-
European Journal of Investigation in... Aug 2023This review aimed to investigate the metabolic alterations associated with psychopharmacological treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders, which can significantly impact... (Review)
Review
This review aimed to investigate the metabolic alterations associated with psychopharmacological treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders, which can significantly impact patients' physical health and overall quality of life. The study utilized the PRISMA methodology and included cross-sectional, retrospective studies, and randomized clinical trials from reputable databases like SCOPUS, CLARIVATE, SCIENCE DIRECT, and PUBMED. Out of the 64 selected studies, various psychotropic drug classes were analyzed, including antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and antipsychotics. Among the antidepressants, such as amitriptyline, Imipramine, and clomipramine, weight gain, constipation, and cardiovascular effects were the most commonly reported metabolic adverse effects. SSRI antidepressants like Fluoxetine, Sertraline, Citalopram, Escitalopram, and Paroxetine exhibited a high prevalence of gastrointestinal and cardiac alterations. Regarding anticonvulsants, valproic acid and Fosphenytoin were associated with adverse reactions such as weight gain and disturbances in appetite and sleep patterns. As for antipsychotics, drugs like Clozapine, Olanzapine, and Risperidone were linked to weight gain, diabetes, and deterioration of the lipid profile. The findings of this review emphasize the importance of continuous monitoring for adverse effects, particularly considering that the metabolic changes caused by psychopharmacological medications may vary depending on the age of the patients. Future research should focus on conducting field studies to further expand knowledge on the metabolic effects of other commonly prescribed psychotropic drugs. Overall, the study highlights the significance of understanding and managing metabolic alterations induced by psychopharmacological treatment to enhance patient care and well-being.
PubMed: 37623307
DOI: 10.3390/ejihpe13080110 -
Cureus Jul 2023Chronic pain is a very common problem in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) as it affects 80% of these patients, which negatively affects their quality of life.... (Review)
Review
Chronic pain is a very common problem in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) as it affects 80% of these patients, which negatively affects their quality of life. Despite many advantages that exist in the management of any type of pain (neuropathic, nociceptive, mixed) in these patients, there is no cure, and the analgesic effect of some treatments is inadequate. This study aims to conduct an evidence-based systematic review regarding the various interventions used for the management of pain after SCI. The PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and Cochrane Library databases were searched from 1969 to 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the PEDro scoring system. A total of 57 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. Among the different interventions at present, 18 studies examined the role of oral medications, 11 studies examined the role of minimally invasive methods (injection and infusion), 16 studies investigated physiotherapy and alternative treatments, and 12 studies examined the role of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) in the management of pain in patients after SCI. Gabapentin and pregabalin are very effective in managing chronic neuropathic pain after SCI, and pregabalin also seems to reduce anxiety and sleep disturbances in the patients. It is noteworthy that lamotrigine, valproate, and carbamazepine do not have an analgesic effect, but mirogabalin is a novel and promising drug. Antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors) did not reduce the pain of the patients, although some studies showed an efficacy of amitriptyline especially in depressed patients and tramadol should be considered short-term with caution. Also, tDCS and rTMS reduced pain. Moreover, botulinum toxin type A, lidocaine, ketamine, and intrathecal baclofen significantly reduced pain intensity, although the sample of the studies was small. Physiotherapy and alternative treatments seem to relieve pain, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation had the greatest reduction of pain intensity. In conclusion, several pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical methods exist, which can reduce pain in patients after SCI. The type of intervention can be considered by the physician depending on the patients' preference, age, medical history, type of pain, and associated symptoms. However, more studies with greater samples and with better methodological quality should be conducted.
PubMed: 37644939
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.42657 -
Neurology May 2011To develop a scientifically sound and clinically relevant evidence-based guideline for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). (Review)
Review
Evidence-based guideline: Treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy: report of the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
OBJECTIVE
To develop a scientifically sound and clinically relevant evidence-based guideline for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN).
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the literature from 1960 to August 2008 and classified the studies according to the American Academy of Neurology classification of evidence scheme for a therapeutic article, and recommendations were linked to the strength of the evidence. The basic question asked was: "What is the efficacy of a given treatment (pharmacologic: anticonvulsants, antidepressants, opioids, others; and nonpharmacologic: electrical stimulation, magnetic field treatment, low-intensity laser treatment, Reiki massage, others) to reduce pain and improve physical function and quality of life (QOL) in patients with PDN?"
RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Pregabalin is established as effective and should be offered for relief of PDN (Level A). Venlafaxine, duloxetine, amitriptyline, gabapentin, valproate, opioids (morphine sulfate, tramadol, and oxycodone controlled-release), and capsaicin are probably effective and should be considered for treatment of PDN (Level B). Other treatments have less robust evidence or the evidence is negative. Effective treatments for PDN are available, but many have side effects that limit their usefulness, and few studies have sufficient information on treatment effects on function and QOL.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Diabetic Neuropathies; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Electromagnetic Fields; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Pain; Pain Management
PubMed: 21482920
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182166ebe -
Family Practice Apr 2017The role of amitriptyline in musculoskeletal pain is not as clearly defined as in classical neuropathic pain conditions. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The role of amitriptyline in musculoskeletal pain is not as clearly defined as in classical neuropathic pain conditions.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy and effectiveness of amitriptyline in the treatment of pain in musculoskeletal complaints.
METHODS
An extensive search (including Medline, Embase and Web of Science) was made up to April 2016 for randomised controlled trials on amitriptyline in musculoskeletal complaints compared to placebo, usual care, or other analgesic use. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias. Outcomes of interest were pain reduction and function improvement.
RESULTS
Of the 2066 articles identified, seven were finally included. These studies were performed in patients with low back pain (4), rheumatoid arthritis (2), and patients with arm pain from repetitive use (1). No meta-analysis was performed due to clinical heterogeneity of the studies. Two studies with low risk of bias found positive results. One study found that 50 mg/day of amitriptyline [Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) -3.9 points] resulted in a significantly greater reduction in pain than treatment with pregabalin 600 mg/day (VAS -2.9 points) and improved function (improvement on the Oswestry Disability Index >20%: 65% versus 49.5%). Amitriptyline improved function in arm pain compared to placebo (Upper Extremity Function Scale: -3.9 versus 0.8). A similar amount of side-effects occurred in the amitriptyline and the comparison groups.
CONCLUSION
Few studies have evaluated the use of amitriptyline in musculoskeletal complaints. Although amitriptyline may be effective in musculoskeletal complaints, more studies are required to establish for whom amitriptyline works better than other analgesics.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Humans; Low Back Pain; Musculoskeletal Pain; Pain Measurement
PubMed: 28334783
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmw134 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016Incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) is one of the most common skin problems in adults who are incontinent for urine, stool, or both. In practice, products and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) is one of the most common skin problems in adults who are incontinent for urine, stool, or both. In practice, products and procedures are the same for both prevention and treatment of IAD.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of various products and procedures to preventand treat incontinence-associated dermatitis in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 28 September 2016). Additionally we searched other electronic databases: CENTRAL(2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE (January 1946 to May Week 3 2015), MEDLINE In-Process (inception to 26 May 2015), CINAHL(December 1981 to 28 May 2015), Web of Science (WoS; inception to 28 May 2015) and handsearched conference proceedings (to June 2015) and the reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted authors and experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, performed in any healthcare setting, with included participants over 18 years of age, with or without IAD. We included trials comparing the (cost) effectiveness of topical skin care products such as skin cleansers, moisturisers, and skin protectants of different compositions and skin care procedures aiming to prevent and treat IAD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-texts, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included trials.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 trials with 1295 participants in a qualitative synthesis. Participants were incontinent for urine, stool, or both, and were residents in a nursing home or were hospitalised.Eleven trials had a small sample size and short follow-up periods. .The overall risk of bias in the included studies was high. The data were not suitable for meta-analysis due to heterogeneity in participant population, skin care products, skin care procedures, outcomes, and measurement tools.Nine trials compared different topical skin care products, including a combination of products. Two trials tested a structured skin care procedure. One trial compared topical skin care products alongside frequencies of application. One trial compared frequencies of application of topical skin care products.We found evidence in two trials, being of low and moderate quality, that soap and water performed poorly in the prevention and treatment of IAD (primary outcomes of this review). The first trial indicated that the use of a skin cleanser might be more effective than the use of soap and water (risk ratio (RR) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.87; low quality evidence). The second trial indicated that a structured skin care procedure, being a washcloth with cleansing, moisturising, and protecting properties, might be more effective than soap and water (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.79; moderate quality evidence). Findings from the other trials, all being of low to very low quality, suggest that applying a leave-on product (moisturiser, skin protectant, or a combination) might be more effective than not applying a leave-on product. No trial reported on the third primary outcome 'number of participants not satisfied with treatment' or on adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Little evidence, of very low to moderate quality, exists on the effects of interventions for preventing and treating IAD in adults. Soap and water performed poorly in the prevention and treatment of IAD. Application of leave-on products (moisturisers, skin protectants, or a combination) and avoiding soap seems to be more effective than withholding these products. The performance of leave-on products depends on the combination of ingredients, the overall formulation and the usage (e.g. amount applied). High quality confirmatory trials using standardised, and comparable prevention and treatment regimens in different settings/regions are required. Furthermore, to increase the comparability of trial results, we recommend the development of a core outcome set, including validated measurement tools. The evidence in this review is current up to 28 September 2016.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Adult; Amitriptyline; Dermatitis; Dermatologic Agents; Fecal Incontinence; Humans; Petrolatum; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin Care; Skin Cream; Soaps; Urinary Incontinence; Zinc Oxide
PubMed: 27841440
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011627.pub2 -
The Journal of Maternal-fetal &... Dec 2023Antidepressant medications are used by increasing numbers of pregnant women. The evidence on the relationship between antidepressant use during pregnancy and the risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Antidepressant medications are used by increasing numbers of pregnant women. The evidence on the relationship between antidepressant use during pregnancy and the risk for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is inconsistent. We perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the GDM risk associated with antidepressant exposure during pregnancy.
METHODS
We systematically searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases until December 2021. We sought observational studies assessing the association between gestational antidepressant use and GDM.
RESULTS
Five observational studies were included in the analysis. Mothers exposed to antidepressants during pregnancy were at a significantly increased risk for GDM (relative risk [RR] 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.30; < .001). However, after considering confounding by indication, we observed no significant effect of antidepressant use during pregnancy on the risk of GDM (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1-1.28; = .054; = 0%). Independent of clinical indication, subgroup analysis based on individual antidepressants suggested that the risk was increased by venlafaxine or amitriptyline use, but not by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.
CONCLUSIONS
The significant association between antidepressant exposure during pregnancy and GDM may be overestimated due to confounding by indication. However, the evidence remains insufficient, particularly for specific drug classes.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Diabetes, Gestational; Antidepressive Agents; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Amitriptyline
PubMed: 36599445
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2022.2162817 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and... Oct 2015Neuropathic pain is a common disorder for which patients seek treatment. The most common causes of neuropathic pain are diabetes, herpetic infection and... (Review)
Review
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE
Neuropathic pain is a common disorder for which patients seek treatment. The most common causes of neuropathic pain are diabetes, herpetic infection and chemotherapy-induced neuropathy. Oral administration of amitriptyline has traditionally been used for treating neuropathic pain; however, it has dose-related anticholinergic effects, which may limit its use in some individuals. Pharmacotherapeutic agents that are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain include antidepressants, anticonvulsants, opioids and opioid-like substances, and topical medications. The objective of this paper is to review the effectiveness of topical amitriptyline in patients with neuropathic pain.
METHODS
We utilized the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to provide a systematic and transparent reporting method. The literature search was performed using PubMed (1966 through October 2014) applying the MeSH 'amitriptyline' and 'drug administration, topical' and 'neuropathy'. Web of Science (1945 through October 2014) was searched using the text words 'amitriptyline' and 'neuropathy'. Bibliographies of retrieved articles were scanned for relevant articles. Cochrane databases were also searched for methods to treat neuropathic pain. Broad subject headings, including 'neuropathic pain', were used to search the database for review articles. All data sources in English and in humans were considered for inclusion.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Topical application of amitriptyline has the theoretical advantage of local effects with fewer systemic side effects. The clinical trials and case reports describing the use of topical amitriptyline we reviewed show mixed results concerning the efficacy and the presence of adverse reactions. Controlled clinical trials reveal that topical amitriptyline is not effective in treating neuropathic pain. The uncontrolled clinical trials did support efficacy of topical amitriptyline; however, the data from these trials may be biased due to the nature of the study design. Finally, there have been several case reports that claim patients achieved pain relief with the use of topical amitriptyline. Data from these cases are limited due to the fact that there were no controls to which the amitriptyline treatments could be compared, and the majority of the patients in these cases were on other analgesics.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION
Although there are reports that describe the benefits of topical amitriptyline for neuropathic pain, data from evidence-based controlled clinical trials do not support efficacy in patients who use topical amitriptyline for neuropathic pain control.
PubMed: 26059975
DOI: 10.1111/jcpt.12297 -
Arquivos de Neuro-psiquiatria Jun 2023Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem, and gabapentin and pregabalin are often used in the treatment of patients without associated radiculopathy or...
BACKGROUND
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem, and gabapentin and pregabalin are often used in the treatment of patients without associated radiculopathy or neuropathy. Therefore, determining their efficacy and safety is of enormous value.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the efficacy and safety of using gabapentin and pregabalin for CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy.
METHODS
We performed a search on the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and Web of Science data bases for clinical trials, cohorts, and case-control studies that evaluated patients with CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy for at least eight weeks. The data were extracted and inserted into a previously-prepared Microsoft Excel spreadsheet; the outcomes were evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and the quality of evidence, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.
RESULTS
Of the 2,230 articles identified, only 5 were included, totaling 242 participants. In them, pregabalin was slightly less efficacious than amitriptyline, the combination of tramadol/acetaminophen, and celecoxib, and pregabalin added to celecoxib showed no benefit when compared to celecoxib alone (very low evidence for all). On the other hand, although one study with gabapentin did not support its use in a general sample of patients with low back pain, another found a reduction in the pain scale and improved mobility (moderate evidence). No serious adverse events were observed in any of the studies.
CONCLUSION
Quality information to support the use of pregabalin or gabapentin in the treatment of CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy is lacking, although results may suggest gabapentin as a viable option. More data is needed to fill this current gap in knowledge.
Topics: Humans; Radiculopathy; Gabapentin; Pregabalin; Low Back Pain; Celecoxib
PubMed: 37379868
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1764414 -
Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy : JMCP Jan 2014Migraine is a common neurological disease affecting 12% of Americans and millions worldwide. Medication adherence has been studied extensively in many chronic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Migraine is a common neurological disease affecting 12% of Americans and millions worldwide. Medication adherence has been studied extensively in many chronic conditions, with poor adherence adversely affecting treatment outcomes. However, little is known about adherence to oral prophylaxis for migraine.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the literature on assessing oral prophylaxis medication adherence and persistence among migraine patients.
METHODS
A systematic search of the PubMed (1966 to present) and EMBASE (1974 to present) databases was conducted to locate prospective and retrospective observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of propranolol, amitriptyline, and topiramate. RCTs were pooled, weighted by sample size, and stratified by drug and length of study. Average persistence rates and reasons for discontinuation cited in RCTs were examined for each medication.
RESULTS
A total of 788 unique articles were identified using the search criteria, 33 of which were included in the final review. Observational studies (n = 14) showed adherence ranges of 41% to 95% at 2 months, 21% to 80% at 6 months, and 35% to 56% at 12 months and persistence ranges of 41% to 88% at 2 months, 19% to 79% at 6 months, and 7% to 55% at 12 months. Pooled persistence from RCTs on propranolol, amitriptyline, and topiramate (n = 19) showed rates of 77%, 55%, and 57%, respectively, at 16-26 weeks. Adverse events were the most common reason for discontinuation cited (24% for topiramate and 17% for amitriptyline).
CONCLUSION
Observational studies and pooled data from RCTs demonstrate poor adherence and persistence to oral migraine prophylaxis.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Medication Adherence; Migraine Disorders; Neuroprotective Agents; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 24372457
DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2014.20.1.22 -
Pharmacopsychiatry May 2004Although the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are widely used as first-line agents in depression, amitriptyline, a reference tricyclic (TCA) agent, has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are widely used as first-line agents in depression, amitriptyline, a reference tricyclic (TCA) agent, has the edge in terms of efficacy over control antidepressants (ADs), but it is not clear whether this advantage can be attributed to a more favourable profile in inpatients, but not in outpatients, with depression. The aim of this study was to investigate the contribution of study setting on outcome in clinical trials comparing amitriptyline with any other AD.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-regression analysis of amitryptiline randomised clinical trials was carried out. The electronic search yielded 181 randomised clinical trials, 47% enrolling inpatients and 53% outpatients with depression.
RESULTS
Both on a dichotomous and continuous out-come, amitriptyline was more effective than control agents in in-patients [Peto odds ratio (OR): 1.22, 95%, Confidence Interval (CI): 1.04, 1.42; Standardised Mean Difference (SMD): 0.28, 95 %,Cl: 0.08, 0.46], but not in outpatients (Peto OR: 1.01, 95%, CI: 0.88,1.17; SMD: 0.10,95% CI: -0.02,0.23). Among inpatients amitriptyline was significantly more effective than TCA and nonsignificantly more effective than the SSRIs. Among outpatients no statistically significant differences emerged between amitriptyline and TCA and between amitriptyline and the SSRIs. Amitriptylinewas less well tolerated than control agents in outpatients (Peto OR: 0.90, 95%, CI: 0.81, 0.99), but not in inpatients (Peto OR:1.09, 95% CI: 0.95, 1.25).
CONCLUSIONS
These data suggest that a reasonable approach could be the first-line prescription of newer agents in the routine outpatient care of depressive subjects, and the use of amitriptyline in inpatients with severe depression.
Topics: Adrenergic Uptake Inhibitors; Amitriptyline; Depression; Drug Evaluation; Humans; Inpatients; Outpatients; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Regression Analysis; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 15179966
DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-818985