-
Lancet (London, England) Jul 2022Behavioural, cognitive, and pharmacological interventions can all be effective for insomnia. However, because of inadequate resources, medications are more frequently... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Behavioural, cognitive, and pharmacological interventions can all be effective for insomnia. However, because of inadequate resources, medications are more frequently used worldwide. We aimed to estimate the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for the acute and long-term treatment of adults with insomnia disorder.
METHODS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and websites of regulatory agencies from database inception to Nov 25, 2021, to identify published and unpublished randomised controlled trials. We included studies comparing pharmacological treatments or placebo as monotherapy for the treatment of adults (≥18 year) with insomnia disorder. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (ie, quality of sleep measured by any self-rated scale), treatment discontinuation for any reason and due to side-effects specifically, and safety (ie, number of patients with at least one adverse event) both for acute and long-term treatment. We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PU4QJ.
FINDINGS
We included 170 trials (36 interventions and 47 950 participants) in the systematic review and 154 double-blind, randomised controlled trials (30 interventions and 44 089 participants) were eligible for the network meta-analysis. In terms of acute treatment, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more efficacious than placebo (SMD range: 0·36-0·83 [CINeMA estimates of certainty: high to moderate]). Benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more efficacious than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD 0·27-0·71 [moderate to very low]). Intermediate-acting benzodiazepines, long-acting benzodiazepines, and eszopiclone had fewer discontinuations due to any cause than ramelteon (OR 0·72 [95% CI 0·52-0·99; moderate], 0·70 [0·51-0·95; moderate] and 0·71 [0·52-0·98; moderate], respectively). Zopiclone and zolpidem caused more dropouts due to adverse events than did placebo (zopiclone: OR 2·00 [95% CI 1·28-3·13; very low]; zolpidem: 1·79 [1·25-2·50; moderate]); and zopiclone caused more dropouts than did eszopiclone (OR 1·82 [95% CI 1·01-3·33; low]), daridorexant (3·45 [1·41-8·33; low), and suvorexant (3·13 [1·47-6·67; low]). For the number of individuals with side-effects at study endpoint, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were worse than placebo, doxepin, seltorexant, and zaleplon (OR range 1·27-2·78 [high to very low]). For long-term treatment, eszopiclone and lemborexant were more effective than placebo (eszopiclone: SMD 0·63 [95% CI 0·36-0·90; very low]; lemborexant: 0·41 [0·04-0·78; very low]) and eszopiclone was more effective than ramelteon (0.63 [0·16-1·10; very low]) and zolpidem (0·60 [0·00-1·20; very low]). Compared with ramelteon, eszopiclone and zolpidem had a lower rate of all-cause discontinuations (eszopiclone: OR 0·43 [95% CI 0·20-0·93; very low]; zolpidem: 0·43 [0·19-0·95; very low]); however, zolpidem was associated with a higher number of dropouts due to side-effects than placebo (OR 2·00 [95% CI 1·11-3·70; very low]).
INTERPRETATION
Overall, eszopiclone and lemborexant had a favorable profile, but eszopiclone might cause substantial adverse events and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive. Doxepin, seltorexant, and zaleplon were well tolerated, but data on efficacy and other important outcomes were scarce and do not allow firm conclusions. Many licensed drugs (including benzodiazepines, daridorexant, suvorexant, and trazodone) can be effective in the acute treatment of insomnia but are associated with poor tolerability, or information about long-term effects is not available. Melatonin, ramelteon, and non-licensed drugs did not show overall material benefits. These results should serve evidence-based clinical practice.
FUNDING
UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.
Topics: Adult; Benzodiazepines; Doxepin; Eszopiclone; Humans; Melatonin; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Zolpidem
PubMed: 35843245
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00878-9 -
JAMA Feb 2013Insomnia is one of the most prevalent health concerns in the population and in clinical practice. Clinicians may be reluctant to address insomnia because of its many... (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
Insomnia is one of the most prevalent health concerns in the population and in clinical practice. Clinicians may be reluctant to address insomnia because of its many potential causes, unfamiliarity with behavioral treatments, and concerns about pharmacologic treatments.
OBJECTIVE
To review the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of insomnia in adults.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
Systematic review to identify and summarize previously published quantitative reviews (meta-analyses) of behavioral and pharmacologic treatments for insomnia.
FINDINGS
Insomnia is a common clinical condition characterized by difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep, accompanied by symptoms such as irritability or fatigue during wakefulness. The prevalence of insomnia disorder is approximately 10% to 20%, with approximately 50% having a chronic course. Insomnia is a risk factor for impaired function, development of other medical and mental disorders, and increased health care costs. The etiology and pathophysiology of insomnia involve genetic, environmental, behavioral, and physiological factors culminating in hyperarousal. The diagnosis of insomnia is established by a thorough history of sleep behaviors, medical and psychiatric problems, and medications, supplemented by a prospective record of sleep patterns (sleep diary). Quantitative literature reviews (meta-analyses) support the efficacy of behavioral, cognitive, and pharmacologic interventions for insomnia. Brief behavioral interventions and Internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy both show promise for use in primary care settings. Among pharmacologic interventions, the most evidence exists for benzodiazepine receptor agonist drugs, although persistent concerns focus on their safety relative to modest efficacy. Behavioral treatments should be used whenever possible, and medications should be limited to the lowest necessary dose and shortest necessary duration.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Clinicians should recognize insomnia because of its effects on function and health. A thorough clinical history is often sufficient to identify factors that contribute to insomnia. Behavioral treatments should be used when possible. Hypnotic medications are also efficacious but must be carefully monitored for adverse effects.
Topics: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Risk Factors; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders
PubMed: 23423416
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.193 -
Cureus Jan 2023Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is a complication frequently encountered among patients who are chronic alcohol abusers. It is considered to have a significant... (Review)
Review
Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is a complication frequently encountered among patients who are chronic alcohol abusers. It is considered to have a significant impact on the United States healthcare system. It not only has a toll on the healthcare spending but also contributes to significant morbidity and mortality. Benzodiazepines are considered first line in the treatment of AWS. Since patients with alcohol use disorder have downregulated gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors, this often leads to benzodiazepine resistance. Phenobarbital is also used in the management of alcohol withdrawal syndrome. Here we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of the drug. We conducted an electronic database search for relevant studies published between the inception of the project and November 20, 2022, in three databases, including Medline/PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Our study included all original studies with prime focus on the baseline characteristics of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for alcohol withdrawal syndrome and management/monitoring protocol implemented for its treatment. The primary outcomes that were the focus of our study consisted of changes in the length of hospital stay, length of ICU stay, and changes in scoring systems (for alcohol withdrawal assessment and monitoring) following the implementation of phenobarbital. The secondary outcomes included complications such as intubation and mortality. Based on our analysis, the mean difference in hospital stay was statistically significant at -2.6 (95% CI, -4.48, -0.72, P=0.007) for phenobarbital compared to the benzodiazepine group. We were unable to comment on the heterogeneity in our meta-analysis due to the standard deviation not being reported in one study. There was no statistically significant difference regarding the length of stay in the intensive care unit compared to the control/comparative arm, with a mean difference of -1.17 (95% CI, -1.17, 0.09, P=0.07), with considerable heterogeneity (I=77%, P=0.002). Our meta-analysis also investigated the risk of intubation between the phenobarbital and the control/comparative group. There was statistically significant difference in the incidence of intubation, relative risk (RR) 0.52 (95% CI, 0.25, 1.08, P=0.08), with considerable heterogeneity (I=80%, P=0.0001). Our study concludes that phenobarbital is an effective tool in the management of AWS in an ICU setting. However, various studies have reported contradictory results, and vital information appears to be lacking. Moreover, there is a lack of uniformity in terms of phenobarbital dosing. Drug administration should be adapted according to the severity of the symptoms. Further studies need to be conducted discussing the safety profile and adverse effects of the drug when it comes to the management of alcohol withdrawal syndrome.
PubMed: 36788902
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.33695 -
Cephalalgia : An International Journal... Feb 2022Burning mouth syndrome is a chronic idiopathic intractable intraoral dysaesthesia that remains a challenge to clinicians due to its poorly understood pathogenesis and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Burning mouth syndrome is a chronic idiopathic intractable intraoral dysaesthesia that remains a challenge to clinicians due to its poorly understood pathogenesis and inconsistent response to various treatments.
AIM
This review aimed to study the short- (≤3 months) and long-term (>3 months) effectiveness and sustainable benefit of different burning mouth syndrome treatment strategies and the associated side effects.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Randomised controlled trials of burning mouth syndrome treatment compared with placebo or other interventions with a minimum follow up of 2 months were searched from the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane database (published to July 2020).
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria and analysed. Nine categories of burning mouth syndrome treatment were identified: Anticonvulsant and antidepressant agents, phytomedicine and alpha lipoic acid supplements, low-level laser therapy, saliva substitute, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and cognitive behaviour therapy. Cognitive behaviour therapy, topical capsaicin and clonazepam, and laser therapy demonstrated favourable outcome in both short- and long-term assessment. Phytomedicines reported a short-term benefit in pain score reduction. The pooled effect of alpha lipoic acid (ALA) pain score improvement was low, but its positive effects increased in long term assessment.
CONCLUSION
A more significant volume in terms of sample size, multi-centres, and multi-arm comparison of therapeutic agents with placebo and longitudinal follow-up studies is recommended to establish a standardised burning mouth syndrome treatment protocol. Further studies are required to assess the analgesic benefits of topical clonazepam and capsaicin, alternative medicines with neurodegenerative prevention capability and psychology support in treating burning mouth syndrome and reducing systemic adverse drug reactions. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO):Protocol ID - CRD42020160892.
Topics: Burning Mouth Syndrome; Capsaicin; Clonazepam; Humans; Pain; Thioctic Acid
PubMed: 34404247
DOI: 10.1177/03331024211036152 -
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2018To investigate the evidence-based treatment of catatonia in adults. The secondary aim is to develop a treatment protocol. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the evidence-based treatment of catatonia in adults. The secondary aim is to develop a treatment protocol.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review of published treatment articles (case series, cohort or randomized controlled studies) which examined the effects of particular interventions for catatonia and/or catatonic symptoms in adult populations and used valid outcome measures was performed. The articles for this review were selected by searching the electronic databases of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PSYCHINFO.
RESULTS
Thirty-one articles met the inclusion criteria. Lorazepam and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) proved to be the most investigated treatment interventions. The response percentages in Western studies varied between 66% and 100% for studies with lorazepam, while in Asian and Indian studies, they were 0% and 100%. For ECT, the response percentages are 59%-100%. There does not seem to be evidence for the use of antipsychotics in catatonic patients without any underlying psychotic disorder.
CONCLUSION
Lorazepam and ECT are effective treatments for which clinical evidence is found in the literature. It is not possible to develop a treatment protocol because the evidence for catatonia management on the basis of the articles reviewed is limited. Stringent treatment studies on catatonia are warranted.
PubMed: 29398916
DOI: 10.2147/NDT.S147897 -
CNS Drugs Oct 2021Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a debilitating psychiatric disorder that affects 0.4-3.9% of the population in Western countries. Currently, no medications have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a debilitating psychiatric disorder that affects 0.4-3.9% of the population in Western countries. Currently, no medications have been approved by regulatory agencies for the treatment of BPD. Nevertheless, up to 96% of patients with BPD receive at least one psychotropic medication.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this systematic review was to assess the general efficacy and the comparative effectiveness of different pharmacological treatments for BPD patients.
METHODS
We conducted systematic literature searches limited to English language in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO up to April 6, 2021, and searched reference lists of pertinent articles and reviews. Inclusion criteria were (i) patients 13 years or older with a diagnosis of BPD, (ii) treatment with anticonvulsive medications, antidepressants, antipsychotic medications, benzodiazepines, melatonin, opioid agonists or antagonists, or sedative or hypnotic medications for at least 8 weeks, (iii) comparison with placebo or an eligible medication, (iv) assessment of health-relevant outcomes, (v) randomized or non-randomized trials or controlled observational studies. Two investigators independently screened abstracts and full-text articles and graded the certainty of evidence based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. For meta-analyses, we used restricted maximum likelihood random effects models to estimate pooled effects.
RESULTS
Of 12,062 unique records, we included 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with data on 1768 participants. Nineteen RCTs compared pharmacotherapies with placebo; two RCTs assessed active treatments head-to-head. Out of 87 medications in use in clinical practice, we found studies on just nine. Overall, the evidence indicates that the efficacy of pharmacotherapies for the treatment of BPD is limited. Second-generation antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, and antidepressants were not able to consistently reduce the severity of BPD. Low-certainty evidence indicates that anticonvulsants can improve specific symptoms associated with BPD such as anger, aggression, and affective lability but the evidence is mostly limited to single studies. Second-generation antipsychotics had little effect on the severity of specific BPD symptoms, but they improved general psychiatric symptoms in patients with BPD.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the common use of pharmacotherapies for patients with BPD, the available evidence does not support the efficacy of pharmacotherapies alone to reduce the severity of BPD.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration number, CRD42020194098.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Antipsychotic Agents; Borderline Personality Disorder; Humans; Psychotropic Drugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34495494
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-021-00855-4 -
JAMA Apr 2016Primary care clinicians find managing chronic pain challenging. Evidence of long-term efficacy of opioids for chronic pain is limited. Opioid use is associated with... (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
Primary care clinicians find managing chronic pain challenging. Evidence of long-term efficacy of opioids for chronic pain is limited. Opioid use is associated with serious risks, including opioid use disorder and overdose.
OBJECTIVE
To provide recommendations about opioid prescribing for primary care clinicians treating adult patients with chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care.
PROCESS
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated a 2014 systematic review on effectiveness and risks of opioids and conducted a supplemental review on benefits and harms, values and preferences, and costs. CDC used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess evidence type and determine the recommendation category.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Evidence consisted of observational studies or randomized clinical trials with notable limitations, characterized as low quality using GRADE methodology. Meta-analysis was not attempted due to the limited number of studies, variability in study designs and clinical heterogeneity, and methodological shortcomings of studies. No study evaluated long-term (≥1 year) benefit of opioids for chronic pain. Opioids were associated with increased risks, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death, with dose-dependent effects.
RECOMMENDATIONS
There are 12 recommendations. Of primary importance, nonopioid therapy is preferred for treatment of chronic pain. Opioids should be used only when benefits for pain and function are expected to outweigh risks. Before starting opioids, clinicians should establish treatment goals with patients and consider how opioids will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks. When opioids are used, clinicians should prescribe the lowest effective dosage, carefully reassess benefits and risks when considering increasing dosage to 50 morphine milligram equivalents or more per day, and avoid concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines whenever possible. Clinicians should evaluate benefits and harms of continued opioid therapy with patients every 3 months or more frequently and review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, for high-risk combinations or dosages. For patients with opioid use disorder, clinicians should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment, such as medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The guideline is intended to improve communication about benefits and risks of opioids for chronic pain, improve safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce risks associated with long-term opioid therapy.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Benzodiazepines; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.; Chronic Pain; Communication; Contraindications; Drug Prescriptions; Drug Therapy, Combination; Goals; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Prescription Drug Misuse; Primary Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; United States; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 26977696
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.1464 -
The Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology... Dec 2017Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), which is common in many communities, is associated with structural factors, eating habits, and the use of certain drugs. The use... (Review)
Review
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), which is common in many communities, is associated with structural factors, eating habits, and the use of certain drugs. The use of such drugs can lead to the emergence of GERD and can also exacerbate existing reflux symptoms. These drugs can contribute to GERD by directly causing mucosal damage, by reducing lower esophageal sphincter pressure (LESP), or by affecting esophagogastric motility. In this article, we report our investigation of the relationships between GERD and medications within the scope of the "Turkish GERD Consensus Group." For the medication groups for which sufficient data were obtained (Figure 1), a systematic literature review in English was conducted using the keywords "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "anti-inflammatory agents, non-steroidal" [MeSH Terms], "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "acetylsalicylic acid" [MeSH Terms], "gastroesophageal reflux" [All Fields] and "estrogenic agents" [All Fields], "gastroesophageal reflux" [All Fields] and "progesterones" [All Fields], "gastroesophageal reflux" [All Fields] and "hormone replacement therapy" [All Fields], "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "diphosphonates" [MeSH Terms] OR "diphosphonates" [All Fields], "calcium channel blockers" [MeSH Terms] and "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms], "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "nitrates" [MeSH Terms], "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "antidepressive agents" [MeSH Terms], "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "benzodiazepines" [MeSH Terms] and "hypnotic drugs" [MeSH Terms], "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "cholinergic antagonists" [MeSH Terms], "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "theophylline" [MeSH Terms], and "gastroesophageal reflux [MeSH Terms] AND "anti-asthmatic agents" [MeSH Terms]. The studies were analyzed and the results are presented here.
Topics: Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Esophagus; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Risk Factors
PubMed: 29199166
DOI: 10.5152/tjg.2017.11 -
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies May 2022To identify and descriptively compare medication recommendations among low back pain (LBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPG). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To identify and descriptively compare medication recommendations among low back pain (LBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPG).
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, Index to Chiropractic Literature, AMED, CINAHL, and PEDro to identify CPGs that described the management of mechanical LBP in the prior five years. Two investigators independently screened titles and abstracts and potentially relevant full text were considered for eligibility. Four investigators independently applied the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument for critical appraisal. Data were extracted for pharmaceutical intervention, the strength of recommendation, and appropriateness for the duration of LBP.
RESULTS
316 citations were identified, 50 full-text articles were assessed, and nine guidelines with global representation met the eligibility criteria. These CPGs addressed pharmacological treatments with or without non-pharmacological treatments. All CPGS focused on the management of acute, chronic, or unspecified duration of LBP. The mean overall AGREE II score was 89.3% (SD 3.5%). The lowest domain mean score was for applicability, 80.4% (SD 5.2%), and the highest was Scope and Purpose, 94.0% (SD 2.4%). There were ten classifications of medications described in the included CPGs: acetaminophen, antibiotics, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, oral corticosteroids, skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs), and atypical opioids.
CONCLUSIONS
Nine CPGs, included ten medication classes for the management of LBP. NSAIDs were the most frequently recommended medication for the treatment of both acute and chronic LBP as a first line pharmacological therapy. Acetaminophen and SMRs were inconsistently recommended for acute LBP. Meanwhile, with less consensus among CPGs, acetaminophen and antidepressants were proposed as second-choice therapies for chronic LBP. There was significant heterogeneity of recommendations within many medication classes, although oral corticosteroids, benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants, and antibiotics were not recommended by any CPGs for acute or chronic LBP.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Benzodiazepines; Humans; Low Back Pain; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 35562756
DOI: 10.1186/s12998-022-00435-3 -
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Oct 2022Rapid cycling is a common and disabling phenomenon in individuals with bipolar disorders. In the absence of a recent literature examination, this systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Rapid cycling is a common and disabling phenomenon in individuals with bipolar disorders. In the absence of a recent literature examination, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesise the evidence of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of treatments for individuals with rapid cycling bipolar disorder (RCBD).
METHOD
A systematic search was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials assigning participants with RCBD to pharmacological and/or non-pharmacological interventions. Study inclusion and data extraction were undertaken by two reviewers independently. The primary outcome was continuous within-subject RCBD illness severity before and after treatment. Pre-post random effects meta-analyses were conducted for each outcome/intervention arm studied, generating a standardised effect size (hedge's g) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
A total of 34 articles describing 30 studies were included. A total of 16 separate pharmacological treatments were examined in contrast to 1 psychological therapy study. Only quetiapine and lamotrigine were assessed in >5 studies. By assessing 95% CI overlap of within-subject efficacy effects compared to placebo, the only interventions suggesting significant depression benefits (placebo g = 0.60) were olanzapine (with/without fluoxetine; g = 1.01), citalopram (g = 1.10) and venlafaxine (g = 2.48). For mania, benefits were indicated for quetiapine (g = 1.01), olanzapine (g = 1.19) and aripiprazole (g = 1.09), versus placebo (g = 0.33). Most of these effect sizes were from only one trial per treatment. Heterogeneity between studies was variable, and 20% were rated to have a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
While many interventions appeared efficacious, there was a lack of robust evidence for most treatments. Given the limited and heterogeneous evidence base, the optimal treatment strategies for people with RCBD are yet to be established.
Topics: Aripiprazole; Bipolar Disorder; Citalopram; Fluoxetine; Humans; Lamotrigine; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 35778967
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13471