Antidepressants versus placebo for panic disorder in adults.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bighelli I
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6494573 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMajor depressive disorder is a common psychiatric disorder causing great burden on patients and societies. Tricyclic antidepressants are frequently used worldwide to treat patients with major depressive disorder. It has repeatedly been shown that tricyclic antidepressants reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the effect is small and of questionable clinical importance. Moreover, the beneficial and harmful effects of all types of tricyclic antidepressants have not previously been systematically assessed. Therefore, we aim to investigate the beneficial and harmful effects of tricyclic antidepressants versus 'active placebo', placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder.MethodsThis is a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis that will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols, bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2, our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control random errors and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases and trial registers, such as CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to 12 May 2021. Clinical study reports will be applied for from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results from the literature searches, extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing tricyclic antidepressants with 'active placebo', placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following interventions will be assessed: amineptine, amitriptyline, amoxapine, butriptyline, cianopramine, clomipramine, desipramine, demexiptiline, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, imipramine, iprindole, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, protriptyline, tianeptine, trimipramine and quinupramine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide-attempts and non-serious adverse events. If feasible, we will assess the intervention effects using random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses.DiscussionTricyclic antidepressants are recommended by clinical guidelines and frequently used worldwide in the treatment of major depressive disorder. There is a need for a thorough systematic review to provide the necessary background for weighing the benefits against the harms. This review will ultimately inform best practice in the treatment of major depressive disorder.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021226161 .
| S-EPMC8361619 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It has been hypothesised that the perception of adverse events in placebo-controlled antidepressant clinical trials may induce patients to conclude that they have been randomized to the active arm of the trial, leading to the breaking of blind. This may enhance the expectancies for improvement and the therapeutic response. The main objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that the efficacy of antidepressants in panic disorder is mediated by the perception of adverse events. The present analysis is based on a systematic review of published and unpublished randomised trials comparing antidepressants with placebo for panic disorder. The Baron and Kenny approach was applied to investigate the mediational role of adverse events in the relationship between antidepressants treatment and efficacy. Fourteen placebo-controlled antidepressants trials were included in the analysis. We found that: (a) antidepressants treatment was significantly associated with better treatment response (ß = 0.127, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.21, p = 0.003); (b) antidepressants treatment was not associated with adverse events (ß = 0.094, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.24, p = 0.221); (c) adverse events were negatively associated with treatment response (ß = 0.035, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.05, p = 0.022). Finally, after adjustment for adverse events, the relationship between antidepressants treatment and treatment response remained statistically significant (ß = 0.122, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.23, p = 0.039). These findings do not support the hypothesis that the perception of adverse events in placebo-controlled antidepressant clinical trials may lead to the breaking of blind and to an artificial inflation of the efficacy measures. Based on these results, we argue that the moderate therapeutic effect of antidepressants in individuals with panic disorder is not an artefact, therefore reflecting a genuine effect that doctors can expect to replicate under real-world conditions.
| S-EPMC5456299 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the short-term efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine in the treatment of panic disorder in adults.MethodsMultiple electronic databases were searched to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on paroxetine and panic disorder. The primary efficacy outcomes were: the mean change compared to the baseline in the total number of full panic attacks, Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score, and the proportion of participants with zero full panic attacks and with a 50% or greater reduction in the number of full panic attacks. The tolerability outcomes included withdrawal rate and the incidence of adverse events (AEs).Results13RCTs were included. The pooled analyses showed patients who received paroxetine experienced greater improvements in the number of full panic attacks (total: MD=-1.96, 95%CI -3.45 to -0.47, P=0.010; ≥50% reduction: OR=1.66, 95%CI 1.08 to 2.55, P=0.02; zero full panic attacks: OR=1.70, 95%CI 1.42 to 2.03, P < 0.00001) and CGI-S (MD=-0.37, 95%CI -0.74 to -0.01, P=0.05) than placebo. There was no evident difference in the total withdrawal rate (OR=0.91, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.08, P=0.26) and withdrawal rate due to AEs (OR=1.29, 95%CI 0.97 to 1.72, P=0.07) between the two groups. Withdrawal rate due to lack of efficacy or relapse (OR=0.44, 95%CI 0.31 to 0.63, P < 0.00001) and the incidence of serious AEs (OR=0.42, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.79, P=0.007) in the paroxetine group was lower than the placebo group. Meanwhile, the incidence of any treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (OR=1.32, 95%CI 1.05 to 1.64, P=0.02) in the paroxetine group was higher in comparison with the placebo.ConclusionsParoxetine is an effective and well-tolerated short-term treatment for adults with panic disorder.
| S-EPMC7136560 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lead is a ubiquitous neurotoxicant, and adverse cognitive and behavioral effects are well-documented in children and occupationally exposed adults but not in adults with low environmental exposure.To investigate the association of current blood lead levels with 3 common psychiatric disorders-major depression, panic, and generalized anxiety-in young adults.Cross-sectional epidemiologic survey.Nationally representative sample of US adults.A total of 1987 adults aged 20 to 39 years who responded to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999-2004).Twelve-month DSM-IV criteria-based diagnoses of major depressive disorder, panic disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder assessed using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview.The mean (SD) blood lead level was 1.61 (1.72) microg/dL (range, 0.3-37.3 microg/dL) (to convert to micromoles per liter, multiply by 0.0483). Increasing blood lead levels were associated with higher odds of major depression (P = .05 for trend) and panic disorder (P = .02 for trend) but not generalized anxiety disorder (P = .78 for trend) after adjustment for sex, age, race/ethnicity, education status, and poverty to income ratio. Persons with blood lead levels in the highest quintile had 2.3 times the odds of major depressive disorder (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-4.75) and 4.9 times the odds of panic disorder (1.32-18.48) as those in the lowest quintile. Cigarette smoking was associated with higher blood lead levels and outcome, but models that excluded current smokers also resulted in significantly increased odds of major depression (P = .03 for trend) and panic disorder (P = .01 for trend) with higher blood lead quintiles.In these young adults with low levels of lead exposure, higher blood lead levels were associated with increased odds of major depression and panic disorders. Exposure to lead at levels generally considered safe could result in adverse mental health outcomes.
| S-EPMC2917196 | biostudies-other
Project description:An Epigenome-Wide Association Study (EWAS) was conducted to compare medication-free panic disorder (PD) patients (n=89) with healthy controls (n=76) in peripheral blood samples.
2018-01-10 | GSE102468 | GEO
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6885044 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMajor depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide. Antidepressants are frequently used to treat major depressive disorder. It has been shown repeatedly that antidepressants seem to reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the clinical importance of the effect sizes seems questionable. Both beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants have not previously been sufficiently assessed. The main objective of this review will be to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, 'active placebo', or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder.Methods/designA systematic review with meta-analysis will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2 (ROB2), our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control for random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases from their inception to the present. Clinical study reports will be obtained from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results of the literature searches, extract data, and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing one or more antidepressants with placebo, 'active placebo', or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following active agents will be included: agomelatine, amineptine, amitriptyline, bupropion, butriptyline, cianopramine, citalopram, clomipramine, dapoxetine, demexiptiline, desipramine, desvenlafaxine, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, iprindole, levomilnacipran, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, paroxetine, protriptyline, quinupramine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, tianeptine, trimipramine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide attempt, suicidal ideation, and non-serious adverse events.DiscussionAs antidepressants are commonly used to treat major depressive disorder in adults, a systematic review evaluating their beneficial and harmful effects is urgently needed. This review will inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent and burdensome disorder.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020220279.
| S-EPMC8152051 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Panic disorder (PD) affects about four million Europeans, with women affected twice as likely as men, causing substantial suffering and high economic costs. The etiopathogenesis of PD remains largely unknown, but both genetic and environmental factors contribute to risk. An epigenome-wide association study (EWAS) was conducted to compare medication-free PD patients (n?=?89) with healthy controls (n?=?76) stratified by gender. Replication was sought in an independent sample (131 cases, 169 controls) and functional analyses were conducted in a third sample (N?=?71). DNA methylation was assessed in whole blood using the Infinium HumanMethylation450 BeadChip. One genome-wide association surviving FDR of 5% (cg07308824, P?=?1.094?×?10-7, P-adj?=?0.046) was identified in female PD patients (N?=?49) compared to controls (N?=?48). The same locus, located in an enhancer region of the HECA gene, was also hypermethylated in female PD patients in the replication sample (P?=?0.035) and the significance of the association improved in the meta-analysis (P-adj?=?0.004). Methylation at this CpG site was associated with HECA mRNA expression in another independent female sample (N?=?71) both at baseline (P?=?0.046) and after induction by dexamethasone (P?=?0.029). Of 15 candidates, 5 previously reported as associated with PD or anxiety traits also showed differences in DNA methylation after gene-wise correction and included SGK1, FHIT, ADCYAP1, HTR1A, HTR2A. Our study examines epigenome-wide differences in peripheral blood for PD patients. Our results point to possible sex-specific methylation changes in the HECA gene for PD but overall highlight that this disorder is not associated with extensive changes in DNA methylation in peripheral blood.
| S-EPMC5802688 | biostudies-other
Project description:Objectives:Previous research on alexithymia has led to controversy over its prevalence in panic disorder. The aim of this study was to assess the difference in the prevalence of alexithymia in panic disorder and other anxiety disorders. Design and Methods:We performed a cross-sectional study on a sample of 71 patients diagnosed with panic disorder and 113 patients diagnosed with other anxiety disorders; both groups were 18-50 years old. Primary outcome was the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS) score. Secondary outcome was the prevalence of alexithymia defined as a TAS score ?61. Results:Patients diagnosed with panic disorder had a 25% higher score on the TAS subscale of difficulty identifying feelings than patients diagnosed with other anxiety disorders. The prevalence of alexithymia was 27% in patients with panic disorder and 13% in patients with other anxiety disorders. Patients diagnosed with panic disorder had significantly higher odds for alexithymia. Conclusions:The results of our study support the hypothesis of higher prevalence of alexithymia in individuals with panic disorder than in individuals with other anxiety disorders. In addition, difficulty identifying feelings as a salient feature of alexithymia is higher in panic disorder than in other anxiety disorders.
| S-EPMC7282461 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A considerable body of evidence suggests the involvement of serotonin neurotransmission in the pathogenesis of panic disorder. Research on pathways and functions of tryptophan, an essential amino acid converted into serotonin, may advance our understanding of serotonergic actions in panic disorder and related phenomena. The investigative approaches in this field include manipulations of tryptophan availability as well as genetic association and functional brain imaging studies. In this review we examine the principle findings of these studies and propose further research directions.
| S-EPMC3195213 | biostudies-literature