-
Clinical Drug Investigation Apr 2021Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for schizophrenia show different risk profiles, whose evidence has been evaluated through comparative reviews on randomized... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for schizophrenia show different risk profiles, whose evidence has been evaluated through comparative reviews on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of weight gains, metabolic and cardiovascular side effects of SGAs, relying on both RCTs and observational studies, by comparing variations between the start of treatment and the end of follow-up. The systematic review refers to papers published from June 2009 to November 2020. PRISMA criteria were followed. No restrictions on heterogeneity level have been considered for meta-analysis. A test for the summary effect measure and heterogeneity (I metric) was used.
RESULTS
Seventy-nine papers were selected from 3076 studies (61% RCTs, 39% observational studies). Olanzapine and risperidone reported the greatest weight gain and olanzapine the largest BMI increase. Paliperidone showed the highest increase in total cholesterol, but is the only drug reporting an increase in the HDL cholesterol. Quetiapine XR showed the highest decrease in fasting glucose. Lurasidone showed the lowest increase in body weight and a reduction in BMI and was also the only treatment reporting a decrease in total cholesterol and triglycerides. The highest increase in systolic and diastolic blood pressure was reported by quetiapine XR.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite some limitations (differences in the mean dosages per patient and other side effects not included) this paper provides the first complete meta-analysis on SGAs in variations on metabolic risk profile between start of treatment and end of follow-up, with useful results for clinical practice and possibly for future economic evaluation studies.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Weight Gain
PubMed: 33686614
DOI: 10.1007/s40261-021-01000-1 -
Laeknabladid Sep 2022The hallucinogen psilocybin is a potential novel treatment for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Our goal is to review current knowledge on psilocybin and its...
The hallucinogen psilocybin is a potential novel treatment for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Our goal is to review current knowledge on psilocybin and its efficacy in TRD. Literature searches were done on PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar, references reviewed in identified articles and other articles found on the website of COMPASS Pathways. Psilocybin treatment consists usually of a single oral administration of 25 mg of psilocybin along with psychological support for 5-8 hours during the ensuing hallucinogenic trip. Common side-effects include headache, nausea, fatigue and insomnia. A systematic review has demonstrated significant antidepressant efficacy in certain groups and a double-blind randomized study found antidepressant efficacy of psilocybin comparable to the SSRI escitalopram. In the phase 2 study of COMPASS Pathways, the psilocybin-COMP360 treatment led to a rapid response and remission as early as three weeks following the treatment for around one third of participants. Recent studies have shown that psilocybin significantly decreases the severity of depressive symptoms and is generally well tolerated. Further research will reveal whether it will be granted a license to treat treatment-resistant depression in the near future. There remains an urgent need for novel treatments for those who do not respond to current antidepressant therapies.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant; Hallucinogens; Humans; Psilocybin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36040772
DOI: 10.17992/lbl.2022.09.706 -
General Hospital Psychiatry 2022Schizophrenia and antipsychotic use are associated with clinically significant weight gain and subsequent increased mortality. Despite weight loss medications (WLMs)... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Schizophrenia and antipsychotic use are associated with clinically significant weight gain and subsequent increased mortality. Despite weight loss medications (WLMs) licensed by regulatory bodies (FDA, EMA, and MHRA) being available, current psychiatric guidelines recommend off-label alternatives, which differ from non-psychiatric guidelines for obesity.
OBJECTIVE
Evaluate the efficacy of licensed WLMs on treating antipsychotic-induced weight gain (AIWG) and obesity in schizophrenia and psychosis (OSP).
METHOD
A literature search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library online databases for human studies using licensed WLMs to treat AIWG and OSP.
RESULTS
Three RCTs (two liraglutide, one naltrexone-bupropion), one unpublished open-label trial (naltrexone-bupropion), and seven observational studies (five liraglutide, one semaglutide, one multiple WLMs) were identified. Results for liraglutide showed statistically significant improvement in weight, BMI, waist circumference, HbA1c, cholesterol, and LDL readings on meta-analysis. Evidence was mixed for naltrexone-bupropion with no detailed studies conducted for setmelanotide, or stimulants.
CONCLUSION
Evidence is strongest for liraglutide compared to other licensed WLMs. The findings, particularly the inclusion of human trial data, provide evidence for liraglutide use in treating AIWG and OSP, which would better align psychiatric practice with non-psychiatric practices around obesity. The findings also identify continued literature gaps regarding other licensed WLMs.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Bupropion; Humans; Liraglutide; Naltrexone; Obesity; Psychotic Disorders; Schizophrenia; Weight Gain
PubMed: 35863294
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2022.07.006 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Antipsychotic-induced weight gain is an extremely common problem in people with schizophrenia and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Adjunctive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Antipsychotic-induced weight gain is an extremely common problem in people with schizophrenia and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Adjunctive pharmacological interventions may be necessary to help manage antipsychotic-induced weight gain. This review splits and updates a previous Cochrane Review that focused on both pharmacological and behavioural approaches to this problem.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for preventing antipsychotic-induced weight gain in people with schizophrenia.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Schizophrenia Information Specialist searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's Register of Trials on 10 February 2021. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined any adjunctive pharmacological intervention for preventing weight gain in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses who use antipsychotic medications.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. For continuous outcomes, we combined mean differences (MD) in endpoint and change data in the analysis. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR). We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to judge certainty of evidence and create summary of findings tables. The primary outcomes for this review were clinically important change in weight, clinically important change in body mass index (BMI), leaving the study early, compliance with treatment, and frequency of nausea. The included studies rarely reported these outcomes, so, post hoc, we added two new outcomes, average endpoint/change in weight and average endpoint/change in BMI.
MAIN RESULTS
Seventeen RCTs, with a total of 1388 participants, met the inclusion criteria for the review. Five studies investigated metformin, three topiramate, three H2 antagonists, three monoamine modulators, and one each investigated monoamine modulators plus betahistine, melatonin and samidorphan. The comparator in all studies was placebo or no treatment (i.e. standard care alone). We synthesised all studies in a quantitative meta-analysis. Most studies inadequately reported their methods of allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel. The resulting risk of bias and often small sample sizes limited the overall certainty of the evidence. Only one reboxetine study reported the primary outcome, number of participants with clinically important change in weight. Fewer people in the treatment condition experienced weight gains of more than 5% and more than 7% of their bodyweight than those in the placebo group (> 5% weight gain RR 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.65; 1 study, 43 participants; > 7% weight gain RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.83; 1 study, 43 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the primary outcomes, 'clinically important change in BMI', or 'compliance with treatment'. However, several studies reported 'average endpoint/change in body weight' or 'average endpoint/change in BMI'. Metformin may be effective in preventing weight gain (MD -4.03 kg, 95% CI -5.78 to -2.28; 4 studies, 131 participants; low-certainty evidence); and BMI increase (MD -1.63 kg/m2, 95% CI -2.96 to -0.29; 5 studies, 227 participants; low-certainty evidence). Other agents that may be slightly effective in preventing weight gain include H2 antagonists such as nizatidine, famotidine and ranitidine (MD -1.32 kg, 95% CI -2.09 to -0.56; 3 studies, 248 participants; low-certainty evidence) and monoamine modulators such as reboxetine and fluoxetine (weight: MD -1.89 kg, 95% CI -3.31 to -0.47; 3 studies, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence; BMI: MD -0.66 kg/m2, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.26; 3 studies, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Topiramate did not appear effective in preventing weight gain (MD -4.82 kg, 95% CI -9.99 to 0.35; 3 studies, 168 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For all agents, there was no difference between groups in terms of individuals leaving the study or reports of nausea. However, the results of these outcomes are uncertain given the very low-certainty evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is low-certainty evidence to suggest that metformin may be effective in preventing weight gain. Interpretation of this result and those for other agents, is limited by the small number of studies, small sample size, and short study duration. In future, we need studies that are adequately powered and with longer treatment durations to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of interventions for managing weight gain.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Betahistine; Famotidine; Fluoxetine; Humans; Melatonin; Metformin; Nausea; Nizatidine; Ranitidine; Reboxetine; Schizophrenia; Topiramate; Weight Gain
PubMed: 36190739
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013337.pub2 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Aug 2022The use of low doses of psychedelic substances (microdosing) is attracting increasing interest. This systematic review summarises all empirical microdosing research to... (Review)
Review
The use of low doses of psychedelic substances (microdosing) is attracting increasing interest. This systematic review summarises all empirical microdosing research to date, including a set of infrequently cited studies that took place prior to prohibition. Specifically, we reviewed 44 studies published between 1955 and 2021, and summarised reported effects across six categories: mood and mental health; wellbeing and attitude; cognition and creativity; personality; changes in conscious state; and neurobiology and physiology. Studies showed a wide range in risk of bias, depending on design, age, and other study characteristics. Laboratory studies found changes in pain perception, time perception, conscious state, and neurophysiology. Self-report studies found changes in cognitive processing and mental health. We review data related to expectation and placebo effects, but argue that claims that microdosing effects are largely due to expectancy are premature and possibly wrong. In addition, we attempt to clarify definitional inconsistencies in the microdosing literature by providing suggested dose ranges across different substances. Finally, we provide specific design suggestions to facilitate more rigorous future research.
Topics: Affect; Creativity; Hallucinogens; Humans; Mental Health; Personality; Psilocybin
PubMed: 35609684
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104706 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Jun 2023ECT is considered the fastest and most effective treatment for TRD. Ketamine seems to be an attractive alternative due to its rapid-onset antidepressant effects and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
ECT is considered the fastest and most effective treatment for TRD. Ketamine seems to be an attractive alternative due to its rapid-onset antidepressant effects and impact on suicidal thoughts. This study aimed to compare efficacy and tolerability of ECT and ketamine for different depression outcomes (PROSPERO/CRD42022349220).
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library and trial registries, which were the ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, without restrictions on publication date.
SELECTION CRITERIA
randomized controlled trials or cohorts comparing ketamine versus ECT in patients with TRD.
RESULTS
Eight studies met the inclusion criteria (of 2875 retrieved). Random-effects models comparing ketamine and ECT regarding the following outcomes were conducted: a) reduction of depressive symptoms severity through scales, g = -0.12, p = 0.68; b) response to therapy, RR = 0.89, p = 0.51; c) reported side-effects: dissociative symptoms, RR = 5.41, p = 0.06; nausea, RR = 0.73, p = 0.47; muscle pain, RR = 0.25, p = 0.02; and headache, RR = 0.39, p = 0.08. Influential & subgroup analyses were performed.
LIMITATIONS
Methodological issues with high risk of bias in some of the source material, reduced number of eligible studies with high in-between heterogeneity and small sample sizes.
CONCLUSION
Our study showed no evidence to support the superiority of ketamine over ECT for severity of depressive symptoms and response to therapy. Regarding side effects, there was a statistically significant decreased risk of muscle pain in patients treated with ketamine compared to ECT.
Topics: Humans; Ketamine; Depressive Disorder, Major; Electroconvulsive Therapy; Myalgia; Antidepressive Agents
PubMed: 36907464
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2023.02.152 -
Dental and Medical Problems 2020Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is idiopathic chronic oral pain, associated with depression, anxiety and pain symptoms. The BMS symptoms include a burning sensation in the...
Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is idiopathic chronic oral pain, associated with depression, anxiety and pain symptoms. The BMS symptoms include a burning sensation in the tongue and/or other oral mucosa with no underlying medical or dental reasons. As many BMS patients suffer from psychiatric comorbidities, several psychotropic drugs are included in the management of BMS, reducing the complaint, while managing anxiety, depression and pain disorders. In this review, a search of the published literature regarding the management of BMS was conducted. We discuss the BMS etiology, clinically associated symptoms and available treatment options. The current evidence supports some BMS interventions, including alpha-lipoic acid (ALA), clonazepam, capsaicin, and low-level laser therapy (LLLT); however, there is a lack of robust scientific evidence, and large-scale clinical trials with long follow-up periods are needed to establish the role of these BMS management options. This knowledge could raise the awareness of dentists, psychiatrists and general practitioners about these challenges and the available kinds of treatment to improve multidisciplinary management for better health outcomes.
Topics: Burning Mouth Syndrome; Capsaicin; Clonazepam; Humans; Low-Level Light Therapy; Pain
PubMed: 33113291
DOI: 10.17219/dmp/120991 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Among people with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) who are engaged in clinical care, prescription rates of psychotropic medications are high, despite... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Among people with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) who are engaged in clinical care, prescription rates of psychotropic medications are high, despite the fact that medication use is off-label as a treatment for BPD. Nevertheless, people with BPD often receive several psychotropic drugs at a time for sustained periods.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pharmacological treatment for people with BPD.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers up to February 2022. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals. We did not restrict the search by year of publication, language or type of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatment to placebo, other pharmacologic treatments or a combination of pharmacologic treatments in people of all ages with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were individual BPD symptoms, depression, attrition and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed data analysis using Review Manager 5 and quantified the statistical reliability of the data using Trial Sequential Analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 46 randomised controlled trials (2769 participants) in this review, 45 of which were eligible for quantitative analysis and comprised 2752 participants with BPD in total. This is 18 more trials than the 2010 review on this topic. Participants were predominantly female except for one trial that included men only. The mean age ranged from 16.2 to 39.7 years across the included trials. Twenty-nine different types of medications compared to placebo or other medications were included in the analyses. Seventeen trials were funded or partially funded by the pharmaceutical industry, 10 were funded by universities or research foundations, eight received no funding, and 11 had unclear funding. For all reported effect sizes, negative effect estimates indicate beneficial effects by active medication. Compared with placebo, no difference in effects were observed on any of the primary outcomes at the end of treatment for any medication. Compared with placebo, medication may have little to no effect on BPD symptom severity, although the evidence is of very low certainty (antipsychotics: SMD -0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to 0.08; 8 trials, 951 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.65 to 1.18; 2 trials, 87 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.57; 4 trials, 265 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on self-harm, indicating little to no effect (antipsychotics: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.84; 2 trials, 76 participants; antidepressants: MD 0.45 points on the Overt Aggression Scale-Modified-Self-Injury item (0-5 points), 95% CI -10.55 to 11.45; 1 trial, 20 participants; mood stabilisers: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.48; 1 trial, 276 participants). The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on suicide-related outcomes, with little to no effect (antipsychotics: SMD 0.05, 95 % CI -0.18 to 0.29; 7 trials, 854 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.26, 95% CI -1.62 to 1.09; 2 trials, 45 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.36, 95% CI -1.96 to 1.25; 2 trials, 44 participants). Very low-certainty evidence shows little to no difference between medication and placebo on psychosocial functioning (antipsychotics: SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.00; 7 trials, 904 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.06; 4 trials, 161 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26; 2 trials, 214 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests that antipsychotics may slightly reduce interpersonal problems (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.08; 8 trials, 907 participants), and that mood stabilisers may result in a reduction in this outcome (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.02; 4 trials, 300 participants). Antidepressants may have little to no effect on interpersonal problems, but the corresponding evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.55; 2 trials, 119 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about dropout rates compared with placebo by antipsychotics (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.38; 13 trials, 1216 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference in dropout rates between antidepressants (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.76; 6 trials, 289 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.15; 9 trials, 530 participants), compared to placebo. Reporting on adverse events was poor and mostly non-standardised. The available evidence on non-serious adverse events was of very low certainty for antipsychotics (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.29; 5 trials, 814 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; 1 trial, 276 participants). For antidepressants, no data on adverse events were identified.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review included 18 more trials than the 2010 version, so larger meta-analyses with more statistical power were feasible. We found mostly very low-certainty evidence that medication may result in no difference in any primary outcome. The rest of the secondary outcomes were inconclusive. Very limited data were available for serious adverse events. The review supports the continued understanding that no pharmacological therapy seems effective in specifically treating BPD pathology. More research is needed to understand the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of BPD better. Also, more trials including comorbidities such as trauma-related disorders, major depression, substance use disorders, or eating disorders are needed. Additionally, more focus should be put on male and adolescent samples.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Male; Female; Young Adult; Adult; Borderline Personality Disorder; Reproducibility of Results; Antidepressive Agents; Depressive Disorder, Major; Antipsychotic Agents
PubMed: 36375174
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012956.pub2 -
BMC Psychiatry May 2021While clinical trial evidence has firmly established the efficacy of several atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) for treating bipolar depression, no randomized controlled... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
While clinical trial evidence has firmly established the efficacy of several atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) for treating bipolar depression, no randomized controlled trials (RCT's) comparing AAPs have been conducted. This Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the relative efficacy and tolerability of AAP monotherapy in adults with bipolar depression.
METHODS
Efficacy measures included change in Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Improvement - Bipolar Disorder (CGI-BP), response, and remission. Multiple tolerability outcomes were examined. Results from random effects models were reported as difference in change from baseline for continuous variables or odds ratios for dichotomous variables. Treatments were ranked using the surface under the curve cumulative ranking probabilities. Number needed to treat (NNT) and harm (NNH) were calculated.
RESULTS
Eighteen RCT's met inclusion criteria of the systematic literature review. On change in MADRS, lurasidone (- 4.71 [95% Crl - 6.98, - 2.41]), quetiapine (- 4.80 [- 5.93, - 3.72]), olanzapine (- 4.57 [- 5.92, - 3.20]), and cariprazine (- 2.29 [- 3.47, - 1.09]) were more efficacious than placebo. Lurasidone was associated with a significantly greater odds of response (≥50% improvement in MADRS) compared to cariprazine (1.78 [95% Crl 1.08, 2.77]), aripiprazole (2.38 [1.38, 3.85]), and ziprasidone (2.47 [1.41, 3.98]), but was similar to olanzapine (1.68 [0.99,2.65]) and quetiapine (1.25 [0.78, 1.90]). For change in CGI-BP-S-overall score, lurasidone was significantly better than cariprazine (- 0.38 [95% Crl - 0.66,-0.10]) and ziprasidone (- 0.58 [- 0.91,-0.26]), but similar to quetiapine (- 0.08 [- 0.36, 0.19])and olanzapine (- 0.04 [- 1.41, 1.46]). Lurasidone (0.34 kg [95% Crl - 0.22, 0.89]) and aripiprazole (0.20 kg [- 0.59, 1.00]) had a similar weight change compared to placebo, but olanzapine (2.88 kg [2.40, 3.36]), quetiapine (1.17 kg [0.84, 1.49]), and cariprazine (0.65 kg [0.34, 0.96]) were associated with greater weight gain. The NNT for response was the lowest for lurasidone (NNT = 5) followed by quetiapine (NNT = 6), olanzapine (NNT = 10) and cariprazine (NNT = 12).
CONCLUSIONS
In this NMA in adults with bipolar depression, which evaluated change in depressive symptoms (assessed by MADRS) across short-term trials, the largest improvement versus placebo was observed for lurasidone, olanzapine and quetiapine with cariprazine, showing a smaller treatment effect. Aripiprazole and ziprasidone were ineffective for the treatment of bipolar depression. Improvement in CGI-BP-S score for lurasidone was larger than cariprazine and ziprasidone but similar to quetiapine and olanzapine. Based on short term studies lurasidone and aripiprazole had similar weight gain compared to placebo.
Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Bayes Theorem; Bipolar Disorder; Depression; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Quetiapine Fumarate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33975574
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-021-03220-3 -
European Journal of Psychotraumatology 2021: Pharmacological approaches are widely used for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) despite uncertainty over efficacy. : To determine the efficacy of all... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
: Pharmacological approaches are widely used for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) despite uncertainty over efficacy. : To determine the efficacy of all pharmacological approaches, including monotherapy, augmentation and head-to-head approaches (drug versus drug, drug versus psychotherapy), in reducing PTSD symptom severity. : A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials were undertaken; 115 studies were included. : Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) were found to be statistically superior to placebo in reduction of PTSD symptoms but the effect size was small (standardised mean difference -0.28, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.17). For individual monotherapy agents compared to placebo in two or more studies, we found small statistically significant evidence for the antidepressants fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine and the antipsychotic quetiapine. For pharmacological augmentation, we found small statistically significant evidence for prazosin and risperidone. : Some medications have a small positive effect on reducing PTSD symptom severity and can be considered as potential monotherapy treatments; these include fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine and quetiapine. Two medications, prazosin and risperidone, also have a small positive effect when used to augment pharmacological monotherapy. There was no evidence of superiority for one intervention over another in the small number of head-to-head comparison studies.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-1 Receptor Antagonists; Antipsychotic Agents; Drug Synergism; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic
PubMed: 34992738
DOI: 10.1080/20008198.2020.1802920