Comparison of alpha-2 agonist versus alpha-1 antagonist for post-traumatic stress disorder–associated nightmares in pediatric patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in children and adolescents has a high prevalence of accompanying sleep disturbances. Currently, pediatric treatment of PTSD-related nightmares is extrapolated from adult studies. This study aims to determine the effectiveness and safety of clonidine and guanfacine compared with prazosin for the treatment of PTSD-related nightmares. Methods This was a retrospective, single-center, medical record review of patients 5 to 17 years old admitted to an inpatient psychiatric unit from January 2015 to September 2021. Patients with a new initiation of an alpha-2 agonist (clonidine or guanfacine) or an alpha-1 antagonist (prazosin) with a diagnosis of PTSD, other trauma- or stressor-related disorder or unspecified anxiety disorder were included. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a decrease in the frequency of nightmares. Results A total of 59 patients were included in the study: 37 in the alpha-2 agonist group and 22 in the alpha-1 antagonist group. There was no statistically significant difference in reduction of nightmares with both groups having a high percentage of patients showing response (alpha-2 agonist: 91.9%, alpha-1 antagonist: 86.4%). Time to decrease in nightmares was comparable between groups with a relatively quick onset. Within the alpha-2 agonist group, clonidine (1.59 ± 1.06 days) compared with guanfacine (3.18 ± 1.74 days) had a statistically significant faster time to reduction in nightmares ( p = .005). Discussion Both pharmacologic classes of medications were effective treatment options for pediatric PTSD-associated nightmares with a low incidence of adverse effects. There was a quick time to onset seen with all agents.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".