-
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Sep 2021Polypharmacy is common in maintenance treatment of bipolar illness, but proof of greater efficacy compared to monotherapy is assumed rather than well known. We... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Polypharmacy is common in maintenance treatment of bipolar illness, but proof of greater efficacy compared to monotherapy is assumed rather than well known. We systematically reviewed the evidence from the literature to provide recommendations for clinical management and future research.
METHOD
A systematic review was conducted on the use of polypharmacy in bipolar prophylaxis. Relevant papers published in English through 31 December 2019 were identified searching the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library.
RESULTS
Twelve studies matched inclusion criteria, including 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The best drug combination in prevention is represented by lithium + valproic acid which showed a significant effect on time to mood relapses (HR = 0.57) compared to valproic acid monotherapy, especially for manic episodes (HR = 0.51). The effect was significant in terms of time to new drug treatment (HR = 0.51) and time to hospitalization (HR = 0.57). A significant reduction in the frequency of mood relapses was also reported for lithium + valproic acid vs. lithium monotherapy (RR=0.12); however, the trial had a small sample size. Lamotrigine + valproic acid reported significant efficacy in prevention of depressive episodes compared to lamotrigine alone.
CONCLUSIONS
The literature to support a generally greater efficacy with polypharmacy in bipolar illness is scant and heterogeneous. Within that limited evidence base, the best drug combination in bipolar prevention is represented by lithium + valproic acid for manic, but not depressive episodes. Clinical practice should focus more on adequate monotherapy before considering polypharmacy.
Topics: Antimanic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Lithium Compounds; Polypharmacy; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 33960396
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13312 -
General Hospital Psychiatry 2021Due to the global spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), guidance for the use of psychotropic drugs in this context is necessary. We...
OBJECTIVE
Due to the global spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), guidance for the use of psychotropic drugs in this context is necessary. We aimed to review clinical evidence regarding the potential toxicity of psychiatric medications in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
METHODS
A systematic search for all types of empirical studies and reviews in a broad set of electronic databases and trial registries was conducted up to the 15th of August 2020.
RESULTS
We identified 3 case series and 4 single-case reports on the occurrence of toxicity induced by various psychotropic drugs (lithium, n = 2; clozapine, n = 5; risperidone n = 2; haloperidol n = 1; duloxetine, n = 1). In addition, we provide a new case report on the possible precipitation of valproic acid-induced hyperammonemic encephalopathy. In most cases, SARS-CoV-2 infection may have precipitated drug toxicity/side effects. The management of toxicity did not diverge from the usually applied principles in the absence of infection.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the limited available evidence and the recent genomic diversity and evolution of the SARS-CoV-2, it is currently not possible to derive evidence-based recommendations for the use of psychotropic drugs in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nevertheless, we provide some guidance based on the reviewed literature. At the current state of knowledge, there is no contraindication for any psychotropic drug. Caution is warranted regarding the dosing and, in particular, the monitoring of clozapine, lithium and valproate.
Topics: COVID-19; Comorbidity; Humans; Mental Disorders; Psychotropic Drugs
PubMed: 33631694
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2021.02.006 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Absence seizures (AS) are brief epileptic seizures which present in childhood and...
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Absence seizures (AS) are brief epileptic seizures which present in childhood and adolescence. Depending on clinical features and electroencephalogram (EEG) findings they are divided into typical, atypical absences, and absences with special features. Typical absences are characterised by sudden loss of awareness and an EEG typically shows generalised spike wave discharges at three cycles per second. Ethosuximide, valproate and lamotrigine are currently used to treat absence seizures. This review aims to determine the best choice of antiepileptic drug for children and adolescents with AS.
OBJECTIVES
To review the evidence for the effects of ethosuximide, valproate and lamotrigine as treatments for children and adolescents with absence seizures (AS), when compared with placebo or each other.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web, 22 September 2020) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to September 21, 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. No language restrictions were imposed. In addition, we contacted Sanofi Winthrop, Glaxo Wellcome (now GlaxoSmithKline) and Parke Davis (now Pfizer), manufacturers of sodium valproate, lamotrigine and ethosuximide respectively.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised parallel group monotherapy or add-on trials which include a comparison of any of the following in children or adolescents with AS: ethosuximide, sodium valproate, lamotrigine, or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Outcome measures were: 1. proportion of individuals seizure free at one, three, six, 12 and 18 months post randomisation; 2. individuals with a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; 3. normalisation of EEG and/or negative hyperventilation test; and 4. adverse effects. Data were independently extracted by two review authors. Results are presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). We used GRADE quality assessment criteria to evaluate the certainty of evidence for the outcomes derived from all included studies.
MAIN RESULTS
On the basis of our selection criteria, we included no new studies in the present review. Eight small trials (total number of participants: 691) were included from the earlier review. Six of them were of poor methodological quality (unclear or high risk of bias) and seven recruited less than 50 participants. There are no placebo-controlled trials for ethosuximide or valproate, and hence, no evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to support a specific effect on AS for either of these two drugs. Due to the differing methodologies used in the trials comparing ethosuximide, lamotrigine and valproate, we thought it inappropriate to undertake a meta-analysis. One large randomised, parallel double-blind controlled trial comparing ethosuximide, lamotrigine and sodium valproate in 453 children with newly diagnosed childhood absence epilepsy found that at 12 months, seizure freedom was higher in patients taking ethosuximide (70/154, 45%) than in patients taking lamotrigine (31/146, 21%; P < 0.001), with no difference between valproate (64/146, 44%) and ethosuximide (70/154, 45%; P > 0.05). In this study, the frequency of treatment failures due to intolerable adverse events was significantly different among the treatment groups, with the largest proportion of adverse events in the valproic acid group (48/146, 33%) compared to the ethosuximide (38/154, 25%) and the lamotrigine (29/146, 20%) groups (P < 0.037). Overall, this large study demonstrates the superior effectiveness of ethosuximide and valproic acid compared to lamotrigine as initial monotherapy aimed to control seizures without intolerable adverse effects in children with childhood absence epilepsy. This study provided high certainty of the evidence for outcomes for which data were available. However, the certainty of the evidence provided by the other included studies was low, primarily due to risk of bias and imprecise results because of the small sample sizes. Hence, conclusions regarding the efficacy of ethosuximide, valproic acid and lamotrigine derive mostly from this single study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since the last version of this review was published, we have found no new studies. Hence, the conclusions remain the same as the previous update. With regards to both efficacy and tolerability, ethosuximide represents the optimal initial empirical monotherapy for children and adolescents with AS. However, if absence and generalised tonic-clonic seizures coexist, valproate should be preferred, as ethosuximide is probably inefficacious on tonic-clonic seizures.
Topics: Adolescent; Anticonvulsants; Child; Epilepsy, Absence; Ethosuximide; Female; Humans; Lamotrigine; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Treatment Failure; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 33475151
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003032.pub5 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2020To evaluate the incidence and risk of tremor in patients treated with valproic aid (VPA) monotherapy. We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to...
To evaluate the incidence and risk of tremor in patients treated with valproic aid (VPA) monotherapy. We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to gather relevant data on tremor in patients taking VPA and other drugs and performed a meta-analysis using Stata15.1 software. Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The overall incidence of tremor in patients receiving VPA therapy was 14% [OR = 0.14, 95% CI (0.10-0.17)]. The pooled estimate risk of tremor showed a significant difference between patients treated with VPA and all other drugs [OR = 5.40, 95% CI (3.22-9.08)], other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) [OR = 5.78, 95% CI (3.18-10.50)], and other non-AEDs [OR = 4.77, 95% CI (1.55-14.72)]. Both a dose of <1,500 mg/d of VPA [included 500 mg/d: OR = 3.57, 95% CI (1.24-10.26), 500-999 mg/d: OR = 3.99, 95% CI (1.95-8.20), 1,000-1,499 mg/d: OR = 8.82, 95% CI (3.25-23.94)] and a VPA treatment duration of <12 m [included ≤ 3 months: OR = 3.06, 95% CI (1.16-8.09), 3-6 months: OR = 16.98, 95% CI (9.14-31.57), and 6-12 months: OR = 4.15, 95% CI (2.74-6.29)] led to a higher risk of tremor than did other drugs, as did higher doses and longer treatment times. Compared with other drugs, VPA led to a higher risk of tremor, and the level of risk was associated with the dose and duration of treatment.
PubMed: 33384651
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2020.576579 -
Clinical Neuropsychiatry Oct 2020We reviewed literature on drugs for bipolar disorders (BD), utilized in ovarian cancer (OC).
OBJECTIVE
We reviewed literature on drugs for bipolar disorders (BD), utilized in ovarian cancer (OC).
METHOD
We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in completion of this systematic review.
RESULTS
We identified 73 papers. Thirty-two studies were finally included. BD is rarely diagnosed in OC patients. Limited finding from case reports is available. Drugs used to treat BD (mainly lithium and valproic acid) have been extensively studied in add-on to chemotherapy for treatment-resistant OC cells or in animal models, with promising results in vitro but not in vivo.
CONCLUSIONS
The clinical underestimation of BD in OC has leaded to the almost complete absence of evidences for a soundly based clinical guidance in this field. There is a urgent need for a systematic multi-disciplinary approach to OC.
PubMed: 34909008
DOI: 10.36131/cnfioritieditore20200508 -
Developmental Neuroscience 2020Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by repetitive behaviours, cognitive rigidity/inflexibility, and social-affective...
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by repetitive behaviours, cognitive rigidity/inflexibility, and social-affective impairment. Unfortunately, few pharmacological treatments exist to alleviate these socio-behavioural impairments. Prenatal administration of valproic acid (VPA) has become an accepted animal model of ASD and has been extensively used to explore new pharmacotherapies in rodents. We conducted a systematic review of the behavioural impairments induced by the VPA model in rodents, with specific reference to 3 core socio-behavioural alterations associated with ASD: repetitive behaviours, cognitive rigidity/inflexibility, and social-affective impairment. We systematically reviewed studies attempting to alleviate these core behavioural alterations using pharmacological means. We include 132 studies exploring the prenatal effects of VPA in rodents. Gestational exposure to VPA in rodents has significant effects on rodent-equivalent measures of the 3 core behavioural traits characteristic of ASD in humans, inducing social impairments, repetitive behaviour, and cognitive rigidity/inflexibility after birth. This model's validity has seen it used to test potential drug treatments for ASD and is likely to continue doing so. We conclude the rodent VPA model may be suitable to examine future therapeutic interventions for ASD, providing an overview of the progress made so far.
Topics: Animals; Anticonvulsants; Autistic Disorder; Behavior, Animal; Disease Models, Animal; Humans; Rodentia; Social Behavior; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 32810856
DOI: 10.1159/000509109 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2020Epimutations secondary to gene-environment interactions have a key role in the pathophysiology of major psychiatric disorders. and evidence suggest that mood...
BACKGROUND
Epimutations secondary to gene-environment interactions have a key role in the pathophysiology of major psychiatric disorders. and evidence suggest that mood stabilizers can potentially reverse epigenetic deregulations found in patients with schizophrenia or mood disorders through mechanisms that are not yet fully understood. However, their activity on epigenetic processes has made them a research target for therapeutic approaches.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive literature search of PubMed and EMBASE for studies investigating the specific epigenetic changes induced by non-antipsychotic mood stabilizers (valproate, lithium, lamotrigine, and carbamazepine) in animal models, human cell lines, or patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depressive disorder. Each paper was reviewed for the nature of research, the species and tissue examined, sample size, mood stabilizer, targeted gene, epigenetic changes found, and associated psychiatric disorder. Every article was appraised for quality using a modified published process and those who met a quality score of moderate or high were included.
RESULTS
A total of 2,429 records were identified; 1,956 records remained after duplicates were removed and were screened title, abstract and keywords; 129 records were selected for full-text screening and a remaining of 38 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis. Valproate and lithium were found to induce broader epigenetic changes through different mechanisms, mainly DNA demethylation and histones acetylation. There was less literature and hence smaller effects attributable to lamotrigine and carbamazepine could be associated overall with the small number of studies on these agents. Findings were congruent across sample types.
CONCLUSIONS
An advanced understanding of the specific epigenetic changes induced by classic mood stabilizers in patients with major psychiatric disorders will facilitate personalized interventions. Further related drug discovery should target the induction of selective chromatin remodeling and gene-specific expression effects.
PubMed: 32390836
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.00467 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non-traumatic pathology...
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non-traumatic pathology has been estimated to be between 15% to 20%; however, the risk of experiencing a seizure appears to vary from 3% to 92% over a five-year period. Postoperative seizures can precipitate the development of epilepsy; seizures are most likely to occur within the first month of cranial surgery. The use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) administered pre- or postoperatively to prevent seizures following cranial surgery has been investigated in a number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of AEDs when used prophylactically in people undergoing craniotomy and to examine which AEDs are most effective.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update we searched the following databases on 29 September 2019: Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs of people with no history of epilepsy who were undergoing craniotomy for either therapeutic or diagnostic reasons. We included trials with adequate randomisation methods and concealment; these could either be blinded or unblinded parallel trials. We did not stipulate a minimum treatment period, and we included trials using active drugs or placebo as a control group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors (JW, JG, YD) independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved any disagreements through discussion. Outcomes investigated included the number of participants experiencing seizures (early (occurring within first week following craniotomy), and late (occurring after first week following craniotomy)), the number of deaths and the number of people experiencing disability and adverse effects. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the trials, we did not combine data from the included trials in a meta-analysis; we presented the findings of the review in narrative format. Visual comparisons of outcomes are presented in forest plots.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 RCTs (N = 1815), which were published between 1983 and 2015. Three trials compared a single AED (phenytoin) with placebo or no treatment. One, three-armed trial compared two AEDs (phenytoin, carbamazepine) with no treatment. A second three-armed trial compared phenytoin, phenobarbital with no treatment. Of these five trials comparing AEDs with placebo or no treatment, two trials reported a statistically significant advantage for AED treatment compared to controls for early seizure occurrence; all other comparisons showed no clear or statistically significant differences between AEDs and control treatment. None of the trials that were head-to-head comparisons of AEDs (phenytoin versus sodium valproate, phenytoin versus phenobarbital, levetiracetam versus phenytoin, zonisamide versus phenobarbital) reported any statistically significant differences between treatments for either early or late seizure occurrence. Only five trials reported incidences of death. One trial reported statistically significantly fewer deaths in the carbamazepine and no-treatment groups compared with the phenytoin group after 24 months of treatment, but not after six months of treatment. Incidences of adverse effects of treatment were poorly reported; however, three trials did show that significantly more adverse events occurred on phenytoin compared to valproate, placebo, or no treatment. No trials reported any results relating to functional outcomes such as disability. We considered the evidence to be of low certainty for all reported outcomes due to methodological issues and variability of comparisons made in the trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited, low-certainly evidence to suggest that AED treatment administered prophylactically is either effective or not effective in the prevention of postcraniotomy (early or late) seizures. The current evidence base is limited due to the different methodologies employed in the trials and inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes including deaths and adverse events. Further evidence from good-quality, contemporary trials is required in order to assess the clinical effectiveness of prophylactic AED treatment compared to placebo or no treatment, or other AEDs in preventing postcraniotomy seizures in this select group of patients.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Craniotomy; Humans; Isoxazoles; Levetiracetam; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Piracetam; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Valproic Acid; Zonisamide
PubMed: 32343399
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007286.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is caused by a homozygous deletion of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene on chromosome 5, or a heterozygous deletion in combination... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is caused by a homozygous deletion of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene on chromosome 5, or a heterozygous deletion in combination with a (point) mutation in the second SMN1 allele. This results in degeneration of anterior horn cells, which leads to progressive muscle weakness. Children with SMA type II do not develop the ability to walk without support and have a shortened life expectancy, whereas children with SMA type III develop the ability to walk and have a normal life expectancy. This is an update of a review first published in 2009 and previously updated in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate if drug treatment is able to slow or arrest the disease progression of SMA types II and III, and to assess if such therapy can be given safely.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ISI Web of Science conference proceedings in October 2018. In October 2018, we also searched two trials registries to identify unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought all randomised or quasi-randomised trials that examined the efficacy of drug treatment for SMA types II and III. Participants had to fulfil the clinical criteria and have a homozygous deletion or hemizygous deletion in combination with a point mutation in the second allele of the SMN1 gene (5q11.2-13.2) confirmed by genetic analysis. The primary outcome measure was change in disability score within one year after the onset of treatment. Secondary outcome measures within one year after the onset of treatment were change in muscle strength, ability to stand or walk, change in quality of life, time from the start of treatment until death or full-time ventilation and adverse events attributable to treatment during the trial period. Treatment strategies involving SMN1-replacement with viral vectors are out of the scope of this review, but a summary is given in Appendix 1. Drug treatment for SMA type I is the topic of a separate Cochrane Review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
The review authors found 10 randomised, placebo-controlled trials of treatments for SMA types II and III for inclusion in this review, with 717 participants. We added four of the trials at this update. The trials investigated creatine (55 participants), gabapentin (84 participants), hydroxyurea (57 participants), nusinersen (126 participants), olesoxime (165 participants), phenylbutyrate (107 participants), somatotropin (20 participants), thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH) (nine participants), valproic acid (33 participants), and combination therapy with valproic acid and acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC) (61 participants). Treatment duration was from three to 24 months. None of the studies investigated the same treatment and none was completely free of bias. All studies had adequate blinding, sequence generation and reporting of primary outcomes. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, intrathecal nusinersen improved motor function (disability) in children with SMA type II, with a 3.7-point improvement in the nusinersen group on the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded (HFMSE; range of possible scores 0 to 66), compared to a 1.9-point decline on the HFMSE in the sham procedure group (P < 0.01; n = 126). On all motor function scales used, higher scores indicate better function. Based on moderate-certainty evidence from two studies, the following interventions had no clinically important effect on motor function scores in SMA types II or III (or both) in comparison to placebo: creatine (median change 1 higher, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1 to 2; on the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM), scale 0 to 264; n = 40); and combination therapy with valproic acid and carnitine (mean difference (MD) 0.64, 95% CI -1.1 to 2.38; on the Modified Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale (MHFMS), scale 0 to 40; n = 61). Based on low-certainty evidence from other single studies, the following interventions had no clinically important effect on motor function scores in SMA types II or III (or both) in comparison to placebo: gabapentin (median change 0 in the gabapentin group and -2 in the placebo group on the SMA Functional Rating Scale (SMAFRS), scale 0 to 50; n = 66); hydroxyurea (MD -1.88, 95% CI -3.89 to 0.13 on the GMFM, scale 0 to 264; n = 57), phenylbutyrate (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.58 on the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale (HFMS) scale 0 to 40; n = 90) and monotherapy of valproic acid (MD 0.06, 95% CI -1.32 to 1.44 on SMAFRS, scale 0 to 50; n = 31). Very low-certainty evidence suggested that the following interventions had little or no effect on motor function: olesoxime (MD 2, 95% -0.25 to 4.25 on the Motor Function Measure (MFM) D1 + D2, scale 0 to 75; n = 160) and somatotropin (median change at 3 months 0.25 higher, 95% CI -1 to 2.5 on the HFMSE, scale 0 to 66; n = 19). One small TRH trial did not report effects on motor function and the certainty of evidence for other outcomes from this trial were low or very low. Results of nine completed trials investigating 4-aminopyridine, acetyl-L-carnitine, CK-2127107, hydroxyurea, pyridostigmine, riluzole, RO6885247/RG7800, salbutamol and valproic acid were awaited and not available for analysis at the time of writing. Various trials and studies investigating treatment strategies other than nusinersen (e.g. SMN2-augmentation by small molecules), are currently ongoing.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Nusinersen improves motor function in SMA type II, based on moderate-certainty evidence. Creatine, gabapentin, hydroxyurea, phenylbutyrate, valproic acid and the combination of valproic acid and ALC probably have no clinically important effect on motor function in SMA types II or III (or both) based on low-certainty evidence, and olesoxime and somatropin may also have little to no clinically important effect but evidence was of very low-certainty. One trial of TRH did not measure motor function.
Topics: Adolescent; Amines; Child; Child, Preschool; Creatine; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Humans; Hydroxyurea; Neuroprotective Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Muscular Atrophies of Childhood; Thyrotropin-Releasing Hormone; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 32006461
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006282.pub5 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2019Aggression is a commonly reported problem following traumatic brain injury (TBI). It may present as verbal insults or outbursts, physical assaults, and/or property...
Aggression is a commonly reported problem following traumatic brain injury (TBI). It may present as verbal insults or outbursts, physical assaults, and/or property destruction. Aggressive behavior can fracture relationships and impede participation in treatment as well as a broad range of vocational and social activities, thereby reducing the individual's quality of life. Pharmacological intervention is frequently used to control aggression following TBI. The aim of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the evidence regarding efficacy of pharmacological interventions for aggression following TBI in adults. We reviewed studies in English, available before December 2018. MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL databases were searched, with additional searching of key journals, clinical trials registries, and international drug regulators. The primary outcomes of interest were reduction in the severity of aggression and occurrence of harms. The secondary outcomes of interest were changes in quality of life, participation, psychological health (e.g., depression, anxiety), and cognitive function. Evidence quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Instruments. Ten studies were identified, including five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five case series. There were positive, albeit mixed, findings for the RCTs examining the use of amantadine in reducing irritability ( = 2) and aggression ( = 2). There were some positive findings favoring methylphenidate in reducing anger ( = 1). The evidence for propranolol was weak ( = 1). Individual analysis revealed differential drug response across individuals for both methylphenidate and propranolol. The less rigorous studies administered carbamazepine ( = 2), valproic acid ( = 1), quetiapine ( = 1), and sertraline ( = 1), and all reported reductions in aggression. However, given the lack of a control group, it is difficult to discern treatment effects from natural change over time. This review concludes that a recommendation for use of amantadine to treat aggression and irritability in adults following TBI is appropriate. However, there is a need for further well-designed, adequately powered and controlled studies of pharmacological interventions for aggression following TBI.
PubMed: 31849802
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2019.01169