-
Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine :... Feb 2017The purpose of this guideline is to establish clinical practice recommendations for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic insomnia in adults, when such treatment is...
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this guideline is to establish clinical practice recommendations for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic insomnia in adults, when such treatment is clinically indicated. Unlike previous meta-analyses, which focused on broad classes of drugs, this guideline focuses on individual drugs commonly used to treat insomnia. It includes drugs that are FDA-approved for the treatment of insomnia, as well as several drugs commonly used to treat insomnia without an FDA indication for this condition. This guideline should be used in conjunction with other AASM guidelines on the evaluation and treatment of chronic insomnia in adults.
METHODS
The American Academy of Sleep Medicine commissioned a task force of four experts in sleep medicine. A systematic review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used to assess the evidence. The task force developed recommendations and assigned strengths based on the quality of evidence, the balance of benefits and harms, and patient values and preferences. Literature reviews are provided for those pharmacologic agents for which sufficient evidence was available to establish recommendations. The AASM Board of Directors approved the final recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are intended as a guideline for clinicians in choosing a specific pharmacological agent for treatment of chronic insomnia in adults, when such treatment is indicated. Under GRADE, a STRONG recommendation is one that clinicians should, under most circumstances, follow. A WEAK recommendation reflects a lower degree of certainty in the outcome and appropriateness of the patient-care strategy for all patients, but should not be construed as an indication of ineffectiveness. GRADE recommendation strengths do not refer to the magnitude of treatment effects in a particular patient, but rather, to the strength of evidence in published data. Downgrading the quality of evidence for these treatments is predictable in GRADE, due to the funding source for most pharmacological clinical trials and the attendant risk of publication bias; the relatively small number of eligible trials for each individual agent; and the observed heterogeneity in the data. The ultimate judgment regarding propriety of any specific care must be made by the clinician in light of the individual circumstances presented by the patient, available diagnostic tools, accessible treatment options, and resources. We suggest that clinicians use suvorexant as a treatment for sleep maintenance insomnia (versus no treatment) in adults. (WEAK). We suggest that clinicians use eszopiclone as a treatment for sleep onset and sleep maintenance insomnia (versus no treatment) in adults. (WEAK). We suggest that clinicians use zaleplon as a treatment for sleep onset insomnia (versus no treatment) in adults. (WEAK). We suggest that clinicians use zolpidem as a treatment for sleep onset and sleep maintenance insomnia (versus no treatment) in adults. (WEAK). We suggest that clinicians use triazolam as a treatment for sleep onset insomnia (versus no treatment) in adults. (WEAK). We suggest that clinicians use temazepam as a treatment for sleep onset and sleep maintenance insomnia (versus no treatment) in adults. (WEAK). We suggest that clinicians use ramelteon as a treatment for sleep onset insomnia (versus no treatment) in adults. (WEAK). We suggest that clinicians use doxepin as a treatment for sleep maintenance insomnia (versus no treatment) in adults. (WEAK). We suggest that clinicians not use trazodone as a treatment for sleep onset or sleep maintenance insomnia (versus no treatment) in adults. (WEAK). We suggest that clinicians not use tiagabine as a treatment for sleep onset or sleep maintenance insomnia (versus no treatment) in adults. (WEAK). We suggest that clinicians not use diphenhydramine as a treatment for sleep onset and sleep maintenance insomnia (versus no treatment) in adults. (WEAK). We suggest that clinicians not use melatonin as a treatment for sleep onset or sleep maintenance insomnia (versus no treatment) in adults. (WEAK). We suggest that clinicians not use tryptophan as a treatment for sleep onset or sleep maintenance insomnia (versus no treatment) in adults. (WEAK). We suggest that clinicians not use valerian as a treatment for sleep onset or sleep maintenance insomnia (versus no treatment) in adults. (WEAK).
Topics: Academies and Institutes; Adult; Central Nervous System Depressants; Chronic Disease; GABA Modulators; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Sleep Aids, Pharmaceutical; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Sleep Medicine Specialty; United States
PubMed: 27998379
DOI: 10.5664/jcsm.6470 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Mar 2023Determining the most effective insomnia medication for patients may require therapeutic trials of different medications. In addition, medication side effects,... (Review)
Review
Determining the most effective insomnia medication for patients may require therapeutic trials of different medications. In addition, medication side effects, interactions with co-administered medications, and declining therapeutic efficacy can necessitate switching between different insomnia medications or deprescribing altogether. Currently, little guidance exists regarding the safest and most effective way to transition from one medication to another. Thus, we developed evidence-based guidelines to inform clinicians regarding best practices when deprescribing or transitioning between insomnia medications. Five U.S.-based sleep experts reviewed the literature involving insomnia medication deprescribing, tapering, and switching and rated the quality of evidence. They used this evidence to generate recommendations through discussion and consensus. When switching or discontinuing insomnia medications, we recommend benzodiazepine hypnotic drugs be tapered while additional CBT-I is provided. For Z-drugs zolpidem and eszopiclone (and not zaleplon), especially when prescribed at supratherapeutic doses, tapering is recommended with a 1-2-day delay in administration of the next insomnia therapy when applicable. There is no need to taper DORAs, doxepin, and ramelteon. Lastly, off-label antidepressants and antipsychotics used to treat insomnia should be gradually reduced when discontinuing. In general, offering individuals a rationale for deprescribing or switching and involving them in the decision-making process can facilitate the change and enhance treatment success.
PubMed: 37048577
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12072493 -
Health Technology Assessment... 2000Atopic eczema is the commonest inflammatory skin disease of childhood, affecting 15-20% of children in the UK at any one time. Adults make up about one-third of all... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Atopic eczema is the commonest inflammatory skin disease of childhood, affecting 15-20% of children in the UK at any one time. Adults make up about one-third of all community cases. Moderate-to-severe atopic eczema can have a profound effect on the quality of life for both sufferers and their families. In addition to the effects of intractable itching, skin damage, soreness, sleep loss and the social stigma of a visible skin disease, other factors such as frequent visits to doctors, special clothing and¿the need to constantly apply messy topical applications all add to the burden of disease. The cause of atopic eczema is unknown, though a genetic pre-disposition and a combination of allergic and non-allergic factors appear to be important in determining disease expression. Treatment of atopic eczema in the UK is characterised by a profusion of treatments aimed at disease control. The evidential basis of these treatments is often unclear. Most people with atopic eczema are managed in primary care where the least research has been done.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this scoping review are two-fold. To produce an up-to-date coverage 'map' of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments of atopic eczema. To assist in making treatment recommendations by summarising the available RCT evidence using qualitative and quantitative methods.
DATA SOURCES
Data sources included electronic searching of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register, the Cochrane Skin Group specialised register of trials, hand-searching of atopic eczema conference proceedings, follow-up of references in retrieved articles, contact with leading researchers and requests to relevant pharmaceutical companies.
INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Only RCTs of therapeutic agents used in the prevention and treatment of people with atopic eczema of any age were considered for inclusion. Only studies where a physician diagnosed atopic eczema or atopic dermatitis were included.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data extraction was conducted by two observers onto abstraction forms, with discrepancies resolved by discussion.
QUALITY ASSESSMENT
The quality assessment of retrieved RCTs included an assessment of: a clear description of method and concealment of allocation of randomisation, the degree to which assessors and participants were blinded to the study interventions, and whether all those originally randomised were included in the final main analysis.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Where possible, quantitative pooling of similar RCTs was conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration's methods. Where statistical heterogeneity was found, sources of heterogeneity in terms of study participants, formulation or posology of intervention, and use of co-treatments were explored. Where pooling was not deemed to be appropriate, detailed descriptions of the study characteristics and main reported results were presented along with comments on study quality.
RESULTS
A total of 1165 possible RCTs were retrieved in hard copy form for further scrutiny. Of these, 893 were excluded from further analysis because of lack of appropriate data. The 272 remaining RCTs of atopic eczema covered at least 47 different interventions, which could be broadly categorised into ten main groups. Quality of reporting was generally poor, and limited statistical pooling was possible only for oral cyclosporin, and only then after considerable data transformation. There was reasonable RCT evidence to support the use of oral cyclosporin, topical corticosteroids, psychological approaches and ultraviolet light therapy. There was insufficient evidence to make recommendations on maternal allergen avoidance for disease prevention, oral antihistamines, Chinese herbs, dietary restriction in established atopic eczema, homeopathy, house dust mite reduction, massage therapy, hypnotherapy, evening primrose oil, emollients, topical coal tar and topical doxepin. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Infective Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Complementary Therapies; Dermatitis, Atopic; Desensitization, Immunologic; Diet; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Eczema; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design
PubMed: 11134919
DOI: No ID Found -
JAMA Apr 2019Oral mucositis causes substantial morbidity during head and neck radiotherapy. In a randomized study, doxepin mouthwash was shown to reduce oral mucositis-related pain.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
Effect of Doxepin Mouthwash or Diphenhydramine-Lidocaine-Antacid Mouthwash vs Placebo on Radiotherapy-Related Oral Mucositis Pain: The Alliance A221304 Randomized Clinical Trial.
IMPORTANCE
Oral mucositis causes substantial morbidity during head and neck radiotherapy. In a randomized study, doxepin mouthwash was shown to reduce oral mucositis-related pain. A common mouthwash comprising diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid is also widely used.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effect of doxepin mouthwash or diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash for the treatment of oral mucositis-related pain.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
A phase 3 randomized trial was conducted from November 1, 2014, to May 16, 2016, at 30 US institutions and included 275 patients who underwent definitive head and neck radiotherapy, had an oral mucositis pain score of 4 points or greater (scale, 0-10), and were followed up for a maximum of 28 days.
INTERVENTIONS
Ninety-two patients were randomized to doxepin mouthwash (25 mg/5 mL water); 91 patients to diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid; and 92 patients to placebo.
MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES
The primary end point was total oral mucositis pain reduction (defined by the area under the curve and adjusted for baseline pain score) during the 4 hours after a single dose of doxepin mouthwash or diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash compared with a single dose of placebo. The minimal clinically important difference was a 3.5-point change. The secondary end points included drowsiness, unpleasant taste, and stinging or burning. All scales ranged from 0 (best) to 10 (worst).
RESULTS
Among the 275 patients randomized (median age, 61 years; 58 [21%] women), 227 (83%) completed treatment per protocol. Mucositis pain during the first 4 hours decreased by 11.6 points in the doxepin mouthwash group, by 11.7 points in the diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash group, and by 8.7 points in the placebo group. The between-group difference was 2.9 points (95% CI, 0.2-6.0; P = .02) for doxepin mouthwash vs placebo and 3.0 points (95% CI, 0.1-5.9; P = .004) for diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash vs placebo. More drowsiness was reported with doxepin mouthwash vs placebo (by 1.5 points [95% CI, 0-4.0]; P = .03), unpleasant taste (by 1.5 points [95% CI, 0-3.0]; P = .002), and stinging or burning (by 4.0 points [95% CI, 2.5-5.0]; P < .001). Maximum grade 3 adverse events for the doxepin mouthwash occurred in 3 patients (4%); diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash, 3 (4%); and placebo, 2 (2%). Fatigue was reported by 5 patients (6%) in the doxepin mouthwash group and no patients in the diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash group.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Among patients undergoing head and neck radiotherapy, the use of doxepin mouthwash or diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash vs placebo significantly reduced oral mucositis pain during the first 4 hours after administration; however, the effect size was less than the minimal clinically important difference. Further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety for both mouthwashes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02229539.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antacids; Diphenhydramine; Double-Blind Method; Doxepin; Fatigue; Female; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Lidocaine; Linear Models; Male; Middle Aged; Mouthwashes; Pain; Radiation Injuries; Stomatitis
PubMed: 30990550
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.3504 -
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Jul 2017and polymorphisms affect the exposure, efficacy and safety of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), with some drugs being affected by CYP2D6 only (e.g., nortriptyline and...
and polymorphisms affect the exposure, efficacy and safety of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), with some drugs being affected by CYP2D6 only (e.g., nortriptyline and desipramine) and others by both polymorphic enzymes (e.g., amitriptyline, clomipramine, doxepin, imipramine, and trimipramine). Evidence is presented for and genotype-directed dosing of TCAs. This document is an update to the 2012 Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guideline for and Genotypes and Dosing of Tricyclic Antidepressants.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C19; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2D6; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Genotyping Techniques; Humans; Medication Therapy Management; Pharmacogenomic Variants; Polymorphism, Genetic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27997040
DOI: 10.1002/cpt.597 -
Indian Journal of Dermatology Nov 2011Chronic urticaria (CU) is a disturbing allergic condition of the skin. Although frequently benign, it may sometimes be a red flag sign of a serious internal disease. A...
Chronic urticaria (CU) is a disturbing allergic condition of the skin. Although frequently benign, it may sometimes be a red flag sign of a serious internal disease. A multitude of etiologies have been implicated in the causation of CU, including physical, infective, vasculitic, psychological and idiopathic. An autoimmune basis of most of the 'idiopathic' forms is now hypothesized. Histamine released from mast cells is the major effector in pathogenesis and it is clinically characterized by wheals that have a tendency to recur. Laboratory investigations aimed at a specific etiology are not always conclusive, though may be suggestive of an underlying condition. A clinical search for associated systemic disease is strongly advocated under appropriate circumstances. The mainstay of treatment remains H1 antihistaminics. These may be combined with complementary pharmacopeia in the form of H2 blockers, doxepin, nifedipine and leukotriene inhibitors. More radical therapy in the form of immunoglobulins, plasmapheresis and cyclophosphamide may be required for recalcitrant cases. Autologous transfusion and alternative remedies like acupuncture have prospects for future. A stepwise management results in favorable outcomes. An update on CU based on our experience with patients at a tertiary care centre is presented.
PubMed: 22345759
DOI: 10.4103/0019-5154.91817