-
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 -
European Neuropsychopharmacology : the... Apr 2024Sleep medications often carry residual effects potentially affecting driving safety, warranting network meta-analysis (NMA).... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Residual effects of medications for sleep disorders on driving performance: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: NMA driving and hypnotics.
Sleep medications often carry residual effects potentially affecting driving safety, warranting network meta-analysis (NMA). PubMed/EMBASE/TRID/Clinicaltrials.gov/WHO-ICTRP/WebOfScience were inquired for randomized controlled trials of hypnotic driving studies in persons with insomnia and healthy subjects up to 05/28/2023, considering the vehicle's standard deviation of lateral position - SDLP (Standardized Mean Difference/SMD) and driving impairment rates on the first morning (co-primary outcomes) and endpoint. Risk-of-bias, global/local inconsistencies were measured, and CINeMA was used to assess the confidence in the evidence. Of 4,805 identified records, 26 cross-over RCTs were included in the systematic review, of which 22 entered the NMA, focusing on healthy subjects only. After a single administration, most molecules paralleled the placebo, outperforming zopiclone regarding SDLP. In contrast, ramelteon 8 mg, daridorexant 100 mg, zolpidem 10 mg bedtime, zolpidem middle-of-the-night 10 mg and 20 mg, mirtazapine 15-30 mg, and triazolam 0.5 mg performed significantly worse than placebo. Lemborexant 2.5-5 mg, suvorexant 15-20 mg, and zolpidem 3.5 mg middle-of-the-night associated with lower impairment than zopiclone. Repeated administration (maximum follow-up time of ten days) caused fewer residual effects than acute ones, except for flurazepam. Heterogeneity and inconsistency were negligible. Confidence in the evidence was low/very low. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the main analyses. Most FDA-approved hypnotics overlapped placebo at in-label doses, outperforming zopiclone. Repeated administration for 15 days or less reduced residual effects, warranting further research on the matter.
Topics: Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Zolpidem; Network Meta-Analysis; Automobile Driving; Psychomotor Performance; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Piperazines; Azabicyclo Compounds
PubMed: 38401406
DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2024.01.011 -
PloS One 2024To evaluate the efficacy and safety of multi-drug therapy based on eszopiclone in the treatment of insomnia after stroke using a network meta-analysis method and to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of multi-drug therapy based on eszopiclone in the treatment of insomnia after stroke using a network meta-analysis method and to provide evidence for clinical practice.
METHOD
Computer searches of PubMed, Excerpt Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, APA PsycInfo, CNKI, WanFang, Sinomed and other databases were performed to search for clinical randomized controlled studies (RCTs) on multi-drug therapy based on eszopiclone in the treatment of insomnia patients after stroke. The search time was from the establishment of each database until July 2023. The bias risk assessment tool recommended by Cochrane was used to evaluate the quality of the included RCTs. Stata 14.0 was applied to perform network meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3 software for traditional meta-analysis.
RESULT
Eighteen RCTs and 1646 patients were ultimately included, involving 11 treatment options. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that the ranking of Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) decline was eszopiclone combined with sweet dream oral liquid (ESZ+SDOL)>eszopiclone combined with a shugan jieyu capsule (ESZ+SGJYC)>eszopiclone combined with agomelatine (ESZ+AGO)>eszopiclone combined with flupentixol and melitracen tablets (ESZ+FMT)>eszopiclone combined with yangxue qingnao granules (ESZ+YXQNG)>eszopiclone combined with mirtazapine (ESZ+MIR)>ESZ>FMT; the modified Edinburgh Scandinavia Stroke Scale (MESSS) decline ranking was ESZ+SDOL>ESZ+AGO>ESZ; and the clinical total effective rate ranking was eszopiclone combined with a xuefu zhuyu capsule (ESZ+XFZYC)>ESZ+MIR>ESZ+SGJYC>ESZ+SDOL> ESZ+FMT>ESZ+YXQNG>ESZ>FMT. In terms of clinical adverse reactions, in addition to ESZ therapy, ESZ+ESC had the highest number of adverse reactions, with abdominal pain being the most common. ESZ+YXQNG had the most types of adverse reactions, with 8 types.
CONCLUSION
Multi-drug therapy based on eszopiclone can effectively improve the sleep quality of patients with insomnia after stroke, and ESZ+SDOL has significant efficacy and safety. However, due to the limitations of this study, efficacy ranking cannot fully explain the superiority or inferiority of clinical efficacy. In the future, more multicentre, large sample, double-blind randomized controlled trials are needed to supplement and demonstrate the results of this study.
Topics: Humans; Eszopiclone; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Network Meta-Analysis; Stroke; Double-Blind Method; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38315683
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297064 -
Human Psychopharmacology Nov 2023Oedema associated with psychotropics can impose a considerable burden, leading to increased morbidity and cost. Peripheral oedema is sometimes related to the use of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Oedema associated with psychotropics can impose a considerable burden, leading to increased morbidity and cost. Peripheral oedema is sometimes related to the use of antidepressants, which are among the most prescribed psychotropic medications. We reviewed the reported cases of antidepressant-associated oedema to understand the risk factors, aetiology and outcome.
METHODS
We searched the Medline, Web of Science and Embase databases to identify reported cases of peripheral oedema associated with antidepressant use. We included studies published in English and those with full-text availability. A systematic review of the reports was done to identify the antidepressants associated with oedema, explore possible risk factors, investigate potential mechanisms, and assess the outcome.
RESULTS
We identified a total of 45 cases (27 case reports and five case series) that reported oedema associated with antidepressant use. Almost all major classes of antidepressants were found to be associated with oedema. Among these drugs, trazodone, mirtazapine, and escitalopram were the most implicated. Older age and female gender were more commonly associated with oedema. Etiologically, antagonism of α adrenergic receptors and 5HT receptors, leading to vasodilation and oedema, emerged as the most prevalent mechanisms. In most cases, the oedema subsided following the discontinuation of the antidepressants.
CONCLUSIONS
Peripheral oedema associated with antidepressant use can represent a significant adverse drug reaction involving various classes of antidepressants. To ensure timely identification and proper management of oedema, regular monitoring is crucial.
Topics: Humans; Female; Antidepressive Agents; Mirtazapine; Risk Factors; Edema
PubMed: 37941526
DOI: 10.1002/hup.2884 -
Advances in Clinical and Experimental... Oct 2023Psychosis is a very common feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD) that can emerge as the neurodegenerative disease progresses. The 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT2A) receptors... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of negative allosteric modulators of 5-hydroxytryptamine 2A receptors in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease psychosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Psychosis is a very common feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD) that can emerge as the neurodegenerative disease progresses. The 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT2A) receptors are located postsynaptically to serotonergic neurons in the frontal cortex and mediate both excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmissions. However, the effectiveness and tolerance of negative modulators of 5-HT2A receptors in Alzheimer's disease psychosis (ADP) are uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To detect the negative modulators of the 5-HT2A receptor as a cure for ADP.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The primary outcome indicator was the total Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) score. Other prognostic indicators included Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living (KATZ), the discontinuation rate, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Compared to placebo, 5-HT2A inverse agonists significantly reduced the NPI total score, the KATZ and the MMSE score. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was 1.64 (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.01-2.65) and the heterogeneity variance was estimated at Tau2 = 0.52 with an I2 value of 90%, a χ2 value of 111.31, p = 0.04, and z-value of 2.01. The risk difference (RD) between the 5-HT2A receptor negative modulators and placebo groups was 0.12 (95% CI: 0.00-0.24) and the heterogeneity was estimated at Tau2 = 0.03, χ2 value of 127.23, degrees of freedom (df) value of 9, I2 value of 93%, z-value of 1.92, and p-value of 0.01 (<0.05).
CONCLUSION
Our results suggest that negative modulators of 5-HT2A receptors are beneficial and well-tolerated in the treatment of ADP.
Topics: Humans; Alzheimer Disease; Serotonin; Neurodegenerative Diseases; Activities of Daily Living; Drug Inverse Agonism; Receptor, Serotonin, 5-HT2A; Psychotic Disorders
PubMed: 37166012
DOI: 10.17219/acem/161159 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Chronic pain is common in adults, and often has a detrimental impact upon physical ability, well-being, and quality of life. Previous reviews have shown that certain... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic pain is common in adults, and often has a detrimental impact upon physical ability, well-being, and quality of life. Previous reviews have shown that certain antidepressants may be effective in reducing pain with some benefit in improving patients' global impression of change for certain chronic pain conditions. However, there has not been a network meta-analysis (NMA) examining all antidepressants across all chronic pain conditions.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of antidepressants for adults with chronic pain (except headache).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, AMED and PsycINFO databases, and clinical trials registries, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants for chronic pain conditions in January 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that examined antidepressants for chronic pain against any comparator. If the comparator was placebo, another medication, another antidepressant, or the same antidepressant at different doses, then we required the study to be double-blind. We included RCTs with active comparators that were unable to be double-blinded (e.g. psychotherapy) but rated them as high risk of bias. We excluded RCTs where the follow-up was less than two weeks and those with fewer than 10 participants in each arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors separately screened, data extracted, and judged risk of bias. We synthesised the data using Bayesian NMA and pairwise meta-analyses for each outcome and ranked the antidepressants in terms of their effectiveness using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). We primarily used Confidence in Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) and Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) to assess the certainty of the evidence. Where it was not possible to use CINeMA and ROB-MEN due to the complexity of the networks, we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcomes were substantial (50%) pain relief, pain intensity, mood, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were moderate pain relief (30%), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), serious adverse events, and withdrawal.
MAIN RESULTS
This review and NMA included 176 studies with a total of 28,664 participants. The majority of studies were placebo-controlled (83), and parallel-armed (141). The most common pain conditions examined were fibromyalgia (59 studies); neuropathic pain (49 studies) and musculoskeletal pain (40 studies). The average length of RCTs was 10 weeks. Seven studies provided no useable data and were omitted from the NMA. The majority of studies measured short-term outcomes only and excluded people with low mood and other mental health conditions. Across efficacy outcomes, duloxetine was consistently the highest-ranked antidepressant with moderate- to high-certainty evidence. In duloxetine studies, standard dose was equally efficacious as high dose for the majority of outcomes. Milnacipran was often ranked as the next most efficacious antidepressant, although the certainty of evidence was lower than that of duloxetine. There was insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions for the efficacy and safety of any other antidepressant for chronic pain. Primary efficacy outcomes Duloxetine standard dose (60 mg) showed a small to moderate effect for substantial pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.17; 16 studies, 4490 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and continuous pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.24; 18 studies, 4959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For pain intensity, milnacipran standard dose (100 mg) also showed a small effect (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.06; 4 studies, 1866 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mirtazapine (30 mg) had a moderate effect on mood (SMD -0.5, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.22; 1 study, 406 participants; low-certainty evidence), while duloxetine showed a small effect (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.1; 26 studies, 7952 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); however it is important to note that most studies excluded participants with mental health conditions, and so average anxiety and depression scores tended to be in the 'normal' or 'subclinical' ranges at baseline already. Secondary efficacy outcomes Across all secondary efficacy outcomes (moderate pain relief, physical function, sleep, quality of life, and PGIC), duloxetine and milnacipran were the highest-ranked antidepressants with moderate-certainty evidence, although effects were small. For both duloxetine and milnacipran, standard doses were as efficacious as high doses. Safety There was very low-certainty evidence for all safety outcomes (adverse events, serious adverse events, and withdrawal) across all antidepressants. We cannot draw any reliable conclusions from the NMAs for these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our review and NMAs show that despite studies investigating 25 different antidepressants, the only antidepressant we are certain about for the treatment of chronic pain is duloxetine. Duloxetine was moderately efficacious across all outcomes at standard dose. There is also promising evidence for milnacipran, although further high-quality research is needed to be confident in these conclusions. Evidence for all other antidepressants was low certainty. As RCTs excluded people with low mood, we were unable to establish the effects of antidepressants for people with chronic pain and depression. There is currently no reliable evidence for the long-term efficacy of any antidepressant, and no reliable evidence for the safety of antidepressants for chronic pain at any time point.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antidepressive Agents; Chronic Pain; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Milnacipran; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37160297
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014682.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Harmful alcohol use is defined as unhealthy alcohol use that results in adverse physical, psychological, social, or societal consequences and is among the leading risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Harmful alcohol use is defined as unhealthy alcohol use that results in adverse physical, psychological, social, or societal consequences and is among the leading risk factors for disease, disability and premature mortality globally. The burden of harmful alcohol use is increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and there remains a large unmet need for indicated prevention and treatment interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in these settings. Evidence regarding which interventions are effective and feasible for addressing harmful and other patterns of unhealthy alcohol use in LMICs is limited, which contributes to this gap in services.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of psychosocial and pharmacologic treatment and indicated prevention interventions compared with control conditions (wait list, placebo, no treatment, standard care, or active control condition) aimed at reducing harmful alcohol use in LMICs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indexed in the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, the Cochrane Clinical Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) through 12 December 2021. We searched clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Web of Science, and Opengrey database to identify unpublished or ongoing studies. We searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles for eligible studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All RCTs comparing an indicated prevention or treatment intervention (pharmacologic or psychosocial) versus a control condition for people with harmful alcohol use in LMICs were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 66 RCTs with 17,626 participants. Sixty-two of these trials contributed to the meta-analysis. Sixty-three studies were conducted in middle-income countries (MICs), and the remaining three studies were conducted in low-income countries (LICs). Twenty-five trials exclusively enrolled participants with alcohol use disorder. The remaining 51 trials enrolled participants with harmful alcohol use, some of which included both cases of alcohol use disorder and people reporting hazardous alcohol use patterns that did not meet criteria for disorder. Fifty-two RCTs assessed the efficacy of psychosocial interventions; 27 were brief interventions primarily based on motivational interviewing and were compared to brief advice, information, or assessment only. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to brief interventions given the high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Studies reporting continuous outcomes: Tau² = 0.15, Q =139.64, df =16, P<.001, I² = 89%, 3913 participants, 17 trials, very low certainty; Studies reporting dichotomous outcomes: Tau²=0.18, Q=58.26, df=3, P<.001, I² =95%, 1349 participants, 4 trials, very low certainty). The other types of psychosocial interventions included a range of therapeutic approaches such as behavioral risk reduction, cognitive-behavioral therapy, contingency management, rational emotive therapy, and relapse prevention. These interventions were most commonly compared to usual care involving varying combinations of psychoeducation, counseling, and pharmacotherapy. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to psychosocial treatments due to high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 1.15; Q = 444.32, df = 11, P<.001; I²=98%, 2106 participants, 12 trials, very low certainty). Eight trials compared combined pharmacologic and psychosocial interventions with placebo, psychosocial intervention alone, or another pharmacologic treatment. The active pharmacologic study conditions included disulfiram, naltrexone, ondansetron, or topiramate. The psychosocial components of these interventions included counseling, encouragement to attend Alcoholics Anonymous, motivational interviewing, brief cognitive-behavioral therapy, or other psychotherapy (not specified). Analysis of studies comparing a combined pharmacologic and psychosocial intervention to psychosocial intervention alone found that the combined approach may be associated with a greater reduction in harmful alcohol use (standardized mean difference (standardized mean difference (SMD))=-0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.61 to -0.24; 475 participants; 4 trials; low certainty). Four trials compared pharmacologic intervention alone with placebo and three with another pharmacotherapy. Drugs assessed were: acamprosate, amitriptyline, baclofen disulfiram, gabapentin, mirtazapine, and naltrexone. None of these trials evaluated the primary clinical outcome of interest, harmful alcohol use. Thirty-one trials reported rates of retention in the intervention. Meta-analyses revealed that rates of retention between study conditions did not differ in any of the comparisons (pharmacologic risk ratio (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.44, 247 participants, 3 trials, low certainty; pharmacologic in addition to psychosocial intervention: RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.40, 363 participants, 3 trials, moderate certainty). Due to high levels of heterogeneity, we did not calculate pooled estimates comparing retention in brief (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Q = 172.59, df = 11, P<.001; I = 94%; 5380 participants; 12 trials, very low certainty) or other psychosocial interventions (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; Q = 34.07, df = 8, P<.001; I = 77%; 1664 participants; 9 trials, very low certainty). Two pharmacologic trials and three combined pharmacologic and psychosocial trials reported on side effects. These studies found more side effects attributable to amitriptyline relative to mirtazapine, naltrexone and topiramate relative to placebo, yet no differences in side effects between placebo and either acamprosate or ondansetron. Across all intervention types there was substantial risk of bias. Primary threats to validity included lack of blinding and differential/high rates of attrition.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In LMICs there is low-certainty evidence supporting the efficacy of combined psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use relative to psychosocial interventions alone. There is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of pharmacologic or psychosocial interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use largely due to the substantial heterogeneity in outcomes, comparisons, and interventions that precluded pooling of these data in meta-analyses. The majority of studies are brief interventions, primarily among men, and using measures that have not been validated in the target population. Confidence in these results is reduced by the risk of bias and significant heterogeneity among studies as well as the heterogeneity of results on different outcome measures within studies. More evidence on the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions, specific types of psychosocial interventions are needed to increase the certainty of these results.
Topics: Humans; Male; Acamprosate; Alcoholism; Amitriptyline; Developing Countries; Disulfiram; Mirtazapine; Naltrexone; Ondansetron; Topiramate
PubMed: 37158538
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013350.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2023Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anticancer treatment, suicide risk and possibly the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants in this population are few and often report conflicting results.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (aged 18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage).
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was November 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants, in adults (aged 18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. efficacy as a continuous outcome. Our secondary outcomes were 2. efficacy as a dichotomous outcome, 3. Social adjustment, 4. health-related quality of life and 5. dropouts. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 14 studies (1364 participants), 10 of which contributed to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Six of these compared antidepressants and placebo, three compared two antidepressants, and one three-armed study compared two antidepressants and placebo. In this update, we included four additional studies, three of which contributed data for the primary outcome. For acute-phase treatment response (six to 12 weeks), antidepressants may reduce depressive symptoms when compared with placebo, even though the evidence is very uncertain. This was true when depressive symptoms were measured as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to -0.12; 7 studies, 511 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and when measured as a proportion of people who had depression at the end of the study (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.96; 5 studies, 662 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported data on follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons, we retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and for mirtazapine versus TCAs. There was no difference between the various classes of antidepressants (continuous outcome: SSRI versus TCA: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18; 3 studies, 237 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mirtazapine versus TCA: SMD -4.80, 95% CI -9.70 to 0.10; 1 study, 25 participants). There was a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants versus placebo for the secondary efficacy outcomes (continuous outcome, response at one to four weeks; very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences for these outcomes when comparing two different classes of antidepressants, even though the evidence was very uncertain. In terms of dropouts due to any cause, we found no difference between antidepressants compared with placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; 9 studies, 889 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and between SSRIs and TCAs (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.22; 3 studies, 237 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of the heterogeneous quality of the studies, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, the available studies were few and of low quality. This review found a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants against placebo in depressed participants with cancer. However, the certainty of evidence is very low and, on the basis of these results, it is difficult to draw clear implications for practice. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which drug to prescribe may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of people with major depression, also taking into account that data on people with other serious medical conditions suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. Furthermore, this update shows that the usage of the newly US Food and Drug Administration-approved antidepressant esketamine in its intravenous formulation might represent a potential treatment for this specific population of people, since it can be used both as an anaesthetic and an antidepressant. However, data are too inconclusive and further studies are needed. We conclude that to better inform clinical practice, there is an urgent need for large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer who have depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Mirtazapine; Neoplasms; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 36999619
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011006.pub4 -
Cancer Treatment Reviews Apr 2023Several regimens have been introduced in clinical practice in the last twenty years to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, direct comparative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several regimens have been introduced in clinical practice in the last twenty years to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, direct comparative data remain insufficient, as many new regimes lack head-to-head comparisons. In this study, through an indirect comparison, we overcome this limit by providing the most up-to-date estimate of the efficacy and safety of all combinations used for HEC-induced nausea and vomiting.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We retrieved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library until June, 30th 2022. We included phase II-III RCTs, including adults with any cancer receiving HEC, and compared different antiemetic regimes to prevent CINV. The primary outcome was the overall complete response (defined as the absence of vomiting and of the use of rescue drugs from 0 to 120 hrs since chemotherapy); secondary outcomes were acute (absence of vomiting and use of rescue medicine 0-24 hrs after chemotherapy) and delayed (24-120 hrs) response and adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 53 RCTs enrolling 22 228 patients were included. We classified the different antiemetic regimes into 21 different groups. Overall, 3- or 4-drug regimens containing a combination of dexamethasone, 5HT3 antagonists, mirtazapine or olanzapine with or without NK antagonists, yielded the highest probability to be the most effective regimen in terms of complete response. Regimens containing a combination of dexamethasone and 5-HT3 antagonist have the lowest probability of being the most effective regimen in terms of complete, acute, and delayed response.
CONCLUSION
In our network meta-analysis, 4-drug regimens with olanzapine displayed the highest probability of efficacy in terms of complete response. A 3-drug regimen with olanzapine represents a valid option in a limited resource context.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Dexamethasone; Nausea; Network Meta-Analysis; Olanzapine; Vomiting
PubMed: 36774658
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2023.102512 -
Journal of Psychiatric Practice Jan 2023Antidepressant-induced pancreatitis is a rare, albeit serious, adverse effect, with a frequency of occurrence that is not equally distributed among antidepressant drugs....
OBJECTIVE
Antidepressant-induced pancreatitis is a rare, albeit serious, adverse effect, with a frequency of occurrence that is not equally distributed among antidepressant drugs. The goal of this study was to investigate the association and causal relationship between mirtazapine treatment of patients with depression and pancreatitis.
METHODS
The study was designed as a systematic review of the literature, accompanied by the description of a new case of mirtazapine-associated acute pancreatitis.
RESULTS
Nine cases of mirtazapine-associated pancreatitis have been reported, involving 7 female patients and 2 male patients with a mean age of 46.4 years (range: 26 to 83 y of age). All of the patients were hospitalized, with an average length of stay of 16.2 days (range: 3 to 34 d). In 6 cases, "de-challenge" followed by improvement was reported. The patients for whom the outcome was reported (7 of 9) recovered completely.
CONCLUSION
Although a rare adverse effect, mirtazapine-induced pancreatitis should be considered when patients taking mirtazapine report abdominal discomfort.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Middle Aged; Mirtazapine; Acute Disease; Depression; Pancreatitis; Antidepressive Agents; Mianserin; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic
PubMed: 36649554
DOI: 10.1097/PRA.0000000000000687