Central Neuromodulators in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Why, How, and When.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is responsive to treatments using central neuromodulators. Central neuromodulators work by enhancing the synaptic transmission of 5-hydroxytryptamine, noradrenalin, and dopamine, achieving a slower regulation or desensitization of their postsynaptic receptors. Central neuromodulators act on receptors along the brain-gut axis, so they are useful in treating psychiatric comorbidities, modifying gut motility, improving central downregulation of visceral signals, and enhancing neurogenesis in patients with IBS. Choosing a central neuromodulator for treating IBS should be according to the pharmacological properties and predominant symptoms. The first-line treatment for pain management in IBS is using tricyclic antidepressants. An alternative for pain management is the serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are useful when symptoms of anxiety and hypervigilance are dominant but are not helpful for treating abdominal pain. The predominant bowel habit is helpful when choosing a neuromodulator to treat IBS; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors help constipation, not pain, but may cause diarrhea; tricyclic antidepressants help diarrhea but may cause constipation. A clinical response may occur in 6-8 weeks, but long-term treatment (usually 6-12 months) is required after the initial response to prevent relapse. Augmentation therapy may be beneficial when the therapeutic effect of the first agent is incomplete or associated with side effects. It is recommended to reduce the dose of the first agent and add a second complementary treatment. This may include an atypical antipsychotic or brain-gut behavioral treatment. When tapering central neuromodulators, the dose should be reduced slowly over 4 weeks but may take longer when discontinuation effects occur.

Advancing toward precision migraine treatment: Predicting responses to preventive medications with machine learning models based on patient and migraine features.

OBJECTIVE: To develop machine learning models using patient and migraine features that can predict treatment responses to commonly used migraine preventive medications. BACKGROUND: Currently, there is no accurate way to predict response to migraine preventive medications, and the standard trial-and-error approach is inefficient. METHODS: In this cohort study, we analyzed data from the Mayo Clinic Headache database prospectively collected from 2001 to December 2023. Adult patients with migraine completed questionnaires during their initial headache consultation to record detailed clinical features and then at each follow-up to track preventive medication changes and monthly headache days. We included patients treated with at least one of the following migraine preventive medications: topiramate, beta-blockers (propranolol, metoprolol, atenolol, nadolol, timolol), tricyclic antidepressants (amitriptyline, nortriptyline), verapamil, gabapentin, onabotulinumtoxinA, and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, eptinezumab). We pre-trained a deep neural network, "TabNet," using 145 variables, then employed TabNet-embedded data to construct prediction models for each medication to predict binary outcomes (responder vs. non-responder). A treatment responder was defined as having at least a 30% reduction in monthly headache days from baseline. All model performances were evaluated, and metrics were reported in the held-out test set (train 85%, test 15%). SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were conducted to determine variable importance. RESULTS: Our final analysis included 4260 patients. The responder rate for each medication ranged from 28.7% to 34.9%, and the mean time to treatment outcome for each medication ranged from 151.3 to 209.5 days. The CGRP mAb prediction model achieved a high area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.825 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.726, 0.920) and an accuracy of 0.80 (95% CI 0.70, 0.88). The AUCs of prediction models for beta-blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, topiramate, verapamil, gabapentin, and onabotulinumtoxinA were: 0.664 (95% CI 0.579, 0.745), 0.611 (95% CI 0.562, 0.682), 0.605 (95% CI 0.520, 0.688), 0.673 (95% CI 0.569, 0.724), 0.628 (0.533, 0.661), and 0.581 (95% CI 0.550, 0.632), respectively. Baseline monthly headache days, age, body mass index (BMI), duration of migraine attacks, responses to previous medication trials, cranial autonomic symptoms, family history of headache, and migraine attack triggers were among the most important variables across all models. A variable could have different contributions; for example, lower BMI predicts responsiveness to CGRP mAbs and beta-blockers, while higher BMI predicts responsiveness to onabotulinumtoxinA, topiramate, and gabapentin. CONCLUSION: We developed an accurate prediction model for CGRP mAbs treatment response, leveraging detailed migraine features gathered from a headache questionnaire before starting treatment. Employing the same methods, the model performances for other medications were less impressive, though similar to the machine learning models reported in the literature for other diseases. This may be due to CGRP mAbs being migraine-specific. Incorporating medical comorbidities, genomic, and imaging factors might enhance the model performance. We demonstrated that migraine characteristics are important in predicting treatment responses and identified the most crucial predictors for each of the seven types of preventive medications. Our results suggest that precision migraine treatment is feasible.

Antidepressant deprescribing: State of the art and recommendations-A literature overview.

INTRODUCTION: In recent years, the consumption of antidepressants has arisen. However, deprescribing antidepressant therapy is very complicated. The aim of this study was to implement practical recommendations for the development of guidelines to be used for antidepressant deprescription in clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The literature search has been conducted on March 13, 2023, using Scopus and PubMed databases. The following search string has been used: "antidepressants AND (deprescribing OR deprescription)". All studies reporting a deprescribing intervention for antidepressant medication, regardless of the study design, have been included. Studies that did not report antidepressant drug deprescription interventions and non-English-language papers have been excluded. RESULTS: From the literature search, a total of 230 articles have been extracted. Applying the exclusion criteria, 26 articles have been considered eligible. Most of the analyzed studies (16, 61%) have been carried out in the real world, 3 (11%) were RCTs, 5 (19%) were qualitative studies, in particular expert opinions, 1 (4%) was a literature review, and 1 (4%) was a post-trial observational follow-up of an RCT. In 8 out of 26 studies (31%), the analyzed antidepressants have been specified: 2 (8%) focused on anticholinergics, 2 (8%) on SSRIs, 3 (11%) on tricyclic antidepressants, and 1 (4%) on esketamine. Nineteen out of 26 studies (73%) did not stratify antidepressants by therapeutic class. The sample sizes analyzed in the studies ranged from a minimum of 4 patients to a maximum of 113,909, and 12 studies included geriatric age as an inclusion criterion. A patient's therapy review has been the main deprescribing intervention, and it has been identified in 14 (54%) articles. Interventions have been carried out by clinicians in 4 (15%) studies, general practitioners in 5 (19%) studies, nurses in 2 (8%) studies, pharmacists in 4 (15%) studies, multidisciplinary teams in 10 (38%) studies, and patients in 1 (4%) study. CONCLUSIONS: From the literature review, it emerged that there is no clear evidence useful to support clinicians in antidepressant deprescribing interventions.

Evaluation of tricyclic antidepressant deprescribing in the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy within federally qualified health centers.

BACKGROUND: Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) are a treatment option for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). Existing evidence demonstrates the prolonged use of TCA therapy increases the risk of cognitive decline and dementia, likely due to the anticholinergic effects of these medications. Anticholinergic activity is thought to contribute significantly to the observed increase in cognitive decline and dementia risks associated with long-term TCA use. There is little information available to describe the usage patterns of TCAs in DPN, particularly within underserved populations who receive care at federally qualified health centers. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to characterize (1) prescribing patterns of TCAs as a treatment for DPN and (2) evidence of deprescribing attempts in an FQHC population. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of electronic medical record data for patients at 2 different FQHCs was performed. A convenience sample of 100 adults ≥ 18 years of age was stratified into 2 age groups, 18-55 years and 55+ years. All patients had a diagnosis of type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus and had been prescribed TCAs in the previous 4 years and had a visit with a primary care provider in the past 12 months. RESULTS: The study population was comprised of 100 individuals. Seventy-four of 100 were persistent users of TCAs at the time of data collection, and the mean duration of utilization was 54.8 months. In total, 104 TCAs were prescribed across 100 individual patients. Of all 104 prescribed TCAs, 66 (63%) were prescribed at a rate that exceeded thresholds associated with a higher risk of dementia. Black older adults prescribed TCAs were more likely to exceed this dose threshold. CONCLUSION: Sixty-five percent of patients used TCAs with a strength, frequency, and duration that exceeded risk thresholds for dementia in an older adult population. Interventions preventing use of or deprescribing TCAs in patients with DPN should be conducted for the potential benefits of preventing or delaying cognitive impairment and promoting equitable care.

An Overview of Degradation Strategies for Amitriptyline.

Antidepressant drugs play a crucial role in the treatment of mental health disorders, but their efficacy and safety can be compromised by drug degradation. Recent reports point to several drugs found in concentrations ranging from the limit of detection (LOD) to hundreds of ng/L in wastewater plants around the globe; hence, antidepressants can be considered emerging pollutants with potential consequences for human health and wellbeing. Understanding and implementing effective degradation strategies are essential not only to ensure the stability and potency of these medications but also for their safe disposal in line with current environment remediation goals. This review provides an overview of degradation pathways for amitriptyline, a typical tricyclic antidepressant drug, by exploring chemical routes such as oxidation, hydrolysis, and photodegradation. Connex issues such as stability-enhancing approaches through formulation and packaging considerations, regulatory guidelines, and quality control measures are also briefly noted. Specific case studies of amitriptyline degradation pathways forecast the future perspectives and challenges in this field, helping researchers and pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide guidelines for the most effective degradation pathways employed for minimal environmental impact.

Acupuncture versus tricyclic antidepressants in the prophylactic treatment of tension-type headaches: an indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acupuncture showed better improvement than sham acupuncture in reducing attack frequency of tension-type headache (TTH), but its effectiveness relative to first-line drugs for TTH is unknown, which impedes the recommendation of acupuncture for patients who are intolerant to drugs for TTH. We aimed to estimate the relative effectiveness between acupuncture and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) through indirect treatment comparison (ITC) meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library from database inception until April 13, 2023. Randomized controlled trials of TCAs or acupuncture in the prevention of TTH in adults were included. The primary outcome was headache frequency. The secondary outcomes were headache intensity, responder rate, and adverse event rate. Bayesian random-effect models were used to perform ITC meta-analysis, and confidence of evidence was evaluated by using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: A total of 34 trials involving 4426 participants were included. Acupuncture had similar effect with TCAs in decreasing TTH frequency (amitriptyline: mean difference [MD] -1.29, 95% CI -5.28 to 3.02; amitriptylinoxide: MD -0.05, 95% CI -6.86 to 7.06) and reducing TTH intensity (amitriptyline: MD 2.35, 95% CI -1.20 to 5.78; clomipramine: MD 1.83, 95% CI -4.23 to 8.20). Amitriptyline had a higher rate of adverse events than acupuncture (OR 4.73, 95% CI 1.42 to 14.23). CONCLUSION: Acupuncture had similar effect as TCAs in reducing headache frequency of TTH, and acupuncture had a lower adverse events rate than amitriptyline, as shown by very low certainty of evidence.

Low concentrations of tricyclic antidepressants stimulate TRPC4 channel activity by acting as an opioid receptor ligand.

Traditionally prescribed for mood disorders, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) have shown promising therapeutic effects on chronic neuralgia and irritable bowel syndrome. However, the mechanism by which these atypical effects manifest is unclear. Among the proposed mechanisms is the well-known pain-related inhibitory G-protein coupled receptor, namely the opioid receptor (OR). Here, we confirmed that TCA indeed stimulates OR and regulates the gating of TRPC4, a downstream signaling of the Gi-pathway. In an ELISA to quantify the amount of intracellular cAMP, a downstream product of OR/Gi-pathway, treatment with amitriptyline (AMI) showed a decrease in [cAMP]i similar to that of the µOR agonist. Next, we explored the binding site of TCA by modeling the previously revealed ligand-bound structure of µOR. A conserved aspartate residue of ORs was predicted to participate in salt bridge interaction with the amine group of TCAs, and in aspartate-to-arginine mutation, AMI did not decrease the FRET-based binding efficiency between the ORs and Gαi2. As an alternative way to monitor the downstream signaling of Gi-pathway, we evaluated the functional activity of TRPC4 channel, as it is well known to be activated by Gαi. TCAs increased the TRPC4 current through ORs, and TCA-evoked TRPC4 activation was abolished by an inhibitor of Gαi2 or its dominant-negative mutant. As expected, TCA-evoked activation of TRPC4 was not observed in the aspartate mutants of OR. Taken together, OR could be proclaimed as a promising target among numerous binding partners of TCA, and TCA-evoked TRPC4 activation may help to explain the nonopioid analgesic effect of TCA.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Endogenous opioid systems modulate pain perception, but concerns about opioid-related substance misuse limit their use. This study has raised TRPC4 channel as a candidate target for alternative analgesics, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). TCAs have been shown to bind to and activate opioid receptors (ORs), leading to downstream signaling pathways involving TRPC4. The functional selectivity and biased agonism of TCA towards TRPC4 in dependence on OR may provide a better understanding of its efficacy or side effects.

AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on the Pharmacological Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Diarrhea.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common functional gastrointestinal disorder associated with significant disease burden. This American Gastroenterological Association Guideline is intended to support practitioners in decisions about the use of medications for the pharmacological management of IBS with predominant diarrhea (IBS-D) and is an update of a prior technical review and guideline. METHODS: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. The technical review panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients and conducted an evidence review of the following agents: eluxadoline, rifaximin, alosetron, loperamide, tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and antispasmodics. The guideline panel reviewed the evidence and used the Evidence-to-Decision Framework to develop recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The panel agreed on 8 recommendations for the management of patients with IBS-D. The panel made conditional recommendations for eluxadoline, rifaximin, alosetron, (moderate certainty), loperamide (very low certainty), tricyclic antidepressants, and anstispasmodics (low certainty). The panel made a conditional recommendation against the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (low certainty).

AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on the Pharmacological Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Constipation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common disorder of gut-brain interaction associated with significant disease burden. This American Gastroenterological Association guideline is intended to support practitioners in decisions about the use of medications for the pharmacological management of IBS-C and is an update of a prior technical review and guideline. METHODS: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. The technical review panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients and conducted an evidence review of the following agents: tenapanor, plecanatide, linaclotide, tegaserod, lubiprostone, polyethylene glycol laxatives, tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and antispasmodics. The Guideline Panel reviewed the evidence and used the Evidence-to-Decision Framework to develop recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The panel agreed on 9 recommendations for the management of patients with IBS-C. The panel made a strong recommendation for linaclotide (high certainty) and conditional recommendations for tenapanor, plecanatide, tegaserod, and lubiprostone (moderate certainty), polyethylene glycol laxatives, tricyclic antidepressants, and antispasmodics (low certainty). The panel made a conditional recommendation against the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (low certainty).

Pharmacological treatments in panic disorder in adults: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset and reaches a peak within 10 minutes. The main symptoms involve bodily systems, such as racing heart, chest pain, sweating, shaking, dizziness, flushing, churning stomach, faintness and breathlessness. Other recognised panic attack symptoms involve fearful cognitions, such as the fear of collapse, going mad or dying, and derealisation (the sensation that the world is unreal). Panic disorder is common in the general population with a prevalence of 1% to 4%. The treatment of panic disorder includes psychological and pharmacological interventions, including antidepressants and benzodiazepines. OBJECTIVES: To compare, via network meta-analysis, individual drugs (antidepressants and benzodiazepines) or placebo in terms of efficacy and acceptability in the acute treatment of panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. To rank individual active drugs for panic disorder (antidepressants, benzodiazepines and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To rank drug classes for panic disorder (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), mono-amine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and benzodiazepines (BDZs) and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To explore heterogeneity and inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence in a network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, CENTRAL, CDSR, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and PsycINFO to 26 May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people aged 18 years or older of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. We included trials that compared the effectiveness of antidepressants and benzodiazepines with each other or with a placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data and continuous data as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD): response to treatment (i.e. substantial improvement from baseline as defined by the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), total number of dropouts due to any reason (as a proxy measure of treatment acceptability: dichotomous outcome), remission (i.e. satisfactory end state as defined by global judgement of the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), panic symptom scales and global judgement (continuous outcome), frequency of panic attacks (as recorded, for example, by a panic diary; continuous outcome), agoraphobia (dichotomous outcome). We assessed the certainty of evidence using threshold analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we included 70 trials in this review. Sample sizes ranged between 5 and 445 participants in each arm, and the total sample size per study ranged from 10 to 1168. Thirty-five studies included sample sizes of over 100 participants. There is evidence from 48 RCTs (N = 10,118) that most medications are more effective in the response outcome than placebo. In particular, diazepam, alprazolam, clonazepam, paroxetine, venlafaxine, clomipramine, fluoxetine and adinazolam showed the strongest effect, with diazepam, alprazolam and clonazepam ranking as the most effective. We found heterogeneity in most of the comparisons, but our threshold analyses suggest that this is unlikely to impact the findings of the network meta-analysis. Results from 64 RCTs (N = 12,310) suggest that most medications are associated with either a reduced or similar risk of dropouts to placebo. Alprazolam and diazepam were associated with a lower dropout rate compared to placebo and were ranked as the most tolerated of all the medications examined. Thirty-two RCTs (N = 8569) were included in the remission outcome. Most medications were more effective than placebo, namely desipramine, fluoxetine, clonazepam, diazepam, fluvoxamine, imipramine, venlafaxine and paroxetine, and their effects were clinically meaningful. Amongst these medications, desipramine and alprazolam were ranked highest. Thirty-five RCTs (N = 8826) are included in the continuous outcome reduction in panic scale scores. Brofaromine, clonazepam and reboxetine had the strongest reductions in panic symptoms compared to placebo, but results were based on either one trial or very small trials. Forty-one RCTs (N = 7853) are included in the frequency of panic attack outcome. Only clonazepam and alprazolam showed a strong reduction in the frequency of panic attacks compared to placebo, and were ranked highest. Twenty-six RCTs (N = 7044) provided data for agoraphobia. The strongest reductions in agoraphobia symptoms were found for citalopram, reboxetine, escitalopram, clomipramine and diazepam, compared to placebo. For the pooled intervention classes, we examined the two primary outcomes (response and dropout). The classes of medication were: SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs. For the response outcome, all classes of medications examined were more effective than placebo. TCAs as a class ranked as the most effective, followed by BDZs and MAOIs. SSRIs as a class ranked fifth on average, while SNRIs were ranked lowest. When we compared classes of medication with each other for the response outcome, we found no difference between classes. Comparisons between MAOIs and TCAs and between BDZs and TCAs also suggested no differences between these medications, but the results were imprecise. For the dropout outcome, BDZs were the only class associated with a lower dropout compared to placebo and were ranked first in terms of tolerability. The other classes did not show any difference in dropouts compared to placebo. In terms of ranking, TCAs are on average second to BDZs, followed by SNRIs, then by SSRIs and lastly by MAOIs. BDZs were associated with lower dropout rates compared to SSRIs, SNRIs and TCAs. The quality of the studies comparing antidepressants with placebo was moderate, while the quality of the studies comparing BDZs with placebo and antidepressants was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In terms of efficacy, SSRIs, SNRIs (venlafaxine), TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs may be effective, with little difference between classes. However, it is important to note that the reliability of these findings may be limited due to the overall low quality of the studies, with all having unclear or high risk of bias across multiple domains. Within classes, some differences emerged. For example, amongst the SSRIs paroxetine and fluoxetine seem to have stronger evidence of efficacy than sertraline. Benzodiazepines appear to have a small but significant advantage in terms of tolerability (incidence of dropouts) over other classes.

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anticancer treatment, suicide risk and possibly the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants in this population are few and often report conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (aged 18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage). SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants, in adults (aged 18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. efficacy as a continuous outcome. Our secondary outcomes were 2. efficacy as a dichotomous outcome, 3. Social adjustment, 4. health-related quality of life and 5. dropouts. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 studies (1364 participants), 10 of which contributed to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Six of these compared antidepressants and placebo, three compared two antidepressants, and one three-armed study compared two antidepressants and placebo. In this update, we included four additional studies, three of which contributed data for the primary outcome. For acute-phase treatment response (six to 12 weeks), antidepressants may reduce depressive symptoms when compared with placebo, even though the evidence is very uncertain. This was true when depressive symptoms were measured as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to -0.12; 7 studies, 511 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and when measured as a proportion of people who had depression at the end of the study (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.96; 5 studies, 662 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported data on follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons, we retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and for mirtazapine versus TCAs. There was no difference between the various classes of antidepressants (continuous outcome: SSRI versus TCA: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18; 3 studies, 237 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mirtazapine versus TCA: SMD -4.80, 95% CI -9.70 to 0.10; 1 study, 25 participants). There was a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants versus placebo for the secondary efficacy outcomes (continuous outcome, response at one to four weeks; very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences for these outcomes when comparing two different classes of antidepressants, even though the evidence was very uncertain. In terms of dropouts due to any cause, we found no difference between antidepressants compared with placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; 9 studies, 889 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and between SSRIs and TCAs (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.22; 3 studies, 237 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of the heterogeneous quality of the studies, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, the available studies were few and of low quality. This review found a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants against placebo in depressed participants with cancer. However, the certainty of evidence is very low and, on the basis of these results, it is difficult to draw clear implications for practice. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which drug to prescribe may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of people with major depression, also taking into account that data on people with other serious medical conditions suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. Furthermore, this update shows that the usage of the newly US Food and Drug Administration-approved antidepressant esketamine in its intravenous formulation might represent a potential treatment for this specific population of people, since it can be used both as an anaesthetic and an antidepressant. However, data are too inconclusive and further studies are needed. We conclude that to better inform clinical practice, there is an urgent need for large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer who have depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder.

Therapeutic Strategies for Postherpetic Neuralgia: Mechanisms, Treatments, and Perspectives.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Postherpetic neuralgia is an annoying pain that mainly affects older people. In order to give patients more options, this review summarizes the pharmacological and interventional treatments for postherpetic neuralgia and updates the research on the efficacy, thereby providing doctors with more treatment options. The adverse effects and effective doses of its various treatments are also presented so that the therapy can be prescribed according to their concrete physical conditions. In a word, this review is dedicated to providing a comprehensive overview of the treatment options for postherpetic neuralgia and offering patients more choices. RECENT FINDINGS: Combinational therapy is more excellent than monotherapy. The local anesthesia and gabapentin comprised outstanding compatibility. In addition, two therapeutic tools for PHN patients, especially for the intractable ones, electroacupuncture (EA), and osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), show their efficacy and become potential options to alleviate pain. In terms of treatment, guidelines recommend patients use tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), gabapentin, pregabalin, and 5% lidocaine patches as the first-line medications, and gabapentin is investigated most, especially the gabapentin enacarbil (GEn). And drug efficacy can be limited by adverse effects and tolerated doses. Interventional treatments, with their invasiveness and operational difficulty, are usually considered for intractable patients. Combinational therapies may be used when a single therapy cannot achieve the desired effect. Therapies such as OMT and EA have also been proposed to palliate pain in some cases, and future directions of treatment may be investigated in Chinese medicine and acupuncture.

Treatments of chronic fatigue syndrome and its debilitating comorbidities: a 12-year population-based study.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to provide 12-year nationwide epidemiology data to investigate the epidemiology and comorbidities of and therapeutic options for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) by analyzing the National Health Insurance Research Database. METHODS: 6306 patients identified as having CFS during the 2000-2012 period and 6306 controls (with similar distributions of age and sex) were analyzed. RESULT: The patients with CFS were predominantly female and aged 35-64 years in Taiwan and presented a higher proportion of depression, anxiety disorder, insomnia, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, renal disease, type 2 diabetes, gout, dyslipidemia, rheumatoid arthritis, Sjogren syndrome, and herpes zoster. The use of selective serotonin receptor inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), Serotonin antagonist and reuptake inhibitors (SARIs), Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), benzodiazepine (BZD), Norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitors (NDRIs), muscle relaxants, analgesic drugs, psychotherapies, and exercise therapies was prescribed significantly more frequently in the CFS cohort than in the control group. CONCLUSION: This large national study shared the mainstream therapies of CFS in Taiwan, we noticed these treatments reported effective to relieve symptoms in previous studies. Furthermore, our findings indicate that clinicians should have a heightened awareness of the comorbidities of CFS, especially in psychiatric problems.

Discontinuation of antidepressants after remission with antidepressant medication in major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

A significant clinical issue encountered after a successful acute major depressive disorder (MDD) treatment is the relapse of depressive symptoms. Although continuing maintenance therapy with antidepressants is generally recommended, there is no established protocol on whether or not it is necessary to prescribe the antidepressant used to achieve remission. In this meta-analysis, the risk of relapse and treatment failure when either continuing with the same drug used to achieved remission or switching to a placebo was assessed in several clinically significant subgroups. The pooled odds ratio (OR) (±95% confidence intervals (CI)) was calculated using a random effects model. Across 40 studies (n = 8890), the relapse rate was significantly lower in the antidepressant group than the placebo group by about 20% (OR = 0.38, CI: 0.33-0.43, p < 0.00001; 20.9% vs 39.7%). The difference in the relapse rate between the antidepressant and placebo groups was greater for tricyclics (25.3%; OR = 0.30, CI: 0.17-0.50, p < 0.00001), SSRIs (21.8%; OR = 0.33, CI: 0.28-0.38, p < 0.00001), and other newer agents (16.0%; OR = 0.44, CI: 0.36-0.54, p < 0.00001) in that order, while the effect size of acceptability was greater for SSRIs than for other antidepressants. A flexible dose schedule (OR = 0.30, CI: 0.23-0.48, p < 0.00001) had a greater effect size than a fixed dose (OR = 0.41, CI: 0.36-0.48, p < 0.00001) in comparison to placebo. Even in studies assigned after continuous treatment for more than 6 months after remission, the continued use of antidepressants had a lower relapse rate than the use of a placebo (OR = 0.40, CI: 0.29-0.55, p < 0.00001; 20.2% vs 37.2%). The difference in relapse rate was similar from a maintenance period of 6 months (OR = 0.41, CI: 0.35-0.48, p < 0.00001; 19.6% vs 37.6%) to over 1 year (OR = 0.35, CI: 0.29-0.41, p < 0.00001; 19.9% vs 39.8%). The all-cause dropout of antidepressant and placebo groups was 43% and 58%, respectively, (OR = 0.47, CI: 0.40-0.55, p < 0.00001). The tolerability rate was ~4% for both groups. The rate of relapse (OR = 0.32, CI: 0.18-0.64, p = 0.0010, 41.0% vs 66.7%) and all-cause dropout among adolescents was higher than in adults. To prevent relapse and treatment failure, maintenance therapy, and careful attention for at least 6 months after remission is recommended. SSRIs are well-balanced agents, and flexible dose adjustments are more effective for relapse prevention.

The Effects of Pain and Analgesic Medications on Blood Pressure.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the blood pressure (BP) effects of pain and analgesic medications and to help interpret BP changes in people suffering from acute or chronic pain. RECENT FINDINGS: Acute pain evokes a stress response which prompts a transient BP increase. Chronic pain is associated with impaired regulation of cardiovascular and analgesia systems, which may predispose to persistent BP elevation. Also analgesics may have BP effects, which vary according to the drug class considered. Data on paracetamol are controversial, while multiple studies indicate that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may increase BP, with celecoxib showing a lesser impact. Hypotension has been reported with opioid drugs. Among adjuvants, tricyclic antidepressants and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors could be pro-hypertensive due to potentiation of adrenergic transmission. Pain and analgesics may induce a clinically significant BP destabilization. The implications on hypertension incidence and BP control remain unclear and should be explored in future studies.

Pharmacovigilance in hospice/palliative care: Net effect of amitriptyline or nortriptyline on neuropathic pain: UTS/IMPACCT Rapid programme international consecutive cohort.

BACKGROUND: Real-world effectiveness of interventions in palliative care need to be systematically quantified to inform patient/clinical decisions. Neuropathic pain is prevalent and difficult to palliate. Tricyclic antidepressants have an established role for some neuropathic pain aetiologies, but this is less clear in palliative care. AIM: To describe the real-world use and outcomes from amitriptyline or nortriptyline for neuropathic pain in palliative care. DESIGN: An international, prospective, consecutive cohort post-marketing/phase IV/pharmacovigilance/quality improvement study of palliative care patients with neuropathic pain where the treating clinician had already made the decision to use a tricyclic antidepressant. Data were entered at set times: baseline, and days 7 and 14. Likert scales graded benefits and harms. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one sites (inpatient, outpatient, community) participated in six countries between June 2016 and March 2019. Patients had clinician-diagnosed neuropathic pain. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty patients were prescribed amitriptyline (110) or nortriptyline (40) of whom: 85% had cancer; mean age 73.2 years (SD 12.3); mean 0-4 scores for neuropathic pain at baseline were 1.8 (SD 1.0). By day 14, doses of amitriptyline were 57 mg (SD 21) and nortriptyline (48 mg (SD 21). Fifty-two (34.7%) patients had pain improvement by day 14 (amitriptyline (45/110 (43.3%); nortriptyline (7/40 (18.9%)). Thirty-nine (27.7%) had new harms; (amitriptyline 29/104 (27.9%); nortriptyline 10/37 (27.0%); dizziness (n = 23), dry mouth (n = 20), constipation (n = 14), urinary retention (n = 10)). Benefits without harms occurred (amitriptyline (26/104 (25.0%); nortriptyline (4/37 (10.8%)). CONCLUSIONS: Benefits favoured amitriptyline while harms were similar for both medications.

Pharmacotherapy for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent and disabling disorder. Evidence that PTSD is characterised by specific psychobiological dysfunctions has contributed to a growing interest in the use of medication in its treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of medication for reducing PTSD symptoms in adults with PTSD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 11, November 2020); MEDLINE (1946-), Embase (1974-), PsycINFO (1967-) and PTSDPubs (all available years) either directly or via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR). We also searched international trial registers. The date of the latest search was 13 November 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacotherapy for adults with PTSD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors (TW, JI, and NP) independently assessed RCTs for inclusion in the review, collated trial data, and assessed trial quality. We contacted investigators to obtain missing data. We stratified summary statistics by medication class, and by medication agent for all medications. We calculated dichotomous and continuous measures using a random-effects model, and assessed heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We include 66 RCTs in the review (range: 13 days to 28 weeks; 7442 participants; age range 18 to 85 years) and 54 in the meta-analysis.  For the primary outcome of treatment response, we found evidence of beneficial effect for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.74; 8 studies, 1078 participants), which improved PTSD symptoms in 58% of SSRI participants compared with 35% of placebo participants, based on moderate-certainty evidence.  For this outcome we also found evidence of beneficial effect for the noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant (NaSSA) mirtazapine: (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.94; 1 study, 26 participants) in 65% of people on mirtazapine compared with 22% of placebo participants, and for the tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) amitriptyline (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.96; 1 study, 40 participants) in 50% of amitriptyline participants compared with 17% of placebo participants, which improved PTSD symptoms. These outcomes are based on low-certainty evidence. There was however no evidence of beneficial effect for the number of participants who improved with the antipsychotics (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.67; 2 studies, 43 participants) compared to placebo, based on very low-certainty evidence. For the outcome of treatment withdrawal, we found evidence of a harm for the individual SSRI agents compared with placebo (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.87; 14 studies, 2399 participants). Withdrawals were also higher for the separate SSRI paroxetine group compared to the placebo group (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.29; 5 studies, 1101 participants). Nonetheless, the absolute proportion of individuals dropping out from treatment due to adverse events in the SSRI groups was low (9%), based on moderate-certainty evidence. For the rest of the medications compared to placebo, we did not find evidence of harm for individuals dropping out from treatment due to adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review support the conclusion that SSRIs improve PTSD symptoms; they are first-line agents for the pharmacotherapy of PTSD, based on moderate-certainty evidence. The NaSSA mirtazapine and the TCA amitriptyline may also improve PTSD symptoms, but this is based on low-certainty evidence. In addition, we found no evidence of benefit for the number of participants who improved following treatment with the antipsychotic group compared to placebo, based on very low-certainty evidence. There remain important gaps in the evidence base, and a continued need for more effective agents in the management of PTSD.

Treatment modalities in brachioradial pruritis: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Brachioradial pruritis is a rare dysesthesia syndrome that is known to negatively impact quality of life. No consensus exists regarding optimal treatment strategies. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Collaboration Clinical Trials Registry from 1966 to 2021 for studies using the title word "brachioradial pruritis" with no language restriction. One author (A.Z.) screened and performed full article reviews of all randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, case reports, and case series describing treatment outcomes among patients with brachioradial pruritis. RESULTS: We identified 239 potential articles with a final set of 45 articles meeting inclusion criteria. Only a single randomized clinical trial was identified, finding no significant benefit of topical capsaicin cream. Treatment modalities with the greatest number of reported successful therapeutic trials include gabapentin and tricyclic antidepressants. In patients with confirmed cervical spine disease, spine-directed therapies such as epidural injections were found to be beneficial. Case reports and small case series describing less-common treatments were also identified. DISCUSSION: The literature is overall limited with the greatest support for gabapentin, pregabalin, tricyclic antidepressants, and spine-directed therapies in appropriate patients with brachioradial pruritis. Future randomized clinical trials are needed to compare the relative effectiveness of available treatments.

Tricyclic antidepressants and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors but not anticonvulsants ameliorate pain, anxiety, and depression symptoms in an animal model of central post-stroke pain.

BACKGROUND: Central post-stroke pain (CPSP) is a type of neuropathic pain caused by dysfunction in the spinothalamocortical pathway. However, no animal studies have examined comorbid anxiety and depression symptoms. Whether the typical pharmacological treatments for CPSP, which include antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and anticonvulsants, can treat comorbid anxiety and depression symptoms in addition to pain remains unclear? The present study ablated the ventrobasal complex of the thalamus (VBC) to cause various CPSP symptoms. The effects of the tricyclic antidepressants amitriptyline and imipramine, the SSRI fluoxetine, and the anticonvulsant carbamazepine on pain, anxiety, and depression were examined. RESULTS: The results showed that VBC lesions induced sensitivity to thermal pain, measured using a hot water bath; mechanical pain, assessed by von Frey test; anxiety behavior, determined by the open-field test, elevated plus-maze test, and zero-maze test; and depression behavior, assessed by the forced swim test. No effect on motor activity in the open-field test was observed. Amitriptyline reduced thermal and mechanical pain sensitivity and anxiety but not depression. Imipramine suppressed thermal and mechanical pain sensitivity, anxiety, and depression. Fluoxetine blocked mechanical but not thermal pain sensitivity, anxiety, and depression. However, carbamazepine did not affect pain, anxiety, or depression. CONCLUSION: In summary, antidepressants and SSRIs but not anticonvulsants can effectively ameliorate pain and comorbid anxiety and depression in CPSP. The present findings, including discrepancies in the effects observed following treatment with anticonvulsants, antidepressants, and SSRIs in this CPSP animal model, can be applied in the clinical setting to guide the pharmacological treatment of CPSP symptoms.

Understanding the migraine treatment landscape prior to the introduction of calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitors: Results from the Assessment of TolerabiliTy and Effectiveness in MigrAINe Patients using Preventive Treatment (ATTAIN) study.

BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors were introduced in the United States (US) in 2018. To understand the changing patterns of preventive treatment following the introduction of these new agents, we must first characterize the patterns which preceded their introduction. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the burden, unmet need, and treatment patterns in patients with migraine initiating preventive migraine medications before the introduction of CGRP inhibitors in the US. METHODS: Between March 2016 and October 2017, we enrolled episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) patients initiating or changing preventive treatment at primary care or neurology clinic visits in the US, in a real-world observational study using a prospective cohort design. At baseline and monthly thereafter for 6 months, we collected data from study sites and patients on migraine frequency, treatment modifications, migraine impact on functioning, and work productivity for a descriptive analysis of migraine patient experience and treatment patterns. RESULTS: From the sample of 234 completers, 118 had EM (50.4%) and 116 had CM (49.6%). Mean age at enrollment was 41 years (SD = 12) and mean age at first migraine diagnosis was 22 years (SD = 11). Most participants were females (n = 204/234; 87.2%) and white (n = 178/234; 76.1%). The majority (n = 164/234; 70.1%) had not used preventive migraine treatment in the 5 years prior to enrollment (treatment naïve). At baseline, mean monthly migraine days were 9.6 days (SD = 5.0) for the preventive treatment naïve group and 12.4 days (SD = 7.0) for treatment experienced patients. The majority had severe Migraine Disability Assessment (Grade IV, total score ≥21), including 67.1% (n = 110/164) of the preventive treatment naïve and 77.1% (n = 54/70) of the preventive treatment experienced patients. Headache Impact Test total scores indicating severe impairment (score >59) occurred in 88.4% (n = 145/164) of the treatment naïve and 88.6% (n = 62/70) of treatment experienced patients. Mean work productivity loss as measured by the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire in the subsample of employed patients was 53.3% loss. The most used acute medications at baseline were nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (n = 124/234; 53.0%), acetaminophen-based products (n = 112/234; 47.9%), and triptans (n = 105/234; 44.9%). The most commonly initiated preventive treatments were topiramate (n = 100/234; 42.7%), tricyclic antidepressants (n = 39/234; 16.7%), beta-blockers (n = 26/234; 11.1%), and onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 24/234; 10.3%). Over the 6-month follow-up period, almost half of patients (n = 116/234, 49.6%) modified their preventive treatment and discontinued treatment (n = 88/312 total modifications; 28.2%) or modified their pattern of use by increasing, decreasing, or skipping doses (n = 224/312 total modifications; 71.8%), often without seeking medical advice. Avoiding side effects was the main reason reported among patients who discontinued (n = 52/88; 59.1%), decreased frequency or dose (n = 37/89; 41.6%), and skipped doses (n = 29/86; 33.7%). Perceived lack of efficacy was another frequent reason reported among those who discontinued (n = 20/88; 22.7%), decreased frequency or dose (n = 15/89; 16.9%), and skipped doses (n = 18/86; 20.9%). Despite initiation of preventive treatment and improvements observed in number of headache and migraine days, migraine patients continued to experience substantial disability, headache impact, and reduced productivity throughout the 6-month follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to 2018, the burden of migraine was high for patients initiating preventive treatments. Despite having more than 9 days of migraine per month on average, the majority (70.1%) of patients initiating prevention had been treatment naïve, indicating underuse of preventive treatments. The preventive treatments used in this study were poorly tolerated and were reported by patients to lack efficacy, resulting in suboptimal adherence. The high discontinuation rates suggest that the preventive medications being offered during the period of the study did not meet the treatment needs of patients. In addition, the decisions by about half of patients to alter their prescribed treatment plan without consulting their provider can pose substantial health risks. These findings pertain to the broad set of preventive treatments initiated in this study and do not support inferences about individual preventive treatments, due to limitations in sample size. These findings suggest the need for more effective and better tolerated preventive treatment options.