-
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Oct 2021Evidence regarding the pharmacological interventions to manage cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is currently synthesized in several systematic reviews, portraying a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Evidence regarding the pharmacological interventions to manage cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is currently synthesized in several systematic reviews, portraying a fragmented literature synthesis. Thus, we aimed to critically appraise the available systematic reviews on pharmacological intervention for improving CRF in adult cancer patients.
METHODS
Three databases were systematically searched from January 2010 to July 2020. The pooled meta-analyses' effect sizes (standardized mean difference, SMD) were quantitatively pooled using a random-effects model. Chi-squared (Q) and I-square statistics (I²) tested the heterogeneity.
RESULTS
The SMD of the effect of psychostimulants on CRF was -0.20 (95 % CI: -0.32, 0.08; p < 0.0001), along with significant higher improvement of fatigue (SMD=-0.69; 95 % CI=-1.29, -0,09, p < 0.0001) after methylphenidate administration. No statistical differences were found in the occurrences of adverse events between methylphenidate and placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
This study corroborated that psychostimulant therapy may be moderately effective in reducing CRF. Scarce evidence on the short- and long-term adverse events.
PROSPERO
CRD42020181879 (registration date: 26/07/2020).
Topics: Adult; Fatigue; Humans; Methylphenidate; Neoplasms; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 34051301
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103373 -
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... Aug 2021Tibetan traditional medicine CheeZheng Pain-Relieving Plaster (CZPRP) is frequently used as an over-the-counter external analgesic for musculoskeletal pain; however, its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE
Tibetan traditional medicine CheeZheng Pain-Relieving Plaster (CZPRP) is frequently used as an over-the-counter external analgesic for musculoskeletal pain; however, its evidence for low back pain (LBP) has not been evaluated.
AIM OF THE STUDY
This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of CZPRP for both acute, subacute and chronic LBP through a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed, CENTRAL, CNKI, CQVIP, and Wanfang databases were searched through April 20, 2020 for randomized controlled trials of CZPRP for LBP. Eligible comparators were placebo, active treatment, or usual care. Clinical outcomes included pain severity, lower back function score, pain-free rate, and adverse events (AEs). Qualitative evaluations were conducted using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools. Quantitative analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
This study includes 1674 LBP patients from nine clinical studies. Pooled analyses among subjects with acute LBP show 1) significant pain reductions (mean difference -0.84, 95% confidence interval[CI] -1.31, -0.37) in CZPRP plus diclofenac versus diclofenac, 2) significant improvements in lower back function (standard mean difference -1.50, 95% CI -2.16, -0.85) in CZPRP versus diclofenac, and 3) a higher pain-free rate in CZPRP alone (risk ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.16, 1.89; I = 61%) or CZPRP plus nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (risk ratio 1.66, 95% CI 1.14, 2.40; I = 0%) versus NSAIDs. However, in a heterogeneous population with mixed LBP subtypes, there was no significant difference in pain outcomes between CZPRP and diclofenac. Additionally, CZPRP use did not increase AEs compared with no CZPRP (p = 0.40). All nine studies are associated with moderate to high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of CZPRP is associated with improved acute LBP outcomes compared to diclofenac. However, due to the moderate to high risk of bias of the studies, future rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the effects of CZPRP for acute and chronic LBP.
Topics: Analgesics; Animals; Diclofenac; Humans; Low Back Pain; Medicine, Traditional; Plant Preparations; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tibet
PubMed: 34015584
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2021.111727 -
Journal of Child and Adolescent... May 2021
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Adolescent; Africa; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Humans; Medicine, Traditional; Methylphenidate; North America; South America
PubMed: 34014772
DOI: 10.1089/cap.2020.0161 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Postoperative pain is common and may be severe. Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pain is common and may be severe. Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous ketorolac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases without language restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS on 20 April 2020. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized double-blind trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous ketorolac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period. Our secondary outcomes were time to and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and for any other cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related or opioid-related AEs. For subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses of parenteral ketorolac separately and to analyze results based on the type of surgery performed. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 studies, involving 1905 participants undergoing various surgeries (pelvic/abdominal, dental, and orthopedic), with 17 to 83 participants receiving intravenous ketorolac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 22.5 years to 67.4 years. Most studies administered a dose of ketorolac of 30 mg; one study assessed 15 mg, and another administered 60 mg. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for some domains, particularly allocation concealment and blinding, and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall certainty of evidence for each outcome ranged from very low to moderate. Reasons for downgrading certainty included serious study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision. Ketorolac versus placebo Very low-certainty evidence from eight studies (658 participants) suggests that ketorolac results in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 2.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 4.37). The number needed to treat for one additional participant to benefit (NNTB) was 2.4 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.7). Low-certainty evidence from 10 studies (914 participants) demonstrates that ketorolac may result in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours compared to placebo (RR 3.26, 95% CI 1.93 to 5.51). The NNTB was 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.7). Among secondary outcomes, for time to rescue medication, moderate-certainty evidence comparing intravenous ketorolac versus placebo demonstrated a mean median of 271 minutes for ketorolac versus 104 minutes for placebo (6 studies, 633 participants). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from five studies (417 participants) compared ketorolac with placebo. The RR was 0.60 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.00), that is, it did not demonstrate a difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with placebo (74% versus 65%; 8 studies, 810 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.19; number needed to treat for an additional harmful event (NNTH) 16.7, 95% CI 8.3 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from eight studies (703 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and placebo (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.03). Ketorolac versus NSAIDs Ketorolac was compared to parecoxib in four studies and diclofenac in two studies. For our primary outcome, over both four and six hours there was no evidence of a difference between intravenous ketorolac and another NSAID (low-certainty and moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). Over four hours, four studies (337 participants) produced an RR of 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.21) and over six hours, six studies (603 participants) produced an RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.19). For time to rescue medication, low-certainty evidence from four studies (427 participants) suggested that participants receiving ketorolac waited an extra 35 minutes (mean median 331 minutes versus 296 minutes). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from three studies (260 participants) compared ketorolac with another NSAID. The RR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.40), that is, there may be little or no difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with another NSAID (76% versus 68%, 5 studies, 516 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23; NNTH 12.5, 95% CI 6.7 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from five studies (530 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and another NSAID (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 76.99). Only one of the five studies reported a single serious AE.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The amount and certainty of evidence for the use of intravenous ketorolac as a treatment for postoperative pain varies across efficacy and safety outcomes and amongst comparators, from very low to moderate. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous ketorolac administration may offer substantial pain relief for most patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a slightly higher rate in comparison to placebo and to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous ketorolac has a different rate of gastrointestinal or surgical-site bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was a lack of studies in cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations who may be at increased risk for adverse events.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Bias; Diclofenac; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Isoxazoles; Ketorolac; Middle Aged; Numbers Needed To Treat; Pain, Postoperative; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 33998669
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013263.pub2 -
Diclofenac Versus Dexamethasone Following Strabismus Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and... 2021To compare outcomes of diclofenac versus dexamethasone in patients after strabismus surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per the Preferred... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
To compare outcomes of diclofenac versus dexamethasone in patients after strabismus surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of diclofenac versus dexamethasone poststrabismus surgery were included. An extraction spreadsheet for data collection and Review Manager 5.3 were used for data analysis based on the fixed and random effects models. Discomfort, inflammation, chemosis, conjunctival gap, and intraocular pressure (IOP) were primary outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included conjunctival congestion and injection, discharge, and drop intolerance. Fixed and random effects models were used for the analysis. Five RCTs enrolling 248 subjects were enrolled. At week 2 postoperatively, there was a significant difference favoring diclofenac over dexamethasone in terms of discomfort (mean difference [MD] = -0.37, = 0.02), conjunctival inflammation (MD = -0.16, = 0.02), conjunctival chemosis (MD = -0.16, = 0.04), and postoperative conjunctival gap (MD = -0.17, = 0.002). In terms of IOP, there were no significant differences. However, no statistically significant differences were noted at weeks 1 and 4 postoperatively. For secondary outcomes, dexamethasone had significantly improved conjunctival congestion; however, diclofenac had significantly less injection at the site of muscle attachments at week 2. No significant difference was noted in terms of discharge and drop intolerance. Diclofenac is comparable to dexamethasone when used following strabismus surgery. However, a significant difference favoring diclofenac in terms of discomfort, inflammation, conjunctival chemosis, and conjunctival gap was only noted at 2 weeks postoperatively. The authors suggest conducting further studies to support the effectiveness of diclofenac as an alternative to corticosteroids following strabismus surgery.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Dexamethasone; Diclofenac; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Prognosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Strabismus
PubMed: 33944620
DOI: 10.1089/jop.2020.0133 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Nov 2021Although instrumental learning deficits are, among other deficits, assumed to contribute to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), no comprehensive systematic...
OBJECTIVE
Although instrumental learning deficits are, among other deficits, assumed to contribute to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), no comprehensive systematic review of instrumental learning deficits in ADHD exists. This review examines differences between ADHD and typically developing (TD) children in basic instrumental learning and the effects of reinforcement form, magnitude, schedule, and complexity, as well as effects of medication, on instrumental learning in children with ADHD.
METHOD
A systematic search of PubMed, PsyINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE+EMBASE CLASSIC, ERIC, and Web of Science was conducted for articles up to March 16, 2020. Experimental studies comparing instrumental learning between groups (ADHD versus TD) or a manipulation of reinforcement/medication within an ADHD sample were included. Quality of studies was assessed with an adapted version of the Hombrados and Waddington criteria to assess risk of bias in (quasi-) experimental studies.
RESULTS
A total of 19 studies from among 3,384 non-duplicate screened articles were included. No difference in basic instrumental learning was found between children with ADHD and TD children, nor effects of form or magnitude of reinforcement. Results regarding reinforcement schedule and reversal learning were mixed, but children with ADHD seemed to show deficits in conditional discrimination learning compared to TD children. Methylphenidate improved instrumental learning in children with ADHD. Quality assessment showed poor quality of studies with respect to sample sizes and outcome and missing data reporting.
CONCLUSION
The review identified very few and highly heterogenous studies, with inconsistent findings. No clear deficit was found in instrumental learning under laboratory conditions. Children with ADHD do show deficits in complex forms of learning, that is, conditional discrimination learning. Clearly more research is needed, using more similar task designs and manipulations.
Topics: Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Child; Conditioning, Operant; Humans; Learning; Methylphenidate
PubMed: 33862167
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2021.03.009 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2021Trigger finger is a common hand condition that occurs when movement of a finger flexor tendon through the first annular (A1) pulley is impaired by degeneration,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Trigger finger is a common hand condition that occurs when movement of a finger flexor tendon through the first annular (A1) pulley is impaired by degeneration, inflammation, and swelling. This causes pain and restricted movement of the affected finger. Non-surgical treatment options include activity modification, oral and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), splinting, and local injections with anti-inflammatory drugs.
OBJECTIVES
To review the benefits and harms of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) versus placebo, glucocorticoids, or different NSAIDs administered by the same route for trigger finger.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, www.ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO trials portal until 30 September 2020. We applied no language or publication status restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials of adult participants with trigger finger that compared NSAIDs administered topically, orally, or by injection versus placebo, glucocorticoid, or different NSAIDs administered by the same route.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two or more review authors independently screened the reports, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence. The seven major outcomes were resolution of trigger finger symptoms, persistent moderate or severe symptoms, recurrence of symptoms, total active range of finger motion, residual pain, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. Treatment effects were reported as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
Two RCTs conducted in an outpatient hospital setting were included (231 adult participants, mean age 58.6 years, 60% female, 95% to 100% moderate to severe disease). Both studies compared a single injection of a non-selective NSAID (12.5 mg diclofenac or 15.0 mg ketorolac) given at lower than normal doses with a single injection of a glucocorticoid (triamcinolone 20 mg or 5 mg), with maximum follow-up duration of 12 weeks or 24 weeks. In both studies, we detected risk of attrition and performance bias. One study also had risk of selection bias. The effects of treatment were sensitive to assumptions about missing outcomes. All seven outcomes were reported in one study, and five in the other. NSAID injection may offer little to no benefit over glucocorticoid injection, based on low- to very low-certainty evidence from two trials. Evidence was downgraded for bias and imprecision. There may be little to no difference between groups in resolution of symptoms at 12 to 24 weeks (34% with NSAIDs, 41% with glucocorticoids; absolute effect 7% lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 16% lower to 5% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.11; low-certainty evidence). The rate of persistent moderate to severe symptoms may be higher at 12 to 24 weeks in the NSAIDs group (28%) compared to the glucocorticoid group (14%) (absolute effect 14% higher, 95% CI 2% to 33% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.46; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAIDs result in fewer recurrences at 12 to 24 weeks (1%) compared to glucocorticoid (21%) (absolute effect 20% lower, 95% CI 21% to 13% lower; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.38; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in mean total active motion at 24 weeks (235 degrees with NSAIDs, 240 degrees with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 5% lower, 95% CI 34.54% lower to 24.54% higher; 1 study, 99 participants; MD -5.00, 95% CI -34.54 to 24.54; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in residual pain at 12 to 24 weeks (20% with NSAIDs, 24% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 4% lower, 95% CI 11% lower to 7% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in participant-reported treatment success at 24 weeks (64% with NSAIDs, 68% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 4% lower, 95% CI 18% lower to 15% higher; 1 study, 121 participants; RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.23; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAID injection has an effect on adverse events at 12 to 24 weeks (1% with NSAIDs, 1% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 0% difference, 95% CI 2% lower to 3% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.42; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For adults with trigger finger, by 24 weeks' follow-up, results from two trials show that compared to glucocorticoid injection, NSAID injection offered little to no benefit in the treatment of trigger finger. Specifically, there was no difference in resolution, symptoms, recurrence, total active motion, residual pain, participant-reported treatment success, or adverse events.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Bias; Diclofenac; Female; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Ketorolac; Male; Middle Aged; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Triamcinolone; Trigger Finger Disorder
PubMed: 33849080
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012789.pub2 -
International Journal of Geriatric... Sep 2021Geriatric depression is common and is often associated with coexisting medical illnesses, cognitive dysfunction, or both. Treatment with pharmacotherapy is usually... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Geriatric depression is common and is often associated with coexisting medical illnesses, cognitive dysfunction, or both. Treatment with pharmacotherapy is usually required, and many patients may not respond to initial therapy. Thus, there is a need for adjunctive treatment options. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy and safety of methylphenidate (MPH) in the treatment of geriatric depression.
METHODS
PubMed (1946-December 2020) and Embase (1947-December 2020) were queried using the following search terms: geriatrics, aged, geriatric patient, or elderly and depressive disorder, depression, major depression or late-life depression, and MPH. Studies were included if they were a randomized-controlled trial or open-label trial that investigated use of MPH for treatment of depression in adults aged 60 years and older.
RESULTS
After screening per the inclusion criteria, five prospective trials were included. All studies found improvement in depressive symptoms with use of MPH or MPH combined with citalopram. Study durations ranged from 8 to 16 weeks and MPH dosing ranged from 5 to 90 mg per day.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the reviewed literature, MPH appears to be most effective when combined with citalopram and used short-term. MPH should be initiated at a low dose and titrated up to 10 or 20 mg per day based on response. Larger, long-term trials are needed to further define the role of MPH in this population.
Topics: Aged; Citalopram; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Methylphenidate; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33829530
DOI: 10.1002/gps.5536 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Oct 2021Actinic keratoses (AK) are rough scaly patches that arise on chronically ultraviolet-exposed skin and can progress to keratinocyte carcinoma.
BACKGROUND
Actinic keratoses (AK) are rough scaly patches that arise on chronically ultraviolet-exposed skin and can progress to keratinocyte carcinoma.
OBJECTIVE
This analysis examined the literature related to the management of AK to provide evidence-based recommendations for treatment. Grading, histologic classification, natural history, risk of progression, and dermatologic surveillance of AKs are also discussed.
METHODS
A multidisciplinary Work Group conducted a systematic review to address 5 clinical questions on the management of AKs and applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations. Graded recommendations were voted on to achieve consensus.
RESULTS
Analysis of the evidence resulted in 18 recommendations.
LIMITATIONS
This analysis is based on the best available evidence at the time it was conducted. The pragmatic decision to limit the literature review to English language randomized trials may have excluded data published in other languages or limited identification of relevant long-term follow-up data.
CONCLUSIONS
Strong recommendations are made for using ultraviolet protection, topical imiquimod, topical 5-fluorouracil, and cryosurgery. Conditional recommendations are made for the use of photodynamic therapy and diclofenac for the treatment of AK, both individually and as part of combination therapy regimens.
Topics: Diclofenac; Fluorouracil; Humans; Imiquimod; Keratosis, Actinic; Photochemotherapy
PubMed: 33820677
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.02.082 -
Journal of Psychiatric Research Apr 2021It remains unclear whether the dopaminergic and noradrenergic systems may be implied in suicide attempt risk. In addition, although the serotonergic system has been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
It remains unclear whether the dopaminergic and noradrenergic systems may be implied in suicide attempt risk. In addition, although the serotonergic system has been extensively studied, no formal meta-analysis has been performed to examine its association with suicide attempt.
METHODS
Using PRISMA methodology, we performed a systematic literature review and random-effects meta-analyses of the differences in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels of 5-HIAA, HVA and MHPG between suicide attempters and individuals who never attempted suicide.
RESULTS
We identified 30 studies including 937 suicide attempters and 1128 non-attempters; 29 of them measured CSF levels of 5-HIAA, 22 measured CSF levels of HVA and 14 measured CSF levels of MHPG. CSF levels of 5-HIAA and HVA were significantly lower in suicide attempters than in non-attempters [SMD = -0.43 (95% CI: -0.71 to -0.15; p < 0.01) and SMD = -0.45 (95% CI: -0.72 to -0.19; p < 0.01), respectively]. We did not find a significant association between CSF MHPG levels and suicide attempt.
LIMITATIONS
Our analyses relied on a limited number of studies of good quality and most studies included small sample sizes.
CONCLUSION
Both serotonin and dopamine systems may play a role in suicide attempt risk. Our findings suggest that a silo approach to biomarkers should be phased out in favor of the study of multiple systems in parallel and in the same populations to progress in the identification of the biological components independently associated with suicide risk, with the goal of identifying new treatment targets and improving suicide risk prediction.
Topics: Dopamine; Homovanillic Acid; Humans; Hydroxyindoleacetic Acid; Serotonin; Suicide, Attempted; Violence
PubMed: 33618064
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.01.045