Mental disorders frequently begin in childhood or adolescence. Psychotropic medications have various indications for the treatment of mental disorders in this age group and are used not infrequently off‐label. However, the adverse effects of these medications require special attention during developmentally sensitive periods of life. For this meta‐review, we systematically searched network meta‐analyses and meta‐analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), individual RCTs, and cohort studies reporting on 78 a priori selected adverse events across 19 categories of 80 psychotropic medications – including antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti‐attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications and mood stabilizers – in children and adolescents with mental disorders. We included data from nine network meta‐analyses, 39 meta‐analyses, 90 individual RCTs, and eight cohort studies, including 337,686 children and adolescents. Data on ≥20% of the 78 adverse events were available for six antidepressants (sertraline, escitalopram, paroxetine, fluoxetine, venlafaxine and vilazodone), eight antipsychotics (risperidone, quetiapine, aripiprazole, lurasidone, paliperidone, ziprasidone, olanzapine and asenapine), three anti‐ADHD medications (methylphenidate, atomoxetine and guanfacine), and two mood stabilizers (valproate and lithium). Among these medications with data on ≥20% of the 78 adverse events, a safer profile emerged for escitalopram and fluoxetine among antidepressants, lurasidone for antipsychotics, methylphenidate among anti‐ADHD medications, and lithium among mood stabilizers. The available literature raised most concerns about the safety of venlafaxine, olanzapine, atomoxetine, guanfacine and valproate. Nausea/vomiting and discontinuation due to adverse event were most frequently associated with antidepressants; sedation, extrapyramidal side effects, and weight gain with antipsychotics; anorexia and insomnia with anti‐ADHD medications; sedation and weight gain with mood stabilizers. The results of this comprehensive and updated quantitative systematic meta‐review of top‐tier evidence regarding the safety of antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti‐ADHD medications and mood stabilizers in children and adolescents can inform clinical practice, research and treatment guidelines.
Cannabidiol (CBD) and ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are the most represented phytocannabinoids in Cannabis sativa plants. However, CBD may present with a different activity compared with the psychotomimetic THC. Most typically, CBD is reported to be used in some medical conditions, including chronic pain. Conversely, the main aim of this systematic review is to assess and summarise the available body of evidence relating to both efficacy and safety of CBD as a treatment for psychiatric disorders, alone and/or in combination with other treatments. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCT) assessing the effect of CBD in a range of psychopathological conditions, such as substance use; psychosis, anxiety, mood disturbances, and other psychiatric (e.g., cognitive impairment; sleep; personality; eating; obsessive-compulsive; post-traumatic stress/PTSD; dissociative; and somatic) disorders. For data gathering purposes, the PRISMA guidelines were followed. The initial search strategy identified some n=1,301 papers; n=190 studies were included after the abstract's screening and n=27 articles met the inclusion criteria. There is currently limited evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of CBD for the treatment of psychiatric disorders. However, available trials reported potential therapeutic effects for specific psychopathological conditions, such as substance use disorders, chronic psychosis, and anxiety. Further large-scale RCTs are required to better evaluate the efficacy of CBD in both acute and chronic illnesses, special categories, as well as to exclude any possible abuse liability.
Top‐tier evidence on the safety/tolerability of 80 medications in children/adolescents with mental disorders has recently been reviewed in this journal. To guide clinical practice, such data must be combined with evidence on efficacy and acceptability. Besides medications, psychosocial interventions and brain stimulation techniques are treatment options for children/adolescents with mental disorders. For this umbrella review, we systematically searched network meta‐analyses (NMAs) and meta‐analyses (MAs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating 48 medications, 20 psychosocial interventions, and four brain stimulation techniques in children/adolescents with 52 different mental disorders or groups of mental disorders, reporting on 20 different efficacy/acceptability outcomes. Co‐primary outcomes were disease‐specific symptom reduction and all‐cause discontinuation (“acceptability”). We included 14 NMAs and 90 MAs, reporting on 15 mental disorders or groups of mental disorders. Overall, 21 medications outperformed placebo regarding the co‐primary outcomes, and three psychosocial interventions did so (while seven outperformed waiting list/no treatment). Based on the meta‐analytic evidence, the most convincing efficacy profile emerged for amphetamines, methylphenidate and, to a smaller extent, behavioral therapy in attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder; aripiprazole, risperidone and several psychosocial interventions in autism; risperidone and behavioral interventions in disruptive behavior disorders; several antipsychotics in schizophrenia spectrum disorders; fluoxetine, the combination of fluoxetine and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and interpersonal therapy in depression; aripiprazole in mania; fluoxetine and group CBT in anxiety disorders; fluoxetine/selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, CBT, and behavioral therapy with exposure and response prevention in obsessive‐compulsive disorder; CBT in post‐traumatic stress disorder; imipramine and alarm behavioral intervention in enuresis; behavioral therapy in encopresis; and family therapy in anorexia nervosa. Results from this umbrella review of interventions for mental disorders in children/adolescents provide evidence‐based information for clinical decision making.
Aims Within the new psychoactive substances (NPS) scenario, several hundred different molecules, mostly including synthetic cannabinoids and cathinones, have been identified so far. The aims of the paper were to: (i) identify the number of synthetic cathinones mentioned in a range of psychonaut, NPS‐related, online sources; and (ii) describe the associated acute/long term clinical scenario and the related treatment/management plan. Methods After about 18 months of operation and exclusion of false positives/duplicates, some 4204 unique NPS molecules were included in the NPSfinder® crawling/navigating software database. Most popular NPS included: 1265 psychedelic phenethylamines (30.1%; confidence interval [CI] 95%: 28.7–31.5%); 1253 synthetic cannabinoids (29.8%; CI 95%: 28.4–31.2%); 429 synthetic opioids (10.2%; CI 95%: 9.3–10.2%); and 171 synthetic cathinones (4.1%; CI 95% 3.5–4.7%). Conversely, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction databases respectively included 169 and 140 cathinones. Overall, the 3 databases reported some 222 synthetic cathinones, and 41 were uniquely identified by the NPSfinder®. Results In terms of clinical scenarios, synthetic cathinone ingestion is initially associated with stimulant effects; however, psychopathological disturbances, violence, suicidal behaviour, hyperthermia, coma and death have also been described. Conclusion The proportion of cathinones commented on by psychonaut fora appeared to be relatively small, and similar to those reported by both the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. This may be associated with a recent significant decline in both cathinone‐related consumption and acute medical presentation. Due to their complex behavioural and medical toxicity issues, healthcare professionals should be, however, be educated to recognise the signs and symptoms of NPS, including synthetic cathinone, ingestion.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.