
BMC Psychiatry Nov 2021Social cognition is an important area of mental functioning relevant to psychiatric disorders and social functioning, that may be affected by psychiatric drug...
INTRODUCTION
Social cognition is an important area of mental functioning relevant to psychiatric disorders and social functioning, that may be affected by psychiatric drug treatments. The aim of this review was to investigate the effects of medications with sedative properties, on social cognition.
METHOD
This systematic review included experimental and neuroimaging studies investigating drug effects on social cognition. Data quality was assessed using a modified Downs and Black checklist (Trac et al. CMAJ 188: E120-E129, 2016). The review used narrative synthesis to analyse the data.
RESULTS
40 papers were identified for inclusion, 11 papers investigating benzodiazepine effects, and 29 investigating antipsychotic effects, on social cognition. Narrative synthesis showed that diazepam impairs healthy volunteer's emotion recognition, with supporting neuroimaging studies showing benzodiazepines attenuate amygdala activity. Studies of antipsychotic effects on social cognition gave variable results. However, many of these studies were in patients already taking medication, and potential practice effects were identified due to short-term follow-ups.
CONCLUSION
Healthy volunteer studies suggest that diazepam reduces emotional processing ability. The effects of benzodiazepines on other aspects of social cognition, as well as the effects of antipsychotics, remain unclear. Interpretations of the papers in this review were limited by variability in measures, small sample sizes, and lack of randomisation. More robust studies are necessary to evaluate the impact of these medications on social cognition.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Humans; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Schizophrenia; Social Cognition
PubMed: 34844572
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-021-03545-z -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Impaction of a soft food bolus in the oesophagus causes dysphagia and regurgitation. If the bolus does not pass spontaneously, then the patient is at risk of aspiration,...
BACKGROUND
Impaction of a soft food bolus in the oesophagus causes dysphagia and regurgitation. If the bolus does not pass spontaneously, then the patient is at risk of aspiration, dehydration, perforation, and death. Definitive management is with endoscopic intervention, recommended within 24 hours. Prior to endoscopy, many patients undergo a period of observation, awaiting spontaneous disimpaction, or may undergo enteral or parenteral treatments to attempt to dislodge the bolus. There is little consensus as to which of these conservative strategies is safe and effective to be used in this initial period, before resorting to definitive endoscopic management for persistent impaction.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of non-endoscopic conservative treatments in the management of soft food boluses impacted within the oesophagus.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases, using relevant search terms: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. The date of the search was 18 August 2019. We screened the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews on the topic to identify any additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of the management of acute oesophageal soft food bolus impaction, in adults and children, reporting the incidence of disimpaction (confirmed radiologically or clinically by return to oral diet) without the need for endoscopic intervention. We did not include studies focusing on sharp or solid object impaction.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 890 unique records through the electronic searches. We excluded 809 clearly irrelevant records and retrieved 81 records for further assessment. We subsequently included one randomised controlled trial that met the eligibility criteria, which was conducted in four Swedish centres and randomised 43 participants to receive either intravenous diazepam followed by glucagon, or intravenous placebos. The effect of the active substances compared with placebo on rates of disimpaction without intervention is uncertain, as the numbers from this single study were small, and the rates were similar (38% versus 32%; risk ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 2.75, P = 0.69). The certainty of the evidence using GRADE for this outcome is low. Data on adverse events were lacking.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently inadequate data to recommend the use of any enteral or parenteral treatments in the management of acute oesophageal soft food bolus impaction. There is also inadequate data regarding potential adverse events from the use of these treatments, or from potential delays in definitive endoscopic management. Caution should be exercised when using any conservative management strategies in these patients.
Topics: Conservative Treatment; Deglutition Disorders; Diazepam; Food; Gastrointestinal Agents; Glucagon; Humans; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Muscle Relaxants, Central; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32391954
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007352.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2021Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties, weight loss, seizures and neurodevelopmental problems.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of using an opioid for treatment of NAS due to withdrawal from opioids in newborn infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We ran an updated search on 17 September 2020 in CENTRAL via Cochrane Register of Studies Web and MEDLINE via Ovid. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for eligible trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi- and cluster-RCTs which enrolled infants born to mothers with opioid dependence and who were experiencing NAS requiring treatment with an opioid.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 trials (1110 infants) with NAS secondary to maternal opioid use in pregnancy. Seven studies at low risk of bias were included in sensitivity analysis. Opioid versus no treatment / usual care: a single trial (80 infants) of morphine and supportive care versus supportive care alone reported no difference in treatment failure (risk ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 4.07; very low certainty evidence). No infant had a seizure. The trial did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. Morphine increased days hospitalisation (mean difference (MD) 15.00, 95% CI 8.86 to 21.14; very low certainty evidence) and treatment (MD 12.50, 95% CI 7.52 to 17.48; very low certainty evidence), but decreased days to regain birthweight (MD -2.80, 95% CI -5.33 to -0.27) and duration (minutes) of supportive care each day (MD -197.20, 95% CI -274.15 to -120.25). Morphine versus methadone: there was no difference in treatment failure (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.67; 2 studies, 147 infants; low certainty evidence). Seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study reported no difference in days hospitalisation (MD 1.40, 95% CI -3.08 to 5.88; 116 infants; low certainty evidence), whereas data from two studies found an increase in days treatment (MD 2.71, 95% CI 0.22 to 5.21; 147 infants; low certainty) for infants treated with morphine. A single study reported no difference in breastfeeding, adverse events, or out of home placement. Morphine versus sublingual buprenorphine: there was no difference in treatment failure (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.74; 3 studies, 113 infants; very low certainty evidence). Neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. There was moderate certainty evidence of an increase in days hospitalisation (MD 11.45, 95% CI 5.89 to 17.01; 3 studies, 113 infants), and days treatment (MD 12.79, 95% CI 7.57 to 18.00; 3 studies, 112 infants) for infants treated with morphine. A single adverse event (seizure) was reported in infants exposed to buprenorphine. Morphine versus diluted tincture of opium (DTO): a single study (33 infants) reported no difference in days hospitalisation, days treatment or weight gain (low certainty evidence). Opioid versus clonidine: a single study (31 infants) reported no infant with treatment failure in either group. This study did not report seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability. There was low certainty evidence for no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment. This study did not report adverse events. Opioid versus diazepam: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of an opioid (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80; 2 studies, 86 infants; low certainty evidence). Seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study of 34 infants comparing methadone versus diazepam reported no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment (very low certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported. Opioid versus phenobarbital: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of an opioid (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.74; 6 studies, 458 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis found a reduction in treatment failure in trials titrating morphine to ≧ 0.5 mg/kg/day (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.45; 3 studies, 230 infants), whereas a single study using morphine < 0.5 mg/kg/day reported no difference compared to use of phenobarbital (subgroup difference P = 0.05). Neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study (111 infants) of paregoric versus phenobarbital reported seven infants with seizures in the phenobarbital group, whereas no seizures were reported in two studies (170 infants) comparing morphine to phenobarbital. There was no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment. A single study (96 infants) reported no adverse events in either group. Opioid versus chlorpromazine: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of morphine versus chlorpromazine (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.62; 1 study, 90 infants; moderate certainty evidence). No seizures were reported in either group. There was low certainty evidence for no difference in days treatment. This trial reported no adverse events in either group. None of the included studies reported time to control of NAS. Data for duration and severity of NAS were limited, and we were unable to use these data in quantitative synthesis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to supportive care alone, the addition of an opioid may increase duration of hospitalisation and treatment, but may reduce days to regain birthweight and the duration of supportive care each day. Use of an opioid may reduce treatment failure compared to phenobarbital, diazepam or chlorpromazine. Use of an opioid may have little or no effect on duration of hospitalisation or treatment compared to use of phenobarbital, diazepam or chlorpromazine. The type of opioid used may have little or no effect on the treatment failure rate. Use of buprenorphine probably reduces duration of hospitalisation and treatment compared to morphine, but there are no data for time to control NAS with buprenorphine, and insufficient evidence to determine safety. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness and safety of clonidine.
Topics: Buprenorphine; Chlorpromazine; Clonidine; Diazepam; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant, Newborn; Methadone; Morphine; Narcotics; Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome; Opioid-Related Disorders; Opium; Phenobarbital; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34231914
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002059.pub4 -
The Pharmacogenomics Journal Dec 2021Variable responses to medications complicates perioperative care. As a potential solution, we evaluated and synthesized pharmacogenomic evidence that may inform...
Variable responses to medications complicates perioperative care. As a potential solution, we evaluated and synthesized pharmacogenomic evidence that may inform anesthesia and pain prescribing to identify clinically actionable drug/gene pairs. Clinical decision-support (CDS) summaries were developed and were evaluated using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. We found that 93/180 (51%) of commonly-used perioperative medications had some published pharmacogenomic information, with 18 having actionable evidence: celecoxib/diclofenac/flurbiprofen/ibuprofen/piroxicam/CYP2C9, codeine/oxycodone/tramadol CYP2D6, desflurane/enflurane/halothane/isoflurane/sevoflurane/succinylcholine/RYR1/CACNA1S, diazepam/CYP2C19, phenytoin/CYP2C9, succinylcholine/mivacurium/BCHE, and morphine/OPRM1. Novel CDS summaries were developed for these 18 medications. AGREE II mean ± standard deviation scores were high for Scope and Purpose (95.0 ± 2.8), Rigor of Development (93.2 ± 2.8), Clarity of Presentation (87.3 ± 3.0), and Applicability (86.5 ± 3.7) (maximum score = 100). Overall mean guideline quality score was 6.7 ± 0.2 (maximum score = 7). All summaries were recommended for clinical implementation. A critical mass of pharmacogenomic evidence exists for select medications commonly used in the perioperative setting, warranting prospective examination for clinical utility.
Topics: Analgesics; Anesthetics; Clinical Decision-Making; Decision Support Techniques; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Perioperative Care; Pharmacogenetics; Pharmacogenomic Testing; Pharmacogenomic Variants; Predictive Value of Tests; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34376788
DOI: 10.1038/s41397-021-00248-2 -
Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2019Chloral hydrate (CH), as a sedation agent, is widely used in children for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. However, it has not come into the market and is currently... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Chloral hydrate (CH), as a sedation agent, is widely used in children for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. However, it has not come into the market and is currently only used as hospital preparation in China. This review aims to systematically evaluate the efficacy of CH in children of all age groups for sedation before medical procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Seven electronic databases and three clinical trial registry platforms were searched and the deadline was September 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of CH for sedation in children were included by two reviewers. The extracted information included success rate of sedation, sedation latency and sedation duration. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was applied to assess the risk of bias. The outcomes were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3 software and expressed as relative risks (RR) or Mean Difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed with I-squared (I) statistics.
RESULTS
A total of 24 RCTs involving 3564 children of CH for sedation were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to placebo group, CH group had a significant increase in success rate of sedation when used for painless and painful procedure (RR=4.15, 95% CI [1.21, 14.24], P=0.02; RR=1.28, 95% CI [1.17, 1.40], P<0.01), which included 22 and 455 children for this analysis, respectively. Compared to midazolam group, CH group had a significant increase in success rate of sedation (RR=1.63, 95% CI [1.48, 1.79], I=0%, P<0.00001), sedation latency (MD=13.29, 95% CI [11.42, 15.16], I=0%, P<0.00001) and sedation duration (MD=17.52, 95% CI [10.3, 24.71], I=0%, P<0.05), which included 1052, 710 and 727 children for this analysis, respectively. Compared to diazepam, there was no significant difference in success rate of sedation (RR=0.93, 95% CI [0.80, 1.08], I=52%, P=0.32), which included 230 children for this analysis. Compared to dexmedetomidine, there was no significant difference in the success rate of sedation (RR=0.92, 95% CI [0.80, 1.06], I=48%, P=0.27) and sedation latency (RR=-1.09, 95% CI [-2.45, 0.26], I=26%, P=0.11), which included 512 and 371 children for this analysis, respectively. Compared to barbiturates, there was no significant difference in the success rate of sedation (RR=1.03, 95% CI [0.94, 1.13], I=50%, P=0.58) and sedation duration (MD=-0.72, 95% CI [-1.78, 0.34], I=38%, P=0.18), which included 749 and 210 children for this analysis, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
From the extrapolation of the existing literature, CH oral solution is an appropriate effective alternative for sedation in pediatrics.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anxiety; Child; China; Chloral Hydrate; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Pain; Solutions
PubMed: 31534313
DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S201820 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Conversion and dissociative disorders are conditions where people experience unusual neurological symptoms or changes in awareness or identity. However, symptoms and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Conversion and dissociative disorders are conditions where people experience unusual neurological symptoms or changes in awareness or identity. However, symptoms and clinical signs cannot be explained by a neurological disease or other medical condition. Instead, a psychological stressor or trauma is often present. The symptoms are real and can cause significant distress or problems with functioning in everyday life for the people experiencing them.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of psychosocial interventions of conversion and dissociative disorders in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted database searches between 16 July and 16 August 2019. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other databases, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials that compared psychosocial interventions for conversion and dissociative disorders with standard care, wait list or other interventions (pharmaceutical, somatic or psychosocial). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We selected, quality assessed and extracted data from the identified studies. Two review authors independently performed all tasks. We used standard Cochrane methodology. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. We assessed and downgraded the evidence according to the GRADE system for risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness, inconsistency and publication bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 studies (16 with parallel-group designs and one with a cross-over design), with 894 participants aged 18 to 80 years (female:male ratio 3:1). The data were separated into 12 comparisons based on the different interventions and comparators. Studies were pooled into the same comparison when identical interventions and comparisons were evaluated. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded as a consequence of potential risk of bias, as many of the studies had unclear or inadequate allocation concealment. Further downgrading was performed due to imprecision, few participants and inconsistency. There were 12 comparisons for the primary outcome of reduction in physical signs. Inpatient paradoxical intention therapy compared with outpatient diazepam: inpatient paradoxical intention therapy did not reduce conversive symptoms compared with outpatient diazepam at the end of treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.28; 1 study, 30 participants; P = 0.12; very low-quality evidence). Inpatient treatment programme plus hypnosis compared with inpatient treatment programme: inpatient treatment programme plus hypnosis did not reduce severity of impairment compared with inpatient treatment programme at the end of treatment (MD -0.49 (negative value better), 95% CI -1.28 to 0.30; 1 study, 45 participants; P = 0.23; very low-quality evidence). Outpatient hypnosis compared with wait list: outpatient hypnosis might reduce severity of impairment compared with wait list at the end of treatment (MD 2.10 (higher value better), 95% CI 1.34 to 2.86; 1 study, 49 participants; P < 0.00001; low-quality evidence). Behavioural therapy plus routine clinical care compared with routine clinical care: behavioural therapy plus routine clinical care might reduce the number of weekly seizures compared with routine clinical care alone at the end of treatment (MD -21.40 (negative value better), 95% CI -27.88 to -14.92; 1 study, 18 participants; P < 0.00001; very low-quality evidence). Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) compared with standard medical care: CBT did not reduce monthly seizure frequency compared to standard medical care at end of treatment (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 6.19; 1 study, 16 participants; P = 0.53; very low-quality evidence). CBT did not reduce physical signs compared to standard medical care at the end of treatment (MD -4.75 (negative value better), 95% CI -18.73 to 9.23; 1 study, 61 participants; P = 0.51; low-quality evidence). CBT did not reduce seizure freedom compared to standard medical care at end of treatment (RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.30 to 17.88; 1 trial, 16 participants; P = 0.41; very low-quality evidence). Psychoeducational follow-up programmes compared with treatment as usual (TAU): no study measured reduction in physical signs at end of treatment. Specialised CBT-based physiotherapy inpatient programme compared with wait list: no study measured reduction in physical signs at end of treatment. Specialised CBT-based physiotherapy outpatient intervention compared with TAU: no study measured reduction in physical signs at end of treatment. Brief psychotherapeutic intervention (psychodynamic interpersonal treatment approach) compared with standard care: brief psychotherapeutic interventions did not reduce conversion symptoms compared to standard care at end of treatment (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.00; 1 study, 19 participants; P = 0.14; very low-quality evidence). CBT plus adjunctive physical activity (APA) compared with CBT alone: CBT plus APA did not reduce overall physical impacts compared to CBT alone at end of treatment (MD 5.60 (negative value better), 95% CI -15.48 to 26.68; 1 study, 21 participants; P = 0.60; very low-quality evidence). Hypnosis compared to diazepam: hypnosis did not reduce symptoms compared to diazepam at end of treatment (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.24; 1 study, 40 participants; P = 0.22; very low-quality evidence). Outpatient motivational interviewing (MI) and mindfulness-based psychotherapy compared with psychotherapy alone: psychotherapy preceded by MI might decrease seizure frequency compared with psychotherapy alone at end of treatment (MD 41.40 (negative value better), 95% CI 4.92 to 77.88; 1 study, 54 participants; P = 0.03; very low-quality evidence). The effect on the secondary outcomes was reported in 16/17 studies. None of the studies reported results on adverse effects. In the studies reporting on level of functioning and quality of life at end of treatment the effects ranged from small to no effect.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The results of the meta-analysis and reporting of single studies suggest there is lack of evidence regarding the effects of any psychosocial intervention on conversion and dissociative disorders in adults. It is not possible to draw any conclusions about potential benefits or harms from the included studies.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Conversion Disorder; Diazepam; Humans; Hypnosis; Middle Aged; Psychotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 32681745
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005331.pub3