The efficacy of azapirones is uncertain due to the lack of meta-analysable data for the primary outcome and low- quality evidence for secondary efficacy outcomes .
A small amount of moderate- quality evidence suggested that the acceptability of azapirones for panic disorder was lower than for placebo .
If further research is to be conducted , studies with larger sample sizes , with different azapirones and with less risk of bias are necessary to draw firm conclusions regarding azapirones for panic disorder
BACKGROUND Panic disorder is common in the general population .
It is often associated with other psychiatric disorders , such as drug dependence , major depression , bipolar disorder , social phobia , specific phobia and generalised anxiety disorder .
Azapirones are a class of drugs used as anxiolytics .
They are associated with less drowsiness , psychomotor impairment , alcohol potentiation and potential for addiction or abuse than benzodiazepines .
However , azapirones are not widely used in the treatment of panic disorder and evidence for their efficacy is unclear .
It is important to find out if azapirones are effective and acceptable in the treatment of panic disorder .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of azapirones on panic disorder in adults , specifically:1 .
to determine the efficacy of azapirones in alleviating symptoms of panic disorder , with or without agoraphobia , in comparison with placebo;2 .
to review the acceptability of azapirones in panic disorder , with or without agoraphobia , in comparison with placebo ; and 3 .
to investigate adverse effects of azapirones in panic disorder with or without agoraphobia , including general prevalence of adverse effects , compared with placebo .
Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events?
CONTEXT Previous studies indicate that industry-sponsored trials tend to draw proindustry conclusions . OBJECTIVE To explore whether the association between funding and conclusions in r and omized drug trials reflects treatment effects or adverse events . DESIGN Observational study of 370 r and omized drug trials included in meta-analyses from Cochrane review s selected from the Cochrane Library , May 2001 . From a r and om sample of 167 Cochrane review s , 25 contained eligible meta-analyses ( assessed a binary outcome ; pooled at least 5 full-paper trials of which at least 1 reported adequate and 1 reported inadequate allocation concealment ) . The primary binary outcome from each meta- analysis was considered the primary outcome for all trials included in each meta- analysis . The association between funding and conclusions was analyzed by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment effect , adverse events , and additional confounding factors ( method ological quality , control intervention , sample size , publication year , and place of publication ) . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Conclusions in trials , classified into whether the experimental drug was recommended as the treatment of choice or not . RESULTS The experimental drug was recommended as treatment of choice in 16 % of trials funded by nonprofit organizations , 30 % of trials not reporting funding , 35 % of trials funded by both nonprofit and for-profit organizations , and 51 % of trials funded by for-profit organizations ( P<.001 ; chi2 test ) . Logistic regression analyses indicated that funding , treatment effect , and double blinding were the only significant predictors of conclusions . Adjusted analyses showed that trials funded by for-profit organizations were significantly more likely to recommend the experimental drug as treatment of choice ( odds ratio , 5.3 ; 95 % confidence interval , 2.0 - 14.4 ) compared with trials funded by nonprofit organizations . This association did not appear to reflect treatment effect or adverse events . CONCLUSIONS Conclusions in trials funded by for-profit organizations may be more positive due to biased interpretation of trial results . Readers should carefully evaluate whether conclusions in r and omized trials are supported by data
The efficacy of azapirones is uncertain due to the lack of meta-analysable data for the primary outcome and low- quality evidence for secondary efficacy outcomes .
A small amount of moderate- quality evidence suggested that the acceptability of azapirones for panic disorder was lower than for placebo .
If further research is to be conducted , studies with larger sample sizes , with different azapirones and with less risk of bias are necessary to draw firm conclusions regarding azapirones for panic disorder
BACKGROUND Panic disorder is common in the general population .
It is often associated with other psychiatric disorders , such as drug dependence , major depression , bipolar disorder , social phobia , specific phobia and generalised anxiety disorder .
Azapirones are a class of drugs used as anxiolytics .
They are associated with less drowsiness , psychomotor impairment , alcohol potentiation and potential for addiction or abuse than benzodiazepines .
However , azapirones are not widely used in the treatment of panic disorder and evidence for their efficacy is unclear .
It is important to find out if azapirones are effective and acceptable in the treatment of panic disorder .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of azapirones on panic disorder in adults , specifically:1 .
to determine the efficacy of azapirones in alleviating symptoms of panic disorder , with or without agoraphobia , in comparison with placebo;2 .
to review the acceptability of azapirones in panic disorder , with or without agoraphobia , in comparison with placebo ; and 3 .
to investigate adverse effects of azapirones in panic disorder with or without agoraphobia , including general prevalence of adverse effects , compared with placebo .