-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2011Mirtazapine has a unique mechanism of antidepressive action and is one of the commonly used antidepressants in clinical practice. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Mirtazapine has a unique mechanism of antidepressive action and is one of the commonly used antidepressants in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the present review was to assess the evidence on the efficacy and acceptability of mirtazapine compared with other antidepressive agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis review group's specialised register (CCDANCTR), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years to April 2011), EMBASE, (1980 to July 2011) MEDLINE (1950 to July 2011) and PsycINFO (1974 to July 2011). Reference lists of the reports of relevant studies were checked and experts in the field contacted. The review was not limited to English-language articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) allocating participants with major depression to mirtazapine versus any other antidepressive agent.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome was response to treatment. The secondary outcomes included dropouts and individual adverse events.Meta-analyses were conducted using the random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 29 RCTs (n = 4974), mostly following up the participants for six weeks in outpatient clinics and inadequately reporting the risk of bias, were included. In comparison with tricyclic antidepressants (10 trials, n = 1553) there was no robust evidence to detect a difference between mirtazapine and tricyclics in terms of response at two weeks (odds ratio (OR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.13) or at the end of acute-phase treatment (at 6 to 12 weeks) (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.10). In comparison with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (12 trials, n = 2626) mirtazapine was significantly more effective at two weeks (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.88) and at the end of acute-phase treatment (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.39). Mirtazapine was significantly more effective than a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (venlafaxine only, two trials, n = 415) at two weeks (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.45 to 3.59) and at the end of acute-phase treatment (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.25).In terms of dropouts, there was no robust evidence to detect a difference between mirtazapine and other antidepressants. Mirtazapine was more likely to cause weight gain or increased appetite and somnolence than SSRIs but less likely to cause nausea or vomiting and sexual dysfunction.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Some statistically significant and possibly clinically meaningful differences between mirtazapine and other antidepressive agents were found for the acute-phase treatment of major depression. Mirtazapine is likely to have a faster onset of action than SSRIs during the acute-phase treatment. Dropouts occur similarly in participants treated with mirtazapine and those treated with other antidepressants, although the adverse event profile of mirtazapine is unique.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Cyclohexanols; Depression; Humans; Mianserin; Mirtazapine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 22161405
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006528.pub2 -
Cost Effectiveness and Resource... Apr 2022This study aims to synthesize the empirical economic evidence of pharmaceutical therapies for people with dementia. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
This study aims to synthesize the empirical economic evidence of pharmaceutical therapies for people with dementia.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis. Literature evaluating the costs and effects of drug therapies for dementia was indexed until December 2021. Quality of study was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list. Cost data were standardized to 2020 US dollars and analyzed from healthcare service and societal perspectives. Random-effects models were used to synthesize economic and clinical data, based on mean differences (MDs) and standardized MDs.
RESULTS
Ten unique studies were identified from 11,771 records. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) and memantine improved dementia-related symptoms, alongside nonsignificant savings in societal cost (AChEIs: MD-2002 [- 4944 ~ 939]; memantine: MD-6322 [- 14355 ~ 1711]). Despite decreases in cost, antidepressants of mirtazapine and sertraline and second-generation antipsychotics were limited by their significant side effects on patients' cognitive and activity functions. Subgroup analysis indicated that the impacts of AChEIs on cost were affected by different analytical perspectives, follow-up periods, and participant age.
CONCLUSIONS
AChEIs and memantine are cost-effective with improvements in dementia-related symptoms and trends of cost-savings. More empirical evidence with non-industrial sponsorships and rigorous design in different settings is warranted.
PubMed: 35443684
DOI: 10.1186/s12962-022-00354-3 -
Case Reports in Obstetrics and... 2022Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) is a rare condition (1.1%) characterized by excessive vomiting, malnutrition, dehydration, and laboratorial alterations. Herein, we describe...
Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) is a rare condition (1.1%) characterized by excessive vomiting, malnutrition, dehydration, and laboratorial alterations. Herein, we describe the even rarer and serious presentation of refractoriness to the usual treatment of antiemetics and parenteral nutrition, with improvement only after the use of olanzapine and mirtazapine. Two subsequent pregnancies of the same woman with HG are described, which were associated with severe weight loss, anemia, hyponatremia, hypokalemia, and mild dysfunction of liver enzymes. In the third pregnancy, the usual treatment for HG was not successful, requiring enteral nutrition and the introduction of olanzapine. In the fourth pregnancy, the patient refused to use enteral nutrition for refractory HG. Hence, the patient was started on mirtazapine at an initial dose of 15 mg/day, which was gradually increased to 30 mg/day. The patient responded well to the new regimen, as demonstrated by the decrease in symptoms, the gain of 10 kg in the pregnancy, and delivering a healthy newborn. A systematic review of literature showed 11 articles and 30 cases that successfully used mirtazapine in HG. Good clinical outcomes were seen with 4 days of the treatment and at an initial dose of 15 mg/day. However, most of these reports were from psychiatric profiles, with a predominance of depression and anxiety symptoms, and a poor description of the obstetric conditions and the disease progression itself. Pulmonary hypertension was described in one case and neonatal hyperexcitability in another. The case described in this paper reinforces the idea that mirtazapine and olanzapine can be considered in refractory HG, with good results. In the world literature, this is the second case of HG that has been successfully treated with olanzapine and the first in Latin America treated with mirtazapine.
PubMed: 36105926
DOI: 10.1155/2022/7324627 -
What is the evidence for mirtazapine in treating cancer-related symptomatology? A systematic review.Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Apr 2020Cancer patients often experience multiple distressing symptoms which are challenging to manage. It would therefore be helpful to find a treatment that alleviates more... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Cancer patients often experience multiple distressing symptoms which are challenging to manage. It would therefore be helpful to find a treatment that alleviates more than one symptom, to avoid polypharmacy: mirtazapine has been used in several studies for this purpose. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of mirtazapine in alleviating one or more frequently encountered cancer-related symptoms.
METHODS
Systematic review of clinical trials in English or French. Eight databases were searched. Included studies assessed the effectiveness of mirtazapine in alleviating one or more frequently encountered cancer-related symptoms. Comparator and validated assessment tools were required. Studies were independently appraised by two investigators before data synthesis.
RESULTS
The search yielded 1898 references, from which we identified 12 relevant articles evaluating highly heterogeneous outcomes. These were two randomised-controlled (RCTs), three non-randomised controlled, and seven non-randomised non-controlled trials. In total, 392 participants were included and 185 were in RCTs. No study assessed the effectiveness of mirtazapine in alleviating symptoms at the same time, but some considered more than one symptom. Overall, the data was of poor quality, limited by small sample size and bias. However, mirtazapine showed effectiveness in treating depression, anxiety, sleep disorders, emesis and neuropathic pain. Across all studies, mirtazapine is safe to use, with drowsiness and dizziness the most common side-effects.
CONCLUSION
Study design and small sample sizes limit the ability to interpret results. Trials to assess the impact of mirtazapine or other medicines in alleviating multiple symptoms would be valuable.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Antagonists; Antidepressive Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Depression; Humans; Mirtazapine; Neoplasms; Palliative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31858251
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-019-05229-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2009Few studies examined treatments for amphetamine withdrawal, although it is a common problem among amphetamine users. Its symptoms, in particular intense craving, may be... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Few studies examined treatments for amphetamine withdrawal, although it is a common problem among amphetamine users. Its symptoms, in particular intense craving, may be a critical factor leading to relapse to amphetamine use. In clinical practice, medications for cocaine withdrawal are commonly used to manage amphetamine withdrawal although the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of these two illicit substances are different.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of pharmacological alone or in combination with psychosocial treatment for amphetamine withdrawals on discontinuation rates, global state, withdrawal symptoms, craving, and other outcomes.
SEARCH STRATEGY
MEDLINE (1966 - 2008), CINAHL (1982 - 2008), PsycINFO (1806 - 2008), CENTRAL (Cochrane Library 2008 issue 2), references of obtained articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled and clinical trials evaluating pharmacological and or psychosocial treatments (alone or combined) for people with amphetamine withdrawal symptoms.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors evaluated and extracted data independently. The data were extracted from intention-to-treat analyses. The Relative Risk (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was used to assess dichotomous outcomes. The Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) with 95% CI was used to assess continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Four randomised controlled trials (involving 125 participants) met the inclusion criteria for the review. Two studies found that amineptine significantly reduced discontinuation rates and improved overall clinical presentation, but did not reduce withdrawal symptoms or craving compared to placebo. The benefits of mirtazapine over placebo for reducing amphetamine withdrawal symptoms were not as clear. One study suggested that mirtazapine may reduce hyperarousal and anxiety symptoms associated with amphetamine withdrawal. A more recent study failed to find any benefit of mirtazapine over placebo on retention or on amphetamine withdrawal symptoms.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No medication is effective for treatment of amphetamine withdrawal. Amineptine showed reduction in discontinuation rates and improvement in clinical presentation compared to placebo, but had no effect on reducing withdrawal symptoms or craving. In spite of these limited benefits, amineptine is not available for use due to concerns over abuse liability when using the drug. The benefits of mirtazapine as a withdrawal agent are less clear based on findings from two randomised controlled trials: one report showed improvements in amphetamine withdrawal symptoms over placebo; a second report showed no differences in withdrawal symptoms compared to placebo. Further potential treatment studies should examine medications that increase central nervous system activity involving dopamine, norepinephrine and/or serotonin neurotransmitters, including mirtazapine.
Topics: Amphetamine; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Dextroamphetamine; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Dopamine Uptake Inhibitors; Humans; Methamphetamine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 19370579
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003021.pub2 -
Progress in Neuro-psychopharmacology &... Jul 2022Sleep quality disturbances are a common occurrence in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and may remain after evidence-based treatment for PTSD has been implemented.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of antidepressants for sleep quality disturbances in post-traumatic stress disorder: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Sleep quality disturbances are a common occurrence in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and may remain after evidence-based treatment for PTSD has been implemented. If left untreated, sleep disturbance can perpetuate or aggravate the disorder. A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted comparing efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability among antidepressants for sleep quality improvement in PTSD, using Cochane's RoB2.0 and GRADE approach for NMA. The Cochrane Library, LILACS, PsycINFO, PTSDpubs, and PubMed Central databases were searched from inception to November 29, 2020, leading to the retrieval of 3733 reports. After the selection process, seven RCTs were included in the review (N = 600). We found low certainty of evidence (LCE) that sertraline may improve sleep quality (measured by PSQI) in adult patients with PTSD (MD -0.48, 95% CrI -0.63 to -0.32). Sertraline was as well accepted (RR 1.12, 95% CrI -0.83 to 1.52, very low certainty [VLCE]) and as well tolerated as placebo (RR 0.58, 95% CrI 0.28 to 1.14, LCE). Mirtazapine (MD -3.35, 95% CrI -9.06 to 2.39, LCE), paroxetine (MD -3.13, 95% CrI -7.47 to 1.26, VLCE), nefazodone (MD -0.25, 95% CrI -5.95 to 5.38, VLCE), and bupropion (MD -2.28, 95% CrI -4.75 to 0.21, VLCE) were similar to placebo for improving sleep quality. These antidepressants resulted in little or no benefit for sleep in PTSD. Although the NMA suggested that sertraline may improve sleep in PTSD compared to placebo, due to the low certainty, these estimates are not robust enough to guide clinical decisions.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Sertraline; Sleep Quality; Sleep Wake Disorders; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic
PubMed: 35395322
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2022.110557 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2012Recent US and UK clinical practice guidelines recommend that second-generation antidepressants should be considered amongst the best first-line options when drug therapy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Recent US and UK clinical practice guidelines recommend that second-generation antidepressants should be considered amongst the best first-line options when drug therapy is indicated for a depressive episode. Systematic reviews have already highlighted some differences in efficacy between second-generation antidepressants. Citalopram, one of the first selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) introduced in the market, is one of these antidepressant drugs that clinicians use for routine depression care.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of citalopram in comparison with tricyclics, heterocyclics, other SSRIs and other conventional and non-conventional antidepressants in the acute-phase treatment of major depression.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to February 2012. No language restriction was applied. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts in this field for supplemental data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials allocating patients with major depression to citalopram versus any other antidepressants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently extracted data. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy (the number of patients who responded or remitted), patient acceptability (the number of patients who failed to complete the study) and tolerability (side-effects).
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-seven trials compared citalopram with other antidepressants (such as tricyclics, heterocyclics, SSRIs and other antidepressants, either conventional ones, such as mirtazapine, venlafaxine and reboxetine, or non-conventional, like hypericum). Citalopram was shown to be significantly less effective than escitalopram in achieving acute response (odds ratio (OR) 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 2.02), but more effective than paroxetine (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.96) and reboxetine (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91). Significantly fewer patients allocated to citalopram withdrew from trials due to adverse events compared with patients allocated to tricyclics (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.78) and fewer patients allocated to citalopram reported at least one side effect than reboxetine or venlafaxine (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.97 and OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.88, respectively).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Some statistically significant differences between citalopram and other antidepressants for the acute phase treatment of major depression were found in terms of efficacy, tolerability and acceptability. Citalopram was more efficacious than paroxetine and reboxetine and more acceptable than tricyclics, reboxetine and venlafaxine, however, it seemed to be less efficacious than escitalopram. As with most systematic reviews in psychopharmacology, the potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias and publication bias should be borne in mind when interpreting review findings. Economic analyses were not reported in the included studies, however, cost effectiveness information is needed in the field of antidepressant trials.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Citalopram; Cyclohexanols; Depression; Humans; Morpholines; Paroxetine; Reboxetine; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 22786497
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006534.pub2 -
Acta Dermato-venereologica Aug 2017There is increasing evidence of clinically relevant anti-inflammatory effects of monoaminergic antidepressants. PubMed and Ovid databases were searched systematically... (Review)
Review
There is increasing evidence of clinically relevant anti-inflammatory effects of monoaminergic antidepressants. PubMed and Ovid databases were searched systematically for the use and efficacy of antidepressants in association with 5 common inflammatory skin disorders: chronic urticaria, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, other eczema, and alopecia areata. From January 1984 to June 2016, publications included a total of 1,252 dermatological patients in 28 trials or case reports. These unambiguously reported a reduced burden of dermatological symptoms in relation to treatment with antidepressants. Several randomized controlled trials of first-generation antidepressants have been published, while studies of modern antidepressants are usually open-label, yet more informative, regarding patients' characteristics and study procedures. These overall positive findings may indicate a rationale, beyond treating comorbid psychiatric disorders, for the use of antidepressants in dermatology. Further research into modern tolerable antidepressants, including selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, mirtazapine and bupropion, is required.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Dermatologic Agents; Dopamine Uptake Inhibitors; Humans; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Skin Diseases; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28512664
DOI: 10.2340/00015555-2702 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2014Paroxetine is the most potent inhibitor of the reuptake of serotonin of all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and has been studied in many randomised... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Paroxetine is the most potent inhibitor of the reuptake of serotonin of all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and has been studied in many randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, these comparative studies provided contrasting findings and systematic reviews of RCTs have always considered the SSRIs as a group, and evidence applicable to this group of drugs might not be applicable to paroxetine alone. The present systematic review assessed the efficacy and tolerability profile of paroxetine in comparison with tricyclics (TCAs), SSRIs and newer or non-conventional agents.
OBJECTIVES
1. To determine the efficacy of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents in alleviating the acute symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder.2. To review acceptability of treatment with paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.3. To investigate the adverse effects of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialized Register (CCDANCTR, to 30 September 2012), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were handsearched. Pharmaceutical companies marketing paroxetine and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials allocating participants with major depression to paroxetine versus any other antidepressants (ADs), both conventional (such as TCAs, SSRIs) and newer or non-conventional (such as hypericum). For trials which had a cross-over design, only results from the first randomisation period were considered.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a standard form. Data were then entered in RevMan 5.2 with a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, settings and efficacy, acceptability and tolerability measures.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 115 randomised controlled trials (26,134 participants) were included. In 54 studies paroxetine was compared with older ADs, in 21 studies with another SSRI, and in 40 studies with a newer or non-conventional antidepressant other than SSRIs. For the primary outcome (patients who responded to treatment), paroxetine was more effective than reboxetine at increasing patients who responded early to treatment (Odds Ratio (OR): 0.66, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.87, number needed to treat to provide benefit (NNTb) = 16, 95% CI 10 to 50, at one to four weeks, 3 RCTs, 1375 participants, moderate quality of evidence), and less effective than mirtazapine (OR: 2.39, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.02, NNTb = 8, 95% CI 5 to 14, at one to four weeks, 3 RCTs, 726 participants, moderate quality of evidence). Paroxetine was less effective than citalopram in improving response to treatment (OR: 1.54, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.28, NNTb = 9, 95% CI 5 to 102, at six to 12 weeks, 1 RCT, 406 participants, moderate quality of evidence). We found no clear evidence that paroxetine was more or less effective compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at acute (six to 12 weeks), early (one to four weeks), or longer term follow-up (four to six months). Paroxetine was associated with a lower rate of adverse events than amitriptyline, imipramine and older ADs as a class, but was less well tolerated than agomelatine and hypericum. Included studies were generally at unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting of allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessment, and incomplete reporting of outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Some possibly clinically meaningful differences between paroxetine and other ADs exist, but no definitive conclusions can be drawn from these findings. In terms of response, there was a moderate quality of evidence that citalopram was better than paroxetine in the acute phase (six to 12 weeks), although only one study contributed data. In terms of early response to treatment (one to four weeks) there was moderate quality of evidence that mirtazapine was better than paroxetine and that paroxetine was better than reboxetine. However there was no clear evidence that paroxetine was better or worse compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at any time point. Even if some differences were identified, the findings from this review are better thought as hypothesis forming rather than hypothesis testing and it would be reassuring to see the conclusions replicated in future trials. Finally, most of included studies were at unclear or high risk of bias, and were sponsored by the drug industry. The potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should be borne in mind.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Humans; Paroxetine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 24696195
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006531.pub2 -
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis :... Jan 2013Drug-induced immune thrombocytopenia (DITP) can be confirmed by the demonstration of drug-dependent platelet antibodies in vitro; however, laboratory testing is not... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Drug-induced immune thrombocytopenia (DITP) can be confirmed by the demonstration of drug-dependent platelet antibodies in vitro; however, laboratory testing is not readily accessible and test methods are not standardized.
OBJECTIVE
To identify drugs with the strongest evidence for causing DITP based on clinical and laboratory criteria.
PATIENTS/METHODS
We developed a grading system to evaluate the quality of DITP laboratory testing. The 'DITP criteria' were: (i) Drug (or metabolite) was required for the reaction in vitro; (ii) Immunoglobulin binding was demonstrated; (iii) Two or more laboratories obtained positive results; and (iv) Platelets were the target of immunoglobulin binding. Laboratory diagnosis of DITP was considered definite when all criteria were met and probable when positive results were reported by only one laboratory. Two authors applied the DITP criteria to published reports of each drug identified by systematic review. Discrepancies were independently adjudicated.
RESULTS
Of 153 drugs that were clinically implicated in thrombocytopenic reactions, 72 (47%) were associated with positive laboratory testing. Of those, 16 drugs met criteria for a definite laboratory diagnosis of DITP and thus had the highest probability of causing DITP. Definite drugs were: quinine, quinidine, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, vancomycin, penicillin, rifampin, carbamazepine, ceftriaxone, ibuprofen, mirtazapine, oxaliplatin and suramin; the glycoprotein IIbIIIa inhibitors abciximab, tirofiban and eptifibatide; and heparin.
CONCLUSIONS
We identified drugs with the strongest evidence for an association with immune thrombocytopenia. This list may be helpful for ranking potential causes of thrombocytopenia in a given patient.
Topics: Autoantibodies; Biomarkers; Blood Platelets; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay; Flow Cytometry; Humans; Observer Variation; Predictive Value of Tests; Purpura, Thrombocytopenic, Idiopathic; Reproducibility of Results; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Serologic Tests
PubMed: 23121994
DOI: 10.1111/jth.12052