Comparative efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder in adults: a network meta-analysis.
Options
BORIS DOI
Publisher DOI
PubMed ID
29254516
Description
BACKGROUND
Guidelines about post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) recommend broad categories of drugs, but uncertainty remains about what pharmacological treatment to select among all available compounds.
METHODS
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials register, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, National PTSD Center Pilots database, PubMed, trial registries, and databases of pharmaceutical companies were searched until February 2016 for double-blind randomised trials comparing any pharmacological intervention or placebo as oral therapy in adults with PTSD. Initially, we performed standard pairwise meta-analyses using a random effects model. We then carried out a network meta-analysis. The main outcome measures were mean change on a standardised scale and all-cause dropout rate. Acute treatment was defined as 8-week follow up.
RESULTS
Desipramine, fluoxetine, paroxetine, phenelzine, risperidone, sertraline, and venlafaxine were more effective than placebo; phenelzine was better than many other active treatments and was the only drug, which was significantly better than placebo in terms of dropouts (odds ratio 7.50, 95% CI 1.72-32.80). Mirtazapine yielded a relatively high rank for efficacy, but the respective value for acceptability was not among the best treatments. Divalproex had overall the worst ranking.
CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy and acceptability hierarchies generated by our study were robust against many sources of bias. The differences between drugs and placebo were small, with the only exception of phenelzine. Considering the small amount of available data, these results are probably not robust enough to suggest phenelzine as a drug of choice. However, findings from this review reinforce the idea that phenelzine should be prioritised in future trials in PTSD.
Guidelines about post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) recommend broad categories of drugs, but uncertainty remains about what pharmacological treatment to select among all available compounds.
METHODS
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials register, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, National PTSD Center Pilots database, PubMed, trial registries, and databases of pharmaceutical companies were searched until February 2016 for double-blind randomised trials comparing any pharmacological intervention or placebo as oral therapy in adults with PTSD. Initially, we performed standard pairwise meta-analyses using a random effects model. We then carried out a network meta-analysis. The main outcome measures were mean change on a standardised scale and all-cause dropout rate. Acute treatment was defined as 8-week follow up.
RESULTS
Desipramine, fluoxetine, paroxetine, phenelzine, risperidone, sertraline, and venlafaxine were more effective than placebo; phenelzine was better than many other active treatments and was the only drug, which was significantly better than placebo in terms of dropouts (odds ratio 7.50, 95% CI 1.72-32.80). Mirtazapine yielded a relatively high rank for efficacy, but the respective value for acceptability was not among the best treatments. Divalproex had overall the worst ranking.
CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy and acceptability hierarchies generated by our study were robust against many sources of bias. The differences between drugs and placebo were small, with the only exception of phenelzine. Considering the small amount of available data, these results are probably not robust enough to suggest phenelzine as a drug of choice. However, findings from this review reinforce the idea that phenelzine should be prioritised in future trials in PTSD.
Date of Publication
2018-09
Publication Type
Article
Subject(s)
600 - Technology::610 - Medicine & health
300 - Social sciences, sociology & anthropology::360 - Social problems & social services
Keyword(s)
Network meta-analysis post-traumatic stress disorder systematic review
Language(s)
en
Contributor(s)
Cipriani, Andrea | |
Williams, Taryn | |
Chaimani, Anna | |
Ipser, Jonathan | |
Cowen, Phil J | |
Geddes, John R | |
Stein, Dan J |
Additional Credits
Institut für Sozial- und Präventivmedizin (ISPM)
Series
Psychological medicine
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
ISSN
0033-2917
Access(Rights)
open.access