-
Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience Jun 2017Anxiety disorders (generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder/agoraphobia, social anxiety disorder, and others) are the most prevalent psychiatric disorders, and are... (Review)
Review
Anxiety disorders (generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder/agoraphobia, social anxiety disorder, and others) are the most prevalent psychiatric disorders, and are associated with a high burden of illness. Anxiety disorders are often underrecognized and undertreated in primary care. Treatment is indicated when a patient shows marked distress or suffers from complications resulting from the disorder. The treatment recommendations given in this article are based on guidelines, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews of randomized controlled studies. Anxiety disorders should be treated with psychological therapy, pharmacotherapy, or a combination of both. Cognitive behavioral therapy can be regarded as the psychotherapy with the highest level of evidence. First-line drugs are the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. Benzodiazepines are not recommended for routine use. Other treatment options include pregabalin, tricyclic antidepressants, buspirone, moclobemide, and others. After remission, medications should be continued for 6 to 12 months. When developing a treatment plan, efficacy, adverse effects, interactions, costs, and the preference of the patient should be considered.
Topics: Anti-Anxiety Agents; Anxiety Disorders; Benzodiazepines; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Psychotherapy; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 28867934
DOI: 10.31887/DCNS.2017.19.2/bbandelow -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2020Anxiety disorders are the most prevalent psychiatric disorders and a leading cause of disability. While there continues to be expansive research in posttraumatic stress... (Review)
Review
Anxiety disorders are the most prevalent psychiatric disorders and a leading cause of disability. While there continues to be expansive research in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and schizophrenia, there is a relative dearth of novel medications under investigation for anxiety disorders. This review's first aim is to summarize current pharmacological treatments (both approved and off-label) for panic disorder (PD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), social anxiety disorder (SAD), and specific phobias (SP), including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), azapirones (e.g., buspirone), mixed antidepressants (e.g., mirtazapine), antipsychotics, antihistamines (e.g., hydroxyzine), alpha- and beta-adrenergic medications (e.g., propranolol, clonidine), and GABAergic medications (benzodiazepines, pregabalin, and gabapentin). Posttraumatic stress disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder are excluded from this review. Second, we will review novel pharmacotherapeutic agents under investigation for the treatment of anxiety disorders in adults. The pathways and neurotransmitters reviewed include serotonergic agents, glutamate modulators, GABAergic medications, neuropeptides, neurosteroids, alpha- and beta-adrenergic agents, cannabinoids, and natural remedies. The outcome of the review reveals a lack of randomized double-blind placebo- controlled trials for anxiety disorders and few studies comparing novel treatments to existing anxiolytic agents. Although there are some recent randomized controlled trials for novel agents including neuropeptides, glutamatergic agents (such as ketamine and d-cycloserine), and cannabinoids (including cannabidiol) primarily in GAD or SAD, these trials have largely been negative, with only some promise for kava and PH94B (an inhaled neurosteroid). Overall, the progression of current and future psychopharmacology research in anxiety disorders suggests that there needs to be further expansion in research of these novel pathways and larger-scale studies of promising agents with positive results from smaller trials.
PubMed: 33424664
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.595584 -
Gut Dec 2019Gastroparesis is defined by delayed gastric emptying (GE) and symptoms of nausea, vomiting, bloating, postprandial fullness, early satiety and abdominal pain. Most... (Review)
Review
Gastroparesis is defined by delayed gastric emptying (GE) and symptoms of nausea, vomiting, bloating, postprandial fullness, early satiety and abdominal pain. Most common aetiologies include diabetes, postsurgical and postinfectious, but in many cases it is idiopathic. Clinical presentation and natural history vary by the aetiology. There is significant morbidity and healthcare utilisation associated with gastroparesis. Mechanistic studies from diabetic animal models of delayed GE as well as human full-thickness biopsies have significantly advanced our understanding of this disorder. An innate immune dysregulation and injury to the interstitial cells of Cajal and other components of the enteric nervous system through paracrine and oxidative stress mediators is likely central to the pathogenesis of gastroparesis. Scintigraphy and C breath testing provide the most validated assessment of GE. The stagnant gastroparesis therapeutic landscape is likely to soon see significant changes. Relatively newer treatment strategies include antiemetics (aprepitant), prokinetics (prucalopride, relamorelin) and fundic relaxants (acotiamide, buspirone). Endoscopic pyloromyotomy appears promising over the short term, especially for symptoms of nausea and vomiting. Further controlled trials and identification of the appropriate subgroup with pyloric dysfunction and assessment of long-term outcomes are essential. This review highlights the clinical presentation, diagnosis, mechanisms and treatment advancements for gastroparesis.
Topics: Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Gastric Emptying; Gastrointestinal Agents; Gastroparesis; Humans
PubMed: 31563877
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318712 -
Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy Jul 2018Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) often begins during adolescence or early adulthood and persists throughout the lifespan. Randomized controlled trials support the... (Review)
Review
Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) often begins during adolescence or early adulthood and persists throughout the lifespan. Randomized controlled trials support the efficacy of selective serotonin and selective serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs and SNRIs, respectively), as well as benzodiazepines, azapirones, anti-adrenergic medications, melatonin analogs, second-generation antipsychotics, kava, and lavender oil in GAD. However, psychopharmacologic treatment selection requires clinicians to consider multiple factors, including age, co-morbidity, and prior treatment. Areas covered: The authors review the literature concerning pharmacotherapy for pediatric and adult patients with GAD with specific commentary on the efficacy and tolerability of selected agents in these age groups. The authors describe an algorithmic approach to the pediatric and adult patient with GAD and highlight considerations for the use of selected medications in these patients. Expert opinion: In adults with GAD, SSRIs and SNRIs represent the first-line psychopharmacologic treatment while second-line pharmacotherapies include buspirone, benzodiazepines, SGAs, and pregabalin. In pediatric patients with GAD, SSRIs should be considered the first line pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy enhances antidepressant response.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Anxiety Disorders; Child; Evidence-Based Practice; Humans; Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 30056792
DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2018.1491966 -
Medicina Sep 2023Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by deficits in social cognition and communication, restricted interests, and stereotyped behaviors. Frequently... (Review)
Review
Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by deficits in social cognition and communication, restricted interests, and stereotyped behaviors. Frequently associated with sensory dysfunction, other neurodevelopmental disorders, neuropsychiatric disorders, epilepsy and/or sleep disorders. This condition will accompany people throughout their lives, which will generate various support and treatment needs. Although there are no drugs that modify the core symptoms of autism, various drugs have shown their usefulness in associated conditions. Atypical antipsychotics for hyperactivity, impulsivity, agitation, auto or heteroaggression crises. Serotonin reuptake inhibitors, to decrease anxiety, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and irritability/agitation. Stimulants and atomoxetine used for hyperactivity, inattention, and impulsivity. Clonidine and guanfacine show some efficacy on hyperactivity and stereotyped behaviors. Buspirone has been used for restrictive behaviors and anxiety. There are drugs in the research phase such as oxytocin, vasopressin and even some developed for specific entities related to autism such as arbaclofen in Fragile X and Trofinetide that has just been approved for use in Rett syndrome. As specific entities and their pathophysiology are identified, it is likely that tailored treatments will be developed for each entity associated with autism..
Topics: Humans; Autistic Disorder; Stereotyped Behavior; Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Autism Spectrum Disorder
PubMed: 37714122
DOI: No ID Found -
Neurology. Clinical Practice Apr 2018Antidepressant-associated movement disorders are a well-described phenomenon. However, antidepressant-associated bruxism, jaw pain, or jaw spasm, while reported in... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Antidepressant-associated movement disorders are a well-described phenomenon. However, antidepressant-associated bruxism, jaw pain, or jaw spasm, while reported in dental literature, is less commonly recognized among neurologists. We summarize the clinical features and treatment of antidepressant-associated bruxism and associated jaw pain through a systematic review of case reports.
RECENT FINDINGS
Antidepressant-associated bruxism may occur in pediatric and adult patients, most commonly among female patients. Patients may develop symptoms with short-term and long-term antidepressant use. Fluoxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine were the most commonly reported offending agents. Symptoms may begin within 3-4 weeks of medication initiation and may resolve within 3-4 weeks of drug discontinuation, addition of buspirone, or substitution with another pharmacologic agent. The incidence of this phenomenon is unknown.
SUMMARY
Bruxism associated with antidepressant use is an underrecognized phenomenon among neurologists, and may be treated with the addition of buspirone, dose modification, or medication discontinuation.
PubMed: 29708207
DOI: 10.1212/CPJ.0000000000000433 -
International Journal of Molecular... Dec 2021Treatment resistant depression (TRD) is associated with poor outcomes, but a consensus is lacking in the literature regarding which compound represents the best... (Review)
Review
Treatment resistant depression (TRD) is associated with poor outcomes, but a consensus is lacking in the literature regarding which compound represents the best pharmacological augmentation strategy to antidepressants (AD). In the present review, we identify the available literature regarding the pharmacological augmentation to AD in TRD. Research in the main psychiatric databases was performed (PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, PsychInfo). Only original articles in English with the main topic being pharmacological augmentation in TRD and presenting a precise definition of TRD were included. Aripiprazole and lithium were the most investigated molecules, and aripiprazole presented the strongest evidence of efficacy. Moreover, olanzapine, quetiapine, cariprazine, risperidone, and ziprasidone showed positive results but to a lesser extent. Brexpiprazole and intranasal esketamine need further study in real-world practice. Intravenous ketamine presented an evincible AD effect in the short-term. The efficacy of adjunctive ADs, antiepileptic drugs, psychostimulants, pramipexole, ropinirole, acetyl-salicylic acid, metyrapone, reserpine, testosterone, T3/T4, naltrexone, SAMe, and zinc cannot be precisely estimated in light of the limited available data. Studies on lamotrigine and pindolol reported negative results. According to our results, aripiprazole and lithium may be considered by clinicians as potential effective augmentative strategies in TRD, although the data regarding lithium are somewhat controversial. Reliable conclusions about the other molecules cannot be drawn. Further controlled comparative studies, standardized in terms of design, doses, and duration of the augmentative treatments, are needed to formulate definitive conclusions.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Buspirone; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant; Humans; Ketamine; Lithium
PubMed: 34884874
DOI: 10.3390/ijms222313070 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects.
OBJECTIVES
• To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia • To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety • To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
A review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%). In this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies). Almost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome. Altogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias. Vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively Relative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK₁ receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28). Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available). Frequency of SAEs Twenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant. Frequency of any AE Sixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant. Class-specific side effects For class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant. Direction and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reduce vomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK₁ receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects. Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron. The results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia, General; Antiemetics; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Placebos; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33075160
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2 -
The International Journal on Drug Policy Nov 2021This study aimed to determine the efficacy and acceptability of pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder (CUD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to determine the efficacy and acceptability of pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder (CUD).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis, searching five electronic databases for randomized placebo-controlled trials of individuals diagnosed with CUD receiving pharmacotherapy with or without concomitant psychotherapy. Primary outcomes were the reduction in cannabis use and retention in treatment. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, discontinuation due to adverse events, total abstinence, withdrawal symptoms, cravings, and CUD severity. We applied a frequentist, random-effects Network Meta-Analysis model to pool effect sizes across trials using standardized mean differences (SMD, g) and rate ratios (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
We identified a total of 24 trials (n=1912, 74.9% male, mean age 30.2 years). Nabilone (d=-4.47 [-8.15; -0.79]), topiramate (d=-3.80 [-7.06; -0.54]), and fatty-acid amyl hydroxylase inhibitors (d=-2.30 [-4.75; 0.15]) reduced cannabis use relative to placebo. Dronabinol improved retention in treatment (RR=1.27 [1.02; 1.57]), while topiramate worsened treatment retention (RR=0.62 [0.42; 0.91]). Gabapentin reduced cannabis cravings (d=-2.42 [-3.53; -1.32], while vilazodone worsened craving severity (d=1.69 [0.71; 2.66]. Buspirone (RR=1.14 [1.00; 1.29]), venlafaxine (RR=1.78 [1.40; 2.26]), and topiramate (RR=9.10 [1.27; 65.11]) caused more adverse events, while topiramate caused more dropouts due to adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this review, some medications appeared to show promise for treating individual aspects of CUD. However, there is a lack of robust evidence to support any particular pharmacological treatment. There is a need for additional studies to expand the evidence base for CUD pharmacotherapy. While medication strategies may become an integral component for CUD treatment one day, psychosocial interventions should remain the first line given the limitations in the available evidence.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Marijuana Abuse; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 34062288
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103295