-
BMJ Open Jul 2019The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents in the management of agitated behaviours following traumatic brain...
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents in the management of agitated behaviours following traumatic brain injury (TBI).
METHODS
We performed a search strategy in PubMed, OvidMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Directory of Open Access Journals, LILACS, Web of Science and Prospero (up to 10 December 2018) for published and unpublished evidence on the risks and benefits of 9 prespecified medications classes used to control agitated behaviours following TBI. We included all randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental and observational studies examining the effects of medications administered to control agitated behaviours in TBI patients. Included studies were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: (1) agitated behaviour was the presenting symptom; (2) agitated behaviour was not the presenting symptom, but was measured as an outcome variable; and (3) safety of pharmacological interventions administered to control agitated behaviours was measured.
RESULTS
Among the 181 articles assessed for eligibility, 21 studies were included. Of the studies suggesting possible benefits, propranolol reduced maximum intensities of agitation per week and physical restraint use, methylphenidate improved anger measures following 6 weeks of treatment, valproic acid reduced weekly agitated behaviour scale ratings and olanzapine reduced irritability, aggressiveness and insomnia between weeks 1 and 3 of treatment. Amantadine showed variable effects and may increase the risk of agitation in the critically ill. In three studies evaluating safety outcomes, antipsychotics were associated with an increased duration of post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) in unadjusted analyses. Small sample sizes, heterogeneity and an unclear risk of bias were limits.
CONCLUSIONS
Propranolol, methylphenidate, valproic acid and olanzapine may offer some benefit; however, they need to be further studied. Antipsychotics may increase the length of PTA. More studies on tailored interventions and continuous evaluation of safety and efficacy throughout acute, rehabilitation and outpatient settings are needed.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42016033140.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Humans; Psychomotor Agitation; Psychoses, Substance-Induced; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31289093
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029604 -
Swiss Medical Weekly Jun 2019The clinical efficacy and safety of combination therapy with acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI) and memantine compared to AChEI or memantine alone in patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The clinical efficacy and safety of combination therapy with acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI) and memantine compared to AChEI or memantine alone in patients with Alzheimer’s disease is inconclusive.
AIMS OF THE STUDY
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of combination therapy of AChEI and memantine to monotherapy with either substance in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease (Mini-Mental State Examination score is <20).
METHODS
We systematically searched EMBASE, Medline and CENTRAL until February 2018 for eligible RCTs. We pooled the outcome data using inverse variance weighting models assuming random effects, and assessed the quality of evidence (QoE) according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
RESULTS
We included nine RCTs (2604 patients). At short-term follow-up (closest to 6 months), combination therapy compared to AChEI monotherapy had a significantly greater effect on cognition than AChEI monotherapy (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05 to 0.35, 7 RCTs, low QoE) and clinical global impression (SMD −0.15, 95% CI −0.28 to −0.01, 4 RCTs, moderate QoE), but not on activities of daily living (SMD 0.09, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.18, 5 RCTs, moderate QoE) or behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (mean difference −3.07, 95% CI −6.53 to 0.38, 6 RCT, low QoE). There was no significant difference in adverse events (relative risk ratio 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.12, 4 RCTs, low QoE). Evidence for long-term follow-up (≥ 9 months) or nursing home placement was sparse. Only two studies compared combination therapy with memantine monotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
Combination therapy had statistically significant effects on cognition and clinical global impression. The clinical relevance of these effects is uncertain. The overall QoE was very low. With the current evidence, it remains unclear whether combination therapy adds any benefit. Large pragmatic RCTs with long-term follow-up and focus on functional outcomes, delay in nursing home placement and adverse events are needed.  .
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Alzheimer Disease; Antiparkinson Agents; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Memantine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31269225
DOI: 10.4414/smw.2019.20093 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2019Memantine is a moderate affinity uncompetitive antagonist of glutamate NMDA receptors. It is licensed for use in moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease (AD); in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Memantine is a moderate affinity uncompetitive antagonist of glutamate NMDA receptors. It is licensed for use in moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease (AD); in the USA, it is also widely used off-label for mild AD.
OBJECTIVES
To determine efficacy and safety of memantine for people with dementia. To assess whether memantine adds benefit for people already taking cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register of trials (http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois/) up to 25 March 2018. We examined clinical trials registries, press releases and posters of memantine manufacturers; and the web sites of the FDA, EMEA and NICE. We contacted authors and companies for missing information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled, randomised trials of memantine in people with dementia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We pooled and analysed data from four clinical domains across different aetiologies and severities of dementia and for AD with agitation. We assessed the impact of study duration, severity and concomitant use of ChEIs. Consequently, we restricted analyses to the licensed dose (20 mg/day or 28 mg extended release) and data at six to seven months duration of follow-up, and analysed separately results for mild and moderate-to-severe AD.We transformed results for efficacy outcomes into the difference in points on particular outcome scales.
MAIN RESULTS
Across all types of dementia, data were available from almost 10,000 participants in 44 included trials, most of which were at low or unclear risk of bias. For nearly half the studies, relevant data were obtained from unpublished sources. The majority of trials (29 in 7885 participants) were conducted in people with AD.1. Moderate-to-severe AD (with or without concomitant ChEIs). High-certainty evidence from up to 14 studies in around 3700 participants consistently shows a small clinical benefit for memantine versus placebo: clinical global rating (CGR): 0.21 CIBIC+ points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.30); cognitive function (CF): 3.11 Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) points (95% CI 2.42 to 3.92); performance on activities of daily living (ADL): 1.09 ADL19 points (95% CI 0.62 to 1.64); and behaviour and mood (BM): 1.84 Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) points (95% CI 1.05 to 2.76). There may be no difference in the number of people discontinuing memantine compared to placebo: risk ratio (RR) 0.93 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.04) corresponding to 13 fewer people per 1000 (95% CI 31 fewer to 7 more). Although there is moderate-certainty evidence that fewer people taking memantine experience agitation as an adverse event: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.99) (25 fewer people per 1000, 95% CI 1 to 44 fewer), there is also moderate-certainty evidence, from three additional studies, suggesting that memantine is not beneficial as a treatment for agitation (e.g. Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory: clinical benefit of 0.50 CMAI points, 95% CI -3.71 to 4.71) .The presence of concomitant ChEI does not impact on the difference between memantine and placebo, with the possible exceptions of the BM outcome (larger effect in people taking ChEIs) and the CF outcome (smaller effect).2. Mild AD (Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) 20 to 23): mainly moderate-certainty evidence based on post-hoc subgroups from up to four studies in around 600 participants suggests there is probably no difference between memantine and placebo for CF: 0.21 ADAS-Cog points (95% CI -0.95 to 1.38); performance on ADL: -0.07 ADL 23 points (95% CI -1.80 to 1.66); and BM: -0.29 NPI points (95% CI -2.16 to 1.58). There is less certainty in the CGR evidence, which also suggests there may be no difference: 0.09 CIBIC+ points (95% CI -0.12 to 0.30). Memantine (compared with placebo) may increase the numbers of people discontinuing treatment because of adverse events (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.39).3. Mild-to-moderate vascular dementia. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence from two studies in around 750 participants indicates there is probably a small clinical benefit for CF: 2.15 ADAS-Cog points (95% CI 1.05 to 3.25); there may be a small clinical benefit for BM: 0.47 NOSGER disturbing behaviour points (95% CI 0.07 to 0.87); there is probably no difference in CGR: 0.03 CIBIC+ points (95% CI -0.28 to 0.34); and there may be no difference in ADL: 0.11 NOSGER II self-care subscale points (95% CI -0.35 to 0.54) or in the numbers of people discontinuing treatment: RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.34).There is limited, mainly low- or very low-certainty efficacy evidence for other types of dementia (Parkinson's disease and dementia Lewy bodies (for which CGR may show a small clinical benefit; four studies in 319 people); frontotemporal dementia (two studies in 133 people); and AIDS-related Dementia Complex (one study in 140 people)).There is high-certainty evidence showing no difference between memantine and placebo in the proportion experiencing at least one adverse event: RR 1.03 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.06); the RR does not differ between aetiologies or severities of dementia. Combining available data from all trials, there is moderate-certainty evidence that memantine is 1.6 times more likely than placebo to result in dizziness (6.1% versus 3.9%), low-certainty evidence of a 1.3-fold increased risk of headache (5.5% versus 4.3%), but high-certainty evidence of no difference in falls.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found important differences in the efficacy of memantine in mild AD compared to that in moderate-to-severe AD. There is a small clinical benefit of memantine in people with moderate-to-severe AD, which occurs irrespective of whether they are also taking a ChEI, but no benefit in people with mild AD.Clinical heterogeneity in AD makes it unlikely that any single drug will have a large effect size, and means that the optimal drug treatment may involve multiple drugs, each having an effect size that may be less than the minimum clinically important difference.A definitive long-duration trial in mild AD is needed to establish whether starting memantine earlier would be beneficial over the long term and safe: at present the evidence is against this, despite it being common practice. A long-duration trial in moderate-to-severe AD is needed to establish whether the benefit persists beyond six months.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Akathisia, Drug-Induced; Alzheimer Disease; Cognition Disorders; Dementia; Dementia, Vascular; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Memantine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 30891742
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003154.pub6 -
Psychosomatics 2019Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an increasingly common cause of behavioral and emotional dysregulation among hospitalized patients. While consultation-liaison...
BACKGROUND
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an increasingly common cause of behavioral and emotional dysregulation among hospitalized patients. While consultation-liaison psychiatrists are often called to help manage these behaviors, acute pharmacological management guidelines are limited.
OBJECTIVE
Conduct a systematic review to determine which pharmacological measures are supported by the literature for targeting agitation and aggression in the acute time period following a TBI.
METHODS
In a systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library, we identified and then analyzed publications that investigated the pharmacological management of behavioral and emotional dysregulation following a TBI during the acute time period following injury.
RESULTS
There were a limited number of high quality studies that met our inclusion criteria, including only five randomized controlled trials. The majority of the literature identified consisted of case reports or case series. Trends identified in the literature reviewed suggested that amantadine, propranolol, and anti-epileptics were the best supported medications to consider. For many medication classes, the time of medication initiation and duration of treatment, relative to the time of injury, may impact the effect observed.
CONCLUSIONS
The pharmacological management of agitated patients immediately following a TBI is still an area of much-needed research, as there is limited data-driven guidance in the literature.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Aggression; Amantadine; Anticonvulsants; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Dopamine Agents; Emotional Regulation; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Problem Behavior; Propranolol
PubMed: 30665668
DOI: 10.1016/j.psym.2018.11.009 -
Turk Psikiyatri Dergisi = Turkish... 2019Many patients with schizophrenia respond partially to treatment with antipsychotic medications. A wide range of pharmaceutical agents are utilized as augmentation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Many patients with schizophrenia respond partially to treatment with antipsychotic medications. A wide range of pharmaceutical agents are utilized as augmentation therapy in order to increase the efficacy of antipsychotic medication treatment. Memantine which is a noncompetitive N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist is one such agent among these. In this study, by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis we aimed to assess the efficacy of memantine augmentation on psychopathology in patients with schizophrenia receiving antipsychotic medication.
METHOD
We analyzed double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of memantine add-on treatment in schizophrenia patients receiving antipsychotic medications. The primary outcome measure was amelioration of negative symptoms and the secondary outcome measures were amelioration of positive, total and general psychopathology symptoms. Publication bias was evaluated by Funnel plot and Egger test.
RESULTS
Eleven studies (n=570) were included. Although memantine add-on treatment was superior to placebo for ameliorating negative symptoms (SMD=0.596, 95% CI=0.075-1.118, p=0.025), there were no statistically significant differences in the amelioration of general psychopathology (SMD=0.034, 95% CI=0.419-0.488, p=0.883), positive (SMD=-0.041, 95% CI=0.217-0.135, p=0.650) and overall (SMD=0.315, 95% CI=0.256-0.887, p=0.280) symptoms. No publication bias was observed between studies according to Funnel plots and Egger test results.
CONCLUSION
Memantine augmentation treatment seems to be beneficial for particularly treating negative symptoms in schizophrenia patients. Further studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up durations are needed.
Topics: Antiparkinson Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Memantine; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 32594486
DOI: No ID Found -
Clinical Interventions in Aging 2018The increasing prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) demands more effective drugs, which are still unclear. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of six...
PURPOSE
The increasing prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) demands more effective drugs, which are still unclear. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of six drugs, such as donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine, memantine, huperzine-A, and tacrine, in senior AD patients and identify the most effective one to improve patients' cognitive function.
METHODS
A system of search strategies was used to identify relevant studies including randomized controlled trials and clinical controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of six drugs in patients with AD. We updated relevant studies that were published before March 2018 as full-text articles. Using Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA), we ranked cognitive ability objectively based on Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Pairwise and NMAs were sequentially performed for the efficacy of drugs compared to each drug or control group through the trials included.
RESULTS
Among the 35 trials included, no obvious heterogeneity ( =0.0%, =0.583) was revealed according to the pooled data for cognition in NMA and the mean difference (MD) of memantine (MD=1.7, 95% CI: 0.73, 2.8) showed that the memantine was significantly efficacious in the treatment group in terms of MMSE. Followed by galantamine, huperzine-A, rivastigmine, tacrine, and donepezil.
CONCLUSION
As the first NMA comparing the major drugs in market for AD, our study suggests that memantine might have a more significant benefit on cognition than other five drugs available.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Antiparkinson Agents; Bayes Theorem; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition; Donepezil; Galantamine; Humans; Memantine; Neuroprotective Agents; Nootropic Agents; Rivastigmine
PubMed: 30425461
DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S184968 -
Archives of Physical Medicine and... Sep 2018To update the 1995 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice parameter on persistent vegetative state and the 2002 case definition for the minimally conscious state...
Comprehensive Systematic Review Update Summary: Disorders of Consciousness: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology; the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine; and the National Institute on Disability,...
OBJECTIVE
To update the 1995 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice parameter on persistent vegetative state and the 2002 case definition for the minimally conscious state (MCS) by reviewing the literature on the diagnosis, natural history, prognosis, and treatment of disorders of consciousness lasting at least 28 days.
METHODS
Articles were classified per the AAN evidence-based classification system. Evidence synthesis occurred through a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process. Recommendations were based on evidence, related evidence, care principles, and inferences according to the AAN 2011 process manual, as amended.
RESULTS
No diagnostic assessment procedure had moderate or strong evidence for use. It is possible that a positive EMG response to command, EEG reactivity to sensory stimuli, laser-evoked potentials, and the Perturbational Complexity Index can distinguish MCS from vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS). The natural history of recovery from prolonged VS/UWS is better in traumatic than nontraumatic cases. MCS is generally associated with a better prognosis than VS (conclusions of low to moderate confidence in adult populations), and traumatic injury is generally associated with a better prognosis than nontraumatic injury (conclusions of low to moderate confidence in adult and pediatric populations). Findings concerning other prognostic features are stratified by etiology of injury (traumatic vs nontraumatic) and diagnosis (VS/UWS vs MCS) with low to moderate degrees of confidence. Therapeutic evidence is sparse. Amantadine probably hastens functional recovery in patients with MCS or VS/UWS secondary to severe traumatic brain injury over 4 weeks of treatment. Recommendations are presented separately.
Topics: Adult; Child; Consciousness Disorders; Female; Humans; Independent Living; Male; Neurology; Persistent Vegetative State; Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Prognosis; Rehabilitation Research
PubMed: 30098792
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2018.07.002 -
Neurology Sep 2018To update the 1995 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice parameter on persistent vegetative state and the 2002 case definition for the minimally conscious state...
Comprehensive systematic review update summary: Disorders of consciousness: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology; the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine; and the National Institute on Disability,...
OBJECTIVE
To update the 1995 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice parameter on persistent vegetative state and the 2002 case definition for the minimally conscious state (MCS) by reviewing the literature on the diagnosis, natural history, prognosis, and treatment of disorders of consciousness lasting at least 28 days.
METHODS
Articles were classified per the AAN evidence-based classification system. Evidence synthesis occurred through a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process. Recommendations were based on evidence, related evidence, care principles, and inferences according to the AAN 2011 process manual, as amended.
RESULTS
No diagnostic assessment procedure had moderate or strong evidence for use. It is possible that a positive EMG response to command, EEG reactivity to sensory stimuli, laser-evoked potentials, and the Perturbational Complexity Index can distinguish MCS from vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS). The natural history of recovery from prolonged VS/UWS is better in traumatic than nontraumatic cases. MCS is generally associated with a better prognosis than VS (conclusions of low to moderate confidence in adult populations), and traumatic injury is generally associated with a better prognosis than nontraumatic injury (conclusions of low to moderate confidence in adult and pediatric populations). Findings concerning other prognostic features are stratified by etiology of injury (traumatic vs nontraumatic) and diagnosis (VS/UWS vs MCS) with low to moderate degrees of confidence. Therapeutic evidence is sparse. Amantadine probably hastens functional recovery in patients with MCS or VS/UWS secondary to severe traumatic brain injury over 4 weeks of treatment. Recommendations are presented separately.
Topics: Consciousness Disorders; Humans; Independent Living; Neurology; Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Rehabilitation Research; United States
PubMed: 30089617
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000005928 -
BMC Geriatrics Jul 2018The risk-benefit relationship of memantine treatment for Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains unclear. In addition, variability between the results of clinical trials has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Predictors of discontinuation, efficacy, and safety of memantine treatment for Alzheimer's disease: meta-analysis and meta-regression of 18 randomized clinical trials involving 5004 patients.
BACKGROUND
The risk-benefit relationship of memantine treatment for Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains unclear. In addition, variability between the results of clinical trials has been observed. The aim of this study was to investigate the risk-benefit relationship of memantine treatment in patients with AD and to determine the predictor effect of patient, intervention, and study design related covariates.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trials was performed. Primary outcomes were all-cause discontinuation, discontinuation due to adverse events (AE) and efficacy on cognitive function. Odds ratio (OR) and standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Meta-regression was conducted to identify related covariates. Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias of included trials.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies involving 5004 patients were included. No differences between memantine and placebo were found for all-cause treatment discontinuation (OR=0.97 [0.82, 1.14]) and discontinuation due to AE (OR=1.18 [0.91, 1.53]). Memantine showed small improvement on cognitive function (SMD=0.15 [0.08, 0.22]). Baseline functional ability was positively associated with all-cause treatment discontinuation and discontinuation due to AE.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study suggests that memantine has a very small efficacy on AD symptomatology and its safety profile is similar to that of placebo. No evidence of treatment discontinuation improvement with memantine is found, indicating a dubious risk-benefit relationship. No intervention characteristic or subgroup of patients clearly shows a significantly better risk-benefit relationship.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42014015696 .
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Aged; Alzheimer Disease; Dopamine Agents; Double-Blind Method; Forecasting; Humans; Memantine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Regression Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 30041625
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-018-0857-5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Pharmacologic therapies for management of heroin withdrawal have been studied and reviewed widely. Opium dependence is generally associated with less severe dependence... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pharmacologic therapies for management of heroin withdrawal have been studied and reviewed widely. Opium dependence is generally associated with less severe dependence and milder withdrawal symptoms than heroin. The evidence on withdrawal management of heroin might therefore not be exactly applicable for opium.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of various pharmacologic therapies for the management of the acute phase of opium withdrawal.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following sources up to September 2017: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, regional and national databases (IMEMR, Iranmedex, and IranPsych), main electronic sources of ongoing trials, and reference lists of all relevant papers. In addition, we contacted known investigators to obtain missing data or incomplete trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Controlled clinical trials and randomised controlled trials on pharmacological therapies, compared with no intervention, placebo, other pharmacologic treatments, different doses of the same drug, and psychosocial intervention, to manage acute withdrawal from opium in a maximum duration of 30 days.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 trials involving 1096 participants. No pooled analysis was possible. Studies were carried out in three countries, Iran, India, and Thailand, in outpatient and inpatient settings. The quality of the evidence was generally very low.When the mean of withdrawal symptoms was provided for several days, we mainly focused on day 3. The reason for this was that the highest severity of opium withdrawal is in the second to fourth day.Comparing different pharmacological treatments with each other, clonidine was twice as good as methadone for completion of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.38; 361 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence). All the other results showed no differences between the considered drugs: baclofen versus clonidine (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.80; 66 participants, 1 study, very low-quality evidence); clonidine versus clonidine plus amantadine (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.24; 69 participants, 1 study); clonidine versus buprenorphine in an inpatient setting (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 1 study, 35 participants, very low-quality evidence); methadone versus tramadol (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.37; 1 study, 72 participants, very low-quality evidence); methadone versus methadone plus gabapentin (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.43; 1 study, 40 participants, low-quality evidence), and tincture of opium versus methadone (1 study, 74 participants, low-quality evidence).Comparing different pharmacological treatments with each other, adding amantadine to clonidine decreased withdrawal scores rated at day 3 (mean difference (MD) -3.56, 95% CI -5.97 to -1.15; 1 study, 60 participants, very low-quality evidence). Comparing clonidine with buprenorphine in an inpatient setting, we found no difference in withdrawal symptoms rated by a physician (MD -1.40, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.13; 1 study, 34 participants, very low-quality evidence), and results in favour of buprenorpine when rated by participants (MD -11.80, 95% CI -15.56 to -8.04). Buprenorphine was superior to clonidine in controlling severe withdrawal symptoms in an outpatient setting (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.64; 1 study, 76 participants). We found no difference in the comparison of methadone versus tramadol (MD 0.04, 95% CI -2.68 to 2.76; 1 study, 72 participants) and in the comparison of methadone versus methadone plus gabapentin (MD -2.20, 95% CI -6.72 to 2.32; 1 study, 40 participants).Comparing clonidine versus buprenorphine in an outpatient setting, more adverse effects were reported in the clonidine group (1 study, 76 participants). Higher numbers of participants in the clonidine group experienced hypotension at days 5 to 8, headache at days 1 to 8, sedation at days 5 to 8, dizziness and dry mouth at days 1 to 10, and nausea at days 1 to 9. Sweating was reported in a significantly higher number of participants in the buprenorphine group at days 1 to 10. We found no difference between groups for all the other comparisons considering this outcome.Comparing different dosages of the same pharmacological detoxification treatment, a high dose of clonidine (1 to 1.2 mg/day) did not differ from a low dose of clonidine (0.5 to 0.6 mg/day) in completion of treatment in an inpatient setting (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.19; 1 study, 68 participants), however a higher number of participants with hypotension was reported in the high-dose group (RR 3.25, 95% CI 1.77 to 5.98). Gradual reduction of methadone was associated with more adverse effects than abrupt withdrawal of methadone (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.02 to 4.94; 1 study, 20 participants, very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Results did not support using any specific pharmacological approach for the management of opium withdrawal due to generally very low-quality evidence and small or no differences between treatments. However, it seems that opium withdrawal symptoms are significant, especially at days 2 to 4 after discontinuation of opium. All of the assessed medications might be useful in alleviating symptoms. Those who receive clonidine might experience hypotension.
Topics: Amantadine; Amines; Baclofen; Buprenorphine; Clonidine; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Gabapentin; Humans; Methadone; Opioid-Related Disorders; Opium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Tramadol; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 29929212
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007522.pub2