No abstract

Background: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a highly prevalent and economically burdensome condition; and pain is often the most unpleasant, disruptive, and difficultto-treat symptom. Visceral hypersensitivity is a common feature driving pain in IBS, suggesting that neuropathic mechanisms may be implicated. We conducted a systematic review of available evidence to examine the role of anti-neuropathic medicines in the management of pain in IBS. Methods:We systematically searched scientific repositories for trials investigating conventional oral, and/or parenteral, pharmaceutical antineuropathic treatments in patients with IBS. We summarized key participant characteristics, outcomes related to pain (primary outcome), and selected secondary outcomes. Key results:We included 13 studies (n = 629 participants): six investigated amitriptyline, three duloxetine, three pregabalin, and one gabapentin. There was considerable methodological and statistical heterogeneity, so we performed a narrative synthesis and limited meta-analysis. Amitriptyline was most extensively studied, though only in diarrhea-predominant patients. In individual trials, amitriptyline, pregabalin and gabapentin generally appeared beneficial for pain outcomes. While duloxetine studies tended to report improvements in pain, all were un-controlled trials with high risk of bias. Meta-analysis of three studies (n = 278) yielded a pooled relative-risk of 0.50 (95%CI 0.38-0.66) for not improving with anti-neuropathic agent vs control. We did not identify any eligible studies investigating the role of parenteral anti-neuropathics. Conclusions and inferences:Anti-neuropathic analgesics may improve pain in IBS, and deserve further, high-quality investigation, potentially considering parenteral administration and agents with minimal gastrointestinal motility effects. Investigation of amitriptyline's efficacy in non-diarrhea-predominant subtypes is currently lacking, and we recommend particular caution for its use in IBS-C.

IntroductionNovel, evidence-based treatments are required for treatment-resistant post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) has beneficially augmented psychotherapy in several small clinical trials.ObjectivesTo review the use of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in treatment-resistant PTSD.MethodsSystematic searches of four databases were conducted from inception to February 2020. A meta-analysis was performed on trials which were double-blinded, randomised, and compared MDMA-assisted psychotherapy to psychotherapy and placebo. The primary outcomes were the differences in Clinician Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS-IV) score and Beck’s Depression Inventory (BDI). Secondary outcome measures included neurocognitive and physical adverse effects, at the time, and within seven days of intervention.ResultsFour randomised controlled trials (RCTs) met inclusion criteria. When compared to active placebo, intervention groups taking 75mg (MD -46.90; 95% CI -58.78, -35.02), 125mg (MD -20.98; 95% CI -34.35, -7.61) but not 100mg (MD -12.90; 95% CI -36.09, 10.29) of MDMA with psychotherapy, had significant decreases in CAPS-IV scores, as did the inactive placebo arm (MD -33.20; 95% CI -40.53, -25.87). A significant decrease in BDI when compared to active placebo (MD -10.80; 95% CI -20.39, -1.21) was only observed at 75mg. Compared to placebo, participants reported significantly more episodes of low mood, nausea and jaw-clenching during sessions and lack of appetite after seven days.ConclusionsThese results demonstrate potential therapeutic benefit with minimal physical and neurocognitive risk for the use of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in TR-PTSD, despite little effect on Beck’s Depression Inventory. Better powered RCTs are required to investigate further.DisclosureJames Rucker has attended trial related meetings paid for by Compass Pathways Ltd.

No abstract