4.1 Review

Pharmacological approaches to the management of panic disorder in older patients: a systematic review

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14737175.2023.2254938

关键词

Panic disorder; older; pharmacotherapy; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; SSRIs; antidepressants; personalized

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article systematically reviews the recommended medications and optimal doses for treating panic disorder in older patients. The findings suggest that research in this area is scarce, outdated, and affected by methodological flaws, lacking significant advances.
Introduction: Recommendations for treating panic disorder (PD) in older patients are scarce. The authors have systematically reviewed whether several recommended medications are superior to others and their optimal doses in this age group. Methods: A database search of studies involving patients with PD with/without agoraphobia aged >= 60 years was carried out using PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Clinical Trials.gov, from their inception dates to 1 March 2023. Only four (published from 2002 to 2010) of the 1292 records screened were included. A risk of bias assessment was provided. This systematic review was performed using The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Results: Two studies were randomized clinical trials, whereas two were open-label, including paroxetine, citalopram, escitalopram, and sertraline; three studies reported short-term evaluations, whereas one study included a 26-week follow-up. Medications provided benefits, with good tolerability. Preliminary results suggested greater benefits of paroxetine in reducing panic attacks vs. cognitive - behavioral therapy, and an earlier decrease in PAs with escitalopram vs. citalopram. Risk of bias was considerable. Conclusions: The pharmacological management of PD in older patients has received no attention. Findings are scant, dated, and affected by methodological flaws; thus, they do not provide significant advances.

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

4.1
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