A narrative review of strategies for discontinuing long-term benzodiazepine use and methodological recommendations: Is a success rate of only one in three patients sufficient?

IF 1.7 Q3 PSYCHIATRY
Mélinée Chapoutot , Francesca Meloni , Laure Peter-Derex , Hélène Bastuji , Wendy Leslie , Benjamin Schoendorff , Raphaël Heinzer , Alain Nicolas , Susan Higgins , Alexia Bourgeois , Guillaume T. Vallet , Royce Anders , Marc Ounnoughene , Francesca Siclari , Yasser Khazaal , Benjamin Putois
{"title":"A narrative review of strategies for discontinuing long-term benzodiazepine use and methodological recommendations: Is a success rate of only one in three patients sufficient?","authors":"Mélinée Chapoutot ,&nbsp;Francesca Meloni ,&nbsp;Laure Peter-Derex ,&nbsp;Hélène Bastuji ,&nbsp;Wendy Leslie ,&nbsp;Benjamin Schoendorff ,&nbsp;Raphaël Heinzer ,&nbsp;Alain Nicolas ,&nbsp;Susan Higgins ,&nbsp;Alexia Bourgeois ,&nbsp;Guillaume T. Vallet ,&nbsp;Royce Anders ,&nbsp;Marc Ounnoughene ,&nbsp;Francesca Siclari ,&nbsp;Yasser Khazaal ,&nbsp;Benjamin Putois","doi":"10.1016/j.jbct.2025.100533","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Benzodiazepines (BZs) are psychotropic medications mainly prescribed for insomnia and anxiety. They can cause dependence, leading to decades of use. As such, there is debate grounded in confusion between substance abuse and fear of dependence in some patients. Clinical practice and evidence-based reviews agree that BZ dependence is difficult to treat: without support, only 7% of misusers manage to stop taking them. Analyzing randomized control trials (RCTs), this review examines three main interventions for BZ withdrawal: brief intervention (BI), substitution medication (SM) and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). Post-intervention abstinence rates suggest that BIs can be compared to a simple taper program (TP), requiring low patient involvement, and may enable one in three patients to discontinue BZ use. However, this strategy should be considered with caution: outcomes could be adversely affected by the presence of a psychiatric disorder, a factor not controlled in these studies, nor are long-term results evaluated. Furthermore, can we consider that treating one in three patients is sufficient? CBT proved highly effective, enabling three in four patients attempting to abstain to successfully discontinue use, including patients with insomnia or anxiety. The SM approach showed no superiority over placebo effects. Moreover, abstinence rates being only measured over the very short term, no recommendations can be made regarding their use. This review concludes that there is a major methodological discrepancy between these approaches, BI and SM studies presenting substantially lower methodological quality in comparison to CBT studies. The present article proposes methodological recommendations for the study of BZ withdrawal methods.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36022,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy","volume":"35 3","pages":"Article 100533"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589979125000137","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Benzodiazepines (BZs) are psychotropic medications mainly prescribed for insomnia and anxiety. They can cause dependence, leading to decades of use. As such, there is debate grounded in confusion between substance abuse and fear of dependence in some patients. Clinical practice and evidence-based reviews agree that BZ dependence is difficult to treat: without support, only 7% of misusers manage to stop taking them. Analyzing randomized control trials (RCTs), this review examines three main interventions for BZ withdrawal: brief intervention (BI), substitution medication (SM) and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). Post-intervention abstinence rates suggest that BIs can be compared to a simple taper program (TP), requiring low patient involvement, and may enable one in three patients to discontinue BZ use. However, this strategy should be considered with caution: outcomes could be adversely affected by the presence of a psychiatric disorder, a factor not controlled in these studies, nor are long-term results evaluated. Furthermore, can we consider that treating one in three patients is sufficient? CBT proved highly effective, enabling three in four patients attempting to abstain to successfully discontinue use, including patients with insomnia or anxiety. The SM approach showed no superiority over placebo effects. Moreover, abstinence rates being only measured over the very short term, no recommendations can be made regarding their use. This review concludes that there is a major methodological discrepancy between these approaches, BI and SM studies presenting substantially lower methodological quality in comparison to CBT studies. The present article proposes methodological recommendations for the study of BZ withdrawal methods.
停止长期苯二氮卓类药物使用的策略和方法学建议的叙述性回顾:只有三分之一的患者成功率就足够了吗?
苯二氮卓类药物(BZs)是一种精神药物,主要用于治疗失眠和焦虑。它们会导致依赖,导致几十年的使用。因此,一些患者对药物滥用和对依赖的恐惧之间的混淆引发了争论。临床实践和基于证据的评论一致认为,BZ依赖很难治疗:没有支持,只有7%的滥用者设法停止服用BZ。通过分析随机对照试验(RCTs),本综述探讨了BZ戒断的三种主要干预措施:短暂干预(BI)、替代药物(SM)和认知行为治疗(CBT)。干预后戒断率表明,BIs可与简单的逐渐减少方案(TP)相比,需要较少的患者参与,并可能使三分之一的患者停止使用BZ。然而,这种策略应该谨慎考虑:结果可能会受到精神障碍的不利影响,这是这些研究中未控制的因素,也没有对长期结果进行评估。此外,我们是否可以认为治疗三分之一的患者就足够了?CBT被证明是非常有效的,使四分之三试图戒除的患者成功停止使用,包括失眠或焦虑的患者。SM方法没有显示出优于安慰剂效果。此外,戒断率只是在很短的时间内测量的,不能对它们的使用提出建议。本综述得出结论,这些方法之间存在主要的方法学差异,与CBT研究相比,BI和SM研究的方法学质量明显较低。本文提出了BZ戒断方法研究的方法学建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy
Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
审稿时长
60 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信