4.7 Review

Complementary and alternative medicine in the treatment of bipolar disorder - A review of the evidence

期刊

JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
卷 110, 期 1-2, 页码 16-26

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2008.03.015

关键词

complementary medicine; alternative medicine; bipolar disorder; bipolar depression; omega-3 fatty acids; Hypericum; SAMe; kava-kava; acupuncture; therapeutic massage; yoga; herbal remedies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A growing number of patients with mood disorders are using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions. In this paper, we review the published scientific evidence on the benefits and risks of CAM for the treatment of patients with bipolar disorder. Since very few studies of CAM have involved patients with bipolar disorder, most available evidence is derived from trials conducted in patients with major depressive disorder. The use of omega-3 fatty acids has been studied in two controlled studies in bipolar disorder while St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum), S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe), and acupuncture have been studied in a series of randomized controlled trials in patients with major depression. Overall, the best evidence supports the use of St. John's wort for the treatment of mild to moderate depression. SAMe may also be effective for depression. However, both of these products have the potential to induce mania; the extent of this risk needs to be quantified. St. John's wort can also interact with a variety of medications. Evidence regarding the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids or acupuncture is inconsistent. Data regarding other CAM interventions (e.g., aromatherapy massage, massage therapy, yoga) are almost entirely lacking. In conclusion, better studies are needed before CAM interventions can be recommended to patients with bipolar disorder. In the meantime, patients need to be informed about the possible risks associated with the use of these interventions. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据