-
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 -
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 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Prolonged treatment with benzodiazepines is common practice despite clinical recommendations of short-term use. Benzodiazepines are used by approximately 4% of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Prolonged treatment with benzodiazepines is common practice despite clinical recommendations of short-term use. Benzodiazepines are used by approximately 4% of the general population, with increased prevalence in psychiatric populations and the elderly. After long-term use it is often difficult to discontinue benzodiazepines due to psychological and physiological dependence. This review investigated if pharmacological interventions can facilitate benzodiazepine tapering.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions to facilitate discontinuation of chronic benzodiazepine use.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases up to October 2017: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group's Specialised Register of Trials, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and ISI Web of Science. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP, and ISRCTN registry, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatment versus placebo or no intervention or versus another pharmacological intervention in adults who had been treated with benzodiazepines for at least two months and/or fulfilled criteria for benzodiazepine dependence (any criteria).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 38 trials (involving 2543 participants), but we could only extract data from 35 trials with 2295 participants. Many different interventions were studied, and no single intervention was assessed in more than four trials. We extracted data on 18 different comparisons. The risk of bias was high in all trials but one. Trial Sequential Analysis showed imprecision for all comparisons.For benzodiazepine discontinuation, we found a potential benefit of valproate at end of intervention (1 study, 27 participants; risk ratio (RR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 6.03; very low-quality evidence) and of tricyclic antidepressants at longest follow-up (1 study, 47 participants; RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.82; low-quality evidence).We found potentially positive effects on benzodiazepine withdrawal symptoms of pregabalin (1 study, 106 participants; mean difference (MD) -3.10 points, 95% CI -3.51 to -2.69; very low-quality evidence), captodiame (1 study, 81 participants; MD -1.00 points, 95% CI -1.13 to -0.87; very low-quality evidence), paroxetine (2 studies, 99 participants; MD -3.57 points, 95% CI -5.34 to -1.80; very low-quality evidence), tricyclic antidepressants (1 study, 38 participants; MD -19.78 points, 95% CI -20.25 to -19.31; very low-quality evidence), and flumazenil (3 studies, 58 participants; standardised mean difference -0.95, 95% CI -1.71 to -0.19; very low-quality evidence) at end of intervention. However, the positive effect of paroxetine on benzodiazepine withdrawal symptoms did not persist until longest follow-up (1 study, 54 participants; MD -0.13 points, 95% CI -4.03 to 3.77; very low-quality evidence).The following pharmacological interventions reduced symptoms of anxiety at end of intervention: carbamazepine (1 study, 36 participants; MD -6.00 points, 95% CI -9.58 to -2.42; very low-quality evidence), pregabalin (1 study, 106 participants; MD -4.80 points, 95% CI -5.28 to -4.32; very low-quality evidence), captodiame (1 study, 81 participants; MD -5.70 points, 95% CI -6.05 to -5.35; very low-quality evidence), paroxetine (2 studies, 99 participants; MD -6.75 points, 95% CI -9.64 to -3.86; very low-quality evidence), and flumazenil (1 study, 18 participants; MD -1.30 points, 95% CI -2.28 to -0.32; very low-quality evidence).Two pharmacological treatments seemed to reduce the proportion of participants that relapsed to benzodiazepine use: valproate (1 study, 27 participants; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.90; very low-quality evidence) and cyamemazine (1 study, 124 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.78; very low-quality evidence). Alpidem decreased the proportion of participants with benzodiazepine discontinuation (1 study, 25 participants; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 2.3 participants; low-quality evidence) and increased the occurrence of withdrawal syndrome (1 study, 145 participants; RR 4.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 21.14; NNTH 5.9 participants; low-quality evidence). Likewise, magnesium aspartate decreased the proportion of participants discontinuing benzodiazepines (1 study, 144 participants; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96; NNTH 5.8; very low-quality evidence).Generally, adverse events were insufficiently reported. Specifically, one of the flumazenil trials was discontinued due to severe panic reactions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Given the low or very low quality of the evidence for the reported outcomes, and the small number of trials identified with a limited number of participants for each comparison, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions regarding pharmacological interventions to facilitate benzodiazepine discontinuation in chronic benzodiazepine users. Due to poor reporting, adverse events could not be reliably assessed across trials. More randomised controlled trials are required with less risk of systematic errors ('bias') and of random errors ('play of chance') and better and full reporting of patient-centred and long-term clinical outcomes. Such trials ought to be conducted independently of industry involvement.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Aspartic Acid; Benzodiazepines; Buspirone; Carbamazepine; Ethylamines; Flumazenil; Homeopathy; Humans; Imidazoles; Lithium Compounds; Melatonin; Paroxetine; Pregabalin; Progesterone; Pyridines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Sulfides; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 29543325
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011481.pub2 -
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2022The pharmacological management of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in children remains a challenge due to limited effective management options and the absence of approved... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The pharmacological management of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in children remains a challenge due to limited effective management options and the absence of approved drugs to manage the core symptoms. This review aims to describe and highlight effective pharmacological management options employed in managing the core symptoms and comorbidities of ASD from eligible studies over the past decade.
METHODS
A search of databases; PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and PsychInfo for pharmacotherapeutic options for ASD was conducted in this systematic review. Duplicate studies were removed by utilizing the EndNote citation manager. The studies were subsequently screened independently by two authors. Eligible studies from 01 January 2012 to 01 January 2022 were included based on established eligibility criteria. A narrative synthesis was used for data analysis.
RESULTS
The systematic review provides a comprehensive list of effective management options for ASD comorbidities and core symptoms from 33 included studies. The management options for ASD comorbidities; insomnia, hyperactivity, irritability and aggression, gastrointestinal disturbances, and subclinical epileptiform discharges, were reviewed. Risperidone, aripiprazole, methylphenidate, guanfacine, levetiracetam, and atomoxetine are examples of effective pharmacological drugs against ASD comorbidities. Additionally, this review identified various drugs that improve the core symptoms of ASD and include but are not limited to, bumetanide, buspirone, intranasal oxytocin, intranasal vasopressin, and prednisolone.
CONCLUSION
This review has successfully summarized the pharmacological advancements made in the past decade to manage ASD. Although there is still no pharmacological cure for ASD core symptoms or additional drugs that have obtained regulatory approval for use in ASD, the availability of promising pharmacological agents are under evaluation and study.
PubMed: 35968512
DOI: 10.2147/NDT.S371013 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Dec 2008Panic disorder occurs in up to 3% of the adult population at some time, and is associated with other psychiatric and personality disorders, and with drug and alcohol... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Panic disorder occurs in up to 3% of the adult population at some time, and is associated with other psychiatric and personality disorders, and with drug and alcohol abuse. The risk of suicide and attempted suicide has been found to be higher in people with panic disorder than in people with other psychiatric illness, including depression.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of non-drug treatments for panic disorder? What are the effects of drug treatments for panic disorder? What are the effects of combined drug and psychological treatments for panic disorder? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 36 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: applied relaxation, benzodiazepines, breathing retraining, brief dynamic psychotherapy, buspirone, client-centred therapy, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) (alone or plus drug treatments), cognitive restructuring, couple therapy, exposure (external or interoceptive), insight-orientated therapy, monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), psychoeducation, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), self-help, and tricyclic antidepressants (imipramine).
Topics: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Depression; Depressive Disorder; Humans; Panic Disorder; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 19445787
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Oct 2011Up to one in five people may have generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) at some point, and most have other health problems. Less than half of people have full remission... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Up to one in five people may have generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) at some point, and most have other health problems. Less than half of people have full remission after 5 years. GAD may have a genetic component, and has also been linked to previous psychological or other trauma.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for GAD? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2011 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 74 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: abecarnil, antidepressants (duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, opipramol, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine), antipsychotic drugs (trifluoperazine), applied relaxation, benzodiazepines, buspirone, cognitive behavioural therapy, hydroxyzine, and pregabalin.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; Benzodiazepines; Buspirone; Humans; Hydroxyzine; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Sertraline
PubMed: 22030083
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Nov 2007Up to one in five people may have generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) at some point, and most have other health problems. Less than half of people have full remission... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Up to one in five people may have generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) at some point, and most have other health problems. Less than half of people have full remission after 5 years. GAD may have a genetic component, and has also been linked to previous psychological or other trauma.
METHODS AND OBJECTIVES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for GAD? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to February 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 52 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: abecarnil, antidepressants (imipramine, opipramol, paroxetine, sertraline, escitalopram and venlafaxine), antipsychotic drugs (trifluoperazine), applied relaxation, benzodiazepines, buspirone, cognitive behavioural therapy, hydroxyzine, kava, and pregabalin.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; Citalopram; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Paroxetine; Remission Induction; Sertraline
PubMed: 19450347
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2016Generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) in a child or adolescent is excessive worry and tension about everyday events that the child or adolescent cannot control and that is... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) in a child or adolescent is excessive worry and tension about everyday events that the child or adolescent cannot control and that is expressed on most days for at least 6 months, to the extent that there is distress or difficulty in performing day-to-day tasks.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic overview, aiming to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of pharmacological treatments for generalised anxiety disorder in children and adolescents? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to August 2014 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review).
RESULTS
At this update, searching of electronic databases retrieved 949 studies. After deduplication and removal of conference abstracts, 417 records were screened for inclusion in the overview. Appraisal of titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 310 studies and the further review of 107 full publications. Of the 107 full articles evaluated, one systematic review was added at this update. We performed a GRADE evaluation for six PICO combinations.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic overview, we categorised the efficacy for six interventions based on information about the effectiveness and safety of antidepressants, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, buspirone, hydroxyzine, and pregabalin.
Topics: Adolescent; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Anxiety Disorders; Child; Humans
PubMed: 26763675
DOI: No ID Found -
Heliyon Apr 2024Buspirone, a 5-hydroxytryptamine 1A (5-HT1A) receptor agonist, has been investigated for its use in various diseases. However, knowledge about its side effects and...
Buspirone, a 5-hydroxytryptamine 1A (5-HT1A) receptor agonist, has been investigated for its use in various diseases. However, knowledge about its side effects and potential cognitive benefits in different conditions is limited. Cognitive impairment is also a prevalent symptom in many diseases, yet effective treatments are still lacking. Therefore, to explore the potential side effects of buspirone and the possible cognitive benefits of buspirone, we conducted a comprehensive search of several databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Review, Cochrane Trial, and ClinicalTrials.gov, to identify eligible randomized clinical trials. Our primary outcome measures included both side effects (adverse events) and cognitive benefits. For continuous variables, we utilized effect size with a 95% confidence interval (CI), whereas for dichotomous variables, we used odds ratios (OR) with a 95% CI. In total, 16 studies were included in this analysis, with 13 studies reporting on buspirone's side effects and 4 studies focusing on cognitive tasks. In terms of side effects, buspirone exhibited a higher rate of dizziness (OR = 4.66, 95% CI: 2.07-10.47), constipation (OR = 4.11, 95% CI: 1.34-12.55), and gastric distress (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.03-3.78) than the placebo group. Regarding cognitive functions, buspirone showed significant benefits (g = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.06-0.34) while the placebo did not. Subgroup analysis indicated superior performance in visual learning and memory (g = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.21-0.78), logical reasoning (g = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.14-0.71), and attention (g = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.13-0.61) when compared to placebo. Our findings indicated that participants in the buspirone group experienced side effects of dizziness, constipation, and gastric distress in different diseases. Despite these adverse events, however, buspirone demonstrated significant cognitive benefits, particularly in the domains of visual learning and memory, logical reasoning, and attention.
PubMed: 38601569
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28918