Treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders with the Alpha-1 Adrenergic Antagonist Prazosin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The present review aims to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of the α-1-adrenergic antagonist prazosin as primary pharmacologic treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Method: A systematic review was performed using keywords (i.e., prazosin, α-1-adrenergic antagonist, α-1-blocker, post-traumatic stress disorder) in the databases PubMed/Medline (1966–May 2016), Embase (1966–May 2016), ScienceDirect (1823–May 2016), OvidSP (1946–May 2016) and Nature (1845–May 2016). To be considered for inclusion, studies had to test the efficacy of prazosin either alone or added to ongoing treatment in adults with PTSD, use validated tools to assess and monitor the disorders, allow comparisons on the basis of univariate analyses (i.e., p-values of t-tests and effect sizes) and list the identified adverse reactions. Results: 12 studies were included: 5 randomized controlled trials, 4 open-label prospective trials and 3 retrospective file reviews. The evaluation concerned 276 patients exposed to civilian trauma (19%) or war trauma (81%). Prazosin significantly decreases trauma nightmares, avoidance, hypervigilance and improves patient status in all studies. No significant difference of blood pressure was observed at the end of trials. Conclusions: Beyond the methodological and clinical biases of these studies, the present review not only confirms the effectiveness and good tolerability of prazosin, but also suggests its possible use as primary pharmacologic treatment for PTSD. Uncertainties remain, however, regarding the prescription modalities and dosages.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".