Fixed herbal drug combination with and without butterbur (Ze 185) for the treatment of patients with somatoform disorders: randomized, placebo-controlled pharmaco-clinical trial

Valerian Root in Treating Sleep Problems and Associated Disorders-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Sleep problems are widely prevalent and associated with various comorbidities including anxiety. Valerian (Valeriana officinalis L.) is a popular herbal medicine used as a sleep aid, however the outcomes of previous clinical studies are inconsistent. This study was conducted to update and re-evaluate the available data in order to understand the reason behind the inconsistent outcomes and to provide a broader view of the use of valerian for associated disorders. PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library were searched to retrieve publications relevant to the effectiveness of valerian as a treatment of sleep problems and associated disorders. A total of 60 studies (n=6,894) were included in this review, and meta-analyses were performed to evaluate the effectiveness to improve subjective sleep quality (10 studies, n=1,065) and to reduce anxiety (8 studies, n=535). Results suggested that inconsistent outcomes were possibly due to the variable quality of herbal extracts and that more reliable effects could be expected from the whole root/rhizome. In addition, therapeutic benefits could be optimized when it was combined with appropriate herbal partners. There were no severe adverse events associated with valerian intake in subjects aged between 7 and 80 years. In conclusion, valerian could be a safe and effective herb to promote sleep and prevent associated disorders. However, due to the presence of multiple active constituents and relatively unstable nature of some of the active constituents, it may be necessary to revise the quality control processes, including standardization methods and shelf life.

Effect of the fixed combination of valerian, lemon balm, passionflower, and butterbur extracts (Ze 185) on the prescription pattern of benzodiazepines in hospitalized psychiatric patients-A retrospective case-control investigation

Stress is an increasing problem that can result in various psychiatric and somatoform symptoms. Among others, benzodiazepines and valerian preparations are used to treat stress symptoms. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the prescription of a fixed herbal extract combination of valerian, lemon balm, passionflower, and butterbur (Ze 185) changes the prescription pattern of benzodiazepines in hospitalized psychiatric patients. In a retrospective case‐control study, anonymized medical record data from 3,252 psychiatric in‐house patients were analysed over a 3.5‐year period. Cases (n = 1,548) with a prescription of Ze 185 and controls (n = 1,704) were matched by age, gender, hospitalization interval, and main International Classification of Diseases, Version 10 F‐diagnoses. The primary objective was to investigate the effect of Ze 185 on the prescription pattern of benzodiazepines. Secondary objectives investigated the prescriptions of concomitant drugs and effectiveness of the hospital stay. Distribution of drug classes was analysed using the WHO's anatomic‐therapeutic‐chemical code. Data showed that both treatment modalities had a comparable clinical effectiveness but with significantly less prescriptions of benzodiazepines in the Ze 185 group (p = .006). This is of clinical importance because suitable alternatives to benzodiazepines are desirable. To obtain more support for this hypothesis, a dedicated randomized, controlled clinical trial monitoring drug safety is required.

Effects of a fixed herbal drug combination (Ze 185) to an experimental acute stress setting in healthy men - An explorative randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Considering the negative effects of stress on health, there is a growing interest in stress-reducing interventions. The present study examines the effects of a fixed combination of valerian, passion flower, lemon balm, and butterbur extracts (Ze 185) on biological and affective responses to a standardized psychosocial stress paradigm.

PURPOSE

The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy of Ze 185 on cortisol and anxiety stress responses to acute psychosocial stress in healthy subjects.

STUDY DESIGN

This study was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind study with 3 parallel groups.

METHODS

72 healthy male participants were randomized to 3 groups (Ze 185, placebo or no treatment) during 4 days prior to a standardized psychosocial stress paradigm. Principle outcomes were salivary cortisol and self-reported anxiety responses to stress assessed at the fourth day.

RESULTS

The stress paradigm induced significant and large cortisol and self-reported anxiety responses. Groups did not differ significantly in their salivary cortisol response to stress, but participants in the Ze 185 condition showed significantly attenuated responses in self-reported anxiety in comparison to placebo (F(3, 41) = 3.33, p = 0.03) and no treatment (F(3, 43) = 2.77, p = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The results show that Ze 185 significantly attenuated the subjective emotional stress response during an acute stress situation, without affecting biological stress responses. Given that a circumscribed biological stress response is to be considered as an adaptive mechanism, Ze 185 reduces self-reported anxiety response to stress without affecting assumingly adaptive biological stress responses.

Fixed dose-combination products in psychiatry: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Despite highly prevalent use of drug combinations in psychiatry, combination products are not commonly available. We aimed to systematically review the evidence for the use and efficacy of combination products in the practice of psychiatry. Systematic search of major data bases yielded nine double-blind randomized controlled trials, which generated 15 comparisons of combination products against a single therapeutic agent, that included a placebo. All these studies included 2827 participants: 976 in their combination products arms and 1851 patients in the comparator arms. The number of combination products were identified, but all except two studies tested only one combination drug (e.g. olanzapine and fluoxetine (OFC)). All combined formulations were significantly superior to a single agent, with standardized mean distance (SMD) of - 0.29 (confidence interval (CI) = - 0.43, - 0 .14; p < 0.001) in improving depression. In the subgroup analysis, the OFC combination was significantly superior to a single therapeutic agent for bipolar depression (SMD = - 0.32; CI = - 0.45, - 0.19; p < 0.001) and for treatment-resistant depression (SMD = - 0.29; CI = - 0.49, - 0.08; p < 0.005), but not for borderline personality nor major depressive disorder (MDD). The evidence in general medicine suggests that combination products can offer significant advantage in improving efficacy and treatment adherence; but in psychiatry, research and development in fixed-dose combinations has been limited.

Pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders in adults

BACKGROUND

Somatoform disorders are characterised by chronic, medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS). Although different medications are part of treatment routines for people with somatoform disorders in clinics and private practices, there exists no systematic review or meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of these medications. We aimed to synthesise to improve optimal treatment decisions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders (specifically somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, and pain disorder) in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) (to 17 January 2014). This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). To identify ongoing trials, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials metaRegister, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry. For grey literature, we searched ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Database, OpenGrey, and BIOSIS Previews. We handsearched conference proceedings and reference lists of potentially relevant papers and systematic reviews and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected RCTs or cluster RCTs of pharmacological interventions versus placebo, treatment as usual, another medication, or a combination of different medications for somatoform disorders in adults. We included people fulfilling standardised diagnostic criteria for somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, or somatoform pain disorder.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author and one research assistant independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes included the severity of MUPS on a continuous measure, and acceptability of treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs (33 reports), with 2159 participants, in the review. They examined the efficacy of different types of antidepressants, the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic, antipsychotics alone, or natural products (NPs). The duration of the studies ranged between two and 12 weeks.One meta-analysis of placebo-controlled studies showed no clear evidence of a significant difference between tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and placebo for the outcome severity of MUPS (SMD -0.13; 95% CI -0.39 to 0.13; 2 studies, 239 participants; I(2) = 2%; low-quality evidence). For new-generation antidepressants (NGAs), there was very low-quality evidence showing they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.91; 95% CI -1.36 to -0.46; 3 studies, 243 participants; I(2) = 63%). For NPs there was low-quality evidence that they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.74; 95% CI -0.97 to -0.51; 2 studies, 322 participants; I(2) = 0%).One meta-analysis showed no clear evidence of a difference between TCAs and NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95% CI -0.55 to 0.23; 3 studies, 177 participants; I(2) = 42%; low-quality evidence). There was also no difference between NGAs and other NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95% CI -0.45 to 0.14; 4 studies, 182 participants; I(2) = 0%).Finally, one meta-analysis comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with a combination of SSRIs and antipsychotics showed low-quality evidence in favour of combined treatment for severity of MUPS (SMD 0.77; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.22; 2 studies, 107 participants; I(2) = 23%).Differences regarding the acceptability of the treatment (rate of all-cause drop-outs) were neither found between NGAs and placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.61; 2 studies, 163 participants; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence) or NPs and placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.78; 3 studies, 506 participants; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence); nor between TCAs and other medication (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.72; 8 studies, 556 participants; I(2) =14%; low-quality evidence); nor between antidepressants and the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.52; 2 studies, 118 participants; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence). Percental attrition rates due to adverse effects were high in all antidepressant treatments (0% to 32%), but low for NPs (0% to 1.7%).The risk of bias was high in many domains across studies. Seventeen trials (65.4%) gave no information about random sequence generation and only two (7.7%) provided information about allocation concealment. Eighteen studies (69.2%) revealed a high or unclear risk in blinding participants and study personnel; 23 studies had high risk of bias relating to blinding assessors. For the comparison NGA versus placebo, there was relatively high imprecision and heterogeneity due to one outlier study. Although we identified 26 studies, each comparison only contained a few studies and small numbers of participants so the results were imprecise.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The current review found very low-quality evidence for NGAs and low-quality evidence for NPs being effective in treating somatoform symptoms in adults when compared with placebo. There was some evidence that different classes of antidepressants did not differ in efficacy; however, this was limited and of low to very low quality. These results had serious shortcomings such as the high risk of bias, strong heterogeneity in the data, and small sample sizes. Furthermore, the significant effects of antidepressant treatment have to be balanced against the relatively high rates of adverse effects. Adverse effects produced by medication can have amplifying effects on symptom perceptions, particularly in people focusing on somatic symptoms without medical causes. We can only draw conclusions about short-term efficacy of the pharmacological interventions because no trial included follow-up assessments. For each of the comparisons where there were available data on acceptability rates (NGAs versus placebo, NPs versus placebo, TCAs versus other medication, and antidepressants versus a combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic), no clear differences between the intervention and comparator were found.Future high-quality research should be carried out to determine the effectiveness of medications other than antidepressants, to compare antidepressants more thoroughly, and to follow-up participants over longer periods (the longest follow up was just 12 weeks). Another idea for future research would be to include other outcomes such as functional impairment or dysfunctional behaviours and cognitions as well as the classical outcomes such as symptom severity, depression, or anxiety.