-
European Urology Open Science Oct 2023Radiotherapy of the pelvis is a widely used method for the treatment of malignancies, and local complications including pain following pelvic radiation therapy are... (Review)
Review
The Benefits and Harms of Pharmacological Treatment for Postradiation Pelvic Pain: A Systematic Review by the European Association of Urology Chronic Pelvic Pain Panel with Recommendations for Clinical Practice.
CONTEXT
Radiotherapy of the pelvis is a widely used method for the treatment of malignancies, and local complications including pain following pelvic radiation therapy are acknowledged complications.
OBJECTIVE
The primary objective is to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of pharmacological therapies on postradiation pelvic pain.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic review of the use of different pharmacological treatments in the management of post-radiation pelvic pain was conducted (PROSPERO-ID: CRD42021249026). Comprehensive searches of EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane library were performed for publications between January 1980 and April 2021. The primary outcomes were improvement in pain and adverse events following treatment. The secondary outcomes included quality of life, bowel function, and urinary function.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
After screening 1514 abstracts, four randomised controlled trials were identified, enrolling 355 patients with bladder and anorectal subtypes of postradiotherapy chronic pelvic pain (CPP). A narrative synthesis was performed as heterogeneity of included studies precluded a meta-analysis. A single study reported a significant reduction in pain after 6 mo in patients with bladder pain syndrome treated with hyaluronic acid or hyperbaric oxygen. Anorectal pain was reported to be reduced by the application of 4% formalin, but the use of hyperbaric oxygen in postradiotherapy anorectal pain remains controversial. Adverse event reporting was generally poor. Studies looking at medications used routinely in guidelines for neuropathic pain, such as gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, and duloxetine, were absent or of poor quality when it came to postradiation pelvic pain.
CONCLUSIONS
Beneficial effects of hyperbaric oxygen or formalin on pain, quality of life, and functional symptoms were seen in patients with certain CPP subtypes, but the current evidence level is too weak to allow recommendations about the use of any pharmacological treatment for postradiation pelvic pain.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Different pharmacological treatments are used to treat pain after radiotherapy, but current studies are of insufficient quality to determine whether these should be recommended and many chronic pelvic pain subtypes are not covered. Further research is needed.
PubMed: 37711669
DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.08.009 -
Pain and Therapy Dec 2022The IASP ICD-11 chronic primary pain (CPP) definition includes 19 different painful conditions. In recent years, interest in the potential role of cannabinoids in the...
INTRODUCTION
The IASP ICD-11 chronic primary pain (CPP) definition includes 19 different painful conditions. In recent years, interest in the potential role of cannabinoids in the management of CPP has increased, since they demonstrated a possible efficacy in treating pain, especially in secondary pain conditions. However, limited evidence is available for patients with CPP. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cannabinoid administration in CPP.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched form the beginning up to 31 October 2021 to retrieve published articles of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational, retrospective or prospective, studies, investigating cannabinoids in CPP. The study screening process was completed during November 2021. The primary outcome was pain reduction by means of the visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes were quality of life by means of the fibromyalgia impact questionnaire (FIQ) or other available scales, appetite, anxiety, depression, and sleep by means of any available scales. Safety was assessed with the reporting of serious adverse events (SAE) and discontinuation due to adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed. The weighted generic inverse variance method and Mantel-Haenszel method were used to estimate the mean difference (MD) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. For outcome measures reported with different scales (pain, anxiety, depression), we used the standardized MD (SMD) as the effect measure and then converted it into units of the VAS scale for pain, the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) for anxiety, and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) for depression. Summary of findings was produced using GRADEproGDT.
RESULTS
From 3007 identified records, we included eight articles reporting the results of eight different RCTs (four parallel and four crossover studies; seven compared to placebo and one to amitriptyline), with a total population of 240 patients. VAS pain reduction was non-significant for cannabinoids against placebo (MD = - 0.64; 95% CI - 1.30 to 0.02) or amitriptyline (MD = - 0.19; 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.19). More than 4 weeks cannabinoid treatment significantly reduced pain compared to placebo in parallel studies with more than 4 weeks of treatment duration (MD = - 1.28; 95% CI - 2.33 to - 0.22). Differences for the FIQ (MD = - 21.69; 95% CI - 46.20 to 2.82), BAI (MD = - 2.32; 95% CI - 7.99 to 3.08), and BDI (MD = 2.32; 95% CI - 1.71 to 6.35) were non-significant, likewise for discontinuation due to adverse events (OR = 2.15; 95% CI 0.44-10.65), when comparing cannabinoids to placebo. The quality of the evidence was generally low mainly as a result of imprecision and risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
Cannabinoid treatment in patients with CPP had limited benefit on pain relief; however, it might improve pain with long-term administration.
PubMed: 36129666
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-022-00434-5 -
Neuropsychopharmacology Reports Dec 2022Depression is a common disorder that affects patients' quality of life and incurs health system costs. Due to the resistance to treat depression, better understanding of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Depression is a common disorder that affects patients' quality of life and incurs health system costs. Due to the resistance to treat depression, better understanding of neurophysiology was considered; one of the implications is the glutamatergic system. This study aims to systematically review clinical trials investigating the antidepressant effects of kainate receptor antagonists.
METHODS
The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021213912). Scopus, ISI, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and two trial registries were searched for randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of topiramate, phenobarbital, and other ten barbiturates in depression. The difference with control groups in terms of changing depressive symptoms was the primary outcome.
RESULTS
Nine trials were identified, in which 784 patients were studied. The efficacy of thiopental was comparable to that of imipramine, with fewer side effects. When administered with electroconvulsive therapy, it had fewer to similar effects and fewer side effects than ketamine. Both monotherapy and adjunctive therapy with topiramate were effective and tolerable in treating depressed patients. Phenobarbital had therapeutic effects compared to imipramine and amitriptyline with fewer side effects.
CONCLUSION
Regarding the glutamatergic hypothesis of depression and obtained promising results, further studies of kainate receptor antagonists in high-quality trials are recommended. Given the high prevalence of depression in epileptic patients, more problems with its treatment, and the fact that the studied agents were anticonvulsants, it is recommended that future studies prioritize depressed-epileptic patients.
Topics: Humans; Depression; Imipramine; Phenobarbital; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Kainic Acid; Topiramate
PubMed: 35912516
DOI: 10.1002/npr2.12284 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2009Chronic tension-type headache (CTTH) is a disorder that evolves from episodic tension-type headache, with daily or very frequent episodes of headache lasting minutes to... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Chronic tension-type headache (CTTH) is a disorder that evolves from episodic tension-type headache, with daily or very frequent episodes of headache lasting minutes to days. It affects 4.1% of the general population in the USA, and is more prevalent in women (up to 65% of cases).
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments for chronic tension-type headache? What are the effects of non-drug treatments for chronic tension-type headache? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to March 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 50 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture; amitriptyline; analgesics; anticonvulsant drugs; benzodiazepines; botulinum toxin; chiropractic and osteopathic manipulations; cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT); Indian head massage; mirtazapine; relaxation and electromyographic biofeedback; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants (SSRIs); and tricyclic antidepressants (other than amitriptyline).
Topics: Amitriptyline; Headache; Humans; Manipulation, Osteopathic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Tension-Type Headache
PubMed: 21696647
DOI: No ID Found -
International Urogynecology Journal May 2021The objective was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for interstitial cystitis and bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS) with direct... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS
The objective was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for interstitial cystitis and bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS) with direct and indirect evidence from randomized trials.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the pharmacological therapies for IC/BPS. Primary efficacy outcomes included ICSI (O'Leary Sant Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Index), ICPI (O'Leary Sant Interstitial Cystitis Problem Index), 24-h micturition frequency, visual analog scale (VAS), and Likert score for pain. Safety outcomes are total adverse events (AEs, intravesical instillation, and others), gastrointestinal symptoms, headache, pain, and urinary symptoms. A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed.
RESULTS
A total of 23 RCTs with 1,871 participants were identified. The ICSI was significantly reduced in the amitriptyline group (MD = -4.9, 95% CI: -9.0 to -0.76), the cyclosporine A group (MD = -7.9, 95% CI: -13.0 to -3.0) and the certolizumab pegol group (MD = -3.6, 95% CI:-6.5 to -0.63) compared with placebo group. Moreover, for ICPI, cyclosporine A showed superior benefit compared to placebo (MD = -7.6, 95% CI: -13 to -2.3). VAS score improved significantly in cyclosporine A group than pentosan polysulfate sodium (MD = 3.09, 95% CI: 0.13 to 6.07). None of the agents revealed a significant alleviation of 24-h micturition frequency. In terms of safety outcomes, the incidence rate on urinary symptoms for botulinum toxin A was the only variate higher than chondroitin sulfate (MD = -2.02, 95% CI: -4.99 to 0.66) and placebo (MD = -1.60, 95% CI:-3.83 to 0.17). No significant difference was found among the other treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
Cyclosporine A might be superior to other pharmacological treatments in efficacy. Amitriptyline and certolizumab pegol were capable of lowering the ICSI as well.
Topics: Administration, Intravesical; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Cystitis, Interstitial; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain Measurement; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33638677
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-020-04659-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2012Amitriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant that is widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage) and fibromyalgia, and is recommended in many... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Amitriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant that is widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage) and fibromyalgia, and is recommended in many guidelines. These types of pain can be treated with antidepressant drugs in doses below those at which the drugs act as antidepressants.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy of amitriptyline for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.To assess the adverse events associated with the clinical use of amitriptyline for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to September 2012, together with reference lists of retrieved papers, previous systematic reviews, and other reviews; we also used our own handsearched database for older studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least four weeks' duration comparing amitriptyline with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and two study authors examined issues of study quality independently. We performed analysis using two tiers of evidence. The first tier used data meeting current best standards, where studies reported the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction over baseline (or its equivalent), without the use of last observation carried forward (LOCF) or other imputation method for dropouts, reported an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, lasted 8 to 12 weeks or longer, had a parallel-group design, and where there were at least 200 participants in the comparison. The second tier used data that failed to meet this standard and were therefore subject to potential bias.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-one studies (1437 participants) were included; they individually involved between 15 and 235 participants, only four involved over 100 participants, and the median study size was 44 participants. The median duration was six weeks. Ten studies had a cross-over design. Doses of amitriptyline were generally between 25 mg and 125 mg, and dose escalation was common.There was no top-tier evidence for amitriptyline in treating neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia.Second-tier evidence indicated no evidence of effect in cancer-related neuropathic pain or HIV-related neuropathic pain, but some evidence of effect in painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN), mixed neuropathic pain, and fibromyalgia. Combining the classic neuropathic pain conditions of PDN, postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and post-stroke pain with fibromyalgia for second-tier evidence, in eight studies and 687 participants, there was a statistically significant benefit (risk ratio (RR) 2.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8 to 3.1) with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 4.6 (3.6 to 6.6). The analysis showed that even using this potentially biased data, only about 38% of participants benefited with amitriptyline and 16% with placebo; most participants did not get adequate pain relief. Potential benefits of amitriptyline were supported by a lower rate of lack of efficacy withdrawals; 8/153 (5%) withdrew because of lack of efficacy with amitriptyline and 14/119 (12%) with placebo.More participants experienced at least one adverse event; 64% of participants taking amitriptyline and 40% taking placebo. The RR was 1.5 (95% CI 1.4 to 1.7) and the number needed to treat to harm was 4.1 (95% CI 3.2 to 5.7). Adverse event and all-cause withdrawals were not different.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Amitriptyline has been a first-line treatment for neuropathic pain for many years. The fact that there is no supportive unbiased evidence for a beneficial effect is disappointing, but has to be balanced against decades of successful treatment in many patients with neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. There is no good evidence of a lack of effect; rather our concern should be of overestimation of treatment effect. Amitriptyline should continue to be used as part of the treatment of neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia, but only a minority of patients will achieve satisfactory pain relief. Limited information suggests that failure with one antidepressant does not mean failure with all.It is unlikely that any large randomised trials of amitriptyline will be conducted in specific neuropathic pain conditions or in fibromyalgia to prove efficacy.
Topics: Adult; Amitriptyline; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Neuralgia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23235657
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008242.pub2 -
CNS Spectrums Jan 2022Clozapine is the most effective medication for treatment-refractory schizophrenia but is associated with significant adverse drug reactions, including nocturnal enuresis... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Clozapine is the most effective medication for treatment-refractory schizophrenia but is associated with significant adverse drug reactions, including nocturnal enuresis and urinary incontinence. This side effect can be burdensome and lead to medication nonadherence and psychotic relapse. Evidence to guide treatment of clozapine-induced nocturnal enuresis and urinary incontinence is sparse. We therefore aimed to synthesize the evidence base to guide management for clinicians, patients, and their carers.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Trial Registry databases from inception to May 2021 for publications on management of clozapine-induced nocturnal enuresis and urinary incontinence using a PROSPERO preregistered search strategy.
RESULTS
We identified 22 case reports and case series describing 74 patients. Interventions included clozapine dose reduction, nonpharmacological treatment, and pharmacological treatments. Among pharmacological treatments, desmopressin, oxybutynin, trihexyphenidyl, tolterodine, imipramine, amitriptyline, ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, aripiprazole, and verapamil were associated with complete resolution of nocturnal enuresis and urinary incontinence. Balancing evidence for effectiveness against risk of adverse effects, we developed a management framework for clozapine-induced nocturnal enuresis and urinary incontinence.
CONCLUSIONS
Following assessment of urological, psychiatric, pharmacological, and common comorbid medical issues, first-line treatments should be nonpharmacological, including bathroom alarms, voiding before bedtime, and nocturnal fluid restriction. If these interventions do not provide adequate relief, aripiprazole should be trialed. Desmopressin may be considered for severe refractory cases, but monitoring for hyponatremia is essential.
PubMed: 35086595
DOI: 10.1017/S1092852922000050 -
Contraception Dec 2016To examine whether the co-administration of hormonal contraceptives (HC) and psychotropic drugs commonly used to treat anxiety and/or depression results in safety or... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To examine whether the co-administration of hormonal contraceptives (HC) and psychotropic drugs commonly used to treat anxiety and/or depression results in safety or efficacy concerns for either drug.
METHODS
We searched PubMed and Cochrane libraries for clinical or pharmacokinetic (PK) studies that examined co-administration of any HC with psychotropic drugs [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), oral benzodiazepines, bupropion, mirtazapine, trazadone, buspirone, hydroxyzine, monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), or atypical antipsychotics] in reproductive aged women.
RESULTS
Of 555 articles identified, 22 articles (18 studies) met inclusion criteria. We identified 5 studies on SSRIs, four on TCAs, one on bupropion, three on atypical antipsychotics and five on oral benzodiazepines. No articles met inclusion criteria for SNRIs, mirtazapine, trazadone, buspirone, hydroxyzine or MAOIs. Overall, clinical studies did not demonstrate differences in unintended pregnancy rates when HCs were administered with and without psychotropic drugs or in psychotropic drug treatment outcomes when psychotropic drugs were administered with and without HCs. PK studies did not demonstrate changes in drug exposure related to contraceptive safety, contraceptive effectiveness or psychotropic drug effectiveness for most classes of psychotropic drugs. However, limited PK data raise concern for HCs increasing systemic exposure of amitriptyline and imipramine (both TCAs), theoretically posing safety concerns.
CONCLUSION
Limited quality and quantity evidence on use of psychotropic drugs and HCs suggests low concern for clinically significant interactions, though no data exist specifically for non-oral formulations of HC. Given the high frequency of use for both HCs and psychotropic drugs among reproductive-age women in the US, this review highlights a need for further research in this area.
Topics: Anxiety; Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal; Depression; Drug Interactions; Female; Humans; Psychotropic Drugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27444984
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.07.011 -
The Journal of Rheumatology. Supplement Sep 2012To determine the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in pain management in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in pain management in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA).
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and PsychINFO for randomized controlled trials in adults with IA that compared any antidepressants (administered via any route) to another analgesic intervention or placebo. We also searched the 2008-2009 American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism abstracts and performed a hand search of reference lists of relevant articles. Primary outcomes were patient-reported pain relief ≥ 30% and withdrawals due to adverse events. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. A risk of bias assessment was performed using methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.
RESULTS
Eight trials (652 participants) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and 1 trial in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (100 participants) were included in this review. The majority of studies were published in the late 1980s in patients with active disease receiving minimal disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy. All trials evaluated tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) and 2 studies included a selective serotonin uptake inhibitor. Seven of the 9 trials had high risk of bias, 2 were unclear, and metaanalysis was not performed due to trial heterogeneity. RA trials with short-term outcome (< 1 week) found no significant benefit of amitriptyline 25 mg in combination with dextropropoxyphene (DXP) 65 mg over placebo, and inferiority of amitriptyline + DXP versus DXP 130 mg [mean difference (MD) 10.0, 95% CI 0.4 to 19.6]. There was conflicting evidence regarding medium (1-6 wks) or longer-term (> 6 wks) benefits on pain. One trial in depressed patients with RA showed no significant difference between amitriptyline and paroxetine given for 8 weeks (65% vs 56% much or very much improved; RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.5). One trial found that amitriptyline was no better than placebo in reducing pain in patients with active AS over 2 weeks (MD -0.2, 95% CI -1.2 to 0.8). From 5 trials, withdrawals due to adverse events were not significantly different from placebo. However, there were significantly more minor adverse events in patients receiving TCA compared with those receiving a placebo (RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.4). These included somnolence, dizziness, dry mouth, and nausea.
CONCLUSION
Based upon 9 trials of high or unclear risk of bias, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about the efficacy of TCA as analgesics for patients with IA. The use of these agents may be associated with adverse events that are generally mild and do not lead to cessation of treatment. High-quality trials are needed in this area.
Topics: Analgesics; Antidepressive Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Clinical Trials as Topic; Drug Therapy, Combination; Evidence-Based Medicine; Expert Testimony; Humans; International Cooperation; Pain; Pain Management
PubMed: 22942325
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.120338 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2007For many years amitriptyline has been considered one of the reference compounds for the pharmacological treatment of depression. However, new tricyclic drugs,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
For many years amitriptyline has been considered one of the reference compounds for the pharmacological treatment of depression. However, new tricyclic drugs, heterocyclic compounds and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have been introduced on the market with the claim of a more favourable tolerability/efficacy profile.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the present systematic review was to investigate the tolerability and efficacy of amitriptyline in comparison with the other tricyclic/heterocyclic antidepressants and with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR-Studies) was searched on 28-11-2005. Reference lists of all included studies were checked.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Only randomised controlled trials were included. Study participants were of either sex and any age with a primary diagnosis of depression. Included trials compared amitriptyline with another tricyclic/heterocyclic antidepressant or with one of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted using a standardised form. The number of patients undergoing the randomisation procedure, the number of patients who completed the study and the number of improved patients were extracted. In addition, group mean scores at the end of the trial on Hamilton Depression Scale or any other depression scale were extracted. In the tolerability analysis, the number of patients failing to complete the study and the number of patients complaining of side-effects were extracted.
MAIN RESULTS
A total number of 194 studies were included in the review. The estimate of the overall odds ratio (OR) for responders showed that more subjects responded to amitriptyline in comparison with the control antidepressant group (OR 1.12 to 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.23, number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 50). The estimate of the efficacy of amitriptyline and control agents on a continuous outcome revealed an effect size which also significantly favoured amitriptyline (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.23). Whilst these differences are statistically significant, their clinical significance is less clear. When the efficacy analysis was stratified by drug class, no difference in outcome emerged between amitriptyline and either tricyclic or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor comparators. The dropout rate in patients taking amitriptyline and control agents was similar; however, the estimate of the proportion of patients who experienced side-effects significantly favoured control agents in comparison with amitriptyline (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.74). When the tolerability analysis was stratified by drug class, the dropout rate in patients taking amitriptyline and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors significantly favoured the latter (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95, number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) = 40). When the responder analysis was stratified by study setting amitriptyline was more effective than control antidepressants in inpatients (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.42, NNTB = 24), but not in outpatients (OR 1.01, 95%CI 0.88 to 1.17, NNTB = 200).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This present systematic review indicates that amitriptyline is at least as efficacious as other tricyclics or newer compounds. However, the burden of side-effects in patients receiving it was greater. In comparison with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors amitriptyline was less well tolerated, and although counterbalanced by a higher proportion of responders, the difference was not statistically significant.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Depression; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 17636748
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004186.pub2