-
Acta Neuropsychiatrica Aug 2020The aim of this paper was to provide a systematic review and update on the pharmacotherapy of social anxiety disorder (SAD), including the efficacy and tolerability of... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this paper was to provide a systematic review and update on the pharmacotherapy of social anxiety disorder (SAD), including the efficacy and tolerability of these agents, the ranking of interventions, and the grading of results by quality of evidence.
METHODS
The Common Mental Disorder Controlled Trial Register and two trial registries were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention or placebo in the treatment of SAD. We performed a standard pairwise meta-analysis using a random effects model and carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using the statistical package, R. Quality of evidence was also assessed.
RESULTS
We included 67 RCTs in the review and 21 to 45 interventions in the NMA. Paroxetine was most effective in the reduction of symptom severity as compared to placebo. Superior response to treatment was also observed for paroxetine, brofaromine, bromazepam, clonazepam, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, phenelzine, and sertraline. Higher dropout rates were found for fluvoxamine. Brofaromine, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, pregabalin, sertraline, and venlafaxine performed worse in comparison to placebo for the outcome of dropouts due to adverse events. Olanzapine yielded a relatively high rank for treatment efficacy and buspirone the worse rank for dropouts due to any cause.
CONCLUSION
The differences between drugs and placebo were small, apart from a significant reduction in symptom severity and response for paroxetine. We suggest paroxetine as a first-line treatment of SAD, with the consideration of future research on the drug olanzapine as well as brofaromine, bromazepam, clonazepam, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, phenelzine, and sertraline because we observed a response to treatment.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Phobia, Social; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32039743
DOI: 10.1017/neu.2020.6 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2010Up 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 10 years, about half of people with bulimia nervosa will have recovered fully, one third will have made a partial recovery, and 10% to 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 January 2010 (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 27 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 (CBT; 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, reboxetine, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), topiramate, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), and venlafaxine.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Bulimia; Bulimia Nervosa; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Evidence-Based Medicine; Fluoxetine; Humans; Psychotherapy
PubMed: 21418667
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jan 2016To study serious harms associated with selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To study serious harms associated with selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Mortality and suicidality. Secondary outcomes were aggressive behaviour and akathisia.
DATA SOURCES
Clinical study reports for duloxetine, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine obtained from the European and UK drug regulators, and summary trial reports for duloxetine and fluoxetine from Eli Lilly's website.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION
Double blind placebo controlled trials that contained any patient narratives or individual patient listings of harms.
DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS
Two researchers extracted data independently; the outcomes were meta-analysed by Peto's exact method (fixed effect model).
RESULTS
We included 70 trials (64,381 pages of clinical study reports) with 18,526 patients. These trials had limitations in the study design and discrepancies in reporting, which may have led to serious under-reporting of harms. For example, some outcomes appeared only in individual patient listings in appendices, which we had for only 32 trials, and we did not have case report forms for any of the trials. Differences in mortality (all deaths were in adults, odds ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 4.06), suicidality (1.21, 0.84 to 1.74), and akathisia (2.04, 0.93 to 4.48) were not significant, whereas patients taking antidepressants displayed more aggressive behaviour (1.93, 1.26 to 2.95). For adults, the odds ratios were 0.81 (0.51 to 1.28) for suicidality, 1.09 (0.55 to 2.14) for aggression, and 2.00 (0.79 to 5.04) for akathisia. The corresponding values for children and adolescents were 2.39 (1.31 to 4.33), 2.79 (1.62 to 4.81), and 2.15 (0.48 to 9.65). In the summary trial reports on Eli Lilly's website, almost all deaths were noted, but all suicidal ideation events were missing, and the information on the remaining outcomes was incomplete.
CONCLUSIONS
Because of the shortcomings identified and having only partial access to appendices with no access to case report forms, the harms could not be estimated accurately. In adults there was no significant increase in all four outcomes, but in children and adolescents the risk of suicidality and aggression doubled. To elucidate the harms reliably, access to anonymised individual patient data is needed.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depressive Disorder; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Psychomotor Agitation; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Suicidal Ideation; Suicide; Suicide Prevention
PubMed: 26819231
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i65 -
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Aug 2021Evidence of larger drug effects in highly standardized studies (efficacy) compared to clinical routine (effectiveness) is discussed as efficacy-effectiveness gap. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Evidence of larger drug effects in highly standardized studies (efficacy) compared to clinical routine (effectiveness) is discussed as efficacy-effectiveness gap. This study aimed to quantify effect size differences of RCTs and non-RCTs in the treatment of depression with venlafaxine and duloxetine and to identify effect modifying predictors.
METHODS
A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted, including all prospective trials, which evaluated the treatment effects of duloxetine or venlafaxine in patients with depression. The primary outcome was the pre-post effect size after acute therapy, which were compared between RCTs and non-RCTs. Moreover, an exploratory analysis of predictors in a mixed meta-regression model within an information-theoretic approach was performed.
RESULTS
171 RCTs and 74 non-RCTs were included. The pre-post effect size differed significantly between RCTs and non-RCTs (-3.04 vs. -2.62, Δ = 0.41, p = 0.012, high heterogeneity). Study characteristics were very similar between RCTs and non-RCTs. Most important variables to predict effect sizes were 'depression severity', 'dose' and 'number of participants'.
CONCLUSION
Despite differences in effect sizes between RCTs and non-RCTs, study design is not clearly an important predictor for the effect sizes. Our results question the common assumption that non-RCTs are generally better suited to describe a drug's effectiveness in clinical practice than RCTs. Future studies and their reporting should put more emphasis on the description of external validity, in order to allow better assessments of clinical relevance.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Humans; Prospective Studies; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 33661520
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13293 -
Progress in Neuro-psychopharmacology &... Jun 2019Anhedonia is defined as a diminished ability to experience interest or pleasure, and is a critical psychopathological dimension of major depressive disorder (MDD). The...
Anhedonia is defined as a diminished ability to experience interest or pleasure, and is a critical psychopathological dimension of major depressive disorder (MDD). The purpose of the current systematic review is to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of pharmacological treatments on measures of anhedonia in adults with MDD. Electronic databases Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to June 1, 2018 for longitudinal studies utilizing pharmacotherapy for the treatment of anhedonia in patients with MDD. A total of 17 eligible studies were identified (i.e., evaluated the effects of pharmacotherapy on a measure of anhedonia). Among the identified studies, the efficacy of 14 different pharmacotherapies on measures of anhedonia were evaluated, including melatonergic agents (i.e. agomelatine), monoaminergic agents (i.e. moclobemide, clomipramine, bupropion, venlafaxine, fluoxetine, amitifadine and levomilnacipran, escitalopram, and sertraline), glutamatergic agents (i.e., ketamine and riluzole), stimulants (i.e., methylphenidate), and psychedelics (i.e., psilocybin). Based on the available evidence, most antidepressants demonstrated beneficial effects on measures of anhedonia as well as the other depressive symptoms. Only escitalopram/riluzole combination treatment was ineffective in treating symptoms of anhedonia in MDD. Continued research is warranted to further support the efficacy of mechanistically-distinct antidepressants in treating symptoms of anhedonia in MDD. Future research should also aim to parse out the heterogeneous effects of different pharmacotherapies on anhedonic symptoms.
Topics: Anhedonia; Antidepressive Agents; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans
PubMed: 30611836
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2019.01.002 -
Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials Mar 2013Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common psychiatric disorder in children and adolescents. Stimulants are commonly prescribed for ADHD management.... (Review)
Review
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common psychiatric disorder in children and adolescents. Stimulants are commonly prescribed for ADHD management. There is clinical trial evidence that some medications with noradrenergic properties such as atomoxetine are effective. It is of theoretical and practical importance if other agents with noradrenergic properties display a comparable pattern of efficacy. This paper is a systematic review of the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine for treating children and adolescents with ADHD. MEDLINE, Google scholar, Scopus, and Web of science (ISI) databases were electronically searched in July 2012, updated on November 2012. Time and language of publication were not exclusion criteria. Efficacy outcomes were assessed by a valid and reliable parent- and/or teacher-reported instrument to evaluate clinical symptoms. Adverse effects were also evaluated. There were three uncontrolled trials and only two double blind controlled clinical trials. Venlafaxine appeared effective for treating ADHD. The rates of some adverse effects of venlafaxine were less than those documented for methylphenidate. While one of the two small controlled trials did not find difference between venlafaxine ad methylphenidate, the other trial reported lower efficacy for venlafaxine. Headache, insomnia, and nausea were among the most common adverse effects. This systematic review provides preliminary support that venlafaxine may have short term utility in treating ADHD in children and adolescents. However, before recommending venlafaxine for treatment, more robust and larger clinical trials, in particular providing evidence of its long-term efficacy, safety and tolerability are required.
Topics: Adolescent; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cyclohexanols; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Methylphenidate; Research Design; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 23157376
DOI: 10.2174/1574887111308010002 -
Pharmacological Reports : PR Apr 2016The number of newly approved generic psychotropic drugs increases every year and, in many countries, their sales exceed the sales of brand-name counterparts. In order... (Review)
Review
The number of newly approved generic psychotropic drugs increases every year and, in many countries, their sales exceed the sales of brand-name counterparts. In order for any generic drug to receive an approval of regulatory authorities, its bioequivalence with the corresponding reference product must be demonstrated. Moreover, generic drugs must meet the same quality standards as reference drugs. However, many psychiatrists express concerns about use of generic drugs. We carried out a systematic analysis of the relevant literature indexed in PubMed and Cochrane databases. The MeSH term "generic" was combined with terms describing antipsychotic and antidepressive drugs, including their pharmaceutical names and relevant mental disorders. All 26 articles including either clinical studies or case reports have been qualified for a detailed analysis. No cases describing switches between two generics were found. Therapeutic equivalence studies evaluating antipsychotics included clozapine, olanzapine, and risperidone. The clinical status was judged to have worsened in 15.7% patients treated with clozapine. The number of relapses before and after the switch was not significantly different in patients treated with olanzapine. Two case reports showed clinical state deterioration after switch to generic risperidone. The clinical outcome after conversion to a generic antidepressant was evaluated only in one retrospective study. That study analyzed the outcomes of treatment with citalopram and revealed mental state deterioration in 11.6% of patients. Only single reports describe cases of impaired efficacy or adverse events after the switch to a generic antidepressant, including fluoxetine, mirtazapine, and venlafaxine. No cases of suicidal attempt after the switch were reported. Although the overall number of described cases is rather modest, health professionals should be aware of possible changes in the therapeutic effectiveness after changing to a generic medicine.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Clinical Studies as Topic; Drugs, Generic; Humans; Retrospective Studies; Therapeutic Equivalency
PubMed: 26922520
DOI: 10.1016/j.pharep.2015.08.017 -
Human Psychopharmacology Jan 2015The postnatal period represents a critical phase for mothers because of physiological hormonal changes, the increase of emotional reactions and a greater susceptibility... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The postnatal period represents a critical phase for mothers because of physiological hormonal changes, the increase of emotional reactions and a greater susceptibility for the onset/recrudescence of psychiatric disorders. Despite the evidence of an increasing utilization of antidepressant drugs during breastfeeding, there is still few reliable information on the neonatal safety of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and selective noradrenergic reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) [serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs)] in nursing mothers. The aim of this study is to provide a systematic review on the neonatal safety profile of these drugs during breastfeeding, also assessing the limits of available tools.
METHODS
MEDLINE and PubMed databases were searched without any language restrictions by using the following set of keywords: ((SSRIs OR selective serotonin inhibitor reuptake OR SNRIs OR selective serotonin noradrenaline inhibitor reuptake) AND (breastfeeding OR lactation OR breast milk)). A separate search was also performed for each SSRIs (paroxetine, fluvoxamine, fluoxetine, sertraline, citalopram and escitalopram) and SNRIs (venlafaxine and duloxetine).
RESULTS
Sertraline and paroxetine show a better neonatal safety profile during breastfeeding as compared with other SRIs. Less data are available for fluvoxamine, escitalopram and duloxetine. Few studies followed up infants breastfeed for assessing the neurodevelopmental outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Literature review clearly indicates paroxetine and sertraline as the drugs that should be preferred as first line choice in nursing women who need an antidepressant treatment.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Breast Feeding; Databases, Bibliographic; Depression; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 25572308
DOI: 10.1002/hup.2451 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Oct 2011Up to one in five people may have generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) at some point, and most have other health problems. Less than half of people have full remission... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Up to one in five people may have generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) at some point, and most have other health problems. Less than half of people have full remission after 5 years. GAD may have a genetic component, and has also been linked to previous psychological or other trauma.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for GAD? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2011 (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 74 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: abecarnil, antidepressants (duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, opipramol, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine), antipsychotic drugs (trifluoperazine), applied relaxation, benzodiazepines, buspirone, cognitive behavioural therapy, hydroxyzine, and pregabalin.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; Benzodiazepines; Buspirone; Humans; Hydroxyzine; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Sertraline
PubMed: 22030083
DOI: No ID Found -
Psychopharmacology Bulletin May 2022Bipolar II disorder (BD-II) has limited evidence-based treatment guidelines. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the efficacy and safety... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Bipolar II disorder (BD-II) has limited evidence-based treatment guidelines. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the efficacy and safety of second-generation antidepressant (SGAD) monotherapy in acute BD-II depression.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted from the database inception through March 2021. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Outcome measures included: response rates, treatment-emergent affective switch (TEAS) rates, discontinuation due to side-effects, and all-cause discontinuation. Risk ratio (RR) was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel random effects model.
RESULTS
3301 studies were screened, and 15 articles were selected for full-text review. Five studies met the inclusion criteria: Four double-blind RCTs (n = 533) and one open-label RCT (n = 83) were included. Two double-blind RCTs [n = 223, SGAD = 110 (venlafaxine = 65, sertraline = 45), lithium/control = 113] were included for meta-analysis. The response rate for SGAD monotherapy compared to lithium monotherapy were similar (RR = 1.44, 95% CI 0.78, 2.66). The TEAS rate for SGAD monotherapy was not significantly different from lithium monotherapy (p = 0.76). The discontinuation rate due to side-effects for SGAD monotherapy was significantly lower than lithium monotherapy with a RR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.11, 0.96, p = 0.04 but all-cause discontinuation rates were similar in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Limited data suggests short-term efficacy of venlafaxine and sertraline monotherapy in patients with acute BD-II depression with good side effect tolerability and without significantly increased switch rate. There is an urgent need for RCTs investigating the role of SGAD monotherapy in short and long-term among patients with BD-II.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Bipolar Disorder; Depression; Humans; Lithium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sertraline; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 35721812
DOI: No ID Found