-
Advances in Therapy Oct 2021Hot flushes/flashes (HFs) or other vasomotor symptoms affect between 45 and 97% of women during menopause. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is effective at alleviating... (Review)
Review
Neurokinin 3 Receptor Antagonists Compared With Serotonin Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors for Non-Hormonal Treatment of Menopausal Hot Flushes: A Systematic Qualitative Review.
INTRODUCTION
Hot flushes/flashes (HFs) or other vasomotor symptoms affect between 45 and 97% of women during menopause. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is effective at alleviating menopausal symptoms, but some women cannot or prefer not to take HRT. Since current non-hormonal options have suboptimal efficacy/tolerability, there is a pressing need for an effective, well-tolerated alternative. The neurokinin 3 receptor (NK3R) has recently been implicated in the generation of menopausal HFs and represents a novel therapeutic target to ameliorate HF symptoms. This review aims to assess if NK3R antagonists (NK3Ras) are more effective than Serotonin Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors (SNRIs)-currently a common choice for non-hormonal treatment of menopausal HFs.
METHODS
Studies were identified after systematically searching Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE databases based on PRISMA guidelines. Trial quality and bias were assessed. Key efficacy outcomes (HF frequency, HF severity and number of night-time awakenings/night-sweats) and selected safety outcomes were extracted and analysed.
RESULTS
Seven SNRI and four NK3Ra placebo-controlled randomised trials (plus four follow-up reports) were included in this review. NK3Ra administration resulted in a larger reduction from baseline in HF frequency, HF severity and night-sweats compared to SNRIs. Five of seven SNRI trials showed a reduction in HF frequency that was statistically significant (by 48-67% from baseline at weeks 8 or 12) whereas all NK3Ra trials showed a statistically significant reduction in HF frequency (by 62-93% from baseline at weeks 2, 4 or 12). While SNRI trials reported poor tolerability, particularly nausea, NK3Ra trials reported good tolerability overall, although two trials reported elevation in transaminases.
CONCLUSION
NK3Ras trials show encouraging efficacy and tolerability/safety. Completion of phase 3 NK3Ra trials are required to confirm efficacy and uphold safety/tolerability data but phase 2 results suggest that NK3Ras are more effective than SNRIs for non-hormonal treatment of menopausal HFs.
Topics: Female; Humans; Menopause; Norepinephrine; Receptors, Neurokinin-3; Serotonin; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 34514552
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-021-01900-w -
Alpha Psychiatry Sep 2021The aim of the article is to review systematically current researches investigating the relationship between intrauterine exposure to antidepressants and neonatal... (Review)
Review
The aim of the article is to review systematically current researches investigating the relationship between intrauterine exposure to antidepressants and neonatal hypoglycemia. This paper included studies published in electronic databases from January 2005 to July 2020. The searched keywords were as follows: antidepressants, pregnancy, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), citalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, escitalopram, sertraline, fluvoxamine, selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), venlafaxine, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), neonatal outcomes, neonatal hypoglycemia, imipramine, clomipramine, amitriptyline, bupropion, trazodone, and mirtazapine. This review examined 10 relevant studies. The odds ratio/risk ratio reported in the studies were 1.33-1.73 for any antidepressant, 1.30-1.35 for SSRI, 1.42-2.11 for SNRI, and 2.07 for TCAs. The risk of neonatal hypoglycemia in infants exposed to maternal TCAs appears to be slightly higher compared to infants exposed to maternal SSRIs. Data from current studies consistently show that exposure to maternal antidepressants during pregnancy may be related to increased risk of neonatal hypoglycemia in infants.
PubMed: 36447450
DOI: 10.1530/alphapsychiatry.2021.21143 -
European Journal of Neurology Sep 2021Narcolepsy is an uncommon hypothalamic disorder of presumed autoimmune origin that usually requires lifelong treatment. This paper aims to provide evidence-based...
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Narcolepsy is an uncommon hypothalamic disorder of presumed autoimmune origin that usually requires lifelong treatment. This paper aims to provide evidence-based guidelines for the management of narcolepsy in both adults and children.
METHODS
The European Academy of Neurology (EAN), European Sleep Research Society (ESRS) and European Narcolepsy Network (EU-NN) nominated a task force of 18 narcolepsy specialists. According to the EAN recommendations, 10 relevant clinical questions were formulated in PICO format. Following a systematic review of the literature (performed in Fall 2018 and updated in July 2020) recommendations were developed according to the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
A total of 10,247 references were evaluated, 308 studies were assessed and 155 finally included. The main recommendations can be summarized as follows: (i) excessive daytime sleepiness in adults-scheduled naps, modafinil, pitolisant, sodium oxybate (SXB), solriamfetol (all strong), methylphenidate, amphetamine derivates (both weak); (ii) cataplexy in adults-SXB, venlafaxine, clomipramine (all strong) and pitolisant (weak); (iii) excessive daytime sleepiness in children-scheduled naps, SXB (both strong), modafinil, methylphenidate, pitolisant, amphetamine derivates (all weak); (iv) cataplexy in children-SXB (strong), antidepressants (weak). Treatment choices should be tailored to each patient's symptoms, comorbidities, tolerance and risk of potential drug interactions.
CONCLUSION
The management of narcolepsy involves non-pharmacological and pharmacological approaches with an increasing number of symptomatic treatment options for adults and children that have been studied in some detail.
Topics: Adult; Cataplexy; Child; Humans; Modafinil; Narcolepsy; Sleep; Sodium Oxybate
PubMed: 34173695
DOI: 10.1111/ene.14888 -
Journal of Sleep Research Dec 2021Narcolepsy is an uncommon hypothalamic disorder of presumed autoimmune origin that usually requires lifelong treatment. This paper aims to provide evidence-based... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Narcolepsy is an uncommon hypothalamic disorder of presumed autoimmune origin that usually requires lifelong treatment. This paper aims to provide evidence-based guidelines for the management of narcolepsy in both adults and children.
METHODS
The European Academy of Neurology (EAN), European Sleep Research Society (ESRS), and European Narcolepsy Network (EU-NN) nominated a task force of 18 narcolepsy specialists. According to the EAN recommendations, 10 relevant clinical questions were formulated in PICO format. Following a systematic review of the literature (performed in Fall 2018 and updated in July 2020) recommendations were developed according to the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
A total of 10,247 references were evaluated, 308 studies were assessed and 155 finally included. The main recommendations can be summarized as follows: (i) excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) in adults-scheduled naps, modafinil, pitolisant, sodium oxybate (SXB), solriamfetol (all strong); methylphenidate, amphetamine derivatives (both weak); (ii) cataplexy in adults-SXB, venlafaxine, clomipramine (all strong) and pitolisant (weak); (iii) EDS in children-scheduled naps, SXB (both strong), modafinil, methylphenidate, pitolisant, amphetamine derivatives (all weak); (iv) cataplexy in children-SXB (strong), antidepressants (weak). Treatment choices should be tailored to each patient's symptoms, comorbidities, tolerance and risk of potential drug interactions.
CONCLUSION
The management of narcolepsy involves non-pharmacological and pharmacological approaches with an increasing number of symptomatic treatment options for adults and children that have been studied in some detail.
Topics: Adult; Cataplexy; Child; Humans; Modafinil; Narcolepsy; Sleep; Sodium Oxybate
PubMed: 34173288
DOI: 10.1111/jsr.13387 -
The International Journal on Drug Policy Nov 2021This study aimed to determine the efficacy and acceptability of pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder (CUD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to determine the efficacy and acceptability of pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder (CUD).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis, searching five electronic databases for randomized placebo-controlled trials of individuals diagnosed with CUD receiving pharmacotherapy with or without concomitant psychotherapy. Primary outcomes were the reduction in cannabis use and retention in treatment. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, discontinuation due to adverse events, total abstinence, withdrawal symptoms, cravings, and CUD severity. We applied a frequentist, random-effects Network Meta-Analysis model to pool effect sizes across trials using standardized mean differences (SMD, g) and rate ratios (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
We identified a total of 24 trials (n=1912, 74.9% male, mean age 30.2 years). Nabilone (d=-4.47 [-8.15; -0.79]), topiramate (d=-3.80 [-7.06; -0.54]), and fatty-acid amyl hydroxylase inhibitors (d=-2.30 [-4.75; 0.15]) reduced cannabis use relative to placebo. Dronabinol improved retention in treatment (RR=1.27 [1.02; 1.57]), while topiramate worsened treatment retention (RR=0.62 [0.42; 0.91]). Gabapentin reduced cannabis cravings (d=-2.42 [-3.53; -1.32], while vilazodone worsened craving severity (d=1.69 [0.71; 2.66]. Buspirone (RR=1.14 [1.00; 1.29]), venlafaxine (RR=1.78 [1.40; 2.26]), and topiramate (RR=9.10 [1.27; 65.11]) caused more adverse events, while topiramate caused more dropouts due to adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this review, some medications appeared to show promise for treating individual aspects of CUD. However, there is a lack of robust evidence to support any particular pharmacological treatment. There is a need for additional studies to expand the evidence base for CUD pharmacotherapy. While medication strategies may become an integral component for CUD treatment one day, psychosocial interventions should remain the first line given the limitations in the available evidence.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Marijuana Abuse; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 34062288
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103295 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Major depressive disorders have a significant impact on children and adolescents, including on educational and vocational outcomes, interpersonal relationships, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Major depressive disorders have a significant impact on children and adolescents, including on educational and vocational outcomes, interpersonal relationships, and physical and mental health and well-being. There is an association between major depressive disorder and suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide. Antidepressant medication is used in moderate to severe depression; there is now a range of newer generations of these medications.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate, via network meta-analysis (NMA), the comparative effectiveness and safety of different newer generation antidepressants in children and adolescents with a diagnosed major depressive disorder (MDD) in terms of depression, functioning, suicide-related outcomes and other adverse outcomes. The impact of age, treatment duration, baseline severity, and pharmaceutical industry funding was investigated on clinician-rated depression (CDRS-R) and suicide-related outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, the Cochrane Library (Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)), together with Ovid Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO till March 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials of six to 18 year olds of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed major depressive disorder were included. Trials that compared the effectiveness of newer generation antidepressants with each other or with a placebo were included. Newer generation antidepressants included: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs); norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine disinhibitors (NDDIs); and tetracyclic antidepressants (TeCAs).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data as Odds Ratios (ORs), and continuous data as Mean Difference (MD) for the following outcomes: depression symptom severity (clinician rated), response or remission of depression symptoms, depression symptom severity (self-rated), functioning, suicide related outcomes and overall adverse outcomes. Random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted in a frequentist framework using multivariate meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA). We used "informative statements" to standardise the interpretation and description of the results.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-six studies were included. There were no data for the two primary outcomes (depressive disorder established via clinical diagnostic interview and suicide), therefore, the results comprise only secondary outcomes. Most antidepressants may be associated with a "small and unimportant" reduction in depression symptoms on the CDRS-R scale (range 17 to 113) compared with placebo (high certainty evidence: paroxetine: MD -1.43, 95% CI -3.90, 1.04; vilazodone: MD -0.84, 95% CI -3.03, 1.35; desvenlafaxine MD -0.07, 95% CI -3.51, 3.36; moderate certainty evidence: sertraline: MD -3.51, 95% CI -6.99, -0.04; fluoxetine: MD -2.84, 95% CI -4.12, -1.56; escitalopram: MD -2.62, 95% CI -5.29, 0.04; low certainty evidence: duloxetine: MD -2.70, 95% CI -5.03, -0.37; vortioxetine: MD 0.60, 95% CI -2.52, 3.72; very low certainty evidence for comparisons between other antidepressants and placebo). There were "small and unimportant" differences between most antidepressants in reduction of depression symptoms (high- or moderate-certainty evidence). Results were similar across other outcomes of benefit. In most studies risk of self-harm or suicide was an exclusion criterion for the study. Proportions of suicide-related outcomes were low for most included studies and 95% confidence intervals were wide for all comparisons. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of mirtazapine (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.03, 8.04), duloxetine (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.72, 1.82), vilazodone (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.68, 1.48), desvenlafaxine (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59, 1.52), citalopram (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.76, 3.87) or vortioxetine (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.29, 8.60) on suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo. There is low certainty evidence that escitalopram may "at least slightly" reduce odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.43, 1.84). There is low certainty evidence that fluoxetine (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87, 1.86), paroxetine (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.85, 3.86), sertraline (OR 3.03, 95% CI 0.60, 15.22), and venlafaxine (OR 13.84, 95% CI 1.79, 106.90) may "at least slightly" increase odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo. There is moderate certainty evidence that venlafaxine probably results in an "at least slightly" increased odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with desvenlafaxine (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56) and escitalopram (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56). There was very low certainty evidence regarding other comparisons between antidepressants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, methodological shortcomings of the randomised trials make it difficult to interpret the findings with regard to the efficacy and safety of newer antidepressant medications. Findings suggest that most newer antidepressants may reduce depression symptoms in a small and unimportant way compared with placebo. Furthermore, there are likely to be small and unimportant differences in the reduction of depression symptoms between the majority of antidepressants. However, our findings reflect the average effects of the antidepressants, and given depression is a heterogeneous condition, some individuals may experience a greater response. Guideline developers and others making recommendations might therefore consider whether a recommendation for the use of newer generation antidepressants is warranted for some individuals in some circumstances. Our findings suggest sertraline, escitalopram, duloxetine, as well as fluoxetine (which is currently the only treatment recommended for first-line prescribing) could be considered as a first option. Children and adolescents considered at risk of suicide were frequently excluded from trials, so that we cannot be confident about the effects of these medications for these individuals. If an antidepressant is being considered for an individual, this should be done in consultation with the child/adolescent and their family/caregivers and it remains critical to ensure close monitoring of treatment effects and suicide-related outcomes (combined suicidal ideation and suicide attempt) in those treated with newer generation antidepressants, given findings that some of these medications may be associated with greater odds of these events. Consideration of psychotherapy, particularly cognitive behavioural therapy, as per guideline recommendations, remains important.
Topics: Adolescent; Antidepressive Agents; Bias; Child; Citalopram; Depressive Disorder, Major; Desvenlafaxine Succinate; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Female; Fluoxetine; Humans; Male; Mirtazapine; Network Meta-Analysis; Paroxetine; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Sertraline; Suicidal Ideation; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Vilazodone Hydrochloride; Vortioxetine
PubMed: 34029378
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013674.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2021Depressive disorders are the most common psychiatric comorbidity in people with epilepsy, affecting around one-third, with a significant negative impact on quality of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Depressive disorders are the most common psychiatric comorbidity in people with epilepsy, affecting around one-third, with a significant negative impact on quality of life. There is concern that people may not be receiving appropriate treatment for their depression because of uncertainty regarding which antidepressant or class works best, and the perceived risk of exacerbating seizures. This review aimed to address these issues, and inform clinical practice and future research. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 12, 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in treating depressive symptoms and the effect on seizure recurrence, in people with epilepsy and depression.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched CRS Web, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2021). We searched the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry in October 2019, but were unable to update it because it was inaccessible. There were no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), investigating children or adults with epilepsy, who were treated with an antidepressant and compared to placebo, comparative antidepressant, psychotherapy, or no treatment for depressive symptoms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcomes were changes in depression scores (proportion with a greater than 50% improvement, mean difference, and proportion who achieved complete remission) and change in seizure frequency (mean difference, proportion with a seizure recurrence, or episode of status epilepticus). Secondary outcomes included the number of participants who withdrew from the study and reasons for withdrawal, quality of life, cognitive functioning, and adverse events. Two review authors independently extracted data for each included study. We then cross-checked the data extraction. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool for RCTs, and the ROBINS-I for NRSIs. We presented binary outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or 99% CIs for specific adverse events. We presented continuous outcomes as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs, and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies in the review (four RCTs and six NRSIs), with 626 participants with epilepsy and depression, examining the effects of antidepressants. One RCT was a multi-centre study comparing an antidepressant with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). The other three RCTs were single-centre studies comparing an antidepressant with an active control, placebo, or no treatment. The NRSIs reported on outcomes mainly in participants with focal epilepsy before and after treatment for depression with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI); one NRSI compared SSRIs to CBT. We rated one RCT at low risk of bias, three RCTs at unclear risk of bias, and all six NRSIs at serious risk of bias. We were unable to conduct any meta-analysis of RCT data due to heterogeneity of treatment comparisons. We judged the certainty of evidence to be moderate to very low across comparisons, because single studies contributed limited outcome data, and because of risk of bias, particularly for NRSIs, which did not adjust for confounding variables. More than 50% improvement in depressive symptoms ranged from 43% to 82% in RCTs, and from 24% to 97% in NRSIs, depending on the antidepressant given. Venlafaxine improved depressive symptoms by more than 50% compared to no treatment (mean difference (MD) -7.59 (95% confidence interval (CI) -11.52 to -3.66; 1 study, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence); the results between other comparisons were inconclusive. Two studies comparing SSRIs to CBT reported inconclusive results for the proportion of participants who achieved complete remission of depressive symptoms. Seizure frequency data did not suggest an increased risk of seizures with antidepressants compared to control treatments or baseline. Two studies measured quality of life; antidepressants did not appear to improve quality of life over control. No studies reported on cognitive functioning. Two RCTs and one NRSI reported comparative data on adverse events; antidepressants did not appear to increase the severity or number of adverse events compared to controls. The NSRIs reported higher rates of withdrawals due to adverse events than lack of efficacy. Reported adverse events for antidepressants included nausea, dizziness, sedation, headache, gastrointestinal disturbance, insomnia, and sexual dysfunction. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence on the effectiveness of antidepressants in treating depressive symptoms associated with epilepsy is still very limited. Rates of response to antidepressants were highly variable. There is low certainty evidence from one small RCT (64 participants) that venlafaxine may improve depressive symptoms more than no treatment; this evidence is limited to treatment between 8 and 16 weeks, and does not inform longer-term effects. Moderate to low evidence suggests neither an increase nor exacerbation of seizures with SSRIs. There are no available comparative data to inform the choice of antidepressant drug or classes of drug for efficacy or safety for treating people with epilepsy and depression. RCTs of antidepressants utilising interventions from other treatment classes besides SSRIs, in large samples of patients with epilepsy and depression, are needed to better inform treatment policy. Future studies should assess interventions across a longer treatment duration to account for delayed onset of action, sustainability of treatment responses, and to provide a better understanding of the impact on seizure control.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Bias; Child; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Depression; Epilepsy; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Young Adult
PubMed: 33860531
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010682.pub3 -
Progress in Neuro-psychopharmacology &... Apr 2021Data regarding the ability of antidepressants to enter fetal, newborn and infant fluids have become gradually available, but mechanisms of antidepressant transfer remain... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Data regarding the ability of antidepressants to enter fetal, newborn and infant fluids have become gradually available, but mechanisms of antidepressant transfer remain poorly understood. Here we calculated penetration ratios in an array of matrices from combined samples of pregnant/breastfeeding women taking antidepressants.
METHOD
We performed a systematic literature search of PubMed and EMBASE to identify studies with concentrations of antidepressants from maternal blood, amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood and/or breast milk. Penetration ratios were calculated by dividing the concentrations in amniotic fluid, umbilical cord plasma or breast milk by the maternal plasma concentration. When data from multiple studies were available, we calculated combined penetration ratios, weighting the study mean by study size.
RESULTS
Eighty-five eligible studies were identified. For amniotic fluid, the highest penetration ratios were estimated for venlafaxine (mean 2.77, range 0.43-4.70 for the active moiety) and citalopram (mean 2.03, range 0.35-6.97), while the lowest ratios were for fluvoxamine (mean 0.10) and fluoxetine (mean 0.11, range 0.02-0.20 for the active moiety). For umbilical cord plasma, nortriptyline had the highest ratio (mean 2.97, range 0.25-26.43) followed by bupropion (mean 1.14, range 0.3-5.08). For breast milk, the highest ratios were observed for venlafaxine (mean 2.59, range 0.85-4.85), mianserin (mean 2.22, range 0.80-3.64) and escitalopram (mean 2.19, range 1.68-3.00).
CONCLUSION
We observed considerable variability across antidepressants regarding their ability to enter fetal, newborn and infant fluids. Measuring antidepressant concentrations in a maternal blood sample can provide a reliable estimate of fetal/infant exposure, although further evidence for concentration-dependent effects is required.
Topics: Amniotic Fluid; Antidepressive Agents; Breast Feeding; Female; Fetal Blood; Humans; Infant; Milk, Human; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications
PubMed: 33358964
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110228 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2020: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common psychiatric disorders associated with substantial dysfunction and socioeconomic burden. Pharmacotherapy is... (Review)
Review
Comparative Remission Rates and Tolerability of Drugs for Generalised Anxiety Disorder: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trials.
: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common psychiatric disorders associated with substantial dysfunction and socioeconomic burden. Pharmacotherapy is the first choice for GAD. Remission [Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) score ≤7] is regarded as a crucial treatment goal for patients with GAD. There is no up-to-date evidence to compare remission rate and tolerability of all available drugs by using network meta-analysis. Therefore, the goal of our study is to update evidence and determine the best advantageous drugs for GAD in remission rate and tolerability profiles. : We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, wanfang data, China Biology Medicine and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to March 2020 to identify eligible double-blind, RCTs reporting the outcome of remission in adult patients who received any pharmacological treatment for GAD. Two reviewers independently assessed quality of included studies utilizing the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool as described in Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and extracted data from all manuscripts. Our outcomes were remission rate (proportion of participants with a final score of seven or less on HAM-A) and tolerability (treatments discontinuations due to adverse events). We calculated summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of each outcome via pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. : Overall, 30 studies were included, comprising 32 double-blind RCTs, involving 13,338 participants diagnosed as GAD by DSM-IV criteria. Twenty-eight trials were rated as moderate risk of bias, four trials as low. For remission rate, agomelatine (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.74-4.19), duloxetine (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.47-2.40), escitalopram (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48-2.78), paroxetine (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.25-2.42), quetiapine (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.39-2.55), and venlafaxine (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.69-3.07) were superior to placebo. For tolerability, sertraline, agomelatine, vortioxetine, and pregabalin were found to be comparable to placebo. However, the others were worse than placebo in terms of tolerability, with ORs ranging between 1.86 (95% CI 1.25-2.75) for tiagabine and 5.98 (95% CI 2.41-14.87) for lorazepam. In head-to-head comparisons, agomelatine, duloxetine, escitalopram, quetiapine, and venlafaxine were more efficacious than tiagabine in terms of remission rate, ORs from 1.66 (95% CI 1.04-2.65) for duloxetine to 2.38 (95% CI 1.32-4.31) for agomelatine. We also found that agomelatine (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.15-3.75) and venlafaxine (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.08-2.86) were superior to vortioxetine. Lorazepam and quetiapine were poorly tolerated when compared with other drugs. : Of these interventions, only agomelatine manifested better remission with relatively good tolerability but these results were limited by small sample sizes. Duloxetine, escitalopram, venlafaxine, paroxetine, and quetiapine showed better remission but were poorly tolerated.
PubMed: 33343351
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.580858 -
Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) Apr 2020(Reprinted with permission from . 2019 Jul;6(7):601-609).
(Reprinted with permission from . 2019 Jul;6(7):601-609).
PubMed: 33343239
DOI: 10.1176/appi.focus.18204