Pathological gambling (DB) (Sáaiz-Ruiz et al., 2005) Significant improvement for escitalopram subjects while placebo group had a relapse of gambling symptoms Pathological gambling (DB) (Grant and Potenza, 2006) Paroxetine and placebo groups with comparable improvement Pathological gambling (DB) (Grant et al., 2003) Paroxetine group significantly improved compared to placebo Pathological gambling (DB) (Kim et al., 2002) Pathological gambling (DB) (Blanco et al., 2002)įluvoxamine not statistically significant from placebo except in young males Pathological gambling (DB) (Hollander et al., 2000) The intent of this review is to provide an updated clinical picture of the previously mentioned ICDs and present evidence of potential pharmacological treatments for these disorders (see Table Table1 1). A study of 791 college students found that 82 (10.4%) met criteria for at least one lifetime ICD, demonstrating the common nature of these disorders in the general population (Odlaug and Grant, 2010). ICDs are relatively common among adolescents and adults, carry significant morbidity and mortality, and can often be effectively treated with behavioral and pharmacological therapies. The core characteristic of ICDs is difficulty resisting urges to engage in behaviors that are excessive and/or ultimately harmful to oneself or others (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Diagnostic criteria have been proposed for pathological skin picking (PSP), compulsive sexual behavior (CSB), and compulsive buying (CB), which are currently classified under ICDs not otherwise specified (NOS). Pharmacological interventions for pathological gambling may be an adequate treatment alternative in pathological gambling.The DSM-IV formally recognizes pathological gambling (PG), kleptomania (KM), trichotillomania (TTM), intermittent explosive disorder (IED), and pyromania as impulse control disorders (ICDs). No differences in outcome between the 3 main classes of pharmacological interventions (antidepressants, opiate antagonists, mood stabilizers) were detected. Effect sizes were also negatively related to the proportion of male participants in the included studies. A multiple regression analysis showed that the magnitude of effect sizes at posttreatment was lower in studies using a placebo-control condition compared with studies using a predesign/postdesign without any control condition. For each condition, means and SDs for gambling-related outcome measures were compiled at 2 points in time: baseline and posttreatment.Īt posttreatment, the analysis showed that the pharmacological interventions were more effective than no treatment/placebo, yielding an overall effect size of 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.92). The included studies were coded for outcome measures of pathological gambling. A total of 597 subjects were included in the outcome analyses of these studies. A total of 130 potential studies were identified of which 16 met the inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria were as follows: the target problem had to be pathological gambling, the interventions were pharmacological, the study was written in English, and the study reported outcomes particularly pertaining to gambling. Studies of pharmacological interventions of pathological gambling were identified by computer searches in the PsychINFO and MEDLINE databases covering the period from 1966 to July 2006, as well as from relevant reference lists. Although several qualitative reviews on pharmacological interventions for pathological gambling have been published, no quantitative review of this field has been conducted.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |