4.5 Review

Addictive potential of novel treatments for refractory depression and anxiety

期刊

NEUROPSYCHIATRIC DISEASE AND TREATMENT
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 1513-1519

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/NDT.S167538

关键词

treatment-resistant depression; anxiety; addiction; ketamine; cannabinoids

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Treatment-resistant mood disorders and anxiety disorders require intensive treatment, but treatment options should balance benefits and adverse effects or other potential detrimental effects on patients, including the risk of developing prescription medication addiction. Some of the newer treatment modalities for mood and anxiety disorders may have similar properties to benzodiazepines. The goal of this review was to identify the potential for developing dependence on the novel treatment approaches to treatment-resistant depression and refractory anxiety disorders. PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Ovid, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched. Ketamine is effective in improving symptoms of major depressive disorder, but with no sustained benefits. Long-term use of oral or intranasal ketamine formulations may be associated with the risk of developing dependence. Augmentation of stimulant medication is usually effective for residual symptoms of depression, but the effects are usually short lasting and there is a potential for abuse. Synthetic cannabinoids and medicinal cannabis are increasingly being prescribed for a number of medical conditions, including anxiety disorders, without enough evidence about their efficacy and with the risk of patients developing dependence. In summary, benzodiazepines, ketamine, stimulant medications, and cannabinoids have some common characteristics, including short-lasting benefits and the risk of developing prescription medication addiction with longer use. All of these treatments may raise ethical dilemmas about the appropriateness of prescribing these medications in the long run for patients with depression and anxiety disorders.

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

4.5
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