-
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 Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Fibromyalgia is a clinically defined chronic condition of unknown etiology characterised by chronic widespread pain, sleep disturbance, cognitive dysfunction, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fibromyalgia is a clinically defined chronic condition of unknown etiology characterised by chronic widespread pain, sleep disturbance, cognitive dysfunction, and fatigue. Many patients report high disability levels and poor quality of life. Drug therapy aims to reduce key symptoms, especially pain, and improve quality of life. The tetracyclic antidepressant, mirtazapine, may help by increasing serotonin and noradrenaline in the central nervous system (CNS).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of the tetracyclic antidepressant, mirtazapine, compared with placebo or other active drug(s) in the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, the US National Institutes of Health, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for published and ongoing trials, and examined reference lists of reviewed articles, to 9 July 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any formulation of mirtazapine against placebo, or any other active treatment of fibromyalgia, in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, outcomes of efficacy, tolerability and safety, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias, resolving discrepancies by discussion. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain relief (at least 50% or 30% pain reduction), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC; much or very much improved), safety (serious adverse events), and tolerability (adverse event withdrawal). Other outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improved by 20% or more, fatigue, sleep problems, mean pain intensity, negative mood and particular adverse events. We used a random-effects model to calculate risk difference (RD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and numbers needed to treat. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
Three studies with 606 participants compared mirtazapine with placebo (but not other drugs) over seven to 13 weeks. Two studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in six or seven of eight domains. We judged the evidence for all outcomes to be low- or very low-quality because of poor study quality, indirectness, imprecision, risk of publication bias, and sometimes low numbers of events.There was no difference between mirtazapine and placebo for any primary outcome: participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater (22% versus 16%; RD 0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.12; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); no data available for PGIC; only a single serious adverse event for evaluation of safety (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; three studies with 606 participants; very low-quality evidence); and tolerability as frequency of dropouts due to adverse events (3% versus 2%; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence).Mirtazapine showed a clinically-relevant benefit compared to placebo for some secondary outcomes: participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater (47% versus 34%; RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.21; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 8, 95% CI 5 to 20; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported mean pain intensity (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.13; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); and participant-reported sleep problems (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.06; three studies with 573 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no benefit for improvement of participant-reported improvement of HRQoL of 20% or greater (58% versus 50%; RD 0.08, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.16; three studies with 586 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported fatigue (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.16; two studies with 533 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported negative mood (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.44 to 0.10; three studies with 588 participants; low-quality evidence); or withdrawals due to lack of efficacy (1.5% versus 0.1%; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; three studies with 605 participants; very low-quality evidence).There was no difference between mirtazapine and placebo for participants reporting any adverse event (76% versus 59%; RD 0.12, 95 CI -0.01 to 0.26; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence). There was a clinically-relevant harm with mirtazapine compared to placebo: in the number of participants with somnolence (42% versus 14%; RD 0.24, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.30; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 5, 95% CI 3 to 6; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence); weight gain (19% versus 1%; RD 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.23; NNTH 6, 95% CI 5 to 10; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence); and elevated alanine aminotransferase (13% versus 2%; RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.22; NNTH 8, 95% CI 5 to 25; two studies with 566 participants; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Studies demonstrated no benefit of mirtazapine over placebo for pain relief of 50% or greater, PGIC, improvement of HRQoL of 20% or greater, or reduction of fatigue or negative mood. Clinically-relevant benefits were shown for pain relief of 30% or greater, reduction of mean pain intensity, and sleep problems. Somnolence, weight gain, and elevated alanine aminotransferase were more frequent with mirtazapine than placebo. The quality of evidence was low or very low, with two of three studies of questionable quality and issues over indirectness and risk of publication bias. On balance, any potential benefits of mirtazapine in fibromyalgia were outweighed by its potential harms, though, a small minority of people with fibromyalgia might experience substantial symptom relief without clinically-relevant adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Mianserin; Mirtazapine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30080242
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012708.pub2 -
Schizophrenia Research Nov 2014Cognitive impairment in schizophrenia is disabling, but current treatment options remain limited. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cognitive impairment in schizophrenia is disabling, but current treatment options remain limited.
OBJECTIVE
To meta-analyze the efficacy and safety of adjunctive antidepressants for cognitive impairment in schizophrenia.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION
PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases were searched until 12/2013 for randomized controlled trials comparing antidepressant augmentation of antipsychotics with placebo regarding effects on cognitive functioning in schizophrenia.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two authors independently extracted data. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for categorical outcomes. SMDs of individual cognitive tests were pooled on a study level within domains (primary outcome) and across domains. When results were heterogeneous, random instead of fixed effects models were used.
RESULTS
We meta-analyzed 11 studies (duration = 8.7 ± 3.7 weeks) including 568 patients (mean age = 39.5 ± 6.9 years, males = 67.2%, illness duration = 12.5 ± 8.0 years). Antidepressants included mirtazapine (4 studies; n = 126), citalopram (2 studies; n = 231), fluvoxamine (1 study; n = 47), duloxetine (1 study; n = 40), mianserin (1 study; n = 30), bupropion (1 study; n = 61), and reboxetine (1 study; n = 33). Statistically significant, but clinically negligible, advantages were found for pooled antidepressants compared to placebo in executive function (Hedges' g = 0.17, p = 0.02) and a composite cognition score (Hedges' g = 0.095, p = 0.012). Depression improved with serotonergic antidepressants (p = 0.0009) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (p = 0.009), but not with pooled antidepressants (p = 0.39). Sedation was more common with pooled antidepressants (p = 0.04).
CONCLUSION
Adjunctive antidepressants do not demonstrate clinically significant effects on cognition in schizophrenia patients, however, larger studies, preferably in euthymic schizophrenia patients and using full neurocognitive batteries, are needed to confirm this finding.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Cognition Disorders; Drug Synergism; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 25240772
DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2014.08.015 -
Human Psychopharmacology Mar 2006A systematic review of published work concerning mirtazapine was undertaken to assess possible evidence of serotonergic effects or serotonin toxicity (ST) in humans,... (Review)
Review
A systematic review of published work concerning mirtazapine was undertaken to assess possible evidence of serotonergic effects or serotonin toxicity (ST) in humans, because drug toxicity and interaction data from human over-doses is an useful source of information about the nature and potency of drug effects. There is a paucity of evidence for mirtazapine having effects on any indicator of serotonin elevation, which leads to an emphasis on ST as an important line of evidence. Mirtazapine is compared with its analogue mianserin, and other serotonergic drugs. Although mirtazapine is referred to as a dual-action 'noradrenergic and specific serotonergic drug' (NaSSA) little evidence to support that idea exists, except from initial microdialysis studies in animals showing small effects; those have not subsequently been replicated or substantiated by independent researchers. Also, new data indicate its affinity for Alpha 2 adrenoceptors is not different to mianserin. It appears to exhibit no serotonergic symptoms or toxicity in over-dose by itself, nor is there evidence that it precipitates ST in combination with monoamine oxidase inhibitors, as would be expected if it raises intra-synaptic serotonin levels. Mirtazapine has no demonstrable serotonergic effects in humans and there is insufficient evidence to designate it as a dual-action drug.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists; Animals; Antidepressive Agents; Humans; Mianserin; Mirtazapine; Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors; Receptor, Serotonin, 5-HT1A; Serotonin
PubMed: 16342227
DOI: 10.1002/hup.750 -
Pharmacopsychiatry Sep 2017This review provides an update of experimental and clinical studies on the effects of antidepressants on driving performance. A systematic literature search on the... (Review)
Review
This review provides an update of experimental and clinical studies on the effects of antidepressants on driving performance. A systematic literature search on the PubMed database (1980-2016) was performed. Twenty-eight studies could be included in this review, whereas only 5 studies investigated driving performance under antidepressants in patients. Most tri- and tetracyclics have acute deleterious effects on driving performance that, except for mianserin, attenuate after subchronic use. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and the serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor's venlafaxine and milnacipran did not affect driving ability. Trazodone appears to have dose-related acute effects on driving skills. Acute use of mirtazapine does produce impairments that diminish when given as a nocturnal dose and cannot be seen in healthy subjects when initially given as a low dose or after repeated dosing. Additive effects with alcohol were most pronounced with sedating antidepressants. Most patients definitely benefit from treatment with newer antidepressants with respect to driving skills. Much more patient studies are needed to elucidate a crucial question: from which antidepressant treatment do patients benefit most with respect to driving performance?
Topics: Alcohol Drinking; Antidepressive Agents; Driving Under the Influence; Drug Synergism; Humans
PubMed: 28718182
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-113572 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jun 2008Up to 1% of young women may have bulimia nervosa, characterised by an intense preoccupation with body weight, uncontrolled binge-eating episodes, and use of extreme... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Up to 1% of young women may have bulimia nervosa, characterised by an intense preoccupation with body weight, uncontrolled binge-eating episodes, and use of extreme measures to counteract the feared effects of overeating. People with bulimia nervosa may be of normal weight, making it difficult to diagnose. After ten years, about half of people with bulimia nervosa will have recovered fully, a third will have made a partial recovery, and 10-20% will still have symptoms.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments for bulimia nervosa in adults? What are the effects of discontinuing treatment in people with bulimia nervosa in remission? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to June 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 26 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: cognitive behavioural therapy (alone or plus exposure response prevention enhancement); cognitive orientation therapy; dialectical behavioural therapy; discontinuing fluoxetine in people with remission; guided self-help cognitive behavioural therapy; hypnobehavioural therapy; interpersonal psychotherapy; mirtazapine; monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs); motivational enhancement therapy; pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy; pure or unguided self-help cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT); reboxetine; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs); topiramate; tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs); and venlafaxine.
Topics: Binge-Eating Disorder; Bulimia; Bulimia Nervosa; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Psychotherapy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 19450294
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2009Depression may affect 2-8% of children and adolescents, with a peak incidence around puberty. It may be self-limiting, but about 40% of affected children experience a... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Depression may affect 2-8% of children and adolescents, with a peak incidence around puberty. It may be self-limiting, but about 40% of affected children experience a recurrent attack, a third of affected children will make a suicide attempt, and 3-4% will die from suicide.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of pharmacological, psychological, combination, and complementary treatments for depression in children and adolescents? What are the effects of treatments for refractory depression in children and adolescents? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2008 (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 18 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: citalopram, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) (individual or group, to prevent relapse), escitalopram, electroconvulsive therapy, family therapy, fluoxetine (alone or with cognitive therapy or CBT), fluvoxamine, group therapeutic support (other than CBT), guided self-help, individual psychodynamic psychotherapy, interpersonal therapy, lithium, mirtazapine, monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, paroxetine, sertraline (alone or with CBT), St John's Wort (Hypericum perforatum), tricyclic antidepressants, and venlafaxine.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Depression; Depressive Disorder; Fluoxetine; Humans; Incidence; Psychotherapy, Psychodynamic; Sexual Maturation
PubMed: 19445770
DOI: No ID Found -
PloS One 2024To evaluate the efficacy and safety of multi-drug therapy based on eszopiclone in the treatment of insomnia after stroke using a network meta-analysis method and to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of multi-drug therapy based on eszopiclone in the treatment of insomnia after stroke using a network meta-analysis method and to provide evidence for clinical practice.
METHOD
Computer searches of PubMed, Excerpt Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, APA PsycInfo, CNKI, WanFang, Sinomed and other databases were performed to search for clinical randomized controlled studies (RCTs) on multi-drug therapy based on eszopiclone in the treatment of insomnia patients after stroke. The search time was from the establishment of each database until July 2023. The bias risk assessment tool recommended by Cochrane was used to evaluate the quality of the included RCTs. Stata 14.0 was applied to perform network meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3 software for traditional meta-analysis.
RESULT
Eighteen RCTs and 1646 patients were ultimately included, involving 11 treatment options. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that the ranking of Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) decline was eszopiclone combined with sweet dream oral liquid (ESZ+SDOL)>eszopiclone combined with a shugan jieyu capsule (ESZ+SGJYC)>eszopiclone combined with agomelatine (ESZ+AGO)>eszopiclone combined with flupentixol and melitracen tablets (ESZ+FMT)>eszopiclone combined with yangxue qingnao granules (ESZ+YXQNG)>eszopiclone combined with mirtazapine (ESZ+MIR)>ESZ>FMT; the modified Edinburgh Scandinavia Stroke Scale (MESSS) decline ranking was ESZ+SDOL>ESZ+AGO>ESZ; and the clinical total effective rate ranking was eszopiclone combined with a xuefu zhuyu capsule (ESZ+XFZYC)>ESZ+MIR>ESZ+SGJYC>ESZ+SDOL> ESZ+FMT>ESZ+YXQNG>ESZ>FMT. In terms of clinical adverse reactions, in addition to ESZ therapy, ESZ+ESC had the highest number of adverse reactions, with abdominal pain being the most common. ESZ+YXQNG had the most types of adverse reactions, with 8 types.
CONCLUSION
Multi-drug therapy based on eszopiclone can effectively improve the sleep quality of patients with insomnia after stroke, and ESZ+SDOL has significant efficacy and safety. However, due to the limitations of this study, efficacy ranking cannot fully explain the superiority or inferiority of clinical efficacy. In the future, more multicentre, large sample, double-blind randomized controlled trials are needed to supplement and demonstrate the results of this study.
Topics: Humans; Eszopiclone; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Network Meta-Analysis; Stroke; Double-Blind Method; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38315683
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297064 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Many individuals who have a diagnosis of schizophrenia experience a range of distressing and debilitating symptoms. These can include positive symptoms (such as... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Many individuals who have a diagnosis of schizophrenia experience a range of distressing and debilitating symptoms. These can include positive symptoms (such as delusions, hallucinations, disorganised speech), cognitive symptoms (such as trouble focusing or paying attention or using information to make decisions), and negative symptoms (such as diminished emotional expression, avolition, alogia, and anhedonia). Antipsychotic drugs are often only partially effective, particularly in treating negative symptoms, indicating the need for additional treatment. Mirtazapine is an antidepressant drug that when taken in addition to an antipsychotic may offer some benefit for negative symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically assess the effects of mirtazapine as adjunct treatment for people with schizophrenia.
SEARCH METHODS
The Information Specialist of Cochrane Schizophrenia searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (including registries of clinical trials) up to May 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) with useable data focusing on mirtazapine adjunct for people with schizophrenia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. For included studies we assessed risk of bias and created 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine RCTs with a total of 310 participants. All studies compared mirtazapine adjunct with placebo adjunct and were of short-term duration. We considered five studies to have a high risk of bias for either incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, or other bias.Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in mental state (negative and positive symptoms), leaving the study early for any reason, clinically important change in global state, clinically important change in quality of life, number of days in hospital and incidence of serious adverse events.One trial defined a reduction in the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) overall score from baseline of at least 20% as no important response for negative symptoms. There was no evidence of a clear difference between the two treatments with similar numbers of participants from each group showing no important response to treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.14, 1 RCT, n = 20, very low-quality evidence).Clinically important change in positive symptoms was not reported, however, clinically important change in overall mental state was reported by two trials and data for this outcome showed a favourable effect for mirtazapine (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.92; I = 75%, 2 RCTs, n = 77, very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a clear difference for numbers of participants leaving the study early (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.66, 9 RCTs, n = 310, moderate-quality evidence), and no evidence of a clear difference in global state Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI) severity scores (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.48, 1 RCT, n = 39, very low-quality evidence). A favourable effect for mirtazapine adjunct was found for the outcome clinically important change in akathisia (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.52, 2 RCTs, n = 86, low-quality evidence; I = 61%I). No data were reported for quality life or number of days in hospital.In addition to the main outcomes of interest, there was evidence relating to adverse events that the mirtazapine adjunct groups were associated with an increased risk of weight gain (RR 3.19, 95% CI 1.17 to 8.65, 4 RCTs, n = 127) and sedation/drowsiness (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.68, 7 RCTs, n = 223).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence is primarily of very low quality and indicates that mirtazapine adjunct is not clearly associated with an effect for negative symptoms, but there is some indication of a positive effect on overall mental state and akathisia. No effect was found for global state or leaving the study early and data were not available for quality of life or service use. Due to limitations of the quality and applicability of the evidence it is not possible to make any firm conclusions, the role of mirtazapine adjunct in routine clinical practice remains unclear. This underscores the need for new high-quality evidence to further evaluate mirtazapine adjunct for schizophrenia.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Antipsychotic Agents; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Humans; Mianserin; Mirtazapine; Patient Dropouts; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Schizophrenic Psychology; Weight Gain
PubMed: 29802811
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011943.pub2 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2007Chronic 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 OBJECTIVES
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 October 2005 (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 38 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, benzodiazepines, botulinum toxin, cognitive behavioural therapy, Indian head massage, mirtazapine, regular acute pain relief medication, relaxation and electromyographic biofeedback, serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants, and tricyclic antidepressants (other than amitriptyline).
Topics: Gene Library; Headache; Relaxation; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 19454042
DOI: No ID Found