-
Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) Apr 2020(Reprinted with permission from . 2019 Jul;6(7):601-609).
(Reprinted with permission from . 2019 Jul;6(7):601-609).
PubMed: 33343239
DOI: 10.1176/appi.focus.18204 -
The British Journal of Psychiatry : the... Sep 2010Treatment of negative symptoms in chronic schizophrenia continues to be a major clinical issue. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Treatment of negative symptoms in chronic schizophrenia continues to be a major clinical issue.
AIMS
To analyse the efficacy of add-on antidepressants for the treatment of negative symptoms of chronic schizophrenia.
METHOD
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing the effect of antidepressants and placebo on the negative symptoms of chronic schizophrenia, measured through standardised rating scales. Outcome was measured as standardised mean difference between end-of-trial and baseline scores of negative symptoms.
RESULTS
There were 23 trials from 22 publications (n = 819). The antidepressants involved were selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, mirtazapine, reboxetine, mianserin, trazodone and ritanserin; trials on other antidepressants were not available. The overall standardised mean difference was moderate (-0.48) in favour of antidepressants and subgroup analysis revealed significant responses for fluoxetine, trazodone and ritanserin.
CONCLUSIONS
Antidepressants along with antipsychotics are more effective in treating the negative symptoms of schizophrenia than antipsychotics alone.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Chronic Disease; Depression; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Schizophrenic Psychology; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 20807960
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.109.067710 -
Neuropsychopharmacology : Official... Dec 2004Depression in the elderly is a major public health problem as untreated depression adversely impacts comorbid illnesses. It is important to develop safe and effective... (Review)
Review
Depression in the elderly is a major public health problem as untreated depression adversely impacts comorbid illnesses. It is important to develop safe and effective antidepressant therapies for older individuals. We performed a systematic review of all published randomized, placebo-controlled antidepressant medication trials in populations over age 55 years. Papers were obtained via MEDLINE (1966-August 2003) and PSYCINFO (1872-August 2003). Unpublished trials, trials examining nonpharmacologic interventions, and papers reporting post hoc analyses were not included in this review unless they provided new insights. A total of 18 placebo-controlled trials examining acute efficacy met our criteria. The combined sample size in these studies was 2252. The mean sample size was 51 (range 20-728) and mean trial duration was 7 weeks. A total of 12 trials examined tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), five trials examined selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), two trials examined bupropion, and one trial examined mirtazapine. There were no published trials of venlafaxine or nefazodone. In all, 71.5% of trials reported significantly greater efficacy with drug than placebo. In conclusions, there is a paucity of published controlled antidepressant trials in the elderly. Most published studies examine small sample sizes and do not include common comorbid conditions. Efficacy studies examining relapse prevention are lacking. Large placebo response rates, lack of controlled head to head comparisons, and other methodological design differences make crosstrial comparisons difficult. Large simple studies are urgently needed to address the unmet needs for data on safety and efficacy of antidepressants in this population.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depressive Disorder; Double-Blind Method; Geriatric Assessment; Humans; MEDLINE; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 15340391
DOI: 10.1038/sj.npp.1300550 -
Acta Dermato-venereologica Aug 2017There is increasing evidence of clinically relevant anti-inflammatory effects of monoaminergic antidepressants. PubMed and Ovid databases were searched systematically... (Review)
Review
There is increasing evidence of clinically relevant anti-inflammatory effects of monoaminergic antidepressants. PubMed and Ovid databases were searched systematically for the use and efficacy of antidepressants in association with 5 common inflammatory skin disorders: chronic urticaria, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, other eczema, and alopecia areata. From January 1984 to June 2016, publications included a total of 1,252 dermatological patients in 28 trials or case reports. These unambiguously reported a reduced burden of dermatological symptoms in relation to treatment with antidepressants. Several randomized controlled trials of first-generation antidepressants have been published, while studies of modern antidepressants are usually open-label, yet more informative, regarding patients' characteristics and study procedures. These overall positive findings may indicate a rationale, beyond treating comorbid psychiatric disorders, for the use of antidepressants in dermatology. Further research into modern tolerable antidepressants, including selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, mirtazapine and bupropion, is required.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Dermatologic Agents; Dopamine Uptake Inhibitors; Humans; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Skin Diseases; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28512664
DOI: 10.2340/00015555-2702 -
Psychopharmacology May 2016Current psychotropic medications have been shown to modulate immune activation. However, the effects of individual psychotropic agents on the immune system and how these... (Review)
Review
RATIONALE
Current psychotropic medications have been shown to modulate immune activation. However, the effects of individual psychotropic agents on the immune system and how these might contribute to their efficacy remain largely unclear.
OBJECTIVE
This paper aims to review previous literature on the effects of antidepressants and antipsychotics on the immune system, with a systematic review of in vitro findings, and discuss the relevance of these effects for the response to treatment and future drug development.
RESULTS
Inflammatory markers have been associated with fluctuations in clinical status and with treatment response both in depression and psychosis. The in vitro literature on antidepressants shows that some antidepressants, such as clomipramine and fluoxetine, more consistently decrease pro-inflammatory cytokines (interleukin (IL)-6, interferon (IFN)-γ, tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α), whilst others (mirtazapine and venlafaxine) tend to increase their levels. However, any overall conclusion is challenged by several inconsistent findings, which appear partly dependent on different methodological approaches used. The in vitro studies on antipsychotics are even less clear-cut showing pro- and anti-inflammatory activity for the same antipsychotic agent (haloperidol, clozapine, risperidone) across different studies. We also noted inconsistencies between in vivo and in vitro literature, which could partly be attributed to the interaction in vivo with various biological systems or lifestyle factors that can modulate the immune system.
CONCLUSIONS
Inflammatory markers seem to hold potential for developing more individualised treatment strategies in the future. In this context, further research disentangling the differential immunomodulatory effects of different drugs could be used for tailoring treatment to specific individuals, according to their immune endophenotypes.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Humans; Immunologic Factors; Inflammation; Inflammation Mediators; Psychiatry; Psychotropic Drugs
PubMed: 26268146
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-015-4044-5 -
Journal of Psychiatric Research Nov 2017Early improvement of depressive symptoms during the first two weeks of antidepressant treatment has been discussed to be a resilience signal predicting a later positive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Early improvement as a resilience signal predicting later remission to antidepressant treatment in patients with Major Depressive Disorder: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Early improvement of depressive symptoms during the first two weeks of antidepressant treatment has been discussed to be a resilience signal predicting a later positive treatment outcome in patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). However, the predictive value of early improvement varies between studies, and the use of different antidepressants may explain heterogeneous results. The objective of this review was to assess the predictive value of early improvement on later response and remission and to identify antidepressants with the highest chance of early improvement. We included 17 randomized controlled trials investigating early improvement in 14,779 adult patients with MDD comparing monotherapy with an antidepressant against placebo or another antidepressant drug. 62% (range: 35-85%) of patients treated with an antidepressant and 47% (range: 21-69%) with placebo were early improver, defined as a >20%/25% symptom reduction after two weeks of treatment. Early improvement predicted response and remission after 5-12 weeks of treatment with high sensitivity (85%; 95%-CI: 84.3 to 85.7) and low to moderate specificity (54%; 95%-CI: 53.1 to 54.9). Early improver had a 8.37 fold (6.97-10.05) higher likelihood to become responder and a 6.38 fold (5.07-8.02) higher likelihood to be remitter at endpoint than non-improver. The highest early improver rates were achieved in patients treated with mirtazapine or a tricyclic antidepressant. This finding of a high predictive value of early improvement on treatment outcome may be important for treatment decisions in the early course of antidepressant treatment. Further studies should test the efficacy of such early treatment decisions.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Resilience, Psychological
PubMed: 28697423
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.07.003 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2014Paroxetine is the most potent inhibitor of the reuptake of serotonin of all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and has been studied in many randomised... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Paroxetine is the most potent inhibitor of the reuptake of serotonin of all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and has been studied in many randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, these comparative studies provided contrasting findings and systematic reviews of RCTs have always considered the SSRIs as a group, and evidence applicable to this group of drugs might not be applicable to paroxetine alone. The present systematic review assessed the efficacy and tolerability profile of paroxetine in comparison with tricyclics (TCAs), SSRIs and newer or non-conventional agents.
OBJECTIVES
1. To determine the efficacy of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents in alleviating the acute symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder.2. To review acceptability of treatment with paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.3. To investigate the adverse effects of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialized Register (CCDANCTR, to 30 September 2012), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were handsearched. Pharmaceutical companies marketing paroxetine and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials allocating participants with major depression to paroxetine versus any other antidepressants (ADs), both conventional (such as TCAs, SSRIs) and newer or non-conventional (such as hypericum). For trials which had a cross-over design, only results from the first randomisation period were considered.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a standard form. Data were then entered in RevMan 5.2 with a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, settings and efficacy, acceptability and tolerability measures.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 115 randomised controlled trials (26,134 participants) were included. In 54 studies paroxetine was compared with older ADs, in 21 studies with another SSRI, and in 40 studies with a newer or non-conventional antidepressant other than SSRIs. For the primary outcome (patients who responded to treatment), paroxetine was more effective than reboxetine at increasing patients who responded early to treatment (Odds Ratio (OR): 0.66, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.87, number needed to treat to provide benefit (NNTb) = 16, 95% CI 10 to 50, at one to four weeks, 3 RCTs, 1375 participants, moderate quality of evidence), and less effective than mirtazapine (OR: 2.39, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.02, NNTb = 8, 95% CI 5 to 14, at one to four weeks, 3 RCTs, 726 participants, moderate quality of evidence). Paroxetine was less effective than citalopram in improving response to treatment (OR: 1.54, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.28, NNTb = 9, 95% CI 5 to 102, at six to 12 weeks, 1 RCT, 406 participants, moderate quality of evidence). We found no clear evidence that paroxetine was more or less effective compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at acute (six to 12 weeks), early (one to four weeks), or longer term follow-up (four to six months). Paroxetine was associated with a lower rate of adverse events than amitriptyline, imipramine and older ADs as a class, but was less well tolerated than agomelatine and hypericum. Included studies were generally at unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting of allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessment, and incomplete reporting of outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Some possibly clinically meaningful differences between paroxetine and other ADs exist, but no definitive conclusions can be drawn from these findings. In terms of response, there was a moderate quality of evidence that citalopram was better than paroxetine in the acute phase (six to 12 weeks), although only one study contributed data. In terms of early response to treatment (one to four weeks) there was moderate quality of evidence that mirtazapine was better than paroxetine and that paroxetine was better than reboxetine. However there was no clear evidence that paroxetine was better or worse compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at any time point. Even if some differences were identified, the findings from this review are better thought as hypothesis forming rather than hypothesis testing and it would be reassuring to see the conclusions replicated in future trials. Finally, most of included studies were at unclear or high risk of bias, and were sponsored by the drug industry. The potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should be borne in mind.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Humans; Paroxetine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 24696195
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006531.pub2 -
Pharmacotherapy Aug 2014Pharmacologic interventions for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) wasting have been studied since the 1990s, but the results of these interventions have been difficult... (Review)
Review
Pharmacologic interventions for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) wasting have been studied since the 1990s, but the results of these interventions have been difficult to compare because the studies used different HIV wasting definitions and assessed various patient outcomes. Thus, we performed a systematic review of the current literature to identify studies that evaluated pharmacologic management of HIV wasting and to compare and contrast treatment options. Further, we provide a comprehensive review of these treatment options and describe the definition of HIV wasting used in each study, the outcomes assessed, and whether antiretroviral therapy was used during the HIV wasting treatment. Literature searches of the PubMed/Medline (1946-2014) and Google Scholar databases were performed, and a review of the bibliographies of retrieved articles was performed to identify additional references. Only English-language articles pertaining to humans and HIV-infected individuals were evaluated. Thirty-six studies were identified that assessed pharmacologic interventions to treat HIV wasting. Appetite stimulants, such as megestrol acetate, have been shown to increase total body weight (TBW) and body mass index in HIV-infected patients with wasting. Studies evaluating dronabinol showed conflicting data on TBW increases, but the drug may have minimal benefit on body composition compared with other appetite stimulants. Testosterone has been shown to be effective in HIV wasting for those who suffer from hypogonadism. Recombinant human growth hormone has been evaluated for HIV wasting and has shown promising results for TBW and lean body mass increases. Thalidomide has been studied; however, its use is limited due to its toxicities. Although megestrol acetate and dronabinol are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of HIV wasting, it is important to recognize other comorbidities such as depression or hypogonadism that may contribute to the patient's appetite and weight loss. If a patient is diagnosed with hypogonadism and HIV wasting, testosterone would be a good therapeutic option. Although mirtazapine is not FDA approved for the management of HIV wasting, it has been shown to promote weight gain while treating depression symptoms. Mirtazapine may be a promising pharmacologic option in the management of HIV wasting and depression, but further research is needed.
Topics: Appetite Stimulants; Body Weight; Depression; HIV Infections; HIV Wasting Syndrome; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Research Design; Weight Gain
PubMed: 24782295
DOI: 10.1002/phar.1431 -
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis :... Jan 2013Drug-induced immune thrombocytopenia (DITP) can be confirmed by the demonstration of drug-dependent platelet antibodies in vitro; however, laboratory testing is not... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Drug-induced immune thrombocytopenia (DITP) can be confirmed by the demonstration of drug-dependent platelet antibodies in vitro; however, laboratory testing is not readily accessible and test methods are not standardized.
OBJECTIVE
To identify drugs with the strongest evidence for causing DITP based on clinical and laboratory criteria.
PATIENTS/METHODS
We developed a grading system to evaluate the quality of DITP laboratory testing. The 'DITP criteria' were: (i) Drug (or metabolite) was required for the reaction in vitro; (ii) Immunoglobulin binding was demonstrated; (iii) Two or more laboratories obtained positive results; and (iv) Platelets were the target of immunoglobulin binding. Laboratory diagnosis of DITP was considered definite when all criteria were met and probable when positive results were reported by only one laboratory. Two authors applied the DITP criteria to published reports of each drug identified by systematic review. Discrepancies were independently adjudicated.
RESULTS
Of 153 drugs that were clinically implicated in thrombocytopenic reactions, 72 (47%) were associated with positive laboratory testing. Of those, 16 drugs met criteria for a definite laboratory diagnosis of DITP and thus had the highest probability of causing DITP. Definite drugs were: quinine, quinidine, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, vancomycin, penicillin, rifampin, carbamazepine, ceftriaxone, ibuprofen, mirtazapine, oxaliplatin and suramin; the glycoprotein IIbIIIa inhibitors abciximab, tirofiban and eptifibatide; and heparin.
CONCLUSIONS
We identified drugs with the strongest evidence for an association with immune thrombocytopenia. This list may be helpful for ranking potential causes of thrombocytopenia in a given patient.
Topics: Autoantibodies; Biomarkers; Blood Platelets; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay; Flow Cytometry; Humans; Observer Variation; Predictive Value of Tests; Purpura, Thrombocytopenic, Idiopathic; Reproducibility of Results; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Serologic Tests
PubMed: 23121994
DOI: 10.1111/jth.12052 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Dec 2017Chronic pruritus is a common skin symptom with marked impact on quality of life. Adequate treatment can be challenging for clinicians, demanding the exploration of new... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic pruritus is a common skin symptom with marked impact on quality of life. Adequate treatment can be challenging for clinicians, demanding the exploration of new treatment options such as oral antidepressants.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the use of oral antidepressants in chronic pruritus by a systematic overview of the available relevant literature.
METHODS
The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies providing original data on the efficacy of oral antidepressants in patients with chronic pruritus were included. We assessed the risk for bias by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies.
RESULTS
A total of 35 studies evaluating the oral use of fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, sertraline, amitriptyline, nortriptyline, doxepin, and mirtazapine were included. The majority of included articles showed a marked improvement of pruritus during treatment with oral antidepressants.
LIMITATIONS
Recommendations are mainly based on open-label trials, case series, and case reports.
CONCLUSION
Oral antidepressants should be considered in patients with chronic pruritus that is unresponsive to topical treatment and oral antihistamines, particularly in patients with uremic pruritus, cholestatic pruritus, or paraneoplastic pruritus. More evidence based on randomized-controlled trials is required.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Chronic Disease; Humans; Pruritus; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 29033248
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2017.08.025