-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Depression occurs frequently in individuals with coronary artery disease (CAD) and is associated with a poor prognosis. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Depression occurs frequently in individuals with coronary artery disease (CAD) and is associated with a poor prognosis.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of psychological and pharmacological interventions for depression in CAD patients with comorbid depression.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases up to August 2020. We also searched three clinical trials registers in September 2021. We examined reference lists of included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and contacted primary authors. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs investigating psychological and pharmacological interventions for depression in adults with CAD and comorbid depression. Our primary outcomes included depression, mortality, and cardiac events. Secondary outcomes were healthcare costs and utilisation, health-related quality of life, cardiovascular vital signs, biomarkers of platelet activation, electrocardiogram wave parameters, non-cardiac adverse events, and pharmacological side effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently examined the identified papers for inclusion and extracted data from the included studies. We performed random-effects model meta-analyses to compute overall estimates of treatment outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-seven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Psychological interventions may result in a reduction in end-of-treatment depression symptoms compared to controls (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to -0.19, I = 88%; low certainty evidence; 10 trials; n = 1226). No effect was evident on medium-term depression symptoms one to six months after the end of treatment (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.01, I = 69%; 7 trials; n = 2654). The evidence for long-term depression symptoms and depression response was sparse for this comparison. There is low certainty evidence that psychological interventions may result in little to no difference in end-of-treatment depression remission (odds ratio (OR) 2.02, 95% CI 0.78 to 5.19, I = 87%; low certainty evidence; 3 trials; n = 862). Based on one to two trials per outcome, no beneficial effects on mortality and cardiac events of psychological interventions versus control were consistently found. The evidence was very uncertain for end-of-treatment effects on all-cause mortality, and data were not reported for end-of-treatment cardiovascular mortality and occurrence of myocardial infarction for this comparison. In the trials examining a head-to-head comparison of varying psychological interventions or clinical management, the evidence regarding the effect on end-of-treatment depression symptoms is very uncertain for: cognitive behavioural therapy compared to supportive stress management; behaviour therapy compared to person-centred therapy; cognitive behavioural therapy and well-being therapy compared to clinical management. There is low certainty evidence from one trial that cognitive behavioural therapy may result in little to no difference in end-of-treatment depression remission compared to supportive stress management (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 4.50; low certainty evidence; n = 83). Based on one to two trials per outcome, no beneficial effects on depression remission, depression response, mortality rates, and cardiac events were consistently found in head-to-head comparisons between psychological interventions or clinical management. The review suggests that pharmacological intervention may have a large effect on end-of-treatment depression symptoms (SMD -0.83, 95% CI -1.33 to -0.32, I = 90%; low certainty evidence; 8 trials; n = 750). Pharmacological interventions probably result in a moderate to large increase in depression remission (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.89, I = 0%; moderate certainty evidence; 4 trials; n = 646). We found an effect favouring pharmacological intervention versus placebo on depression response at the end of treatment, though strength of evidence was not rated (OR 2.73, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.54, I = 62%; 5 trials; n = 891). Based on one to four trials per outcome, no beneficial effects regarding mortality and cardiac events were consistently found for pharmacological versus placebo trials, and the evidence was very uncertain for end-of-treatment effects on all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction. In the trials examining a head-to-head comparison of varying pharmacological agents, the evidence was very uncertain for end-of-treatment effects on depression symptoms. The evidence regarding the effects of different pharmacological agents on depression symptoms at end of treatment is very uncertain for: simvastatin versus atorvastatin; paroxetine versus fluoxetine; and escitalopram versus Bu Xin Qi. No trials were eligible for the comparison of a psychological intervention with a pharmacological intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In individuals with CAD and depression, there is low certainty evidence that psychological intervention may result in a reduction in depression symptoms at the end of treatment. There was also low certainty evidence that pharmacological interventions may result in a large reduction of depression symptoms at the end of treatment. Moderate certainty evidence suggests that pharmacological intervention probably results in a moderate to large increase in depression remission at the end of treatment. Evidence on maintenance effects and the durability of these short-term findings is still missing. The evidence for our primary and secondary outcomes, apart from depression symptoms at end of treatment, is still sparse due to the low number of trials per outcome and the heterogeneity of examined populations and interventions. As psychological and pharmacological interventions can seemingly have a large to only a small or no effect on depression, there is a need for research focusing on extracting those approaches able to substantially improve depression in individuals with CAD and depression.
Topics: Adult; Coronary Artery Disease; Depression; Escitalopram; Humans; Psychotherapy; Quality of Life
PubMed: 34910821
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008012.pub4 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2020To explore the short-term efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine in the treatment of panic disorder in adults.
OBJECTIVE
To explore the short-term efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine in the treatment of panic disorder in adults.
METHODS
Multiple electronic databases were searched to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on paroxetine and panic disorder. The primary efficacy outcomes were: the mean change compared to the baseline in the total number of full panic attacks, Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score, and the proportion of participants with zero full panic attacks and with a 50% or greater reduction in the number of full panic attacks. The tolerability outcomes included withdrawal rate and the incidence of adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
13RCTs were included. The pooled analyses showed patients who received paroxetine experienced greater improvements in the number of full panic attacks (total: MD=-1.96, 95%CI -3.45 to -0.47, P=0.010; ≥50% reduction: OR=1.66, 95%CI 1.08 to 2.55, P=0.02; zero full panic attacks: OR=1.70, 95%CI 1.42 to 2.03, P < 0.00001) and CGI-S (MD=-0.37, 95%CI -0.74 to -0.01, P=0.05) than placebo. There was no evident difference in the total withdrawal rate (OR=0.91, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.08, P=0.26) and withdrawal rate due to AEs (OR=1.29, 95%CI 0.97 to 1.72, P=0.07) between the two groups. Withdrawal rate due to lack of efficacy or relapse (OR=0.44, 95%CI 0.31 to 0.63, P < 0.00001) and the incidence of serious AEs (OR=0.42, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.79, P=0.007) in the paroxetine group was lower than the placebo group. Meanwhile, the incidence of any treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (OR=1.32, 95%CI 1.05 to 1.64, P=0.02) in the paroxetine group was higher in comparison with the placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Paroxetine is an effective and well-tolerated short-term treatment for adults with panic disorder.
PubMed: 32296330
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.00275 -
Clinical Breast Cancer Apr 2022Concerns around pharmacological interaction between tamoxifen and antidepressants have resulted in evidence-base guidelines that recommend avoidance or caution with... (Review)
Review
Concerns around pharmacological interaction between tamoxifen and antidepressants have resulted in evidence-base guidelines that recommend avoidance or caution with concurrent use. It remains unclear however whether this interaction is clinically important. A systematic review of studies comparing endocrine therapy (including tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors) alone or concurrent with antidepressants in breast cancer patients was performed. The literature search sought studies within MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Collaboration Library published from database inception until December 1, 2020. Outcomes of interest included recurrence, breast cancer-specific survival, overall mortality, quality of life, and treatment compliance. Studies were assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle Ottawa tool for case-control and cohort studies. From 695 citations, we included 15 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [255 patients], 10 retrospective cohort studies [75,678 patients], and 3 case-control studies [18,836 patients]). While between-study clinical and methodologic differences (including analysis of confounding variables) precluded formal meta-analysis, findings from included studies did not find consistent evidence that concurrent use of antidepressants (including paroxetine) with tamoxifen therapy has negative impacts on the outcomes of interest. In this systematic review, despite data from nearly 100,000 patients, concurrent use of tamoxifen and antidepressants showed no consistent negative effect on clinical outcomes. Given the recognized harm to patients of changing either endocrine therapy or antidepressants to avoid concurrent use, current evidence-based guidelines should be updated accordingly. More rigorously designed pharmacoepidemiologic studies are needed.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Quality of Life; Retrospective Studies; Tamoxifen
PubMed: 34740542
DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2021.10.003 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Aug 2019Hot flushes and sleep disturbances are the most common vasomotor symptoms (VMS) reported by postmenopausal women. Hormonal treatment is to date referred to as the gold... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy of Low-Dose Paroxetine for the Treatment of Hot Flushes in Surgical and Physiological Postmenopausal Women: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.
Hot flushes and sleep disturbances are the most common vasomotor symptoms (VMS) reported by postmenopausal women. Hormonal treatment is to date referred to as the gold standard approach but not suitable for all the patients. Alternative treatments are needed in case of a contraindication to menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), adverse side effects, and poor compliance. Paroxetine salt is the only nonhormonal medication approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the management of VMS. Nonetheless, few trials with low consensus are available about this topic. In this review, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of low-dose paroxetine therapy in the treatment of vasomotor hot flushes and night sleep disturbances in postmenopausal women. We performed an electronic search from the beginning of all databases to July 2019. All results were then limited to a randomized trial. Restrictions for language or geographic location were not utilized. Inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials of physiological or surgical postmenopausal women experiencing hot flushes and sleep disturbances who were randomized to either low-dose paroxetine or placebo (i.e., formulations without active ingredients). The primary outcome evaluated was the mean weekly reduction of hot flushes. Five randomized clinical trials, including 1482 postmenopausal women, were analyzed. Significant heterogeneity (I = 90%) between studies was noted. Hot flushes episodes were significantly reduced in the treatment arm compared to placebo (mean difference (MD) -7.97 [-10.51, -5.92] episodes/week). Results on the improvement on sleep were limited by being reported in only two studies; however, no significant reduction of night-time awakenings was observed (MD, -0.40 awakenings/night [-1.38, 0.58 CI]). Low-dose paroxetine is an effective treatment for vasomotor menopause symptoms, including hot flushes.
Topics: Female; Hot Flashes; Humans; Ovariectomy; Paroxetine; Postmenopause; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Sleep Wake Disorders
PubMed: 31480427
DOI: 10.3390/medicina55090554 -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2023Vasomotor symptoms, or hot flashes, are among the most common complaints for menopausal and postmenopausal women. As an alternative to hormone replacement therapy,...
INTRODUCTION
Vasomotor symptoms, or hot flashes, are among the most common complaints for menopausal and postmenopausal women. As an alternative to hormone replacement therapy, paroxetine mesylate became the only non-hormonal treatment approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), despite limited evidence for its efficacy. More specifically, there is uncertainty around paroxetine's unique benefit and the magnitude of the placebo response in clinical trials of paroxetine.
METHODS
Relevant databases were searched to identify randomized clinical trials examining the efficacy of paroxetine to treat hot flashes. The primary outcomes of interest were hot flash frequency and hot flash severity scores. Data was extracted from the published results, and risk of bias assessments were conducted.
RESULTS
Six randomized clinical trials that included a total of 1,486 women were coded and analyzed. The results demonstrated that 79% of the mean treatment response for hot flash frequency is accounted for by a placebo response, resulting in a mean true drug effect of 21% at most. Additionally, 68% of the mean treatment response for hot flash severity is accounted for by a placebo response, resulting in a maximum true drug effect of 32%.
DISCUSSION
The results herein call into question the actual efficacy of the only FDA approved, non-hormonal treatment for hot flashes by demonstrating that a placebo response accounts for the majority of treatment responses for reductions in both hot flash frequency and severity. The findings provide evidence to reevaluate the use of paroxetine to treat postmenopausal hot flashes and emphasize the importance of considering effective, alternative treatments for vasomotor symptoms.
PubMed: 37599891
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1204163 -
Drugs in Context 2020The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on the impact of antidepressants on depressive symptom severity, quality of life (QoL), morbidity, and mortality in...
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on the impact of antidepressants on depressive symptom severity, quality of life (QoL), morbidity, and mortality in patients with heart failure (HF).
METHODS
Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, studies published from December 1969 to December 2019 that pertain to depression and HF were identified through the use of the PubMed and PsycINFO databases, using the keywords: 'antidepressant*' and 'heart failure.' Two authors independently conducted a focused analysis and reached a final consensus on 17 studies that met the specific selection criteria and passed the study quality checks.
RESULTS
Studies varied in types of antidepressants used as well as in study designs. Ten studies were analyzed for the impact of antidepressant medications on depressive symptom severity. Five of these were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), out of which sertraline and paroxetine showed a significant reduction in depressive symptoms despite the small samples utilized. Four of the 17 studies addressed QoL as part of their outcomes showing no difference for escitalopram (RCT), significantly greater improvements for paroxetine controlled release (RCT), statistical significance for sertraline compared to control (pilot study), and showing significant improvement before and after treatment (open-label trial) for nefazodone. Thirteen of the 17 studies included measures of morbidity and mortality. Although early analyses have pointed to an association of antidepressant use and mortality particularly with fluoxetine, the reviewed studies showed no increase in mortality for antidepressants, and secondary analyses showed improved mortality in patients who achieved remission of depressive symptoms.
CONCLUSION
Out of the various antidepressants studied, which included sertraline, paroxetine, escitalopram, citalopram, bupropion, nefazodone, and nortriptyline, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors seem to be a safe treatment option for patients with depression and HF. However, due to the variety of study designs as well as the mixed results for each antidepressant, more information for reducing depression severity, morbidity, and mortality and improving quality of life in patients with HF should be examined using robust large sample RCTs.
PubMed: 32788920
DOI: 10.7573/dic.2020-5-4 -
Current Neuropharmacology 2020The aims of this study were to systematically review the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) combined with...
OBJECTIVES
The aims of this study were to systematically review the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) combined with antidepressants in the treatment of the first major depressive disorder (MDD) episode.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The primary efficacious outcome was the pooled mean-endpoint scores of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD). Rates of response, remission rate, overall discontinuation and discontinuation due to adverse events were also evaluated. Search in the Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases for interesting outcomes was carried out in March 2018.
RESULTS
A total of 108 randomized patients of two randomized controlled trials were included in this study. The pooled mean- endpoint scores of the HAMD in one, two, and four weeks for rTMS plus antidepressants (citalopram or paroxetine) were greater than that of sham plus the antidepressants. The pooled rates of overall discontinuation and discontinuation rates due to adverse events were not different between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
According to a piece of limited evidence, the high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) could accelerate the antidepressant effect of SSRIs in young patients with a first-episode major depressive disorder. However, the acceptability and tolerability of HF-rTMS in the treatment of such patients are no better than an antidepressant alone. However, further well-defined and large sample-size studies of HF-rTMS combined with an antidepressant in MDD should be carried out to warrant these results.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Bias; Clinical Trials as Topic; Combined Modality Therapy; Depressive Disorder, Major; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32091338
DOI: 10.2174/1570159X18666200221113134 -
PloS One 2020RDoC conceptualises psychopathology as neurobiologically-rooted behavioural psychological "constructs" that span dimensionally from normality to pathology, but its...
Exploring the utility of RDoC in differentiating effectiveness amongst antidepressants: A systematic review using proposed psychometrics as the unit of analysis for the Negative Valence Systems domain.
BACKGROUND
RDoC conceptualises psychopathology as neurobiologically-rooted behavioural psychological "constructs" that span dimensionally from normality to pathology, but its clinical utility remains controversial.
AIM
To explore RDoC's potential clinical utility by examining antidepressant effectiveness through Negative Valence Systems (NVS) domain constructs.
METHOD
A systematic review was conducted on Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO for antidepressant trials that included psychometric instruments assessed by Watson, Stanton & Clark (2017) to represent NVS constructs of Acute Threat, Potential Threat and Loss.
RESULTS
221 citations were identified; 13 were included in qualitative synthesis, none for quantitative analysis. All suffered from significant bias risks. 9 antidepressants were investigated, most within 1 construct, and most were found to be effective. Paroxetine, citalopram and fluvoxamine were found to be effective for Acute Threat, fluoxetine, desvenlafaxine and sertraline for Potential Threat, and sertraline, fluvoxamine, fluoxetine and desvenlafaxine effective for Loss. Nefazodone was found to be ineffective for acute fear.
CONCLUSION
Preliminary evidence supports RDoC NVS constructs' clinical utility in assessing antidepressant effectiveness, but lack of discriminant validity between Potential Threat and Loss supports their recombination into a single Distress construct. Finding of effectiveness within "normal" construct levels support the utility of a dimensional approach. Testable hypotheses were generated that can further test RDoC's clinical utility.
Topics: Algorithms; Antidepressive Agents; Citalopram; Clinical Trials as Topic; Depressive Disorder; Desvenlafaxine Succinate; Fluoxetine; Fluvoxamine; Humans; Paroxetine; Psychometrics; Sertraline; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33326436
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243057 -
Medicine Feb 2020To compare the therapeutic effect of 6 SSRIs among the Chinese senile depression patients. And drug-induced nausea leads to low compliance in elderly depression patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative risk of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs)-induced nausea among Chinese senile depression patients: A network meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the therapeutic effect of 6 SSRIs among the Chinese senile depression patients. And drug-induced nausea leads to low compliance in elderly depression patients in China, it is urgent to assess the safety of 6 SSRIs with respect to induced-nausea among the Chinese senile depression patients.
METHOD
In the present study, a network of meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy of 6 SSRIs among the Chinese senile depression patients, in addition, the safety of 6 SSRIs with respect to induced-nausea among the Chinese senile depression patients was also evaluated. PubMed, Embase databases, WanFang, CNKI, ChongqingWeiPu were searched for the related articles. The primary outcome of this study were the number of effective cases of SSRIs and the number of cases of nausea caused by SSRIs in Chinese elderly depressed patients. Odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals(95%CIs) were calculated within pairwise and network meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Twenty eight trials were identified, including 2246 patients, the network meta-analysis indicated that Escitalopram was associated with a lower risk of nausea compared Paroxetine (odds ratios 0.49, 95%CI = 0.34-0.69) when they were used in Chinese elderly depressed patients. Escitalopram also exhibited distinct advantages compared other SSRIs.In terms of drug efficacy, Escitalopram was significantly superior to Paroxetine (OR = 2.26, 95%CI = 1.55-3.37).
CONCLUSION
The rank of SSRIs with respect to induced-nausea was: Combination of EP > Fluoxetine > Paroxetine > Citalopram > Sertraline > Fluvoxamine > Escitalopram, respectively.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; China; Depression; Depressive Disorder; Female; Humans; Male; Medication Adherence; Middle Aged; Nausea; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 32049832
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019133