-
Schizophrenia Bulletin Feb 2018Recent evidence has suggested that psychosis could develop not only in people at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) but also in those with clinical risk syndromes... (Review)
Review
Recent evidence has suggested that psychosis could develop not only in people at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) but also in those with clinical risk syndromes for emergent nonpsychotic mental disorders. The proportion of people with these clinical risk syndromes who will develop psychosis rather than to other nonpsychotic mental disorders is undetermined. Electronic databases were searched for studies reporting on clinical risk syndromes for the development of emergent nonpsychotic mental disorders. Incidence of emerging psychotic and nonpsychotic mental disorders defined on the ICD or DSM. Of a total of 9 studies relating to 3006 nonpsychotic at-risk individuals were included. Within prospective studies (n = 4, sample = 1051), the pooled incidence of new psychotic disorders across these clinical risk syndromes was of 12.9 per 1000 person-years (95% CI: 4.3 to 38.6) and that of nonpsychotic disorders (n = 3, sample = 538) was of 43.5 per 1000 person-years (95% CI: 30.9 to 61.3). Psychotic disorders may emerge outside the CHR-P paradigm, from clinical risk syndromes for incident nonpsychotic disorders, albeit at lower rates than in the CHR-P group. The clinical risk syndromes for emerging nonpsychotic disorders may exhibit a pluripotential risk of developing several types of mental disorders compared with CHR-P. If substantiated by future research, the current findings suggest that it may be useful to move beyond the current strategy of identifying individuals meeting CHR-P criteria only.
Topics: Bipolar Disorder; Depressive Disorder; Humans; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; Panic Disorder; Prodromal Symptoms; Psychotic Disorders; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 29438561
DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbx173 -
Psychological Medicine Sep 2018Cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) for panic disorder may consist of different combinations of several therapeutic components such as relaxation, breathing retraining,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) for panic disorder may consist of different combinations of several therapeutic components such as relaxation, breathing retraining, cognitive restructuring, interoceptive exposure and/or in vivo exposure. It is therefore important both theoretically and clinically to examine whether specific components of CBT or their combinations are superior to others in the treatment of panic disorder. Component network meta-analysis (NMA) is an extension of standard NMA that can be used to disentangle the treatment effects of different components included in composite interventions. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central, with supplementary searches of reference lists and clinical trial registries, for all randomized controlled trials comparing different CBT-based psychological therapies for panic disorder with each other or with control interventions. We applied component NMA to disentangle the treatment effects of different components included in these interventions. After reviewing 2526 references, we included 72 studies with 4064 participants. Interoceptive exposure and face-to-face setting were associated with better treatment efficacy and acceptability. Muscle relaxation and virtual-reality exposure were associated with significantly lower efficacy. Components such as breathing retraining and in vivo exposure appeared to improve treatment acceptability while having small effects on efficacy. The comparison of the most v. the least efficacious combination, both of which may be provided as 'evidence-based CBT,' yielded an odds ratio for the remission of 7.69 (95% credible interval: 1.75 to 33.33). Effective CBT packages for panic disorder would include face-to-face and interoceptive exposure components, while excluding muscle relaxation and virtual-reality exposure.
Topics: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; Panic Disorder
PubMed: 29368665
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291717003919 -
Depression and Anxiety Jan 2018Depression has repeatedly been linked to subclinical hypothyroidism, and thyroid hormones have successfully been used to augment antidepressant treatment. By contrast,... (Review)
Review
Depression has repeatedly been linked to subclinical hypothyroidism, and thyroid hormones have successfully been used to augment antidepressant treatment. By contrast, the extent of thyroid dysfunction in anxiety disorders remains less clear. This is surprising, given that anxiety-related symptoms (e.g., nervousness, palpitations, increased perspiration) are highly prevalent in hyperthyroidism. The present study was undertaken to synthesize the literature on hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid (HPT) axis functioning in anxiety disorders. The PubMed and PsycINFO databases were systematically searched. Three types of studies were included: (1) "comorbidity studies" assessing the prevalence of thyroid disorders in individuals with anxiety disorders, (2) "case-control studies" comparing HPT parameters between patients and controls, and (3) "correlational studies" assessing self-reported anxiety levels and HPT parameters. Risk of bias was assessed via a standardized quality rating. Twenty studies were eligible. Nearly all found the comorbidity between anxiety and thyroid disorders was significant. Half of the studies additionally supported the notion of subtle thyroid dysfunction in that thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) responses to the administration of thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH) were blunted and an inverse relationship was observed between self-reported anxiety levels and TSH. Overall, HPT assessments were well conducted, but several studies failed to adjust their analyses for smoking, body mass index (BMI), and depression. The findings resonate well with clinical recommendations to routinely screen for thyroid disorders in patients with anxiety disorders, and with what is known from basic research about thyroid-brain interactions. The results of the risk of bias assessment underscore the importance of further high-quality experimental and longitudinal epidemiological research.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; Humans; Hypothalamo-Hypophyseal System; Pituitary-Adrenal System; Thyroid Diseases
PubMed: 29064607
DOI: 10.1002/da.22692 -
JAMA Pediatrics Nov 2017Childhood anxiety is common. Multiple treatment options are available, but existing guidelines provide inconsistent advice on which treatment to use. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
Childhood anxiety is common. Multiple treatment options are available, but existing guidelines provide inconsistent advice on which treatment to use.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and adverse events of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and pharmacotherapy for childhood anxiety disorders.
DATA SOURCES
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and SciVerse Scopus from database inception through February 1, 2017.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies that enrolled children and adolescents with confirmed diagnoses of panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, specific phobias, generalized anxiety disorder, or separation anxiety and who received CBT, pharmacotherapy, or the combination.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool data.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Primary anxiety symptoms (measured by child, parent, or clinician), remission, response, and adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 7719 patients were included from 115 studies. Of these, 4290 (55.6%) were female, and the mean (range) age was 9.2 (5.4-16.1) years. Compared with pill placebo, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) significantly reduced primary anxiety symptoms and increased remission (relative risk, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.37-3.04) and response (relative risk, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.60-2.40). Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) significantly reduced clinician-reported primary anxiety symptoms. Benzodiazepines and tricyclics were not found to significantly reduce anxiety symptoms. When CBT was compared with wait-listing/no treatment, CBT significantly improved primary anxiety symptoms, remission, and response. Cognitive behavioral therapy reduced primary anxiety symptoms more than fluoxetine and improved remission more than sertraline. The combination of sertraline and CBT significantly reduced clinician-reported primary anxiety symptoms and response more than either treatment alone. Head-to-head comparisons were sparse, and network meta-analysis estimates were imprecise. Adverse events were common with medications but not with CBT and were not severe. Studies were too small or too short to assess suicidality with SSRIs or SNRIs. One trial showed a statistically nonsignificant increase in suicidal ideation with venlafaxine. Cognitive behavioral therapy was associated with fewer dropouts than pill placebo or medications.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Evidence supports the effectiveness of CBT and SSRIs for reducing childhood anxiety symptoms. Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors also appear to be effective based on less consistent evidence. Head-to-head comparisons between various medications and comparisons with CBT represent a need for research in the field.
Topics: Anti-Anxiety Agents; Anxiety Disorders; Child; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Combined Modality Therapy; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Humans; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28859190
DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.3036 -
Sleep Medicine Reviews Apr 2018Sleep paralysis is a relatively common but under-researched phenomenon. While the causes are unknown, a number of studies have investigated potential risk factors. In... (Review)
Review
Sleep paralysis is a relatively common but under-researched phenomenon. While the causes are unknown, a number of studies have investigated potential risk factors. In this article, we conducted a systematic review on the available literature regarding variables associated with both the frequency and intensity of sleep paralysis episodes. A total of 42 studies met the inclusion criteria. For each study, sample size, study site, sex and age of participants, sleep paralysis measure, and results of analyses looking at the relationship(s) between sleep paralysis and associated variable(s) were extracted. A large number of variables were associated with sleep paralysis and a number of themes emerged. These were: substance use, stress and trauma, genetic influences, physical illness, personality, intelligence, anomalous beliefs, sleep problems and disorders (both in terms of subjective sleep quality and objective sleep disruption), symptoms of psychiatric illness in non-clinical samples (particularly anxiety symptoms), and psychiatric disorders. Sleep paralysis appears to be particularly prevalent in post-traumatic stress disorder, and to a less degree, panic disorder. Limitations of the current literature, directions for future research, and implications for clinical practice are discussed.
Topics: Humans; Sleep Paralysis; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Stress, Psychological; Substance-Related Disorders; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 28735779
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2017.05.005 -
PloS One 2017It has been hypothesised that the perception of adverse events in placebo-controlled antidepressant clinical trials may induce patients to conclude that they have been... (Review)
Review
It has been hypothesised that the perception of adverse events in placebo-controlled antidepressant clinical trials may induce patients to conclude that they have been randomized to the active arm of the trial, leading to the breaking of blind. This may enhance the expectancies for improvement and the therapeutic response. The main objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that the efficacy of antidepressants in panic disorder is mediated by the perception of adverse events. The present analysis is based on a systematic review of published and unpublished randomised trials comparing antidepressants with placebo for panic disorder. The Baron and Kenny approach was applied to investigate the mediational role of adverse events in the relationship between antidepressants treatment and efficacy. Fourteen placebo-controlled antidepressants trials were included in the analysis. We found that: (a) antidepressants treatment was significantly associated with better treatment response (ß = 0.127, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.21, p = 0.003); (b) antidepressants treatment was not associated with adverse events (ß = 0.094, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.24, p = 0.221); (c) adverse events were negatively associated with treatment response (ß = 0.035, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.05, p = 0.022). Finally, after adjustment for adverse events, the relationship between antidepressants treatment and treatment response remained statistically significant (ß = 0.122, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.23, p = 0.039). These findings do not support the hypothesis that the perception of adverse events in placebo-controlled antidepressant clinical trials may lead to the breaking of blind and to an artificial inflation of the efficacy measures. Based on these results, we argue that the moderate therapeutic effect of antidepressants in individuals with panic disorder is not an artefact, therefore reflecting a genuine effect that doctors can expect to replicate under real-world conditions.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Humans; Panic Disorder
PubMed: 28575031
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178617 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Aug 2017Various psychological interventions are effective for reducing symptoms of anxiety when used alone, or as an adjunct to anti-anxiety medications. Recent studies have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Various psychological interventions are effective for reducing symptoms of anxiety when used alone, or as an adjunct to anti-anxiety medications. Recent studies have further indicated that smartphone-supported psychological interventions may also reduce anxiety, although the role of mobile devices in the treatment and management of anxiety disorders has yet to be established.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reporting the effects of psychological interventions delivered via smartphone on symptoms of anxiety (sub-clinical or diagnosed anxiety disorders). A systematic search of major electronic databases conducted in November 2016 identified 9 eligible RCTs, with 1837 participants. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate the standardized mean difference (as Hedges' g) between smartphone interventions and control conditions.
RESULTS
Significantly greater reductions in total anxiety scores were observed from smartphone interventions than control conditions (g=0.325, 95% C.I.=0.17-0.48, p<0.01), with no evidence of publication bias. Effect sizes from smartphone interventions were significantly greater when compared to waitlist/inactive controls (g=0.45, 95% C.I.=0.30-0.61, p<0.01) than active control conditions (g=0.19, 95% C.I.=0.07-0.31, p=0.003).
LIMITATIONS
The extent to which smartphone interventions can match (or exceed) the efficacy of recognised treatments for anxiety has yet to established.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis shows that psychological interventions delivered via smartphone devices can reduce anxiety. Future research should aim to develop pragmatic methods for implementing smartphone-based support for people with anxiety, while also comparing the efficacy of these interventions to standard face-to-face psychological care.
Topics: Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Humans; Mental Health; Psychotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smartphone
PubMed: 28456072
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.04.046 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Mar 2017Due to easy access and low cost, Internet-delivered therapies offer an attractive alternative to improving health. Although numerous websites contain health-related... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Due to easy access and low cost, Internet-delivered therapies offer an attractive alternative to improving health. Although numerous websites contain health-related information, finding evidence-based programs (as demonstrated through randomized controlled trials, RCTs) can be challenging. We sought to bridge the divide between the knowledge gained from RCTs and communication of the results by conducting a global systematic review and analyzing the availability of evidence-based Internet health programs.
OBJECTIVES
The study aimed to (1) discover the range of health-related topics that are addressed through Internet-delivered interventions, (2) generate a list of current websites used in the trials which demonstrate a health benefit, and (3) identify gaps in the research that may have hindered dissemination. Our focus was on Internet-delivered self-guided health interventions that did not require real-time clinical support.
METHODS
A systematic review of meta-analyses was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (PROSPERO Registration Number CRD42016041258). MEDLINE via Ovid, PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched. Inclusion criteria included (1) meta-analyses of RCTs, (2) at least one Internet-delivered intervention that measured a health-related outcome, and (3) use of at least one self-guided intervention. We excluded group-based therapies. There were no language restrictions.
RESULTS
Of the 363 records identified through the search, 71 meta-analyses met inclusion criteria. Within the 71 meta-analyses, there were 1733 studies that contained 268 unique RCTs which tested self-help interventions. On review of the 268 studies, 21.3% (57/268) had functional websites. These included evidence-based Web programs on substance abuse (alcohol, tobacco, cannabis), mental health (depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD], phobias, panic disorders, obsessive compulsive disorder [OCD]), and on diet and physical activity. There were also evidence-based programs on insomnia, chronic pain, cardiovascular risk, and childhood health problems. These programs tended to be intensive, requiring weeks to months of engagement by the user, often including interaction, personalized and normative feedback, and self-monitoring. English was the most common language, although some were available in Spanish, French, Portuguese, Dutch, German, Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish, and Mandarin. There were several interventions with numbers needed to treat of <5; these included painACTION, Mental Health Online for panic disorders, Deprexis, Triple P Online (TPOL), and U Can POOP Too. Hyperlinks of the sites have been listed.
CONCLUSIONS
A wide range of evidence-based Internet programs are currently available for health-related behaviors, as well as disease prevention and treatment. However, the majority of Internet-delivered health interventions found to be efficacious in RCTs do not have websites for general use. Increased efforts to provide mechanisms to host "interventions that work" on the Web and to assist the public in locating these sites are necessary.
Topics: Health Behavior; Health Promotion; Humans; Internet; Mental Health; Risk Factors
PubMed: 28341617
DOI: 10.2196/jmir.7111 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Panic disorder is common and deleterious to mental well-being. Psychological therapies and pharmacological interventions are both used as treatments for panic disorder... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Panic disorder is common and deleterious to mental well-being. Psychological therapies and pharmacological interventions are both used as treatments for panic disorder with and without agoraphobia. However, there are no up-to-date reviews on the comparative efficacy and acceptability of the two treatment modalities, and such a review is necessary for improved treatment planning for this disorder.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and acceptability of psychological therapies versus pharmacological interventions for panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia, in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group Specialised Register on 11 September 2015. This register contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1950 to present), Embase (1974 to present), and PsycINFO (1967 to present). We cross-checked reference lists of relevant papers and systematic reviews. We did not apply any restrictions on date, language, or publication status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials comparing psychological therapies with pharmacological interventions for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia as diagnosed by operationalised criteria in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved any disagreements in consultation with a third review author. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using standardised mean differences (with 95% CI). We used the random-effects model throughout.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 studies with a total of 966 participants in the present review. Eight of the studies were conducted in Europe, four in the USA, two in the Middle East, and one in Southeast Asia.None of the studies reported long-term remission/response (long term being six months or longer from treatment commencement).There was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in terms of short-term remission (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.17; 6 studies; 334 participants) or short-term response (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.86; 5 studies; 277 participants) (very low-quality evidence), and no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and SSRIs in treatment acceptability as measured using dropouts for any reason (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.22; 6 studies; 334 participants; low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and tricyclic antidepressants in terms of short-term remission (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.09; 3 studies; 229 participants), short-term response (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.10; 4 studies; 270 participants), or dropouts for any reason (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.30; 5 studies; 430 participants) (low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and other antidepressants in terms of short-term remission (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.67; 3 studies; 135 participants; very low-quality evidence) and evidence that psychological therapies did not significantly increase or decrease the short-term response over other antidepressants (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.37; 3 studies; 128 participants) or dropouts for any reason (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.65; 3 studies; 180 participants) (low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and benzodiazepines in terms of short-term remission (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.65; 3 studies; 95 participants), short-term response (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.58; 2 studies; 69 participants), or dropouts for any reason (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.36; 3 studies; 116 participants) (very low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and either antidepressant alone or antidepressants plus benzodiazepines in terms of short-term remission (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.05; 11 studies; 663 participants) and short-term response (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; 12 studies; 800 participants) (low-quality evidence), and there was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and either antidepressants alone or antidepressants plus benzodiazepines in terms of treatment acceptability as measured by dropouts for any reason (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.51; 13 studies; 909 participants; very low-quality evidence). The risk of selection bias and reporting bias was largely unclear. Preplanned subgroup and sensitivity analyses limited to trials with longer-term, quality-controlled, or individual psychological therapies suggested that antidepressants might be more effective than psychological therapies for some outcomes.There were no data to contribute to a comparison between psychological therapies and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) and subsequent adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence in this review was often imprecise. The superiority of either therapy over the other is uncertain due to the low and very low quality of the evidence with regard to short-term efficacy and treatment acceptability, and no data were available regarding adverse effects.The sensitivity analysis and investigation of the sources of heterogeneity indicated three possible influential factors: quality control of psychological therapies, the length of intervention, and the individual modality of psychological therapies.Future studies should examine the long-term effects after intervention or treatment continuation and should provide information on risk of bias, especially with regard to selection and reporting biases.
Topics: Adult; Agoraphobia; Antidepressive Agents; Benzodiazepines; Humans; Panic Disorder; Patient Dropouts; Psychotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 27730622
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011170.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2016A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset, reaches a peak within 10 minutes and in which at least four of 13 characteristic symptoms... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset, reaches a peak within 10 minutes and in which at least four of 13 characteristic symptoms are experienced, including racing heart, chest pain, sweating, shaking, dizziness, flushing, stomach churning, faintness and breathlessness. Panic disorder is common in the general population with a lifetime prevalence of 1% to 4%. The treatment of panic disorder includes psychological and pharmacological interventions. Amongst pharmacological agents, antidepressants and benzodiazepines are the mainstay of treatment for panic disorder. Different classes of antidepressants have been compared; and the British Association for Psychopharmacology, and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) consider antidepressants (mainly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)) as the first-line treatment for panic disorder, due to their more favourable adverse effect profile over monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). In addition to antidepressants, benzodiazepines are widely prescribed for the treatment of panic disorder.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence for the effects of antidepressants and benzodiazepines for panic disorder in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
The Specialised Register of the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group (CCMDCTR) to 11 September 2015. This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1950-), Embase (1974-) and PsycINFO (1967-). Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were handsearched. We contacted experts in this field for supplemental data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All double-blind randomised controlled trials allocating adult patients with panic disorder to antidepressants or benzodiazepines versus any other active treatment with antidepressants or benzodiazepines.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a standard form. Data were entered in RevMan 5.3 using a double-check procedure. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details, settings and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-five studies, including 6785 participants overall (of which 5365 in the arms of interest (antidepressant and benzodiazepines as monotherapy)) were included in this review; however, since studies addressed many different comparisons, only a few trials provided data for primary outcomes. We found low-quality evidence suggesting no difference between antidepressants and benzodiazepines in terms of response rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.47; participants = 215; studies = 2). Very low-quality evidence suggested a benefit for benzodiazepines compared to antidepressants in terms of dropouts due to any cause, even if confidence interval (CI) ranges from almost no difference to benefit with benzodiazepines (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.63; participants = 1449; studies = 7). We found some evidence suggesting that serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are better tolerated than TCAs (when looking at the number of patients experiencing adverse effects). We failed to find clinically significant differences between individual benzodiazepines. The majority of studies did not report details on random sequence generation and allocation concealment; similarly, no details were provided about strategies to ensure blinding. The study protocol was not available for almost all studies so it is difficult to make a judgment on the possibility of outcome reporting bias. Information on adverse effects was very limited.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The identified studies are not sufficient to comprehensively address the objectives of the present review. The majority of studies enrolled a small number of participants and did not provide data for all the outcomes specified in the protocol. For these reasons most of the analyses were underpowered and this limits the overall completeness of evidence. In general, based on the results of the current review, the possible role of antidepressants and benzodiazepines should be assessed by the clinician on an individual basis. The choice of which antidepressant and/or benzodiazepine is prescribed can not be made on the basis of this review only, and should be based on evidence of antidepressants and benzodiazepines efficacy and tolerability, including data from placebo-controlled studies, as a whole. Data on long-term tolerability issues associated with antidepressants and benzodiazepines exposure should also be carefully considered.The present review highlights the need for further higher-quality studies comparing antidepressants with benzodiazepines, which should be conducted with high-methodological standards and including pragmatic outcome measures to provide clinicians with useful and practical data. Data from the present review will be included in a network meta-analysis of psychopharmacological treatment in panic disorder, which will hopefully provide further useful information on this issue.
PubMed: 27618521
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011567.pub2