PubMed · 16617968
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Temazepam.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16617968/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Anxiety disorders are very common mental health problems in the general population and in primary care settings. Herbal medicines are popular and used worldwide and might be considered as a treatment option for anxiety if shown to be effective and safe. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness and safety of valerian for treating anxiety disorders. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches: The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) searched on 04/08/2006, MEDLINE, Lilacs. References of all identified studies were inspected for additional studies. First authors of each included study, manufacturers of valerian products, and experts in the field were contacted for information regarding unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials of valerian extract of any dose, regime, or method of administration, for people with any primary diagnosis of general anxiety disorder, anxiety neurosis, chronic anxiety status, or any other disorder in which anxiety is the primary symptom (panic disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, social phobia, agoraphobia, other types of phobia, postraumatic stress disorder). Effectiveness was measured using clinical outcome measures and other scales for anxiety symptoms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied inclusion criteria, extracted and entered data, and performed the trial quality assessments. Where disagreements occurred, the third review author was consulted. Methodological quality of included trials was assessed using Cochrane Handbook criteria. For dichotomous outcomes, relative risk (RR) was calculated, and for continuous outcomes, the weighted mean difference (WMD) was calculated, with their respective 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: One RCT involving 36 patients wih generalised anxiety disorder was eligible for inclusion. This was a 4 week pilot study of valerian, diazepam and placebo. There were no significant differences between the valerian and placebo groups in HAM-A total scores, or in somatic and psychic factor scores. Similarly, there were no significant differences in HAM-A scores between the valerian and diazepam groups, although based on STAI-Trait scores, significantly greater symptom improvement was indicated in the diazepam group. There were no significant differences between the three groups in the number of patients reporting side effects or in dropout rates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since only one small study is currently available, there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions about the efficacy or safety of valerian compared with placebo or diazepam for anxiety disorders. RCTs involving larger samples and comparing valerian with placebo or other interventions used to treat of anxiety disorders, such as antidepressants, are needed.
BACKGROUND: A large proportion of patients with anxiety disorders fail to respond to first-line medication interventions, despite evidence of the effectiveness of these agents. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of medication versus placebo augmentation in the treatment of patients with anxiety disorders who have failed to respond adequately to first-line drug therapies. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Depression, Anxiety & Neurosis Group (CCDAN) specialised registers (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) were searched on 3/8/2005, MEDLINE (January 1966 to July 2005) and PsycINFO (1966 to 2005, Part A). Unpublished trials were identified through the Controlled Trials database and the National Institute of Health's Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects (CRISP) service (1972 to 2005). Additional studies in any language were sought in reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the medication augmentation of pharmacotherapy for treatment resistant anxiety disorders. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two raters independently assessed RCTs for inclusion in the review, collated trial data, and assessed trial quality. Investigators were contacted to obtain missing data. Summary statistics were stratified by class of augmentation agent and anxiety disorder. Overall effect estimates were calculated using a random-effects model, heterogeneity was assessed and subgroup/sensitivity analyses were undertaken. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty eight short-term (average of seven weeks) randomised controlled trials (740 participants) were included in the review, 20 of which investigated augmentation of medication for treatment-resistant obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). Summary statistics for responder status from nine trials demonstrate overall superiority of a variety of medication agents to placebo (relative risk of non-response (RR) 3.16, 95% CI 1.08 to 9.23). Similarly, symptom severity was significantly reduced in the medication groups, relative to placebo (number of trials (N) = 14, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.87, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.36). There is no evidence of a difference between medication and placebo in total dropout rate, or in the number of dropouts due to adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Medication augmentation can be an effective and well-tolerated short-term treatment strategy for non-responders to first-line pharmacotherapy of anxiety disorders. However, any conclusions must be tentative in view of methodological and clinical heterogeneity, and the fact that much of the relevant database is based on antipsychotic augmentation trials in OCD patients resistant to serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs). Additional data are needed to address several areas, including the efficacy of augmentation over the longer-term, and the value of medication augmentation in comparison to other strategies (e.g. switching medication, adding psychotherapy).
Many hemodialysis patients in Japan have symptoms of depression, but whether those patients are treated appropriately is unknown. As part of the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study, data on symptoms of depression, physician-diagnosed depression, prescribed medications, and death were collected prospectively in cohorts in Japan (n=1603) and 11 other countries (n=5872). Symptoms of depression were as prevalent in Japan as elsewhere, but in Japan a much smaller percentage of patients had physician-diagnosed depression: only 2% in Japan vs 17% elsewhere. Antidepressants were much less commonly prescribed in Japan: only 1% in Japan vs 17% elsewhere for patients with many and frequent symptoms of depression, and 16% in Japan vs 34% elsewhere for patients with physician-diagnosed depression. In Japan, symptoms of depression were associated with prescription of benzodiazepines (without antidepressants), and patients with physician-diagnosed depression were twice as likely to be given benzodiazepines: 32% in Japan vs 16% elsewhere. Benzodiazepine monotherapy was associated with death (relative risk 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.25-1.94), even after adjustments for 13 likely confounders (relative risk 1.27, 95% CI, 1.01-1.59). Hemodialysis patients in Japan with symptoms of depression are given not antidepressants but benzodiazepines, a practice associated with higher mortality.