-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Depression occurs frequently in individuals with coronary artery disease (CAD) and is associated with a poor prognosis. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Depression occurs frequently in individuals with coronary artery disease (CAD) and is associated with a poor prognosis.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of psychological and pharmacological interventions for depression in CAD patients with comorbid depression.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases up to August 2020. We also searched three clinical trials registers in September 2021. We examined reference lists of included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and contacted primary authors. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs investigating psychological and pharmacological interventions for depression in adults with CAD and comorbid depression. Our primary outcomes included depression, mortality, and cardiac events. Secondary outcomes were healthcare costs and utilisation, health-related quality of life, cardiovascular vital signs, biomarkers of platelet activation, electrocardiogram wave parameters, non-cardiac adverse events, and pharmacological side effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently examined the identified papers for inclusion and extracted data from the included studies. We performed random-effects model meta-analyses to compute overall estimates of treatment outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-seven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Psychological interventions may result in a reduction in end-of-treatment depression symptoms compared to controls (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to -0.19, I = 88%; low certainty evidence; 10 trials; n = 1226). No effect was evident on medium-term depression symptoms one to six months after the end of treatment (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.01, I = 69%; 7 trials; n = 2654). The evidence for long-term depression symptoms and depression response was sparse for this comparison. There is low certainty evidence that psychological interventions may result in little to no difference in end-of-treatment depression remission (odds ratio (OR) 2.02, 95% CI 0.78 to 5.19, I = 87%; low certainty evidence; 3 trials; n = 862). Based on one to two trials per outcome, no beneficial effects on mortality and cardiac events of psychological interventions versus control were consistently found. The evidence was very uncertain for end-of-treatment effects on all-cause mortality, and data were not reported for end-of-treatment cardiovascular mortality and occurrence of myocardial infarction for this comparison. In the trials examining a head-to-head comparison of varying psychological interventions or clinical management, the evidence regarding the effect on end-of-treatment depression symptoms is very uncertain for: cognitive behavioural therapy compared to supportive stress management; behaviour therapy compared to person-centred therapy; cognitive behavioural therapy and well-being therapy compared to clinical management. There is low certainty evidence from one trial that cognitive behavioural therapy may result in little to no difference in end-of-treatment depression remission compared to supportive stress management (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 4.50; low certainty evidence; n = 83). Based on one to two trials per outcome, no beneficial effects on depression remission, depression response, mortality rates, and cardiac events were consistently found in head-to-head comparisons between psychological interventions or clinical management. The review suggests that pharmacological intervention may have a large effect on end-of-treatment depression symptoms (SMD -0.83, 95% CI -1.33 to -0.32, I = 90%; low certainty evidence; 8 trials; n = 750). Pharmacological interventions probably result in a moderate to large increase in depression remission (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.89, I = 0%; moderate certainty evidence; 4 trials; n = 646). We found an effect favouring pharmacological intervention versus placebo on depression response at the end of treatment, though strength of evidence was not rated (OR 2.73, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.54, I = 62%; 5 trials; n = 891). Based on one to four trials per outcome, no beneficial effects regarding mortality and cardiac events were consistently found for pharmacological versus placebo trials, and the evidence was very uncertain for end-of-treatment effects on all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction. In the trials examining a head-to-head comparison of varying pharmacological agents, the evidence was very uncertain for end-of-treatment effects on depression symptoms. The evidence regarding the effects of different pharmacological agents on depression symptoms at end of treatment is very uncertain for: simvastatin versus atorvastatin; paroxetine versus fluoxetine; and escitalopram versus Bu Xin Qi. No trials were eligible for the comparison of a psychological intervention with a pharmacological intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In individuals with CAD and depression, there is low certainty evidence that psychological intervention may result in a reduction in depression symptoms at the end of treatment. There was also low certainty evidence that pharmacological interventions may result in a large reduction of depression symptoms at the end of treatment. Moderate certainty evidence suggests that pharmacological intervention probably results in a moderate to large increase in depression remission at the end of treatment. Evidence on maintenance effects and the durability of these short-term findings is still missing. The evidence for our primary and secondary outcomes, apart from depression symptoms at end of treatment, is still sparse due to the low number of trials per outcome and the heterogeneity of examined populations and interventions. As psychological and pharmacological interventions can seemingly have a large to only a small or no effect on depression, there is a need for research focusing on extracting those approaches able to substantially improve depression in individuals with CAD and depression.
Topics: Adult; Coronary Artery Disease; Depression; Escitalopram; Humans; Psychotherapy; Quality of Life
PubMed: 34910821
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008012.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2009Although pharmacological and psychological interventions are both effective for major depression, antidepressant drugs are frequently used as first-line treatment in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although pharmacological and psychological interventions are both effective for major depression, antidepressant drugs are frequently used as first-line treatment in primary and secondary care settings. Milnacipran, a dual serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), is one of the antidepressant drugs that clinicians use for routine depression care.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of milnacipran in comparison with tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), heterocyclics, SSRIs and other newer antidepressive agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety & Neurosis review group Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) were electronically searched in August 2008. References of relevant trials and other reviews were also checked. Trial databases of the drug-approving agencies and ongoing clinical trial registers for all published and unpublished trials were hand-searched in 2007. All relevant authors were contacted for supplemental data. No language restriction was applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing milnacipran with any other active antidepressive agents (including non-conventional agents such as herbal products like hypericum) as monotherapy in the acute phase of major depression were selected.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently checked eligibility, assessed methodological quality and extracted data from the eligible trials using a standardised data extraction form. The number of participants who responded to treatment or those who achieved remission were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted, combining data from the included trials.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 16 randomised controlled trials (n=2277) were included in the meta-analysis.Despite the size of this sample, the pooled 95% confidence intervals were rather wide and there were no statistically significant differences in efficacy, acceptability and tolerability when comparing milnacipran with other antidepressive agents. However, compared with TCAs, patients taking milnacipran were associated with fewer dropouts due to adverse events (OR 0.55; 95%CI 0.35 to 0.85). There was also some weak evidence to suggest that patients taking milnacipran experienced fewer adverse events of sleepiness/ drowsiness, dry mouth or constipation compared with TCAs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently, there is inadequate evidence to conclude whether milnacipran is superior, inferior or the same as other antidepressive agents in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability in the acute phase treatment of major depression. However, there is some evidence in favour of milnacipran over TCAs in terms of dropouts due to adverse events (acceptability) and the rates of experiencing adverse events (tolerability). Information about other clinically meaningful outcomes such as cost-effectiveness and social functioning, including the ability to return to work, is lacking. Further study is needed to answer whether milnacipran would be the better choice of antidepressant for acute major depression.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Cyclopropanes; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Milnacipran; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 19588396
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006529.pub2 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2020To explore the short-term efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine in the treatment of panic disorder in adults.
OBJECTIVE
To explore the short-term efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine in the treatment of panic disorder in adults.
METHODS
Multiple electronic databases were searched to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on paroxetine and panic disorder. The primary efficacy outcomes were: the mean change compared to the baseline in the total number of full panic attacks, Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score, and the proportion of participants with zero full panic attacks and with a 50% or greater reduction in the number of full panic attacks. The tolerability outcomes included withdrawal rate and the incidence of adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
13RCTs were included. The pooled analyses showed patients who received paroxetine experienced greater improvements in the number of full panic attacks (total: MD=-1.96, 95%CI -3.45 to -0.47, P=0.010; ≥50% reduction: OR=1.66, 95%CI 1.08 to 2.55, P=0.02; zero full panic attacks: OR=1.70, 95%CI 1.42 to 2.03, P < 0.00001) and CGI-S (MD=-0.37, 95%CI -0.74 to -0.01, P=0.05) than placebo. There was no evident difference in the total withdrawal rate (OR=0.91, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.08, P=0.26) and withdrawal rate due to AEs (OR=1.29, 95%CI 0.97 to 1.72, P=0.07) between the two groups. Withdrawal rate due to lack of efficacy or relapse (OR=0.44, 95%CI 0.31 to 0.63, P < 0.00001) and the incidence of serious AEs (OR=0.42, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.79, P=0.007) in the paroxetine group was lower than the placebo group. Meanwhile, the incidence of any treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (OR=1.32, 95%CI 1.05 to 1.64, P=0.02) in the paroxetine group was higher in comparison with the placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Paroxetine is an effective and well-tolerated short-term treatment for adults with panic disorder.
PubMed: 32296330
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.00275 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2011Premature ejaculation (PE) is a very common sexual dysfunction among patients, and with varying prevalence estimates ranging from 3% to 20%. Although psychological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Premature ejaculation (PE) is a very common sexual dysfunction among patients, and with varying prevalence estimates ranging from 3% to 20%. Although psychological issues are present in most patients with premature PE, as a cause or as a consequence, research on the effects of psychological approaches for PE has in general not been controlled or randomised and is lacking in long-term follow up.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for PE.To investigate any differences in efficacy between different types of psychosocial treatments for PE.To compare psychosocial interventions with pharmacological treatment and pharmacological treatment in association with psychosocial treatment for PE.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Trials were searched in computerized general and specialized databases, such as: MEDLINE by PubMed (1966 to 2010); PsycINFO (1974 to 2010); EMBASE (1980 to 2010); LILACS (1982 to 2010); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library, 2010); and by checking bibliographies, and contacting manufacturers and researchers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating psychosocial interventions compared with different psychosocial interventions, pharmacological interventions, waiting list, or no treatment for PE.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Information on patients, interventions, and outcomes was extracted by at least two independent reviewers using a standard form. The primary outcome measure for comparing the effects of psychosocial interventions to waiting list and standard medications was improvement in IELT (i.e., time from vaginal penetration to ejaculation). The secondary outcome was change in validated PE questionnaires.
MAIN RESULTS
In one study (De Carufel 2006) behavioral therapy (BT) was significantly better than waiting list for duration of intercourse (MD (mean difference) 407.90 seconds, 95% CI 302.42 to 513.38), and couples' sexual satisfaction (MD -26.10, CI -50.48 to -1.72). BT was also significantly better for a new functional-sexological treatment (FS) (MD 412.00 seconds, 95% CI 305.88 to 518.12), change over time in subjective perception of duration of intercourse (Women: MD 2.88, 95% CI 2.06 to 3.70; Men: MD 2.52, CI 1.65 to 3.39) and couples' sexual satisfaction (MD -25.10, 95% CI -47.95 to -2.25), versus waiting list.One study (Li 2006) showed that the combination of chlorpromazine and BT was superior than chlorpromazine alone for IELT (MD 1.11, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.40), SAS (Self-rating Anxiety Scale) (MD -8.72, 95% CI -11.09 to -6.35) and for some CIPE (Chinese Index Premature Ejaculation) questions ('anxiety in sexual activity', 'partner sexual satisfaction', 'patient sexual satisfaction', 'control ejaculatory reflex' and 'ejaculatory latency') ('Analysis 1.2').One study (Yuan 2008) showed that citalopram significantly improved IELT (RR (risk ratio) 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.78) and the number of couples satisfied with their sex life after treatment (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93), versus BT.In the last study (Abdel-Hamid 2001), 31 patients received 1 of 4 drugs administered on an as-needed basis 35 hours before anticipated coitus (clomipramine, sertraline, paroxetine, sildenafil), or were instructed to use the pause-squeeze technique. The study consisted of five four-week periods of treatment, separated by two-week washout periods. Anxiety score and ejaculation latency time were measured before treatment, after each treatment and during washout periods. Sexual satisfaction scores were measured after each treatment. However the available data from the article were not sufficient to be included, and the related database was not available anymore, according to the main author.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, there is weak and inconsistent evidence regarding the effectiveness of psychological interventions for the treatment of premature ejaculation. Three of the four included randomised controlled studies of psychotherapy for PE reported our primary outcome (Improvement in IELT), and the majority have a small sample size. The early success reports (97.8%) of Masters and Johnson could not be replicated. One study found a significant improvement from baseline in the duration of intercourse, sexual satisfaction and sexual function with a new functional-sexological treatment and behavior therapy compared to waiting list. One study showed that the combination of chlorpromazine and BT was superior to chlorpromazine alone. Randomised trials with larger group samples are still needed to further confirm or deny the current available evidence for psychological interventions for treating PE.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Behavior Therapy; Coitus; Combined Modality Therapy; Ejaculation; Humans; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological; Time Factors; Vasodilator Agents
PubMed: 21833964
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008195.pub2 -
Clinical Breast Cancer Apr 2022Concerns around pharmacological interaction between tamoxifen and antidepressants have resulted in evidence-base guidelines that recommend avoidance or caution with... (Review)
Review
Concerns around pharmacological interaction between tamoxifen and antidepressants have resulted in evidence-base guidelines that recommend avoidance or caution with concurrent use. It remains unclear however whether this interaction is clinically important. A systematic review of studies comparing endocrine therapy (including tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors) alone or concurrent with antidepressants in breast cancer patients was performed. The literature search sought studies within MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Collaboration Library published from database inception until December 1, 2020. Outcomes of interest included recurrence, breast cancer-specific survival, overall mortality, quality of life, and treatment compliance. Studies were assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle Ottawa tool for case-control and cohort studies. From 695 citations, we included 15 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [255 patients], 10 retrospective cohort studies [75,678 patients], and 3 case-control studies [18,836 patients]). While between-study clinical and methodologic differences (including analysis of confounding variables) precluded formal meta-analysis, findings from included studies did not find consistent evidence that concurrent use of antidepressants (including paroxetine) with tamoxifen therapy has negative impacts on the outcomes of interest. In this systematic review, despite data from nearly 100,000 patients, concurrent use of tamoxifen and antidepressants showed no consistent negative effect on clinical outcomes. Given the recognized harm to patients of changing either endocrine therapy or antidepressants to avoid concurrent use, current evidence-based guidelines should be updated accordingly. More rigorously designed pharmacoepidemiologic studies are needed.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Quality of Life; Retrospective Studies; Tamoxifen
PubMed: 34740542
DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2021.10.003 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2012Although pharmacological and psychological interventions are both effective for major depression, in primary and secondary care settings antidepressant drugs remain the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although pharmacological and psychological interventions are both effective for major depression, in primary and secondary care settings antidepressant drugs remain the mainstay of treatment. Amongst antidepressants many different agents are available. Duloxetine hydrochloride is a dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin and norepinephrine and has been licensed by the Food and Drug Administration in the US for major depressive disorder (MDD), generalised anxiety disorder, diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia and chronic musculoskeletal pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of duloxetine in comparison with all other antidepressant agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression.
SEARCH METHODS
MEDLINE (1966 to 2012), EMBASE (1974 to 2012), the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2012. No language restriction was applied. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were hand-searched. Pharmaceutical company marketing duloxetine and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials allocating patients with major depression to duloxetine versus any other antidepressive agent.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and a double-entry procedure was employed. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 16 randomised controlled trials (overall 5735 participants) were included in this systematic review. Of these, three trials were unpublished. We found 11 studies (overall 3304 participants) comparing duloxetine with one selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) (six studies versus paroxetine, three studies versus escitalopram and two versus fluoxetine), four studies (overall 1978 participants) comparing duloxetine with a newer antidepressants (three with venlafaxine and one with desvenlafaxine, respectively) and one study (overall 453 participants) comparing duloxetine with an antipsychotic drug which is also used as an antidepressive agent, quetiapine. No studies were found comparing duloxetine with tricyclic antidepressants. The pooled confidence intervals were rather wide and there were no statistically significant differences in efficacy when comparing duloxetine with other antidepressants. However, when compared with escitalopram or venlafaxine, there was a higher rate of drop out due to any cause in the patients randomised to duloxetine (odds ratio (OR) 1.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 2.62 and OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.15, respectively). There was also some weak evidence suggesting that patients taking duloxetine experienced more adverse events than paroxetine (OR 1.24; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.55).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Duloxetine did not seem to provide a significant advantage in efficacy over other antidepressive agents for the acute-phase treatment of major depression. No differences in terms of efficacy were found, even though duloxetine was worse than some SSRIs (most of all, escitalopram) and newer antidepressants (like venlafaxine) in terms of acceptability and tolerability. Unfortunately, we only found evidence comparing duloxetine with a handful of other active antidepressive agents and only a few trials per comparison were found (in some cases we retrieved just one trial). This limited the power of the review to detect moderate, but clinically meaningful differences between the drugs. As many statistical tests have been used in the review, the findings from this review are better thought of as hypothesis forming rather than hypothesis testing and it would be very comforting to see the conclusions replicated in future trials. Most of included studies were sponsored by the drug industry manufacturing duloxetine. As for all other new investigational compounds, the potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should be borne in mind. In the present review no trials reported economic outcomes. Given that several SSRIs and the great majority of antidepressants are now available as generic formulation (only escitalopram, desvenlafaxine and duloxetine are still on patent), more comprehensive economic estimates of antidepressant treatment effect should be considered to better inform healthcare policy.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Citalopram; Cyclohexanols; Depression; Desvenlafaxine Succinate; Dibenzothiazepines; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fluoxetine; Humans; Paroxetine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thiophenes; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 23076926
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006533.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015This review updates the original review, 'Pharmacological treatments for fatigue associated with palliative care' and also incorporates the review 'Drug therapy for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This review updates the original review, 'Pharmacological treatments for fatigue associated with palliative care' and also incorporates the review 'Drug therapy for the management of cancer-related fatigue'.In healthy individuals, fatigue is a protective response to physical or mental stress, often relieved by rest. By contrast, in palliative care patients' fatigue can be severely debilitating and is often not counteracted with rest, thereby impacting daily activity and quality of life. Fatigue frequently occurs in patients with advanced disease (e.g. cancer-related fatigue) and modalities used to treat cancer can often contribute. Further complicating issues are the multidimensionality, subjective nature and lack of a consensus definition of fatigue. The pathophysiology is not fully understood and evidence-based treatment approaches are needed.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological treatments for fatigue in palliative care, with a focus on patients at an advanced stage of disease, including patients with cancer and other chronic diseases.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE, and a selection of cancer journals up to 28 April 2014. We searched the references of identified articles and contacted authors to obtain unreported data. To validate the search strategy we selected sentinel references.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) concerning adult palliative care with a focus on pharmacological treatment of fatigue compared to placebo, application of two drugs, usual care or a non-pharmacological intervention. The primary outcome had to be non-specific fatigue (or related terms such as asthenia). We did not include studies on fatigue related to antineoplastic treatment (e.g. chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgical intervention). We also included secondary outcomes that were assessed in fatigue-related studies (e.g. exhaustion, tiredness).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (MM and MC) independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We screened the search results and included studies if they met the selection criteria. If we identified two or more studies that investigated a specific drug with the same dose in a population with the same disease and using the same assessment instrument or scale, we conducted meta-analysis. In addition, we compared the type of drug investigated in specific populations, as well as the frequent adverse effects of fatigue treatment, by creating overview tables.
MAIN RESULTS
For this update, we screened 1645 publications of which 45 met the inclusion criteria (20 additional studies to the previous reviews). In total, we analysed data from 18 drugs and 4696 participants. There was a very high degree of statistical and clinical heterogeneity in the trials and we discuss the reasons for this in the review. There were some sources of potential bias in the included studies, including a lack of description of the methods of blinding and allocation concealment, and the small size of the study populations. We included studies investigating pemoline and modafinil in participants with multiple sclerosis (MS)-associated fatigue and methylphenidate in patients suffering from advanced cancer and fatigue in meta-analysis. Treatment results pointed to weak and inconclusive evidence for the efficacy of amantadine, pemoline and modafinil in multiple sclerosis and for carnitine and donepezil in cancer-related fatigue. Methylphenidate and pemoline seem to be effective in patients with HIV, but this is based only on one study per intervention, with only a moderate number of participants in each study. Meta-analysis shows an estimated superior effect for methylphenidate in cancer-related fatigue (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.83). Therapeutic effects could not be described for dexamphetamine, paroxetine or testosterone. There were a variety of results for the secondary outcomes in some studies. Most studies had low participant numbers and were heterogeneous. In general, adverse reactions were mild and had little or no impact.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on limited evidence, we cannot recommend a specific drug for the treatment of fatigue in palliative care patients. Fatigue research in palliative care seems to focus on modafinil and methylphenidate, which may be beneficial for the treatment of fatigue associated with palliative care although further research about their efficacy is needed. Dexamethasone, methylprednisolone, acetylsalicylic acid, armodafinil, amantadine and L-carnitine should be further examined. Consensus is needed regarding fatigue outcome parameters for clinical trials.
Topics: Adult; Amantadine; Benzhydryl Compounds; Carnitine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Chronic Disease; Fatigue; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Multiple Sclerosis; Neoplasms; Palliative Care; Pemoline; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26026155
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006788.pub3 -
Medicine Dec 2018We performed the network meta-analysis (NMA) and systematic review involved all evidence from relevant trials to compare the efficiency and safety of various types of... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and safety of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in men with premature ejaculation: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
We performed the network meta-analysis (NMA) and systematic review involved all evidence from relevant trials to compare the efficiency and safety of various types of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i) in patients with premature ejaculation (PE).
METHODS
We conducted comprehensive searches of peer-reviewed and grey literature. PubMed, the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase were searched for randomized controlled trials published up to June 1, 2017. The primary outcome was intravaginal ejaculation latency time (IVELT) and adverse effects (AEs). We performed pairwise meta-analyses by random effects model and network meta-analysis by Bayesian model. We used the GRADE framework to assess the quality of evidence contributing to each network estimate.
RESULTS
Of 3046 titles and abstracts initially identified, 17 trials reporting 5739 participants were included. Considering IVELT in the NMA, paroxetine plus sildenafil and sildenafil alone are both superior to placebo (MD: 1.75, 95% CrI: 0.05 to 3.78; MD 1.43, 95% CrI 0.003 to 2.81). Sildenafil is superior to sertraline (MD: 1.63, 95% CrI: 0.10 to 2.79). Considering AEs, placebo demonstrated obviously lower risk comparing to paroxetine, sildenafil and paroxetine plus sildenafil (OR 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.52; OR 0.23, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.80; OR 0.45, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.92). Compared with tadalafil plus paroxetine, dapoxetine showed significantly less AEs (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.96).
CONCLUSIONS
Our study concluded that although paroxetine plus sildenafil and sildenafil alone both demonstrated significant IVELT benefit compared with placebo, significant increase of AEs risk was also observed. Furthermore, sildenafil alone was superior to sertraline in efficacy with comparable tolerability.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Humans; Male; Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors; Premature Ejaculation; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 30544399
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000013342 -
The Australian and New Zealand Journal... Apr 2018Several countries have developed Clinical Practice Guidelines regarding treatment of perinatal depressive symptoms and perinatal use of antidepressant. We aimed to...
OBJECTIVE
Several countries have developed Clinical Practice Guidelines regarding treatment of perinatal depressive symptoms and perinatal use of antidepressant. We aimed to compare guidelines to guide clinicians in best clinical practice.
METHODS
An extensive search in guideline databases, MEDLINE and PsycINFO was performed. When no guidelines were (publicly) available online, we contacted psychiatric-, obstetric-, perinatal- and mood disorder societies of all first world countries and the five largest second world countries. Only Clinical Practice Guidelines adhering to quality criteria of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation instrument and including a systematic review of evidence were included. Data extraction focussed on recommendations regarding continuation or withdrawal of antidepressants and preferred treatment in newly depressed patients.
RESULTS
Our initial search resulted in 1094 articles. After first screening, 40 full-text articles were screened. Of these, 24 were excluded for not being an official Clinical Practice Guidelines. In total, 16 Clinical Practice Guidelines were included originating from 12 countries. Eight guidelines were perinatal specific and eight were general guidelines.
CONCLUSION
During pregnancy, four guidelines advise to continue antidepressants, while there is a lack of evidence supporting this recommendation. Five guidelines do not specifically advise or discourage continuation. For new episodes, guidelines agree on psychotherapy (especially cognitive behavioural therapy) as initial treatment for mild to moderate depression and antidepressants for severe depression, with a preference for sertraline. Paroxetine is not preferred treatment for new episodes but switching antidepressants for ongoing treatment is discouraged (three guidelines). If mothers use antidepressants, observation of the neonate is generally recommended and breastfeeding encouraged.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depressive Disorder; Female; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications
PubMed: 29506399
DOI: 10.1177/0004867418762057