-
Psychiatry Research Jan 2021Geriatric patients with dementia frequently present with agitation, aggression, psychosis, and other behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). We present... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Geriatric patients with dementia frequently present with agitation, aggression, psychosis, and other behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). We present an update of our previously published algorithms for the use of psychopharmacologic agents in these patients taking into account more recent studies and findings in meta-analyses, reviews, and other published algorithms. We propose three algorithms: BPSD in an emergent, urgent, and non-urgent setting. In the emergent setting when intramuscular (IM) administration is necessary, the first-line recommendation is for olanzapine (since IM aripiprazole, previously favored, is no longer available) and haloperidol injection is the second choice, followed by possible consideration of an IM benzodiazepine. In the urgent setting, the first line would be oral second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) aripiprazole and risperidone. Perhaps next could be then prazosin, and lastly electroconvulsive therapy is a consideration. There are risks associated with these agents, and adverse effects can be severe. Dosing strategies, discontinuation considerations, and side effects are discussed. In the non-emergent setting, medications are proposed for use in the following order: trazodone, donepezil and memantine, antidepressants such as escitalopram and sertraline, SGAs, prazosin, and carbamazepine. Other options with less support but potential future promise are discussed.
Topics: Academic Medical Centers; Aged; Algorithms; Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Benzodiazepines; Citalopram; Dementia; Electroconvulsive Therapy; Haloperidol; Humans; Olanzapine; Psychopharmacology; Risperidone
PubMed: 33340800
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113641 -
Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice May 2023Psychotropic medication may be associated with adverse effects, including among people with diabetes. We conducted a systematic review of observational studies... (Review)
Review
AIMS
Psychotropic medication may be associated with adverse effects, including among people with diabetes. We conducted a systematic review of observational studies investigating the association between antidepressant or antipsychotic drug prescribing and type 2 diabetes outcomes.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO to 15th August 2022 to identify eligible studies. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess study quality and performed a narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
We included 18 studies, 14 reporting on antidepressants and four on antipsychotics. There were 11 cohort studies, one self-controlled before and after study, two case-control studies, and four cross-sectional studies, of variable quality with highly heterogeneous study populations, exposure definitions, and outcomes analysed. Antidepressant prescribing may be associated with increased risk of macrovascular disease, whilst evidence on antidepressant and antipsychotic prescribing and glycaemic control was mixed. Few studies reported microvascular outcomes and risk factors other than glycaemic control.
CONCLUSIONS
Studies of antidepressant and antipsychotic drug prescribing in relation to diabetes outcomes are scarce, with shortcomings and mixed findings. Until further evidence is available, people with diabetes prescribed antidepressants and antipsychotics should receive monitoring and appropriate treatment of risk factors and screening for complications as recommended in general diabetes guidelines.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Cross-Sectional Studies; Antidepressive Agents; Case-Control Studies
PubMed: 37004975
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2023.110649 -
Journal of the American Medical... Jun 2023To evaluate properties of psychotropic adverse drug event (ADE) monitoring tools intended for use in long-term care facilities. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate properties of psychotropic adverse drug event (ADE) monitoring tools intended for use in long-term care facilities.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS
Adults aged 18 years and older in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities.
METHODS
Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycInfo were searched from inception to August 2022 for studies reporting the development, validation, or application of tools to monitor psychotropic ADEs. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by 2 authors. Each tool was assessed under the domains of test-retest reliability, interrater reliability, content validity, and construct validity.
RESULTS
Eight studies that described 6 tools were included. Tools were developed in Wales (n = 2), United States (n = 1), Ireland (n = 1), Canada (n = 1), and Singapore (n = 1). Tools monitored 4 to 95 items related to antipsychotics (n = 6 tools), antidepressants (n = 4), benzodiazepines or hypnotics (n = 4), antiepileptics (n = 4), and dementia medications (n = 1). Tools commonly monitored sedation, tiredness, or sleepiness (n = 6), falls (n = 4), and tremor or extrapyramidal symptoms (n = 4). Tools were designed for application by nurses (n = 4), during family conferences (n = 1), and by general medical practitioners before repeat prescribing (n = 1). Two tools were reported to require 10 to 60 minutes to administer. Four tools were determined to have adequate content validity and 2 tools adequate interrater reliability. No tools reported test-retest reliability or construct validity.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Six published psychotropic ADE monitoring tools are heterogeneous in design and intended application. Existing tools are predominately designed for application by nurses with or without direct involvement of the wider multidisciplinary team. Further research is needed into models of care that facilitate psychotropic ADE monitoring in the long-term care facility setting, and the extent to which application of specific tools is associated with reduced medication-related harm.
Topics: Humans; Long-Term Care; Reproducibility of Results; Nursing Homes; Psychotropic Drugs; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 37037347
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2023.03.003 -
Asian Journal of Psychiatry Jan 2023To integrate all evidence derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of both pharmacological and nonpharmacological augmentation interventions for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Pharmacological and nonpharmacological augmentation treatments for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis with normalized entropy assessment.
OBJECTIVE
To integrate all evidence derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of both pharmacological and nonpharmacological augmentation interventions for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (CRS).
METHODS
Six major electronic databases were systematically searched for RCTs published until July 10, 2021. The primary outcome was change in overall symptoms, and the secondary outcomes were positive and negative symptoms and acceptability. We performed random-effects network meta-analysis. Normalized entropy was calculated to examine the uncertainty of treatment ranking.
RESULTS
We identified 35 RCTs (1472 patients with 23 active augmentation treatments) with a mean daily clozapine dose of 440.80 (91.27) mg for 1168.22 (710.28) days. Network meta-analysis of overall symptoms (reported as standardized mean difference; 95 % confidence interval) with consistent results indicated that mirtazapine (-4.41; -5.61, -3.21), electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) (-4.32; -5.43, -3.21), and memantine (-2.02; -3.14, -0.91) were ranked as the best three treatments. For positive symptoms, ECT (-5.18; -5.86, -4.49) was ranked the best with less uncertainty. For negative symptoms, memantine (-3.38; -4.50, -2.26), duloxetine (-3.27; -4.25, -2.29), and mirtazapine (-1.73; -2.71, -0.74) were ranked the best three treatments with less uncertainty. All antipsychotics, N-methyl d-aspartate receptor agonists, and antiepileptics were not associated with more efficacy than placebo. Compared to placebo, only amisulpride had statistically significant lower discontinuation rate (risk ratio: 0.21; 95 % CI: 0.05, 0.93).
CONCLUSION
Add-on mirtazapine, ECT, and memantine were the most efficacious augmentation options for CRS. Data on other important outcomes such as cognitive functioning or quality of life were rarely reported, making further large-scale, well-designed RCTs necessary. (PROSPERO number, CRD42021262197.).
Topics: Humans; Clozapine; Network Meta-Analysis; Entropy; Memantine; Mirtazapine; Antipsychotic Agents; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 36470132
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajp.2022.103375 -
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 -
Progress in Neuro-psychopharmacology &... Aug 2021Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a severe and lifelong neurodevelopmental disorder, with high social costs and a dramatic burden on the quality of life of patients and...
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a severe and lifelong neurodevelopmental disorder, with high social costs and a dramatic burden on the quality of life of patients and family members. Despite its high prevalence, reaching 1/54 children and 1/45 adults in the United States, no pharmacological treatment is still directed to core symptoms of ASD, encompassing social and communication deficits, repetitive behaviors, restricted interests, and abnormal sensory processing. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the state-of-the-art of psychopharmacological therapy available today for ASD in children and adolescents, in order to foster best practices and to organize new strategies for future research. To date, atypical antipsychotics such as risperidone and aripiprazole represent the first line of intervention for hyperactivity, impulsivity, agitation, temper outbursts or aggression towards self or others. Tricyclic antidepressants are less prescribed because of uncertain efficacy and important side effects. SSRIs, especially fluoxetine and sertraline, may be effective in treating repetitive behaviors (anxiety and obsessive-compulsive symptoms) and irritability/agitation, while mirtazapine is more helpful with sleep problems. Low doses of buspirone have shown some efficacy on restrictive and repetitive behaviors in combination with behavioral interventions. Stimulants, and to a lesser extent atomoxetine, are effective in reducing hyperactivity, inattention and impulsivity also in comorbid ASD-ADHD, although with somewhat lower efficacy and greater incidence of side effects compared to idiopathic ADHD. Clonidine and guanfacine display some efficacy on hyperactivity and stereotypic behaviors. For several other drugs, case reports and open-label studies suggest possible efficacy, but no randomized controlled trial has yet been performed. Research in the pediatric psychopharmacology of ASD is still faced with at least two major hurdles: (a) Great interindividual variability in clinical response and side effect sensitivity is observed in the ASD population. This low level of predictability would benefit from symptom-specific treatment algorithms and from biomarkers to support drug choice; (b) To this date, no psychoactive drug appears to directly ameliorate core autism symptoms, although some indirect improvement has been reported with several drugs, once the comorbid target symptom is abated.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Antipsychotic Agents; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Psychopharmacology; Psychotropic Drugs; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 33857522
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2021.110326 -
Erectile and Ejaculatory Dysfunction Associated with Use of Psychotropic Drugs: A Systematic Review.The Journal of Sexual Medicine Aug 2021Sexual dysfunction may be a side effect of treatment with antipsychotics, antidepressants, and other psychotropic drugs. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Sexual dysfunction may be a side effect of treatment with antipsychotics, antidepressants, and other psychotropic drugs.
AIM
To review the evidence concerning male sexual dysfunctions in patients taking psychotropic drugs to provide specific information to nonpsychiatric physicians for the management of these dysfunctions.
METHODS
A systematic search of Medline and Embase databases was performed up to October 15, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of psychotropic drugs versus placebo or versus another drug of the same class, for at least 5 weeks.
OUTCOMES
We considered studies whose male population could be evaluated separately from the female population and with a separate analysis of the different phases of the male sex cycle.
RESULTS
We included 41 studies in the final review. There was a significant association between sexual dysfunction and antidepressant drug therapy, compared to placebo (decreased libido OR 1.89, 95% CI:1.40 to 2.56, 22 series, 11 trials, 7706 participants; erectile dysfunction OR = 2.28, 95% CI: 1.31 to 3.97; 11 trials, 3008 participants; ejaculatory dysfunction OR = 7.31, 95% CI: 4.38 to 12.20,19 trials, 3973 participants). When the effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) were evaluated separately from those of serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), the use of SNRIs but not that of SSRIs was characterized by significantly higher odds of erectile dysfunction compared to placebo. Only limited data were found regarding the effects of antipsychotics on the phases of the male sexual cycle, as it was shown that aripiprazole and risperidone showed lower and higher odds for erectile or ejaculatory dysfunction, respectively, compared to other atypical antipsychotics.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Treatment of male sexual dysfunction in patients taking psychotropics requires a basic knowledge of the different drugs that affect sexual function with different mechanisms.
STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS
The effects of psychotropic drugs on erectile function and ejaculation were evaluated separately. The great variability of the mechanisms of action makes it difficult to make comparisons between the effects of the different classes of psychotropic drugs.
CONCLUSIONS
Administration of antipsychotics affects male sexual function with different mechanisms, although the increase in prolactin values associated with the administration of first-generation antipsychotics and some atypical, such as risperidone, seems to play a primary role in determining male sexual dysfunction. Most antidepressants cause decreased libido, ejaculatory and erectile dysfunction, however the administration of SNRIs appears to be possibly associated with a specific risk of erectile dysfunction. Trinchieri M, Trinchieri M, Perletti G, et al. Erectile and Ejaculatory Dysfunction Associated with Use of Psychotropic Drugs: A Systematic Review. J Sex Med 2021;18:1354-1363.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Ejaculation; Erectile Dysfunction; Female; Humans; Male; Psychotropic Drugs; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological
PubMed: 34247952
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.05.016 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Many studies have recently been conducted to assess the antidepressant efficacy of glutamate modification in mood disorders. This is an update of a review first... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Many studies have recently been conducted to assess the antidepressant efficacy of glutamate modification in mood disorders. This is an update of a review first published in 2015 focusing on the use of glutamate receptor modulators in unipolar depression.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects - and review the acceptability and tolerability - of ketamine and other glutamate receptor modulators in alleviating the acute symptoms of depression in people with unipolar major depressive disorder.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO all years to July 2020. We did not apply any restrictions to date, language or publication status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Double- or single-blinded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ketamine, memantine, esketamine or other glutamate receptor modulators with placebo (pill or saline infusion), other active psychotropic drugs, or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in adults with unipolar major depression.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently identified studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcomes were response rate (50% reduction on a standardised rating scale) and adverse events. We decided a priori to measure the efficacy outcomes at different time points and run sensitivity/subgroup analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-one new studies were identified for inclusion in this updated review. Overall, we included 64 studies (5299 participants) on ketamine (31 trials), esketamine (9), memantine (5), lanicemine (4), D-cycloserine (2), Org26576 (2), riluzole (2), atomoxetine (1), basimglurant (1), citicoline (1), CP-101,606 (1), decoglurant (1), MK-0657 (1), N-acetylcysteine (1), rapastinel (1), and sarcosine (1). Forty-eight studies were placebo-controlled, and 48 were two-arm studies. The majority of trials defined an inclusion criterion for the severity of depressive symptoms at baseline: 29 at least moderate depression; 17 severe depression; and five mild-to-moderate depression. Nineteen studies recruited only patients with treatment-resistant depression, defined as inadequate response to at least two antidepressants. The majority of studies investigating ketamine administered as a single dose, whilst all of the included esketamine studies used a multiple dose regimen (most frequently twice a week for four weeks). Most studies looking at ketamine used intravenous administration, whilst the majority of esketamine trials used intranasal routes. The evidence suggests that ketamine may result in an increase in response and remission compared with placebo at 24 hours odds ratio (OR) 3.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.54 to 10.10; n = 185, studies = 7, very low-certainty evidence). Ketamine may reduce depression rating scale scores over placebo at 24 hours, but the evidence is very uncertain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.87, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.48; n = 231, studies = 8, very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in the number of participants assigned to ketamine or placebo who dropped out for any reason (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.19 to 8.28; n = 201, studies = 6, very low-certainty evidence). When compared with midazolam, the evidence showed that ketamine increases remission rates at 24 hours (OR 2.21, 95% CI 0.67 to 7.32; n = 122,studies = 2, low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the response efficacy of ketamine at 24 hours in comparison with midazolam, and its ability to reduce depression rating scale scores at the same time point (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.00 to 6.18; n = 296, studies = 4,very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in the number of participants who dropped out of studies for any reason between ketamine and placebo (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.09; n = 72, studies = 1, low-certainty evidence). Esketamine treatment likely results in a large increase in participants achieving remission at 24 hours compared with placebo (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.40; n = 894, studies = 5, moderate-certainty evidence). Esketamine probably results in decreases in depression rating scale scores at 24 hours compared with placebo (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.17; n = 824, studies = 4, moderate-certainty evidence). Our findings show that esketamine increased response rates, although this evidence is uncertain (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.68; n = 1071, studies = 5, low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence that participants assigned to esketamine treatment dropped out of trials more frequently than those assigned to placebo for any reason (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.73; n = 773, studies = 4,moderate-certainty evidence). We found very little evidence for the remaining glutamate receptor modulators. We rated the risk of bias as low or unclear for most domains, though lack of detail regarding masking of treatment in the studies reduced our certainty in the effect for all outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our findings show that ketamine and esketamine may be more efficacious than placebo at 24 hours. How these findings translate into clinical practice, however, is not entirely clear. The evidence for use of the remaining glutamate receptor modulators is limited as very few trials were included in the meta-analyses for each comparison and the majority of comparisons included only one study. Long term non-inferiority RCTs comparing repeated ketamine and esketamine, and rigorous real-world monitoring are needed to establish comprehensive data on safety and efficacy.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Ketamine; Receptors, Glutamate
PubMed: 34510411
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011612.pub3 -
Gut Mar 2017Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a chronic gastroduodenal disorder. Individuals with FD demonstrate visceral hypersensitivity, abnormal central pain processing, and low... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a chronic gastroduodenal disorder. Individuals with FD demonstrate visceral hypersensitivity, abnormal central pain processing, and low mood, but it is unclear whether psychotropic drugs are an effective treatment for the condition. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
DESIGN
MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic, PsychINFO and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to June 2015) for RCTs recruiting adults with FD comparing psychotropic drugs with placebo. We contacted authors directly to maximise trial eligibility and minimise risk of bias for studies. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain relative risk (RR) of remaining symptomatic after therapy, with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
The search identified 2795 citations; 13 RCTs (1241 patients) were eligible. Ten trials were at low risk of bias. The RR of FD symptoms not improving with psychotropic drugs versus placebo was 0.78 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.91) (number needed to treat=6; 95% CI 4 to 16). However, benefit was limited to antipsychotics and tricyclic antidepressants. When only studies that excluded individuals with coexistent mood disorder were considered, there was no benefit. Total numbers of adverse events and adverse events leading to withdrawal were significantly more common, with a number needed to harm of 21 for both.
CONCLUSIONS
Psychotropic drugs may be an effective treatment for FD, but the effect appears to be limited to antipsychotics and tricyclic antidepressants with fewer trials for other agents, meaning that firm conclusions for efficacy cannot be made. More data from high quality RCTs are required to support their use in the treatment of FD.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Antipsychotic Agents; Dyspepsia; Humans; Mood Disorders; Psychotropic Drugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26567029
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310721 -
Journal of the American Medical... Jun 2021To assess the prevalence and characteristics of psychotropic medication-related hospitalizations in older people. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess the prevalence and characteristics of psychotropic medication-related hospitalizations in older people.
DESIGN
Systematic review with meta-analysis.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS
Older adults (≥65 years of age) with psychotropic-related hospitalizations.
METHODS
A search of published literature was performed in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus from 2010 to March 2020. Three authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts of relevant studies for relevance. Two authors independently extracted full text data, including characteristics, measures of causality, prevalence data, and performed quality assessment. A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate pooled prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of psychotropic-related hospitalizations using random effects models. Heterogeneity was explored using subgroup analyses.
RESULTS
Of 815 potentially relevant studies, 11 were included in the final analysis. Five studies were cross-sectional studies, 5 were cohort studies, and 1 was a case control study. The majority of studies were rated as good quality. Psychotropic medications contributed to 2.1% (95% CI 1.2%-3.3%) of total hospitalizations and 11.3% (95% CI 8.2%-14.8%) of adverse drug event-related hospitalizations. The main psychotropic medications attributable to hospitalizations were antidepressants, hypnotics, sedatives, and antipsychotics.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Psychotropic medications are a significant contributor to hospitalizations in older adults. The risk of hospitalization was greatest for those taking antidepressants, antipsychotics, hypnotics, and sedatives. Future studies should aim to address specific medication subgroups and implement uniform adverse drug event-related classification systems to improve comparability across studies.
Topics: Aged; Case-Control Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Hospitalization; Humans; Prevalence; Psychotropic Drugs
PubMed: 33539820
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2020.12.035