Comparative efficacy and acceptability of anxiolytic drugs for the treatment of anxiety disorders: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Options
BORIS DOI
Publisher DOI
PubMed ID
40788541
Description
Background
Anti-anxiety medications' side effects and dependency risks necessitate thorough consideration of their efficacy and acceptability when making treatment decisions.Methods
A systematic review and Network Meta-Analysis (NMA) was conducted using three databases from 1980 to 2020, focusing on adults diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) or any relevant diagnostic classification of anxiety disorder or those for whom Hamilton Anxiety (HAM-A) data is available, and including any comparator (placebo and/or active comparator treatments). The primary outcomes were efficacy (mean difference in change from baseline in HAM-A total score) and acceptability (study discontinuations for any cause). This study is registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) database.Findings
Analysis of 100 trials involving 28,637 participants showed that most active drugs were more effective than placebo in reducing anxiety. Notably, silexan was the only phytopharmaceutical included in the NMA. Clomipramine had the highest efficacy and vortioxetine the least. However, in terms of acceptability, clomipramine led to the most study discontinuations, while clobazam had the lowest discontinuation rate, indicating that efficacy and acceptability do not always align. Notably, silexan was both highly effective and as acceptable as a placebo. Only four treatments showed fewer adverse events than placebo (diazepam, agomelatine, clobazam, and silexan).Conclusion
This network meta-analysis provides a unique comparison of the efficacy and acceptability of anxiolytics. It represents one of the most comprehensive evidence bases available to guide the first choice of treatment for anxiety disorders in adults.
Anti-anxiety medications' side effects and dependency risks necessitate thorough consideration of their efficacy and acceptability when making treatment decisions.Methods
A systematic review and Network Meta-Analysis (NMA) was conducted using three databases from 1980 to 2020, focusing on adults diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) or any relevant diagnostic classification of anxiety disorder or those for whom Hamilton Anxiety (HAM-A) data is available, and including any comparator (placebo and/or active comparator treatments). The primary outcomes were efficacy (mean difference in change from baseline in HAM-A total score) and acceptability (study discontinuations for any cause). This study is registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) database.Findings
Analysis of 100 trials involving 28,637 participants showed that most active drugs were more effective than placebo in reducing anxiety. Notably, silexan was the only phytopharmaceutical included in the NMA. Clomipramine had the highest efficacy and vortioxetine the least. However, in terms of acceptability, clomipramine led to the most study discontinuations, while clobazam had the lowest discontinuation rate, indicating that efficacy and acceptability do not always align. Notably, silexan was both highly effective and as acceptable as a placebo. Only four treatments showed fewer adverse events than placebo (diazepam, agomelatine, clobazam, and silexan).Conclusion
This network meta-analysis provides a unique comparison of the efficacy and acceptability of anxiolytics. It represents one of the most comprehensive evidence bases available to guide the first choice of treatment for anxiety disorders in adults.
Date of Publication
2025-08-11
Publication Type
Article
Keyword(s)
Anxiety disorders
•
GAD
•
Generalized anxiety disorder
•
Network meta-analysis
•
Silexan
•
Systematic review
Language(s)
en
Contributor(s)
Heitlinger, Ellen | |
Krämer, Bernd | |
von Känel, Roland | |
Hättenschwiler, Josef | |
Hilpert, Matthias | |
Holsboer-Trachsler, Edith | |
Hatzinger, Martin | |
Kasper, Siegfried | |
Bandelow, Borwin | |
Seifritz, Erich |
Series
European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience
Publisher
Springer
ISSN
1433-8491
0940-1334
Access(Rights)
open.access