-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2009Chronic amphetamine users may have experience of paranoia and hallucination. It has long been believed that dopamine antagonists, such as chlorpromazine, haloperidol,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic amphetamine users may have experience of paranoia and hallucination. It has long been believed that dopamine antagonists, such as chlorpromazine, haloperidol, and thioridazine, are effective for the treatment of amphetamine psychosis.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate risks, benefits, costs of treatments for amphetamine psychosis.
SEARCH STRATEGY
MEDLINE (1966-2007), EMBASE (1980-2007), CINAHL (1982-2007), PsychINFO (1806-2007), CENTRAL (Cochrane Library 2008 issue 1), references of obtained articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled and clinical trials (RCTs, CCTs) evaluating treatments (alone or combined) for people with amphetamine psychosis
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors evaluated and extracted the data independently. Dichotomous data were extracted on an intention-to-treat basis in which the dropouts were assigned as participants with the worst outcomes. The Relative Risk (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was used to assess the dichotomous data. The Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) with 95% CI was used to assess the continuous data.
MAIN RESULTS
The comprehensive searches found one randomised controlled trial of treatment for amphetamine psychosis meeting the criteria for considering studies. The study involved 58 participants and compared the efficacy and tolerability of two antipsychotic drugs, olanzapine (a newer antipsychotic) and haloperidol (a commonly used antipsychotic medication used as a control condition), in treating amphetamine-induced psychosis. The results show that both olanzapine and haloperidol at clinically relevant doses were efficacious in resolving psychotic symptoms, with the olanzapine condition showing significantly greater safety and tolerability than the haloperidol control as measured by frequency and severity of extrapyramidal symptoms.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Only one RCT of treatment for amphetamine psychosis has been published. Outcomes from this trial indicate that antipsychotic medications effectively reduce symptoms of amphetamine psychosis, the newer generation and more expensive antipsychotic medication, olanzapine, demonstrates significantly better tolerability than the more affordable and commonly used medication, haloperidol.There are other two studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria for this review. The results of these two studies show that agitation and some psychotic symptoms may be abated within an hour after antipsychotic injection.Whether this limited evidence can be applied for amphetamine psychotic patients is not yet known.The medications that should be further investigate are conventional antipsychotics, newer antipsychotics and benzodiazepines. However, naturalistic studies of amphetamine psychotic symptoms and the prevalence of relapse to psychosis in the presence of amphetamine, are also crucial for advising the development of study designs appropriate for further treatment studies of amphetamine psychosis.
Topics: Amphetamine-Related Disorders; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Haloperidol; Humans; Olanzapine; Psychoses, Substance-Induced
PubMed: 19160215
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003026.pub3 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Apr 2020Amisulpride, a first-line schizophrenia treatment, has shown large interindividual variability in plasma/serum levels, often outside the reference range (100-320 ng/mL).... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
Amisulpride, a first-line schizophrenia treatment, has shown large interindividual variability in plasma/serum levels, often outside the reference range (100-320 ng/mL). This study aims to clarify the impact of dose, sex, age and related factors for the interpatient variability in amisulpride plasma/serum concentration.
METHODS
Both English and Chinese databases were searched from their inception to May 16, 2019, using the terms: amisulpride and (plasma OR serum OR blood OR "drug monitoring" OR concentration). Studies reporting concentrations and either a dose, associated factor, clinical outcome or side effect were included.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies with 1628 participants were eventually included. Eligible articles yielded data on drug concentration and dose, averaging 333.9 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 294.5-373.3) ng/mL and 636.2 (95% CI: 549.7-722.6) mg/d, respectively. The calculated mean concentration-to-dose (C/D) ratio was 0.60 (95% CI: 0.52-0.67) (ng/mL)/mg. Subgroup analysis suggested that female patients on combined lithium-amisulpride have higher concentration levels and C/D ratios. Age was slight positive associated with C/D ratio while not for plasma level. Smoker patients have high concentration level than nonsmoking patients but not for C/D. Responsive and nonresponsive groups did not differ in concentration and C/D.
CONCLUSION
Pooled concentration levels of amisulpride were higher than recommended with wide individual variation, especially in older patients, female patients and patients taking amisulpride combined with lithium. The specific therapeutic reference range for amisulpride may require reconstruction, which should consider the influence of age, sex, kidney function, drug-drug interactions, different dose regimens and sampling times in future study.
Topics: Aged; Amisulpride; Antipsychotic Agents; Drug Monitoring; Female; Humans; Schizophrenia; Sulpiride
PubMed: 32090363
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14246 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2013This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 11, 2010 (Derry 2010). Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 11, 2010 (Derry 2010). Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce nausea and vomiting, which are commonly associated with migraine.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and tolerability of paracetamol (acetaminophen), alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared with placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies through 4 October 2010 for the original review, and to 13 February 2013 for the update. Two clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and gsk-clinicalstudyregister.com) were also searched on both occasions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies using self-administered paracetamol to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared with placebo or other active treatment.
MAIN RESULTS
Searches for the update identified one additional study for inclusion. Eleven studies (2942 participants, 5109 attacks) compared paracetamol 1000 mg, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, with placebo or other active comparators, mainly sumatriptan 100 mg. For all efficacy outcomes paracetamol was superior to placebo, with NNTs of 12 (19% response with paracetamol, 10% with placebo), 5.0 (56% response with paracetamol, 36% with placebo) and 5.2 (39% response with paracetamol, 20% with placebo) for 2-hour pain-free and 2- and 1-hour headache relief, respectively, when medication was taken for moderate to severe pain.Paracetamol 1000 mg plus metoclopramide 10 mg was not significantly different from oral sumatriptan 100 mg for 2-hour headache relief; there were no 2-hour pain-free data.Adverse event rates were similar between paracetamol and placebo, and between paracetamol plus metoclopramide and sumatriptan. No serious adverse events occurred with paracetamol alone, but more serious and/or severe adverse events occurred with sumatriptan than with the combination therapy (NNH 32).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Paracetamol 1000 mg alone is statistically superior to placebo in the treatment of acute migraine, but the NNT of 12 for pain-free response at two hours is inferior to at of other commonly used analgesics. Given the low cost and wide availability of paracetamol, it may be a useful first choice drug for acute migraine in those with contraindications to, or who cannot tolerate, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or aspirin. The addition of 10 mg metoclopramide gives short-term efficacy equivalent to oral sumatriptan 100 mg. Adverse events with paracetamol did not differ from placebo; serious and/or severe adverse events were slightly more common with sumatriptan than with paracetamol plus metoclopramide.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acute Disease; Adult; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Antiemetics; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Hyperacusis; Metoclopramide; Migraine Disorders; Photophobia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sumatriptan
PubMed: 23633349
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008040.pub3 -
PloS One 2024To report the first and largest systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching in patients with treatment-resistant depression or major depressive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
OBJECTIVES
To report the first and largest systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) or major depressive disorder(MDD).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature retrieval via PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane until April 2023 for RCT, which evaluated the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching for patients with TRD or MDD. Outcomes measured were changes in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), response and remission rate, and serious adverse events.
RESULTS
Five RCTs, including 4480 patients, were included for meta-analysis. Among them, two RCTs were rated as "high risk" in three aspects (allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel and blinding of outcome assessment) because of the non-blind method, and the quality evaluation of the remaining works of literature was "low risk". Augmentation treatment with Aripiprazole (A-ARI) was associated with a significant higher response rate compared with augmentation treatment with bupropion (A-BUP) (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.25; P = 0.0007; I2 = 23%). Besides, A-ARI had a significant higher remission rate compared with switching to bupropion (S-BUP) (RR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.49; P = 0.05; I2 = 59%) and A-BUP had a significant higher remission rate compared with S-BUP (RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.36; P = 0.0004; I2 = 0%). In addition, there was no significant difference in remission rate(RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.17; P = 0.42; I2 = 33%), improvement of MADRS(WMD: -2.07; 95% CI: -5.84, 1.70; P = 0.28; I2 = 70%) between A-ARI and A-BUP. No significant difference was observed in adverse events and serious adverse events among the three treatment strategies.
CONCLUSIONS
A-ARI may be a better comprehensive antidepressant treatment strategy than A-BUP or S-BUP for patients with TRD or MDD. More large-scale, multi-center, double-blind RCTs are needed to further evaluated the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching treatment strategies.
Topics: Aripiprazole; Bupropion; Humans; Depressive Disorder, Major; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant; Treatment Outcome; Drug Therapy, Combination
PubMed: 38669232
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299020 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Risperidone is the first new generation antipsychotic drug made available in a long-acting injection formulation. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Risperidone is the first new generation antipsychotic drug made available in a long-acting injection formulation.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effects of depot risperidone for treatment of schizophrenia or related psychoses in comparison with placebo, no treatment or other antipsychotic medication.To critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the resource use, cost and cost-effectiveness of risperidone (depot) for schizophrenia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (December 2002, 2012, and October 28, 2015). We also checked the references of all included studies, and contacted industry and authors of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials comparing depot risperidone with other treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD). We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Twelve studies, with a total of 5723 participants were randomised to the following comparison treatments: Risperidone depot versus placebo Outcomes of relapse and improvement in mental state were neither measured or reported. In terms of other primary outcomes, more people receiving placebo left the study early by 12 weeks (1 RCT, n=400, RR 0.74 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, very low quality evidence), experienced severe adverse events in short term (1 RCT, n=400, RR 0.59 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93, very low quality evidence). There was however, no difference in levels of weight gain between groups (1 RCT, n=400, RR 2.11 95% CI 0.48 to 9.18, very low quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus general oral antipsychotics The outcome of improvement in mental state was not presented due to high levels of attrition, nor were levels of severe adverse events explicitly reported. Most primary outcomes of interest showed no difference between treatment groups. However, more people receiving depot risperidone experienced nervous system disorders (long-term:1 RCT, n=369, RR 1.34 95% CI 1.13 to 1.58, very-low quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus oral risperidoneData for relapse and severe adverse events were not reported. All outcomes of interest were rated as moderate quality evidence. Main results showed no differences between treatment groups with equivocal data for change in mental state, numbers leaving the study early, any extrapyramidal symptoms, weight increase and prolactin-related adverse events. Risperidone depot versus oral quetiapine Relapse rates and improvement in mental state were not reported. Fewer people receiving risperidone depot left the study early (long-term: 1 RCT, n=666, RR 0.84 95% CI 0.74 to 0.95, moderate quality evidence). Experience of serious adverse events was similar between groups (low quality evidence), but more people receiving depot risperidone experienced EPS (1 RCT, n=666, RR 1.83 95% CI 1.07 to 3.15, low quality evidence), had greater weight gain (1 RCT, n=666, RR 1.25 95% CI 0.25 to 2.25, low quality evidence) and more prolactin-related adverse events (1 RCT, n=666, RR 3.07 95% CI 1.13 to 8.36, very low quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus oral aripiprazoleRelapse rates, mental state using PANSS, leaving the study early, serious adverse events and weight increase were similar between groups. However more people receiving depot risperidone experienced prolactin-related adverse events compared to those receiving oral aripiprazole (2 RCTs, n=729, RR 9.91 95% CI 2.78 to 35.29, very low quality of evidence). Risperidone depot versus oral olanzapineRelapse rates were not reported in any of the included studies for this comparison. Improvement in mental state using PANSS and instances of severe adverse events were similar between groups. More people receiving depot risperidone left the study early than those receiving oral olanzapine (1 RCT, n=618, RR 1.32 95% CI 1.10 to 1.58, low quality evidence) with those receiving risperidone depot also experiencing more extrapyramidal symptoms (1 RCT, n=547, RR 1.67 95% CI 1.19 to 2.36, low quality evidence). However, more people receiving oral olanzapine experienced weight increase (1 RCT, n=547, RR 0.56 95% CI 0.42 to 0.75, low quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus atypical depot antipsychotics (specifically paliperidone palmitate)Relapse rates were not reported and rates of response using PANSS, weight increase, prolactin-related adverse events and glucose-related adverse events were similar between groups. Fewer people left the study early due to lack of efficacy from the risperidone depot group (long term: 1 RCT, n=749, RR 0.60 95% CI 0.45 to 0.81, low quality evidence), but more people receiving depot risperidone required use of EPS-medication (2 RCTs, n=1666, RR 1.46 95% CI 1.18 to 1.8, moderate quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus typical depot antipsychoticsOutcomes of relapse, severe adverse events or movement disorders were not reported. Outcomes relating to improvement in mental state demonstrated no difference between groups (low quality evidence). However, more people receiving depot risperidone compared to other typical depots left the study early (long-term:1 RCT, n=62, RR 3.05 95% CI 1.12 to 8.31, low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Depot risperidone may be more acceptable than placebo injection but it is hard to know if it is any more effective in controlling the symptoms of schizophrenia. The active drug, especially higher doses, may be associated with more movement disorders than placebo. People already stabilised on oral risperidone may continue to maintain benefit if treated with depot risperidone and avoid the need to take tablets, at least in the short term. In people who are happy to take oral medication the depot risperidone is approximately equal to oral risperidone. It is possible that the depot formulation, however, can bring a second-generation antipsychotic to people who do not reliably adhere to treatment. People with schizophrenia who have difficulty adhering to treatment, however, are unlikely to volunteer for a clinical trial. Such people may gain benefit from the depot risperidone with no increased risk of extrapyramidal side effects.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Benzodiazepines; Delayed-Action Preparations; Humans; Olanzapine; Patient Dropouts; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 27078222
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004161.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2009Neuroleptic drugs with potent D-2 receptor blocking properties have been the traditional treatment for tics caused by Tourette Syndrome. Pimozide is the most studied of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neuroleptic drugs with potent D-2 receptor blocking properties have been the traditional treatment for tics caused by Tourette Syndrome. Pimozide is the most studied of these. Use of these medications is declining because of concerns about side effects, and new atypical neuroleptics are now available. The true benefit and risks associated with pimozide compared to other drugs is not known.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and harms of pimozide in comparison to placebo or other medications in the treatment of tics in Tourette Syndrome.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We cross-referenced pimozide and its proprietary names with Tourette Syndrome and its derivations, as MeSH headings and as text words, and searched the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950-April 2007), and EMBASE (1980-April 2007). Reference lists of relevant articles were reviewed for additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomized, controlled, double blind studies comparing pimozide to placebo or other medications for the treatment of tics in Tourette Syndrome were considered for inclusion in this review. Both parallel group and crossover studies of children or adults, at any dose and for any duration, were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data was abstracted independently by two authors onto standardized forms and disagreements were resolved by discussion.
MAIN RESULTS
Six randomized controlled trials were included (total 162 participants, age range 7 to 53 years). Pimozide was compared with: placebo and haloperidol (two trials), placebo (one trial), haloperidol (one trial), and risperidone (two trials). Methodological quality was rated 'fair' for all studies. Studies used different outcome measurement scales for assessing tic severity and adverse effects. Significant clinical heterogeneity made meta-analysis inappropriate. Pimozide was superior to placebo in three studies, though it caused more side effects than placebo in one of these. Pimozide was inferior to haloperidol in one of three studies (the other two showed no significant difference between the drugs), which also showed significantly fewer side effects associated with pimozide. No significant differences between pimozide and risperidone were detected.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Pimozide is an effective treatment for tics in Tourette Syndrome, though the number of trials comparing its effect to placebo and other drugs is limited. Trials of longer duration (minimum six months) are needed to investigate the longer-term effects of pimozide compared to atypical neuroleptics. Future trials should use the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale to assess the main outcome measure, and quantify adverse events with the Extrapyramidal Symptoms Rating Scale.
Topics: Anti-Dyskinesia Agents; Haloperidol; Humans; Pimozide; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone; Tics; Tourette Syndrome
PubMed: 19370666
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006996.pub2 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Jul 2006Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common, chronic disorder, characterized by abdominal pain/discomfort, bloating and altered bowel habit. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common, chronic disorder, characterized by abdominal pain/discomfort, bloating and altered bowel habit.
AIM
To conduct a systematic evidence-based review of pharmacological therapies currently used, or in clinical development, for the treatment of IBS in Europe. The safety and tolerability of these therapies are the subject of an accompanying review.
METHODS
A literature search was completed for randomized controlled studies which included adult patients with IBS and an active or placebo control, assessed IBS symptoms, and were published in English between January 1980 and June 2005. The level of evidence for efficacy was graded according to the quality of the trial design and the study outcome.
RESULTS
There is some evidence for improvement of individual IBS symptoms with antidiarrhoeals (diarrhoea), antispasmodics (abdominal pain/discomfort), bulking agents (constipation), tricyclic antidepressants (abdominal pain/discomfort) and behavioural therapy. In contrast, there is strong evidence for the improvement of global IBS symptoms with two new serotonergic agents: the 5-HT4 selective agonist tegaserod (IBS with constipation) and the 5-HT3 antagonist alosetron (IBS with diarrhoea). Further data are required for the 5-HT3 antagonist, cilansetron, and the mixed 5-HT3 antagonist/5-HT4 agonist renzapride before their utility in IBS can be appraised.
CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence for the efficacy, safety and tolerability of therapies currently available in Europe for the treatment of IBS. Overall, there is an absence of pharmacological agents licensed specifically for the treatment of IBS subtypes, and new agents are awaited in Europe that will allow changes in clinical practice to focus on and improve global IBS symptoms.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Behavior Therapy; Cathartics; Dopamine D2 Receptor Antagonists; Europe; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Parasympatholytics; Serotonin Antagonists; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 16842448
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02938.x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Dyspepsia is a common condition associated with gastrointestinal (GI) disease. Prokinetics are the treatment of choice for functional dyspepsia (FD). However, the role... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dyspepsia is a common condition associated with gastrointestinal (GI) disease. Prokinetics are the treatment of choice for functional dyspepsia (FD). However, the role of prokinetics in FD treatment is still controversial.
OBJECTIVES
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy of prokinetics in the treatment of FD. The primary outcome was overall absence of or improvement of symptoms and symptom scores at the end of treatment. We also evaluated quality of life (QoL) and adverse events as secondary outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL, from 1946 until September 2017. RevMan 5.3 was used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RR) of symptoms persisting or without improved QoL or adverse events, mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) of post-treatment symptoms scores, changes of symptom scores, and QoL, when appropriate with 95% confidence intervals (CI), using a random-effects model. Quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE methodology.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies that were parallel group RCTs comparing one prokinetic with either placebo or another prokinetic of the same or different class for the treatment of FD. Studies involved adults who presented with dyspepsia symptoms and who had negative or insignificant findings on endoscopy as well as no other organic and metabolic disorders. Studies only including participants with primarily reflux or heartburn symptoms were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, study quality and performed data extraction.
MAIN RESULTS
From an initial 1388 citations, we identified 43 studies in 40 papers. Of those, 29 studies with 10,044 participants compared six prokinetics with placebo for the outcome of absence of symptoms or symptom improvement. There was a statistically significant effect of prokinetic treatment in reducing global symptoms of FD (RR of remaining dyspeptic = 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.89; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) =7, very low-quality evidence) with considerable heterogeneity; I = 91% (P < 0.00001). After removing cisapride from the analysis, the effect of prokinetics in global symptom improvement still persisted, compared to placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.94), but was still based on very low-quality evidence. The result showed persistence of significant improvement in subgroups of studies at unclear or at low risk of bias (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80-0.92), and in subgroups by molecules of cisapride (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93; NNTB = 4), acotiamide (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.98; NNTB = 20) and tegaserod(RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.96; NNTB = 14).Ten studies compared different types of prokinetics with each other and the most commonly used comparator was domperidone, 10 mg three times a day (eight of the 10 studies). There was a significantly better post-treatment symptom score in other prokinetics, compared to domperidone (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.03, very low-quality evidence), but no difference in reducing global symptom (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07), and mean difference symptom scores (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.05). We found five studies that assessed quality of life, but there was no benefit in improving quality of life with prokinetic treatment (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.33; participants = 1774). The adverse events in individual prokinetics was not different from placebo (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.25; participants = 3811; studies = 17). However, when we looked at the adverse effects by each prokinetic, there were overall greater adverse effects in the active treatment group with cisapride (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.65; P = 0.03). The most common side effects were diarrhoea, abdominal discomfort and nausea. The funnel plot was asymmetric (Egger's test, P = 0.02) implying reporting bias or other small-study effects may be, in part, driving the benefit of prokinetics compared to placebo in this meta-analysis. The GRADE assessment of the quality of the evidence in each outcome are mostly low or very low due to concerns around risk of bias in study design, unexplained heterogeneity and possible publication bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Due to low, or very low, quality of evidence, we are unable to say whether prokinetics are effective for the treatment of functional dyspepsia . We are uncertain which of the individual prokinetic drugs is the most effective as well as whether prokinetics can improve quality of life. Apart from cisapride, prokinetics are well-tolerated. Good quality RCTs are needed to verify the efficacy of prokinetics.
Topics: Benzamides; Benzyl Compounds; Cisapride; Domperidone; Dyspepsia; Erythromycin; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Indoles; Morpholines; Numbers Needed To Treat; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thiazoles
PubMed: 30335201
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009431.pub3 -
American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease... Mar 2014The objective of this review is to summarize the current data on the pharmacological treatments for frontotemporal dementias from randomized controlled trials. A... (Review)
Review
The objective of this review is to summarize the current data on the pharmacological treatments for frontotemporal dementias from randomized controlled trials. A systematic search of 4 major databases, PubMed, Medline, PsychINFO and Cochrane, found a total of 9 randomized controlled, double-blinded clinical trials. Of these, 2 trials used the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), paroxetine; 1 trial used trazodone; 2 trials used stimulants (methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine); 1 trial used the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, galantamine; 2 trials used the N-methyl-d-aspartate antagonist, memantine; and 1 trial used the neuropeptide oxytocin. The analysis of the available data indicates that SSRIs, trazodone, and the amphetamines may be effective in reducing some behavioral symptoms, but none of these medications had an impact on cognition. Available data indicate that these medications were well tolerated in all the trials.
Topics: Cognition; Dopamine Agents; Frontotemporal Dementia; Humans; Memantine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24164931
DOI: 10.1177/1533317513507375 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Self-harm (SH; intentional self-poisoning or self-injury) is common, often repeated, and strongly associated with suicide. This is an update of a broader Cochrane review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Self-harm (SH; intentional self-poisoning or self-injury) is common, often repeated, and strongly associated with suicide. This is an update of a broader Cochrane review on psychosocial and pharmacological treatments for deliberate SH, first published in 1998 and previously updated in 1999. We have now divided the review into three separate reviews. This review is focused on pharmacological interventions in adults who self harm.
OBJECTIVES
To identify all randomised controlled trials of pharmacological agents or natural products for SH in adults, and to conduct meta-analyses (where possible) to compare the effects of specific treatments with comparison types of treatment (e.g., placebo/alternative pharmacological treatment) for SH patients.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group (CCDAN) Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the CCDAN Specialised Register (September 2014). Additional searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL were conducted to October 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatments or natural products with placebo/alternative pharmacological treatment in individuals with a recent (within six months) episode of SH resulting in presentation to clinical services.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently selected trials, extracted data, and appraised trial quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. Meta-analysis was only possible for one intervention (i.e. newer generation antidepressants) on repetition of SH at last follow-up. For this analysis, we pooled data using a random-effects model. The overall quality of evidence for the primary outcome was appraised for each intervention using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven trials with a total of 546 patients. The largest trial included 167 participants. We found no significant treatment effect on repetition of SH for newer generation antidepressants (n = 243; k = 3; OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.36; GRADE: low quality of evidence), low-dose fluphenazine (n = 53; k = 1; OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.58; GRADE: very low quality of evidence), mood stabilisers (n = 167; k = 1; OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.95; GRADE: low quality of evidence), or natural products (n = 49; k = 1; OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.62; GRADE: low quality of evidence). A significant reduction in SH repetition was found in a single trial of the antipsychotic flupenthixol (n = 30; k = 1; OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.50), although the quality of evidence for this trial, according to the GRADE criteria, was very low. No data on adverse effects, other than the planned outcomes relating to suicidal behaviour, were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Given the low or very low quality of the available evidence, and the small number of trials identified, it is not possible to make firm conclusions regarding pharmacological interventions in SH patients. More and larger trials of pharmacotherapy are required. In view of an indication of positive benefit for flupenthixol in an early small trial of low quality, these might include evaluation of newer atypical antipsychotics. Further work should include evaluation of adverse effects of pharmacological agents. Other research could include evaluation of combined pharmacotherapy and psychological treatment.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Female; Fluphenazine; Humans; Lithium Compounds; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Self-Injurious Behavior
PubMed: 26147958
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011777