-
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 -
International Journal of MS Care 2023Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a common debilitating neurologic disease that affects mostly young women. This review provides an overview of research on the psychosocial...
BACKGROUND
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a common debilitating neurologic disease that affects mostly young women. This review provides an overview of research on the psychosocial impact of parental MS on children to inform clinicians and support people with MS considering parenthood.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and PSYNDEX databases. We included quantitative and mixed-method studies assessing psychosocial outcomes of children with a parent with MS. Studies were screened for eligibility and evaluated for risk of bias.
RESULTS
We screened 608 references, assessed 72 studies in full-text, and included 28 studies in this review. Most of the studies reported on psychosocial adjustment processes, with most results suggesting negative consequences, including difficulties with mood, behavior, or social interaction. Several studies also described associations between children with a parent with MS and increased incidences of psychiatric disorders. Nevertheless, some studies claimed that children with a parent with MS were not more likely to have psychosocial problems compared with children without a parent with MS. A few studies indicated probable positive effects of parental MS, eg potentially increased social competence. Other investigated outcomes were children's coping skills, early childhood development, body image, and effects on education, and these were unaffected or only slightly affected by having a parent with MS.
CONCLUSIONS
Having a parent with MS has a relevant effect on children. However, the heterogeneous nature and varying quality of the included studies limit the interpretability of these findings. Further research is needed to provide robust evidence.
PubMed: 36923578
DOI: 10.7224/1537-2073.2021-075 -
Journal of Psychosomatic Research May 2023Stoma surgery is a profoundly life changing event that can result in a range of negative psychological and mental health outcomes, often requiring significant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Stoma surgery is a profoundly life changing event that can result in a range of negative psychological and mental health outcomes, often requiring significant postoperative adaption. While postoperative avenues of support to address these outcomes exist, there remains a lack of preoperative psychological preparation for surgical candidates in standard models of care. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to examine the current and emerging models of psychological preparation available to stoma surgery candidates during the preoperative period.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and SCOPUS was conducted. All studies examining the effects of preoperative psychological interventions targeting postoperative psychological adjustment and/or mental health outcomes for individuals planning to undergo or who had undergone stoma surgery were included.
RESULTS
Overall, 15 publications meeting inclusion criteria were identified, encompassing 1565 total participants. Intervention types ranged from psychoeducational, counselling, and practical based skills, examining the postoperative outcomes of anxiety, depression, quality of life, adjustment, self-efficacy, and systematic improvements to standard models of care. Five studies examining postoperative anxiety were included for meta-analysis, demonstrating an overall significant effect (SMD = -1.13, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.30, p = .008). Due to the high level of heterogeneity between remaining studies, articles examining postoperative outcomes other than anxiety were synthesised in narrative form.
CONCLUSION
Despite some promising advancements in the field, there remains insufficient evidence to judge the overall effectiveness of current and emerging models of preoperative psychological preparation on postoperative psychological outcomes for individuals facing stoma surgery.
Topics: Humans; Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Psychosocial Intervention; Quality of Life; Self Efficacy
PubMed: 36898315
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2023.111211 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This led to widespread implementation, although... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This led to widespread implementation, although the available evidence remains inconsistent. This update aims to fill current knowledge gaps by identifying, describing, evaluating, and synthesising all evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of remdesivir on clinical outcomes in COVID-19.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of remdesivir and standard care compared to standard care plus/minus placebo on clinical outcomes in patients treated for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv) as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies, without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 31 May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included RCTs evaluating remdesivir and standard care for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to standard care plus/minus placebo irrespective of disease severity, gender, ethnicity, or setting. We excluded studies that evaluated remdesivir for the treatment of other coronavirus diseases.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality, in-hospital mortality, clinical improvement (being alive and ready for discharge up to day 28) or worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28), quality of life, serious adverse events, and adverse events (any grade). We differentiated between non-hospitalised individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 and hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine RCTs with 11,218 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mean age of 53.6 years, of whom 5982 participants were randomised to receive remdesivir. Most participants required low-flow oxygen at baseline. Studies were mainly conducted in high- and upper-middle-income countries. We identified two studies that are awaiting classification and five ongoing studies. Effects of remdesivir in hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19 With moderate-certainty evidence, remdesivir probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.06; risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 6 more; 4 studies, 7142 participants), day 60 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 73 fewer to 12 more; 1 study, 1281 participants), or in-hospital mortality at up to day 150 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03; RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 25 fewer to 5 more; 1 study, 8275 participants). Remdesivir probably increases the chance of clinical improvement at up to day 28 slightly (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.17; RD 68 more per 1000, 95% CI 37 more to 105 more; 4 studies, 2514 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening within 28 days (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.82; RD 135 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 198 fewer to 69 fewer; 2 studies, 1734 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Remdesivir may make little or no difference to the rate of adverse events of any grade (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.18; RD 23 more per 1000, 95% CI 46 fewer to 104 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.07; RD 44 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 96 fewer to 19 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low, with some concerns for mortality and clinical course. We had some concerns for safety outcomes because participants who had died did not contribute information. Without adjustment, this leads to an uncertain amount of missing values and the potential for bias due to missing data. Effects of remdesivir in non-hospitalised individuals with mild COVID-19 One of the nine RCTs was conducted in the outpatient setting and included symptomatic people with a risk of progression. No deaths occurred within the 28 days observation period. We are uncertain about clinical improvement due to very low-certainty evidence. Remdesivir probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening (hospitalisation) at up to day 28 (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.75; RD 46 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 57 fewer to 16 fewer; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not find any data for quality of life. Remdesivir may decrease the rate of serious adverse events at up to 28 days (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.70; RD 49 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 60 fewer to 20 fewer; 562 participants; low-certainty evidence), but it probably makes little or no difference to the risk of adverse events of any grade (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.10; RD 42 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 111 fewer to 46 more; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low for mortality, clinical improvement, and safety outcomes. We identified a high risk of bias for clinical worsening.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available evidence up to 31 May 2022, remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality or in-hospital mortality of individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19. The hospitalisation rate was reduced with remdesivir in one study including participants with mild to moderate COVID-19. It may be beneficial in the clinical course for both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients, but certainty remains limited. The applicability of the evidence to current practice may be limited by the recruitment of participants from mostly unvaccinated populations exposed to early variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus at the time the studies were undertaken. Future studies should provide additional data on the efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups.
Topics: Humans; Middle Aged; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Disease Progression; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36695483
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014962.pub2 -
The American Journal of Psychiatry Feb 2023Childhood maltreatment is associated with mental health problems, but the extent to which this relationship is causal remains unclear. To strengthen causal inference,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Childhood maltreatment is associated with mental health problems, but the extent to which this relationship is causal remains unclear. To strengthen causal inference, the authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of quasi-experimental studies examining the relationship between childhood maltreatment and mental health problems.
METHODS
A search of PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase was conducted for peer-reviewed, English-language articles from database inception until January 1, 2022. Studies were included if they examined the association between childhood maltreatment and mental health problems using a quasi-experimental method (e.g., twin/sibling differences design, children of twins design, adoption design, fixed-effects design, random-intercept cross-lagged panel model, natural experiment, propensity score matching, or inverse probability weighting).
RESULTS
Thirty-four quasi-experimental studies were identified, comprising 54,646 independent participants. Before quasi-experimental adjustment for confounding, childhood maltreatment was moderately associated with mental health problems (Cohen's d=0.56, 95% CI=0.41, 0.71). After quasi-experimental adjustment, a small association between childhood maltreatment and mental health problems remained (Cohen's d=0.31, 95% CI=0.24, 0.37). This adjusted association between childhood maltreatment and mental health was consistent across different quasi-experimental methods, and generalized across different psychiatric disorders.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings are consistent with a small, causal contribution of childhood maltreatment to mental health problems. Furthermore, the findings suggest that part of the overall risk of mental health problems in individuals exposed to maltreatment is due to wider genetic and environmental risk factors. Therefore, preventing childhood maltreatment and addressing wider psychiatric risk factors in individuals exposed to maltreatment could help to prevent psychopathology.
Topics: Child; Humans; Mental Health; Child Abuse; Mental Disorders; Psychopathology; Twins
PubMed: 36628513
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.20220174 -
International Journal of Environmental... Dec 2022Nightmares are highly prevalent and distressing for the sufferer, which underlines the need for well-documented treatments. A comprehensive literature review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Nightmares are highly prevalent and distressing for the sufferer, which underlines the need for well-documented treatments. A comprehensive literature review and meta-analysis of the effects of different pharmacological placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials, covering the period up to 1 December 2022, was performed. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsychInfo, Cinahl, and Google Scholar, resulting in the identification of 1762 articles, of which 14 met the inclusion criteria: pharmacological intervention of nightmares, based on a placebo-controlled randomized trial published in a European language, reporting outcomes either/or in terms of nightmare frequency, nightmare distress, or nightmare intensity, and reporting sufficient information enabling calculation of effect sizes. Most studies involved the effect of the α-adrenergic antagonist prazosin in samples of veterans or soldiers suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder. Other medications used were hydroxyzine, clonazepam, cyproheptadine, nabilone, and doxazosin. The vast majority of studies were conducted in the USA. The studies comprised a total of 830 participants. The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale was the most frequently used outcome measure. The results showed an overall effect size of Hedges' = 0.50 (0.42 after adjustment for publication bias). The synthetic cannabinoid nabilone (one study) showed the highest effect size ( = 1.86), followed by the histamine H-antagonist hydroxyzine (one study), and prazosin (10 studies), with effect sizes of = 1.17 and = 0.54, respectively. Findings and limitations are discussed, and recommendations for future studies are provided.
Topics: Humans; Dreams; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Prazosin; Adrenergic alpha-1 Receptor Antagonists; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Hydroxyzine
PubMed: 36613097
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20010777 -
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia E... Dec 2022The present review aimed to synthesize the evidence regarding mercury (Hg) exposure and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP).
OBJECTIVE
The present review aimed to synthesize the evidence regarding mercury (Hg) exposure and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP).
DATA SOURCES
The PubMed, BVS/LILACS, SciELO and UFRJ's Pantheon Digital Library databases were systematically searched through June 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Observational analytical articles, written in English, Spanish, or Portuguese, without time restriction.
DATA COLLECTION
We followed the PICOS strategy, and the methodological quality was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist.
DATA SYNTHESIS
We retrieved 77 articles, of which 6 met the review criteria. They comprised 4,848 participants, of which 809 (16.7%) had HDP and 4,724 (97.4%) were environmentally exposed to Hg (fish consumption and dental amalgam). Mercury biomarkers evaluated were blood (four studies) and urine (two studies). Two studies found a positive association between Hg and HDP in the group with more exposure, and the other four did not present it. The quality assessment revealed three satisfactory and three good-rated studies (mean: 19.3 ± 1.6 out 28 points). The absence or no proper adjustment for negative confounding factor, such as fish consumption, was observed in five studies.
CONCLUSION
We retrieved only six studies, although Hg is a widespread toxic metal and pregnancy is a period of heightened susceptibility to environmental threats and cardiovascular risk. Overall, our review showed mixed results, with two studies reporting a positive association in the group with more exposure. However, due to the importance of the subject, additional studies are needed to elucidate the effects of Hg on HDP, with particular attention to adjusting negative confounding.
Topics: Humans; Pregnancy; Female; Animals; Mercury; Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced; Maternal Exposure; Biomarkers
PubMed: 36580940
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1760215 -
Psychiatry Research Jan 2023The chronicity of depressive disorders is a major problem. Dopamine stimulating agents (DSA) are suggested to hold a promising potential in depression management,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The chronicity of depressive disorders is a major problem. Dopamine stimulating agents (DSA) are suggested to hold a promising potential in depression management, particularly in older adults, in whom dopamine deficiency due to aging may be an underlying cause. More evidence is needed to support these drugs in the management of depression. Therefore, we conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Data was extracted from eighteen randomized-controlled-trials and eight open-label-studies. Additional meta-regression-analyses were performed to examine superiority of monotherapy versus augmentation, and to rule out a putative age effect. DSA were found to reduce depressive symptoms (SMD=-0.26, 95%CI[-0.43;-0.10]). Heterogeneity was high and a significant Egger's test indicated publication bias. Adjustment for missing studies, using trim-and-fill-methodology, reduced the effect size (SMD=-0.17, 95%CI[-0.39;0.05]), which lost statistical significance. Removing the outlier study from the analysis, the effect size remained marginally small, but was statistically-significant (SMD=-0.17, 95%CI[-0.31;-0.02]). Neither augmentation nor monotherapy was superior. No age effect was found. It can be concluded that off-label DSA are overall effective in reducing depressive symptoms. However, the evidence is weak, regarding the publication bias, and modest-to-weak treatment effects. Well-designed high-quality trials are highly needed, before dopamine stimulating agents can be adequately positioned in future depression treatment protocols.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Depression; Dopamine; Off-Label Use; Depressive Disorder
PubMed: 36528007
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2022.115010 -
Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome Dec 2022Obesity and overweight are major risk factors for several chronic diseases. There is limited systematic evaluation of risk equations that predict the likelihood of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Obesity and overweight are major risk factors for several chronic diseases. There is limited systematic evaluation of risk equations that predict the likelihood of developing an obesity or overweight associated complication. Predicting future risk is essential for health economic modelling. Availability of future treatments rests upon a model's ability to inform clinical and decision-making bodies. This systematic literature review aimed to identify studies reporting (1) equations that calculate the risk for individuals with obesity, or overweight with a weight-related complication (OWRC), of developing additional complications, namely T2D, cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD), acute coronary syndrome, stroke, musculoskeletal disorders, knee replacement/arthroplasty, or obstructive sleep apnea; (2) absolute or proportional risk for individuals with severe obesity, obesity or OWRC developing T2D, a CV event or mortality from knee surgery, stroke, or an acute CV event.
METHODS
Databases (MEDLINE and Embase) were searched for English language reports of population-based cohort analyses or large-scale studies in Australia, Canada, Europe, the UK, and the USA between January 1, 2011, and March 29, 2021. Included reports were quality assessed using an adapted version of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
Of the 60 included studies, the majority used European cohorts. Twenty-nine reported a risk prediction equation for developing an additional complication. The most common risk prediction equations were logistic regression models that did not differentiate between body mass index (BMI) groups (particularly above 40 kg/m) and lacked external validation. The remaining included studies (31 studies) reported the absolute or proportional risk of mortality (29 studies), or the risk of developing T2D in a population with obesity and with prediabetes or normal glucose tolerance (NGT) (three studies), or a CV event in populations with severe obesity with NGT or T2D (three studies). Most reported proportional risk, predominantly a hazard ratio.
CONCLUSION
More work is needed to develop and validate these risk equations, specifically in non-European cohorts and that distinguish between BMI class II and III obesity. New data or adjustment of the current risk equations by calibration would allow for more accurate decision making at an individual and population level.
PubMed: 36476232
DOI: 10.1186/s13098-022-00952-4 -
Epilepsy Research Jan 2023The currently available evidence is unclear in regard to psychiatric outcomes of temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) in patients with comorbid psychiatric disorders (PD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The currently available evidence is unclear in regard to psychiatric outcomes of temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) in patients with comorbid psychiatric disorders (PD).
AIM
To identify and synthesize psychiatric outcomes in patients with TLE and comorbid psychiatric illnesses before and after TLE surgery.
METHODS
Studies were included if participants were adults and/or children with temporal epilepsy and comorbid psychiatric illness. Surgical interventions included focal resection (e.g., lobectomy, selective amygdalohippocampectomy) or stereotactic laser ablation. Included studies reported on pre- and post- surgery data of comorbid psychiatric illness (e.g., mood and anxiety disorders, depression, psychosis, adjustment disorders, non-epileptic seizures, and personality disorders).
RESULTS
Ten studies were included in the review. The proportion of patients achieving PD resolution or improvements after surgery varied widely between studies, ranging from 15 % to 57 % at the reported follow-up time. Three studies reported on PD symptom worsening after surgery, with considerable variations of patient proportions across studies. Meta-analysis suggests that 43 % of patients demonstrated improvement and 33 % of patients showed a worsening in psychiatric scores across all studies. Preliminary data from three studies suggest that seizure control may be associated with favourable psychiatric outcomes.
CONCLUSION
A considerable proportion of reported TLE patients with comorbid psychiatric illnesses have improvement in their psychiatric symptoms after temporal lobe epilepsy surgery. There is scarcity of detailed outcome reporting including symptom scores, and to date, predictive factors for favourable vs unfavourable outcomes in this patient population are not clear. Further research on the topic is warranted.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Epilepsy, Temporal Lobe; Treatment Outcome; Mental Disorders; Seizures; Temporal Lobe
PubMed: 36473277
DOI: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2022.107054