Comparative efficacy and safety of benzodiazepines in the treatment of patients with generalized anxiety disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
{"title":"Comparative efficacy and safety of benzodiazepines in the treatment of patients with generalized anxiety disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Hélder Fernandes, Catarina Novais, Bernardo Sousa-Pinto, Patrício Soares-da-Silva, Luís Filipe Azevedo","doi":"10.1159/000546269","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Introduction Guidelines recommend that benzodiazepines (BZD) might be used as an add-on to antidepressant therapy during the first weeks of treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) or as a first-line and stand-alone. Our aim is to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of individual BZD in the treatment of patients with GAD. Methods In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we included randomized controlled trials including adults (≥18 years) with GAD and comparing BZD against placebo or an active intervention. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework. This study is registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42022330264). Results We included 56 studies (7556 participants). The certainty of the evidence for the primary outcomes, as measured with CINeMA, varied from high to very low (overall; 40 comparisons scored \"very low\", 7 scored \"low\" and 814 scored \"high\"). Regarding efficacy, all BZD, in general, were significantly better than placebo, but there were no significant differences between the different BZD (high heterogeneity and inconsistency were detected). Regarding treatment discontinuation, with some exceptions, no significant differences were observed in the comparisons against placebo or other BZD (no or low heterogeneity and inconsistency were observed in the different analyses). Regarding treatment tolerability, none of the BZD showed significant differences compared to placebo, except diazepam (RR=1.61; 95%CI=1.32;1.96). Moderate heterogeneity and low inconsistency were observed in the treatment tolerability network meta-analysis. Conclusion BZD are overall efficacious for the treatment of GAD and have a favourable safety profile. No distinctive differences were identified when comparing BZD among themselves.</p>","PeriodicalId":20744,"journal":{"name":"Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics","volume":" ","pages":"1-34"},"PeriodicalIF":16.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000546269","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction Guidelines recommend that benzodiazepines (BZD) might be used as an add-on to antidepressant therapy during the first weeks of treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) or as a first-line and stand-alone. Our aim is to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of individual BZD in the treatment of patients with GAD. Methods In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we included randomized controlled trials including adults (≥18 years) with GAD and comparing BZD against placebo or an active intervention. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework. This study is registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42022330264). Results We included 56 studies (7556 participants). The certainty of the evidence for the primary outcomes, as measured with CINeMA, varied from high to very low (overall; 40 comparisons scored "very low", 7 scored "low" and 814 scored "high"). Regarding efficacy, all BZD, in general, were significantly better than placebo, but there were no significant differences between the different BZD (high heterogeneity and inconsistency were detected). Regarding treatment discontinuation, with some exceptions, no significant differences were observed in the comparisons against placebo or other BZD (no or low heterogeneity and inconsistency were observed in the different analyses). Regarding treatment tolerability, none of the BZD showed significant differences compared to placebo, except diazepam (RR=1.61; 95%CI=1.32;1.96). Moderate heterogeneity and low inconsistency were observed in the treatment tolerability network meta-analysis. Conclusion BZD are overall efficacious for the treatment of GAD and have a favourable safety profile. No distinctive differences were identified when comparing BZD among themselves.
指南建议,在广泛性焦虑症(GAD)治疗的最初几周,苯二氮卓类药物(BZD)可作为抗抑郁药物治疗的附加药物,或作为一线药物单独使用。我们的目的是评估个体BZD治疗广泛性焦虑症患者的相对疗效和安全性。方法在本系统综述和网络荟萃分析中,我们纳入了随机对照试验,包括患有广泛性焦虑症的成人(≥18岁),并将BZD与安慰剂或积极干预进行比较。我们使用网络元分析(CINeMA)框架的可信度评估证据的确定性。本研究已在PROSPERO注册(注册号CRD42022330264)。结果纳入56项研究(7556名受试者)。用CINeMA测量的主要结局证据的确定性从高到极低不等(总体;40个比较的得分为“非常低”,7个为“低”,814个为“高”)。在疗效方面,所有BZD总体上都明显优于安慰剂,但不同BZD之间没有显著差异(存在高度异质性和不一致性)。关于停药,除了一些例外,在与安慰剂或其他BZD的比较中没有观察到显著差异(在不同的分析中没有或很少观察到异质性和不一致性)。关于治疗耐受性,除地西泮外,BZD与安慰剂相比均无显著差异(RR=1.61;95% ci = 1.32, 1.96)。在治疗耐受性网络荟萃分析中观察到中度异质性和低不一致性。结论BZD治疗广泛性焦虑症总体有效,安全性较好。当比较它们之间的BZD时,没有发现明显的差异。
期刊介绍:
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics is a reputable journal that has been published since 1953. Over the years, it has gained recognition for its independence, originality, and methodological rigor. The journal has been at the forefront of research in psychosomatic medicine, psychotherapy research, and psychopharmacology, and has contributed to the development of new lines of research in these areas. It is now ranked among the world's most cited journals in the field.
As the official journal of the International College of Psychosomatic Medicine and the World Federation for Psychotherapy, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics serves as a platform for discussing current and controversial issues and showcasing innovations in assessment and treatment. It offers a unique forum for cutting-edge thinking at the intersection of medical and behavioral sciences, catering to both practicing clinicians and researchers.
The journal is indexed in various databases and platforms such as PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Previews, Google Scholar, Academic Search, and Health Research Premium Collection, among others.