-
BMC Pharmacology & Toxicology Dec 2023The main purpose was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of different medications used to treat bulimia nervosa (BN). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The main purpose was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of different medications used to treat bulimia nervosa (BN).
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from published sources through searches in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase from inception to November 2022. Primary outcomes were changes in the frequency of binge eating episodes and vomiting episodes from baseline to endpoint. Secondary outcomes were differences in the improvement of scores in depressive symptoms, tolerability (dropout due to adverse events) and weight change.
RESULTS
The literature search ultimately included 11 drugs, 33 studies and 6 types of drugs, 8 trials with TCAs (imipramine, desipramine), 14 with SSRIs (fluoxetine, citalopram and fluvoxamine), 6 with MAOIs (phenelzine, moclobemide and brofaromine), 3 with antiepileptic drugs (topiramate), 1 with mood stabilizers (lithium), and 1 with amphetamine-type appetite suppressant (fenfluramine). The reduction in binge eating episodes was more likely due to these drugs than the placebo, and the SMD was -0.4 (95% CI -0.61 ~ -0.19); the changes in the frequency of vomiting episodes (SMD = -0.16, 95% CI -0.3 ~ -0.03); weight (WMD = -3.05, 95% CI -5.97 ~ -0.13); and depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.32, 95% CI -0.51 ~ -0.13). However, no significant difference was found in dropout due to adverse events (RR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.14 ~ 2.41).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis indicates that most pharmacotherapies decreased the frequency of binge-eating and vomiting episodes, body weight, and depressive symptoms in BN patients, but the efficacy was not significant. In each drug the efficacy is different, treating different aspects, different symptoms to improve the clinical performance of bulimia nervosa.
Topics: Humans; Bulimia Nervosa; Bulimia; Fluoxetine; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Vomiting
PubMed: 38042827
DOI: 10.1186/s40360-023-00713-7 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Mar 2021Monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) were the first class of modern antidepressants; however, they are under-utilized as compared to the newer antidepressants. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) were the first class of modern antidepressants; however, they are under-utilized as compared to the newer antidepressants.
METHODS
In this systematic review, network meta-analysis was used to investigate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of MAOIs for depressive disorders. Overall, the network meta-analysis included 52 double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared 14 antidepressants or placebo. Across studies, the mean arm size was n = 58 participants from a total N = 6462 (5309 active drug; 1153 placebo).
RESULTS
Except fluvoxamine, all antidepressants demonstrated superior efficacy to placebo, and none demonstrated substantially better or worse all-cause dropout rates. Phenelzine demonstrated superior evidence for efficacy compared to all other treatments, and clomipramine demonstrated superior evidence for acceptability compared to all other treatments.
LIMITATIONS
The study is primarily limited by low estimate precision due to a relative paucity of studies for some of the included treatment conditions. Further evidence is required to study the relative efficacy of MAOIs against newer antidepressants.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this analysis largely support the re-evaluation of the use of MAOIs as antidepressant agents in the treatment algorithm of depression.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depressive Disorder; Humans; Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33601690
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.01.021 -
Journal of Psychiatric Research Nov 2020The purpose of this study was to compare efficacy and acceptability among drug treatments for adults with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) through a systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this study was to compare efficacy and acceptability among drug treatments for adults with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) through a systematic review, random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses.
METHODS
Double-blind randomized controlled trials comparing pharmacological interventions for adults with PTSD were searched from database inception through Aug. 28, 2018, on Cochrane (Central), Embase, LILACS, PILOTS, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science. Clinical trial registries and the websites of pharmaceutical companies were also searched. The GRADE system was used to assess the quality of the evidence.
RESULTS
The systematic review included 58 studies comprising 6766 patients randomized to 26 different interventions. Regarding efficacy, topiramate (SMD = -0.57; 95%CrI: -1.07,-0.10), risperidone (SMD = -0.53; 95%CrI: -0.93,-0.15), quetiapine (SMD = -0.59; 95%CrI: -1.06,-0.11), paroxetine (SMD = -0.35; 95%CrI: -0.48,-0.21), venlafaxine (SMD = -0.25; 95%CrI: -0.44,-0.05), fluoxetine (SMD = -0.28; 95%CrI: -0.46,-0.08), and sertraline (SMD = -0.21; 95%CrI: -0.33,-0.09) outperformed placebo. Moreover, phenelzine (RR = 3.39; 95%CrI: 1.43,11.09), lamotrigine (RR = 4.39; 95%CrI: 1.18,26.38), and fluoxetine (RR = 1.28%CrI: 1.01,1.59) outperformed placebo in terms of acceptability.
CONCLUSIONS
The NMA supports topiramate, risperidone, quetiapine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, fluoxetine and sertraline as effective pharmacological choices for the treatment of PTSD. Quetiapine and topiramate have the shortcoming of relying on a few small studies, but the clinically meaningful change in symptoms is noteworthy and merits further investigation. Among the pharmacological treatments with evidence of efficacy compared to placebo, fluoxetine achieved a relatively high rank regarding acceptability. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest contemporary NMA on the subject and the addition of new medications is an important extension of previous meta-analyses, enabling a larger number of drug comparisons.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Paroxetine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sertraline; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 32891916
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2020.07.046 -
Journal of Affective Disorders May 2020We investigated the comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological treatment strategies for the treatment of acute bipolar depression. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
We investigated the comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological treatment strategies for the treatment of acute bipolar depression.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted by searching eight registries for published and unpublished, double-blind, randomized controlled trials of pharmacotherapies for the acute treatment of bipolar depression.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
PRISMA guidelines were used for abstracting data, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess data quality. Data extraction was done independently by two reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Primary outcomes were efficacy (response and remission rate) and acceptability (completion of treatment and dropouts due to adverse events). Summary odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects.
RESULTS
Identified citations (4,404) included 50 trials comprising 11,448 participants. Escitalopram, phenelzine, moclobemide, carbamazepine, sertraline, lithium, paroxetine, aripiprazole, gabapentin and ziprasidone appear to be ineffective as compared to placebo in treatment of bipolar depression. Divalproex, olanzapine/fluoxetine, olanzapine, quetiapine, cariprazine, and lamotrigine, appear to be effective as compared to placebo in treatment of bipolar depression according to the network meta-analysis. Aripiprazole showed higher discontinuation rates versus placebo due to the appearance of any adverse event. Quetiapine was better than placebo at reducing treatment-emergent affective switches. For Bipolar I Disorder, cariprazine, fluoxetine, imipramine, lamotrigine, lurasidone, olanzapine-fluoxetine, and olanzapine were significantly better than placebo at response, while fluoxetine, imipramine, cariprazine, lurasidone, olanzapine-fluoxetine, and olanzapine were significantly better than placebo at remission.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These results could serve evidence-based practice and inform patients, physicians, guideline developers, and policymakers on the relative benefits of the different antidepressants, antipsychotics, and mood-stabilizing agents for the treatment of bipolar depression.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42019122172).
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Lurasidone Hydrochloride; Network Meta-Analysis; Olanzapine
PubMed: 32339131
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.03.030 -
Acta Neuropsychiatrica Aug 2020The aim of this paper was to provide a systematic review and update on the pharmacotherapy of social anxiety disorder (SAD), including the efficacy and tolerability of... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this paper was to provide a systematic review and update on the pharmacotherapy of social anxiety disorder (SAD), including the efficacy and tolerability of these agents, the ranking of interventions, and the grading of results by quality of evidence.
METHODS
The Common Mental Disorder Controlled Trial Register and two trial registries were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention or placebo in the treatment of SAD. We performed a standard pairwise meta-analysis using a random effects model and carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using the statistical package, R. Quality of evidence was also assessed.
RESULTS
We included 67 RCTs in the review and 21 to 45 interventions in the NMA. Paroxetine was most effective in the reduction of symptom severity as compared to placebo. Superior response to treatment was also observed for paroxetine, brofaromine, bromazepam, clonazepam, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, phenelzine, and sertraline. Higher dropout rates were found for fluvoxamine. Brofaromine, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, pregabalin, sertraline, and venlafaxine performed worse in comparison to placebo for the outcome of dropouts due to adverse events. Olanzapine yielded a relatively high rank for treatment efficacy and buspirone the worse rank for dropouts due to any cause.
CONCLUSION
The differences between drugs and placebo were small, apart from a significant reduction in symptom severity and response for paroxetine. We suggest paroxetine as a first-line treatment of SAD, with the consideration of future research on the drug olanzapine as well as brofaromine, bromazepam, clonazepam, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, phenelzine, and sertraline because we observed a response to treatment.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Phobia, Social; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32039743
DOI: 10.1017/neu.2020.6 -
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Apr 2020The novel phenethylamines 4-fluoroamphetamine (4-FA) and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromophenethylamine (2C-B) fall in the top 10 most used new psychoactive substances (NPSs) among...
BACKGROUND
The novel phenethylamines 4-fluoroamphetamine (4-FA) and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromophenethylamine (2C-B) fall in the top 10 most used new psychoactive substances (NPSs) among high-risk substance users. Various phenethylamines and NPS are also highly used in populations with mental disorders, depression, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Moreover, NPS use is highly prevalent among men and women with risky sexual behavior. Considering these specific populations and their frequent concurrent use of drugs, such as antidepressants, ADHD medication, and antiretrovirals, reports on potential interactions between these drugs, and phenethylamines 4-FA and 2C-B, were reviewed.
METHODS
The authors performed a systematic literature review on 4-FA and 2C-B interactions with antidepressants (citalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, sertraline, duloxetine, bupropion, venlafaxine, phenelzine, moclobemide, and tranylcypromine), ADHD medications (atomoxetine, dexamphetamine, methylphenidate, and modafinil), and antiretrovirals.
RESULTS
Limited literature exists on the pharmacokinetics and drug-drug interactions of 2C-B and 4-FA. Only one case report indicated a possible interaction between 4-FA and ADHD medication. Although pharmacokinetic interactions between 4-FA and prescription drugs remain speculative, their pharmacodynamic points toward interactions between 4-FA and ADHD medication and antidepressants. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of 2C-B also points toward such interactions, between 2C-B and prescription drugs such as antidepressants and ADHD medication.
CONCLUSIONS
A drug-drug (phenethylamine-prescription drug) interaction potential is anticipated, mainly involving monoamine oxidases for 2C-B and 4-FA, with monoamine transporters being more specific to 4-FA.
Topics: Amphetamines; Antidepressive Agents; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Depressive Disorder; Dimethoxyphenylethylamine; Drug Interactions; Humans; Phenethylamines; Prescription Drugs
PubMed: 32022784
DOI: 10.1097/FTD.0000000000000725 -
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Jun 2016Despite limited evidence, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) are used to reduce symptoms of selective mutism (SM)... (Review)
Review
Despite limited evidence, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) are used to reduce symptoms of selective mutism (SM) in children unresponsive to psychosocial interventions. We review existing evidence for the efficacy of these medications, limitations of the literature, and resulting treatment considerations. Bibliographic searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science and Cochrane up to June 2015. Two reviewers independently sought studies of children with SM as primary psychiatric diagnosis, which reported response to medication treatment. Abstracts were limited to those reporting original data. Two reviewers independently assessed the ten papers reporting on >2 subjects regarding study design, key results, and limitations. Heterogeneity of designs mandated a descriptive summary. Symptomatic improvement was found for 66/79 children treated with SSRIs and 4/4 children treated with phenelzine. Only 3/10 studies had unmedicated comparison groups and only two were double-blinded. This review may be affected by publication bias, missed studies, and variability of outcome measures in included studies. Although there is some evidence for symptomatic improvement in SM with medication, especially SSRIs, it is limited by small numbers, lack of comparative trials, lack of consistent measures, and lack of consistent reporting on tolerability. The clinician must weigh this paucity of evidence against the highly debilitating nature of SM, and its adverse effects on the development of those children whose progress with psychosocial interventions is limited or very slow. Studies of optimal dosage and timing of medications in relation to psychosocial treatments are also needed.
Topics: Child; Humans; Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors; Mutism; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 26560144
DOI: 10.1007/s00787-015-0794-1 -
The International Journal of... Jul 2015Cognitive dysfunction is often present in major depressive disorder (MDD). Several clinical trials have noted a pro-cognitive effect of antidepressants in MDD. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cognitive dysfunction is often present in major depressive disorder (MDD). Several clinical trials have noted a pro-cognitive effect of antidepressants in MDD. The objective of the current systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the pooled efficacy of antidepressants on various domains of cognition in MDD.
METHODS
Trials published prior to April 15, 2015, were identified through searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, Clinicaltrials.gov, and relevant review articles. Data from randomized clinical trials assessing the cognitive effects of antidepressants were pooled to determine standard mean differences (SMD) using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Nine placebo-controlled randomized trials (2 550 participants) evaluating the cognitive effects of vortioxetine (n = 728), duloxetine (n = 714), paroxetine (n = 23), citalopram (n = 84), phenelzine (n = 28), nortryptiline (n = 32), and sertraline (n = 49) were identified. Antidepressants had a positive effect on psychomotor speed (SMD 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05-0.27; I(2) = 46%) and delayed recall (SMD 0.24; 95% CI 0.15-0.34; I(2) = 0%). The effect on cognitive control and executive function did not reach statistical significance. Of note, after removal of vortioxetine from the analysis, statistical significance was lost for psychomotor speed. Eight head-to-head randomized trials comparing the effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; n = 371), selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs; n = 25), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs; n = 138), and norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitors (NDRIs; n = 46) were identified. No statistically significant difference in cognitive effects was found when pooling results from head-to-head trials of SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, and NDRIs. Significant limitations were the heterogeneity of results, limited number of studies, and small sample sizes.
CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence suggests that antidepressants have a significant positive effect on psychomotor speed and delayed recall.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Cognition; Cognition Disorders; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26209859
DOI: 10.1093/ijnp/pyv082 -
Sleep Medicine Reviews Apr 2013Sleep related symptoms of depression include sleep fragmentation, early morning awakening, decreased rapid eye movement (REM) sleep latency, increased REM density, and... (Review)
Review
Sleep related symptoms of depression include sleep fragmentation, early morning awakening, decreased rapid eye movement (REM) sleep latency, increased REM density, and more negative dream content. Most tricyclic antidepressants (ADs) increase total sleep time and decrease wake time after sleep onset, while many selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have an opposite effect. However, almost all ADs prolong REM sleep latency and reduce the amount of REM sleep. Case reports and research data indicate a strong effect of ADs on dream recall and dream content. We performed a systematic review (1950 to August 2010) about ADs impact on dreaming in depressive patients and healthy volunteers. Twenty-one clinical studies and 25 case reports were eligible for review and document a clear AD effect on dreaming. The major finding, both in depressed patients and in healthy volunteers, is a decrease of dream recall frequency (DRF) under ADs. This is a rather consistent effect in tricyclic ADs and phenelzine, less consistently documented also for SSRIs/serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). Tricyclic ADs induce more positive dream emotions. Withdrawal from tricyclic ADs and from the monoamine oxidase inhibitors phenelzine and tranylcypromine may cause nightmares. Intake and even more withdrawal of SSRIs/SNRIs seem to intensify dreaming, which may be experienced in different ways; a potential to cause nightmares has to be taken into account. Though there are clear-cut pharmacological effects of ADs on DRF and dream content, publications have been surprisingly scarce during the past 60 years. There is evidence of a gap in neuropsychopharmacological research. AD effects on dreams should be recognized and may be used in treatment.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Depressive Disorder; Dreams; Humans; Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 22800769
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2012.05.001 -
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2012This article proposes a number of recommendations for the treatment of generalized social phobia, based on a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. An optimal...
This article proposes a number of recommendations for the treatment of generalized social phobia, based on a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. An optimal treatment regimen would include a combination of medication and psychotherapy, along with an assertive clinical management program. For medications, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and dual serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors are first-line choices based on their efficacy and tolerability profiles. The nonselective monoamine oxidase inhibitor, phenelzine, may be more potent than these two drug classes, but because of its food and drug interaction liabilities, its use should be restricted to patients not responding to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. There are other medication classes with demonstrated efficacy in social phobia (benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, alpha-2-delta ligands), but due to limited published clinical trial data and the potential for dependence and withdrawal issues with benzodiazepines, it is unclear how best to incorporate these drugs into treatment regimens. There are very few clinical trials on the use of combined medications. Cognitive behavior therapy appears to be more effective than other evidence-based psychological techniques, and its effects appear to be more enduring than those of pharmacotherapy. There is some evidence, albeit limited to certain drug classes, that the combination of medication and cognitive behavior therapy may be more effective than either strategy used alone. Generalized social phobia is a chronic disorder, and many patients will require long-term support and treatment.
PubMed: 22665997
DOI: 10.2147/NDT.S23317