-
PloS One 2024We conducted a systematic evaluation of the therapeutic efficacy and complications of tolterodine and α-adrenergic receptor blockers in alleviating ureteral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
Comparison of the efficacy and complications of tolterodine and α-adrenergic receptor blockers in improving ureteral stent-related symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a systematic evaluation of the therapeutic efficacy and complications of tolterodine and α-adrenergic receptor blockers in alleviating ureteral stent-related symptoms.
METHODS
Until August 2023, we conducted a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and complications of tolterodine and α-adrenergic receptor blockers in treating ureteral stent-related symptoms. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. The scores from various domains of the Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ) were summarized and compared, and statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.0 software.
RESULTS
A total of 8 studies met the inclusion criteria for our analysis. These studies were conducted at different centers. All studies were randomized controlled trials, involving a total of 487 patients, with 244 patients receiving α-adrenergic receptor blockers and 243 patients receiving tolterodine. The results showed that tolterodine demonstrated significantly better improvement in body pain (MD, 1.56; 95% CI [0.46, 2.66]; p = 0.005) (MD, 0.46; 95% CI [0.12, 0.80]; p = 0.008) (MD, 3.21; 95% CI [1.89, 4.52]; p = 0.00001) among patients after ureteral stent placement compared to α-adrenergic receptor blockers at different time points. Additionally, at 4 weeks, tolterodine showed superior improvement in general health (MD, 0.15; 95% CI [0.03, 0.27]; p = 0.01) and urinary symptoms (MD, 1.62; 95% CI [0.59, 2.66]; p = 0.002) compared to α-adrenergic receptor blockers, while at 6 weeks, tolterodine showed better improvement in work performance (MD, -1.60; 95% CI [-2.73, -0.48]; p = 0.005) compared to α-adrenergic receptor blockers. Additionally, the incidence of dry mouth (RR, 4.21; 95% CI [1.38, 12.87]; p = 0.01) is higher with the use of tolterodine compared to α-adrenergic receptor blockers. However, there were no significant statistical differences between the two drugs in other outcomes.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis suggests that tolterodine is superior to α-adrenergic receptor blockers in improving physical pain symptoms after ureteral stent placement, while α-adrenergic receptor blockers are more effective than tolterodine in enhancing work performance. Additionally, the incidence of dry mouth is higher with the use of tolterodine compared to α-adrenergic receptor blockers. However, higher-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to further investigate this issue.
Topics: Tolterodine Tartrate; Humans; Stents; Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists; Ureter; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38701097
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302716 -
International Journal of Clinical... Jun 2024To describe the efficacy of atropine in controlling salivary flow in patients with sialorrhea or drooling. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To describe the efficacy of atropine in controlling salivary flow in patients with sialorrhea or drooling.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We included randomized controlled studies, quasi-randomized trials, case reports, clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses assessing the use of atropine in patients with sialorrhea or drooling. The endpoints were reduction in salivary flow rate, amount of saliva secreted, reduction in clinical symptoms of sialorrhea, death rattle intensity, or reduction in drooling intensity as measured by an objective scale such as the drooling intensity scale.
RESULTS
A total of 56 studies with 2,378 patients were included in the systematic review. The underlying disease states included brain injury, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, cerebral palsy, clozapine- and perphenazine-induced sialorrhea, Parkinson's disease, and terminal illness. The routes of atropine administration included sublingual, intravenous, subcutaneous, oral tablet or solution, and direct injection of atropine into parotid glands or at the base of the tongue. The generalized estimated equation regression models showed that sublingual administration is superior to oral and subcutaneous routes.
CONCLUSION
Atropine is efficacious in managing sialorrhea in most disease states. Sublingual administration of atropine is superior to other routes of administration in reducing salivary flow in patients with sialorrhea.
Topics: Sialorrhea; Humans; Atropine; Treatment Outcome; Salivation
PubMed: 38577753
DOI: 10.5414/CP204538 -
JAMA Network Open Mar 2024Antipsychotic-induced akathisia (AIA) occurs in 14% to 35% of patients treated with antipsychotics and is associated with increased suicide and decreased adherence in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Antipsychotic-induced akathisia (AIA) occurs in 14% to 35% of patients treated with antipsychotics and is associated with increased suicide and decreased adherence in patients with schizophrenia. However, no comprehensive review and network meta-analysis has been conducted to compare the efficacy of treatments for AIA.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy associated with AIA treatments.
DATA SOURCES
Three databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were systematically searched by multiple researchers for double-blind randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing active drugs for the treatment of AIA with placebo or another treatment between May 30 and June 18, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Selected studies were RCTs that compared adjunctive drugs for AIA vs placebo or adjunctive treatment in patients treated with antipsychotics fulfilling the criteria for akathisia, RCTs with sample size of 10 patients or more, only trials in which no additional drugs were administered during the study, and RCTs that used a validated akathisia score. Trials with missing data for the main outcome (akathisia score at the end points) were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction and synthesis were performed, estimating standardized mean differences (SMDs) through pairwise and network meta-analysis with a random-effects model. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was the severity of akathisia measured by a validated scale at the last available end point.
RESULTS
Fifteen trials involving 492 participants compared 10 treatments with placebo. Mirtazapine (15 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -1.20; 95% CI, -1.83 to -0.58), biperiden (6 mg/d for ≥14 days; SMD, -1.01; 95% CI, -1.69 to -0.34), vitamin B6 (600-1200 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -0.92; 95% CI, -1.57 to -0.26), trazodone (50 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -0.84; 95% CI, -1.54 to -0.14), mianserin (15 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.44 to -0.19), and propranolol (20 mg/d for ≥6 days; SMD, -0.78; 95% CI, -1.35 to -0.22) were associated with greater efficacy than placebo, with low to moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 34.6%; 95% CI, 0.0%-71.1%). Cyproheptadine, clonazepam, zolmitriptan, and valproate did not yield significant effects. Eight trials were rated as having low risk of bias; 2, moderate risk; and 5, high risk. Sensitivity analyses generally confirmed the results for all drugs except for cyproheptadine and propranolol. No association between effect sizes and psychotic severity was found.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, mirtazapine, biperiden, and vitamin B6 were associated with the greatest efficacy for AIA, with vitamin B6 having the best efficacy and tolerance profile. Trazodone, mianserin, and propranolol appeared as effective alternatives with slightly less favorable efficacy and tolerance profiles. These findings should assist prescribers in selecting an appropriate medication for treating AIA.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Biperiden; Cyproheptadine; Gallopamil; Mianserin; Mirtazapine; Network Meta-Analysis; Propranolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Trazodone; Vitamin B 6; Akathisia, Drug-Induced
PubMed: 38451521
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.1527 -
Neurourology and Urodynamics Mar 2024Antimuscarinics and the β3-adrenoreceptor agonist, mirabegron, are commonly used for treating patients with overactive bladder (OAB) and α -adrenoreceptor antagonists... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Safety and efficacy of an α -blocker plus mirabegron compared with an α -blocker plus antimuscarinic in men with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia and overactive bladder: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
AIM
Antimuscarinics and the β3-adrenoreceptor agonist, mirabegron, are commonly used for treating patients with overactive bladder (OAB) and α -adrenoreceptor antagonists (α -blockers) are the main pharmacological agents used for treating lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). As these conditions commonly occur together, the aim of this systematic review was to identify publications that compared the use of an α -blocker plus mirabegron with an α -blocker plus antimuscarinic in men with LUTS secondary to BPH and OAB. A meta-analysis was subsequently conducted to explore the safety and efficacy of these combinations.
METHODS
Included records had to be from a parallel-group, randomized clinical trial that was ≥8 weeks in duration. Participants were male with LUTS secondary to BPH and OAB. The indirect analyses that were identified compared an α -blocker plus OAB agent with an α -blocker plus placebo. The PubMed/Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, the Excerpta Medica Database, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched for relevant records up until March 5, 2020. Safety outcomes included incidences of overall treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and urinary retention, postvoid residual volume, and maximum urinary flow (Q ). Primary efficacy outcomes were micturitions/day, incontinence episodes/day, and urgency episodes/day, and secondary outcomes were Overactive Bladder Symptom Score and International Prostate Symptom Score. A Bayesian network meta-analysis approach was used for the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Out of a total of 1039 records identified, 24 were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. There were no statistically significant differences between the α -blocker plus mirabegron and α -blocker plus antimuscarinic groups in terms of the comparisons identified for all the safety and efficacy analyses conducted. Numerically superior results were frequently observed for the α -blocker plus mirabegron group compared with the α -blocker plus antimuscarinic group for the safety parameters, including TEAEs, urinary retention, and Q . For some of the efficacy parameters, most notably micturitions/day, numerically superior results were noted for the α -blocker plus antimuscarinic group. Inconsistency in reporting and study variability were noted in the included records, which hindered data interpretation.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that an α -blocker plus mirabegron and an α -blocker plus antimuscarinic have similar safety and efficacy profiles in male patients with LUTS secondary to BPH and OAB. Patients may, therefore, benefit from the use of either combination within the clinical setting.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Urinary Bladder, Overactive; Muscarinic Antagonists; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Urinary Retention; Bayes Theorem; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Drug Therapy, Combination; Acetanilides; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Adrenergic beta-3 Receptor Agonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thiazoles
PubMed: 38291827
DOI: 10.1002/nau.25399 -
Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics : the... Mar 2024To review the rebound effect after cessation of different myopia control treatments. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To review the rebound effect after cessation of different myopia control treatments.
METHODS
A systematic review that included full-length randomised controlled studies (RCTs), as well as post-hoc analyses of RCTs reporting new findings on myopia control treatments rebound effect in two databases, PubMed and Web of Science, was performed according to the PRISMA statement. The search period was between 15 June 2023 and 30 June 2023. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to analyse the quality of the selected studies.
RESULTS
A total of 11 studies were included in this systematic review. Unifying the rebound effects of all myopia control treatments, the mean rebound effect for axial length (AL) and spherical equivalent refraction (SER) were 0.10 ± 0.07 mm [-0.02 to 0.22] and -0.27 ± 0.2 D [-0.71 to -0.03] after 10.2 ± 7.4 months of washout, respectively. In addition, spectacles with highly aspherical lenslets or defocus incorporated multiple segments technology, soft multifocal contact lenses and orthokeratology showed lower rebound effects compared with atropine and low-level light therapy, with a mean rebound effect for AL and SER of 0.04 ± 0.04 mm [0 to 0.08] and -0.13 ± 0.07 D [-0.05 to -0.2], respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
It appears that the different treatments for myopia control produce a rebound effect after their cessation. Specifically, optical treatments seem to produce less rebound effect than pharmacological or light therapies. However, more studies are required to confirm these results.
Topics: Humans; Myopia; Atropine; Contact Lenses, Hydrophilic; Refraction, Ocular; Eyeglasses
PubMed: 38193312
DOI: 10.1111/opo.13277 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2023Management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) commonly involves a combination of long-acting bronchodilators including beta2-agonists (LABA) and muscarinic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) commonly involves a combination of long-acting bronchodilators including beta2-agonists (LABA) and muscarinic antagonists (LAMA). LABA and LAMA bronchodilators are now available in single-combination inhalers. In individuals with persistent symptoms or frequent exacerbations, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are also used with combination LABA and LAMA inhalers. However, the benefits and risks of adding ICS to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers as a triple therapy remain unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of adding an ICS to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers for the treatment of stable COPD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase up to 30 November 2022. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP up to 30 November 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials of three weeks' duration or longer that compared the treatment of stable COPD with ICS in addition to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers against combination LABA/LAMA inhalers alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were acute exacerbations of COPD, respiratory health-related quality of life, pneumonia and other serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were symptom scores, lung function, physical capacity, and mortality. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for studies that contributed data to our prespecified outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Four studies with a total of 15,412 participants met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of study participants ranged from 64.4 to 65.3 years; the proportion of female participants ranged from 28% to 40%. Most participants had symptomatic COPD (COPD Assessment Test Score ≥ 10) with severe to very severe airflow limitation (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) < 50% predicted) and one or more moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations in the last 12 months. Trial medications differed amongst studies. The duration of follow-up was 52 weeks in three studies and 24 weeks in one study. We assessed the risk of selection, performance, and detection bias to be low in the included studies; one study was at high risk of attrition bias, and one study was at high risk of reporting bias. Triple therapy may reduce rates of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (rate ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.81; n = 15,397; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis stratifying by blood eosinophil counts showed there may be a greater reduction in rate of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations with triple therapy in participants with high-eosinophils (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.75) compared to low-eosinophils (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.93) (test for subgroup differences: P < 0.01) (high/low cut-offs: 150 eosinophils/µL in three studies; 200 eosinophils/µL in one study). However, moderate-to-substantial heterogeneity was observed in both high- and low-eosinophil subgroups. These subgroup analyses are observational by nature and thus results should be interpreted with caution. Triple therapy may be associated with reduced rates of severe COPD exacerbations (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84; n = 14,131; low-certainty evidence). Triple therapy improved health-related quality of life assessed using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold (4-point decrease) (35.3% versus 42.4%, odds ratio (OR) 1.35, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.45; n = 14,070; high-certainty evidence). Triple therapy may result in fewer symptoms measured using the Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.57; n = 3044; moderate-certainty evidence) and improved lung function as measured by change in trough FEV1 (mean difference 38.68 mL, 95% CI 22.58 to 54.77; n = 11,352; low-certainty evidence). However, these benefits fell below MCID thresholds for TDI (1-unit decrease) and trough FEV1 (100 mL), respectively. Triple therapy is probably associated with a higher risk of pneumonia as a serious adverse event compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (3.3% versus 1.9%, OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.18; n = 15,412; moderate-certainty evidence). In contrast, all-cause serious adverse events may be similar between groups (19.7% versus 19.7%, OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; n = 15,412; low-certainty evidence). All-cause mortality may be lower with triple therapy (1.4% versus 2.0%, OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.90; n = 15,397; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence suggests that triple therapy may reduce rates of COPD exacerbations (low-certainty evidence) and results in an improvement in health-related quality of life (high-certainty evidence) compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers, but probably confers an increased pneumonia risk as a serious adverse event (moderate-certainty evidence). Triple therapy probably improves respiratory symptoms and may improve lung function (moderate- and low-certainty evidence, respectively); however, these benefits do not appear to be clinically significant. Triple therapy may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded most frequently for inconsistency or indirectness. Across the four included studies, there were important differences in inclusion criteria, trial medications, and duration of follow-up. Investigation of heterogeneity was limited due to the small number of included studies. We found limited data on the effects of triple therapy compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers in patients with mild-moderate COPD and those without a recent exacerbation history.
Topics: Humans; Female; Middle Aged; Aged; Muscarinic Antagonists; Bronchodilator Agents; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Quality of Life; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Dyspnea; Pneumonia; Disease Progression
PubMed: 38054551
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011600.pub3 -
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology... Feb 2024The current meta-analysis was designed to investigate the impact of Hyoscine N-butyl bromide (HBB) rectal on labour duration and the rate of cervical dilatation by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The current meta-analysis was designed to investigate the impact of Hyoscine N-butyl bromide (HBB) rectal on labour duration and the rate of cervical dilatation by consolidating the available data.
METHODS
The search of Medline through the PubMed interface, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was performed for original articles concerning the effects of HBB rectal on the duration of labour published prior to 26 June 2023. Search terms were based on Medical Subject Headings without time and language restrictions. They included: Hyoscine, Scopolamine, HBB, Buscopan, Buscolysin, Buscapine, rectal, suppository, childbirth, delivery, active phase, second stage, cervical dilatation, labour, labour, and duration of labour. The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V3 software was used for all analyses.
RESULTS
Five randomized control trials and 1 non-randomized study involving 1310 women were included in the systematic review. Two studies were excluded from the meta-analysis because of heterogeneous interventions and a lack of mean and SD results. The results determined that HBB rectal administration significantly decreased the duration of the active phase (pooled mean difference -193.893; 95% CI -229.173 to -158.613, P < 0.001; I squares = 90.097%) and second stage of labour (pooled mean difference -2.911; 95% CI -5.486 to -0.336, P = 0.027; I squares = 90.097%). Also, the cervical dilatation rate in the active phase of labour was 0.981 cm/h higher than in the control group (I = 0.0%; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis found that HBB rectal administration shortened the active labour phase and second stage and increased the rate of cervix dilatation; consequently, it can be used as a cost-effective intervention for low-risk pregnant women during labour. However, our findings also suggest that more robust clinical trials are required to generate evidence and confirm the use of HBB during labour for clinical practice guidelines.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Butylscopolammonium Bromide; Labor Stage, First; Scopolamine; Labor, Obstetric; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Hydrocarbons, Brominated
PubMed: 37993100
DOI: 10.1016/j.jogc.2023.102292 -
Archivos de Bronconeumologia Jan 2024
Comparative Study
Efficacy and Safety of Single-inhaler Triple Therapy Containing Dual Bronchodilator With Corticosteroids Compared to Monotherapy, Dual Therapy, or Open Triple Therapy in Moderate/Severe COPD: A Systematic Literature Review.
Topics: Humans; Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Bronchodilator Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Muscarinic Antagonists; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37985278
DOI: 10.1016/j.arbres.2023.10.006 -
Arerugi = [Allergy] 2023Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are preferred add-on treatment for adult asthmatic patients whose symptoms cannot be controlled with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)...
[CQ IN THE LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT OF ADULT ASTHMATIC PATIENTS WHO ARE NOT ADEQUATELY CONTROLLED WITH INHALED CORTICOSTEROIDS MONOTHERAPY, WHICH IS MORE BENEFICIAL: ADDING A LONG ACTING BETA2 AGONIST OR A LONG ACTING MUSCARINIC ANTAGONIST?].
Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are preferred add-on treatment for adult asthmatic patients whose symptoms cannot be controlled with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone. However, over the last decade, long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) have gained approval for use in treating asthma, and their efficacy is anticipated. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to investigate whether the addition of LABA or LAMA is more beneficial for the long-term management of adult asthmatic patients poorly controlled on ICS monotherapy. We extracted eight relevant randomized controlled trials (represented in 18 articles) conducted by June 2022 form the corresponding Cochrane review and additional searches through medical databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and ICHUSHI (https://www.jamas.or.jp/)). While the LAMA add-on group showed a significantly better improvement in some respiratory function tests, the difference between groups did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). On the other hand, the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, a quality of life metric, was significantly higher in the LABA add-on group, but the difference also did not surpass the MCID. Because no outcomes exceeded the MCID, we could not determine whether adding LABA or LAMA on ICS is more beneficial in the long-term management of adult asthmatic patients. Given that no significant differences were found in the incidence of adverse events (including serious ones), when specific adverse events associated with one treatment occur, switching to the other treatment (from LABA to LAMA, or vice versa) can be considered as an option.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Muscarinic Antagonists; Quality of Life; Drug Therapy, Combination; Administration, Inhalation; Asthma; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; World Health Organization; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
PubMed: 37967963
DOI: 10.15036/arerugi.72.1158 -
Biomedicines Sep 2023Major depressive disorder is one of the most severe mental disorders. It strongly impairs daily functioning, and, in extreme cases, it can lead to suicide. Although... (Review)
Review
Major depressive disorder is one of the most severe mental disorders. It strongly impairs daily functioning, and, in extreme cases, it can lead to suicide. Although different treatment options are available for patients with depression, there is an ongoing search for novel therapeutic agents, such as scopolamine (also known as hyoscine), that would offer higher efficacy, a more rapid onset of action, and a more favorable safety profile. The aim of our study was to review the current clinical evidence regarding the use of scopolamine, a promising therapeutic option in the treatment of depression. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases up to 5 June 2023. We included randomized placebo-controlled or head-to-head clinical trials that compared the clinical efficacy and safety of scopolamine in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Two reviewers independently conducted the search and study selection and rated the risk of bias for each study. Four randomized controlled trials were identified in the systematic review. The included studies investigated the use of scopolamine administered as an oral, intramuscular, or intravenous drug, alone or in combination with other antidepressants. The results indicated that scopolamine exerts antidepressant effects of varying intensity. We show that not all studies confirmed a statistically and clinically significant reduction of depressive symptoms vs. placebo. A broader perspective on scopolamine use in antidepressant treatment should be confirmed in subsequent large randomized controlled trials assessing both effectiveness and safety. Therefore, studies directly comparing the effectiveness of scopolamine depending on the route of administration are required.
PubMed: 37893010
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11102636