Breilmann Johanna, Girlanda Francesca, Guaiana Giuseppe, Barbui Corrado, Cipriani Andrea, Castellazzi Mariasole, Bighelli Irene, Davies Simon Jc, Furukawa Toshi A, Koesters Markus
Department of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Ludwig-Heilmeyer-Str. 2, Guenzburg, Germany, 89312.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Mar 28;3(3):CD010677. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010677.pub2.
Panic disorder is characterised by recurrent unexpected panic attacks consisting of a wave of intense fear that reaches a peak within a few minutes. Panic disorder is a common disorder, with an estimated lifetime prevalence of 1% to 5% in the general population and a 7% to 10% prevalence in primary care settings. Its aetiology is not fully understood and is probably heterogeneous.Panic disorder is treated with psychological and pharmacological interventions, often used in combination. Although benzodiazepines are frequently used in the treatment of panic disorder, guidelines recommend antidepressants, mainly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), as first-line treatment for panic disorder, particularly due to their lower incidence of dependence and withdrawal reaction when compared to benzodiazepines. Despite these recommendations, benzodiazepines are widely used in the treatment of panic disorder, probably because of their rapid onset of action.
To assess the efficacy and acceptability of benzodiazepines versus placebo in the treatment of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults.
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR Studies and References), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1950-), Embase (1974-), and PsycINFO (1967-) up to 29 May 2018. We handsearched reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews. We contacted experts in the field for supplemental data.
All double-blind (blinding of patients and personnel) controlled trials randomising adults with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia to benzodiazepine or placebo.
Two review authors independently checked the eligibility of studies and extracted data using a standardised form. Data were then entered data into Review Manager 5 using a double-check procedure. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details, settings, and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability.
We included 24 studies in the review with a total of 4233 participants, of which 2124 were randomised to benzodiazepines and 1475 to placebo. The remaining 634 participants were randomised to other active treatments in three-arm trials. We assessed the overall methodological quality of the included studies as poor. We rated all studies as at unclear risk of bias in at least three domains. In addition, we judged 20 of the 24 included studies as having a high risk of bias in at least one domain.Two primary outcomes of efficacy and acceptability showed a possible advantage of benzodiazepines over placebo. The estimated risk ratio (RR) for a response to treatment was 1.65 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39 to 1.96) in favour of benzodiazepines, which corresponds to an estimated number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 4 (95% CI 3 to 7). The dropout rate was lower among participants treated with benzodiazepines (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.64); the estimated NNTB was 6 (95% CI 5 to 9). We rated the quality of the evidence as low for both primary outcomes. The possible advantage of benzodiazepine was also seen for remission (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.38 to 1.88) and the endpoint data for social functioning (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.53, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.42), both with low-quality evidence. We assessed the evidence for the other secondary outcomes as of very low quality. With the exception of the analyses of the change score data for depression (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.04) and social functioning (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.88 to 0.24), all secondary outcome analyses showed an effect in favour of benzodiazepines compared to placebo. However, the number of dropouts due to adverse effects was higher with benzodiazepines than with placebo (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.15; low-quality evidence). Furthermore, our analyses of adverse events showed that a higher proportion of participants experienced at least one adverse effect when treated with benzodiazepines (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.37; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence shows a possible superiority of benzodiazepine over placebo in the short-term treatment of panic disorders. The validity of the included studies is questionable due to possible unmasking of allocated treatments, high dropout rates, and probable publication bias. Moreover, the included studies were only short-term studies and did not examine the long-term efficacy nor the risks of dependency and withdrawal symptoms. Due to these limitations, our results regarding the efficacy of benzodiazepines versus placebo provide only limited guidance for clinical practice. Furthermore, the clinician's choice is not between benzodiazepines and placebo, but between benzodiazepines and other agents, notably SSRIs, both in terms of efficacy and adverse effects. The choice of treatment should therefore be guided by the patient's preference and should balance benefits and harms from treatment in a long-term perspective.
惊恐障碍的特征是反复出现意外的惊恐发作,表现为一股强烈的恐惧浪潮,在几分钟内达到顶峰。惊恐障碍是一种常见疾病,在普通人群中估计终生患病率为1%至5%,在初级保健机构中患病率为7%至10%。其病因尚未完全明确,可能具有异质性。惊恐障碍采用心理和药物干预进行治疗,通常联合使用。尽管苯二氮䓬类药物常用于治疗惊恐障碍,但指南推荐使用抗抑郁药,主要是选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂(SSRIs),作为惊恐障碍的一线治疗药物,特别是因为与苯二氮䓬类药物相比,它们的依赖性和戒断反应发生率较低。尽管有这些推荐,但苯二氮䓬类药物仍广泛用于治疗惊恐障碍,可能是因为其起效迅速。
评估苯二氮䓬类药物与安慰剂相比,在治疗成人伴有或不伴有广场恐惧症的惊恐障碍中的疗效和可接受性。
我们检索了Cochrane常见精神障碍对照试验注册库(CCMDCTR研究和参考文献)、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE(1950年起)、Embase(1974年起)和PsycINFO(1967年起),检索截止至2018年5月29日。我们手工检索了相关论文和以往系统评价的参考文献列表。我们联系了该领域的专家以获取补充数据。
所有将伴有或不伴有广场恐惧症的成人惊恐障碍患者随机分为苯二氮䓬类药物组或安慰剂组的双盲(患者和研究人员均设盲)对照试验。
两位综述作者独立检查研究的入选资格,并使用标准化表格提取数据。然后使用双重检查程序将数据录入Review Manager 5。提取的信息包括研究特征、参与者特征、干预细节、研究背景以及在疗效、可接受性和耐受性方面的结局指标。
我们在综述中纳入了24项研究,共有4233名参与者,其中2124名被随机分配至苯二氮䓬类药物组,1475名被随机分配至安慰剂组。其余634名参与者在三臂试验中被随机分配至其他活性治疗组。我们评估纳入研究的总体方法学质量较差。我们将所有研究在至少三个领域的偏倚风险评定为不清楚。此外,我们判断24项纳入研究中的20项在至少一个领域存在高偏倚风险。两项主要结局指标,即疗效和可接受性,显示苯二氮䓬类药物可能优于安慰剂。治疗反应的估计风险比(RR)为1.65(95%置信区间(CI)1.39至1.96),支持苯二氮䓬类药物,这相当于为获得额外有益结局所需治疗的估计人数(NNTB)为4(95% CI 3至7)。接受苯二氮䓬类药物治疗的参与者的退出率较低(RR 0.50,95% CI 0.39至0.64);估计NNTB为6(95% CI 5至9)。我们将两项主要结局指标的证据质量评定为低。苯二氮䓬类药物在缓解方面(RR 1.61,95% CI 1.38至1.88)以及社会功能的终点数据方面(标准化均数差(SMD)-0.53,95% CI -0.65至-0.42)也显示出可能的优势,两者证据质量均低。我们评估其他次要结局指标的证据质量为极低。除了抑郁变化评分数据(SMD -0.22,95% CI -0.48至0.04)和社会功能(SMD -0.32,95% CI -0.88至0.24)的分析外,所有次要结局指标分析均显示与安慰剂相比,苯二氮䓬类药物有效果。然而,因不良反应导致的退出人数苯二氮䓬类药物组高于安慰剂组(RR 1.58,95% CI 1.16至2.15;低质量证据)。此外,我们对不良事件的分析表明,接受苯二氮䓬类药物治疗的参与者中经历至少一种不良反应的比例更高(RR 1.18,95% CI 1.02至1.37;低质量证据)。
低质量证据表明,在惊恐障碍的短期治疗中,苯二氮䓬类药物可能优于安慰剂。由于可能存在分配治疗的揭盲、高退出率以及可能的发表偏倚,纳入研究的有效性值得怀疑。此外,纳入研究均为短期研究,未考察长期疗效以及依赖性和戒断症状的风险。由于这些局限性,我们关于苯二氮䓬类药物与安慰剂疗效的结果仅为临床实践提供有限的指导。此外,临床医生的选择并非在苯二氮䓬类药物和安慰剂之间,而是在苯二氮䓬类药物和其他药物之间,特别是在疗效和不良反应方面的选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂。因此,治疗的选择应以患者的偏好为指导,并应从长期角度权衡治疗的利弊。