-
PloS One 2022Clinical Depression and the subsequent low immunity is a comorbidity that can act as a risk factor for the severity of COVID-19 cases. Antidepressants such as Selective... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Clinical Depression and the subsequent low immunity is a comorbidity that can act as a risk factor for the severity of COVID-19 cases. Antidepressants such as Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors are associated with immune-modulatory effects, which dismiss inflammatory responses and reduce lung tissue damage. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effect of antidepressant drugs on the prognosis and severity of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.
METHODS
A systematic search was carried out in PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Scopus up to June 14, 2022. The following keywords were used: "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2", "2019-nCoV", "SSRI", "SNRI", "TCA", "MAOI", and "Antidepressant". A fixed or random-effect model assessed the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. We considered P < 0.05 as statistically significant for publication bias. Data were analyzed by Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, Version 2.0 (Biostat, Englewood, NJ).
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were included in our systematic review. Five of them were experimental with 2350, and nine of them were observational with 290,950 participants. Eight out of fourteen articles revealed the effect of antidepressants on reducing the severity of COVID-19. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors drugs, including Fluvoxamine, Escitalopram, Fluoxetine, and Paroxetine, and among the Serotonin-norepinephrine inhibitors medications Venlafaxine, are reasonably associated with reduced risk of intubation or death. Five studies showed no significant effect, and only one high risk of bias article showed the negative effect of antidepressants on the prognosis of Covid-19. The meta-analysis of clinical trials showed that fluvoxamine could significantly decrease the severity outcomes of COVID-19 (RR: 0.763; 95% CI: 0.602-0.966, I2: 0.0).
FINDINGS
Most evidence supports that the use of antidepressant medications, mainly Fluvoxamine, may decrease the severity and improve the outcome in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2. Some studies showed contradictory findings regarding the effects of antidepressants on the severity of COVID-19. Further clinical trials should be conducted to clarify the effects of antidepressants on the severity of COVID-19.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Fluoxetine; Fluvoxamine; Humans; Norepinephrine; Paroxetine; SARS-CoV-2; Serotonin; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 36201406
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267423 -
The Journal of Laryngology and Otology Sep 2023Vestibular migraine is in the process of recognition as an individual clinical entity. At present, no guidelines exist for its management. This study aimed to conduct a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Vestibular migraine is in the process of recognition as an individual clinical entity. At present, no guidelines exist for its management. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of available prophylactic medication.
METHOD
literature search was performed using PubMed, Ovid and Embase databases. Qualitative and quantitative analysis were performed as well as risk of bias analysis. Meta-analysis for the mean differences for pre- and post-treatment impact based on Dizziness Handicap Inventory and Vertigo Symptom Scale were performed. Proportionate transformation meta-analysis for the successful event rate based on complete symptoms control was explored.
RESULTS
Thirteen publications were identified: 3 were randomised, controlled trials and 10 were non-randomised, controlled trials. Propranolol and venlafaxine improved the Vertigo Symptom Scale score by -13.31 points and -4.16 points, respectively, and the Dizziness Handicap Inventory score by -32.24 and -21.24, respectively. Only propranolol achieved statistically significant impact with 60 per cent of patients achieving complete symptom control.
CONCLUSION
Propranolol should be offered as the first-line treatment for vestibular migraine followed by venlafaxine. Amitriptyline, flunarizine and cinnarizine showed a trend for symptom improvement, but this was not statistically significant.
Topics: Humans; Dizziness; Propranolol; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Vertigo; Migraine Disorders
PubMed: 36200521
DOI: 10.1017/S0022215122001979 -
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia E... Sep 2022To evaluate the effect of neuromodulatory drugs on the intensity of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in women.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effect of neuromodulatory drugs on the intensity of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in women.
DATA SOURCES
Searches were carried out in the PubMed, Cochrane Central, Embase, Lilacs, OpenGrey, and Clinical Trials databases.
SELECTION OF STUDIES
The searches were carried out by two of the authors, not delimiting publication date or original language. The following descriptors were used: OR , associated with MESH/ENTREE/DeCS: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and , with the Boolean operator . Case reports and systematic reviews were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION
The following data were extracted: author, year of publication, setting, type of study, sample size, intervention details, follow-up time, and results.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of 218 articles were found, with 79 being excluded because they were repeated, leaving 139 articles for analysis: 90 were excluded in the analysis of the titles, 37 after reading the abstract, and 4 after reading the articles in full, and 1 could not be found, therefore, leaving 7 articles that were included in the review.
CONCLUSION
Most of the studies analyzed have shown pain improvement with the help of neuromodulators for chronic pain. However, no improvement was found in the study with the highest statistical power. There is still not enough evidence that neuromodulatory drugs reduce the intensity of pain in women with CPP.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Chronic Pain; Citalopram; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Female; Gabapentin; Humans; Imipramine; Norepinephrine; Nortriptyline; Pelvic Pain; Pregabalin; Serotonin; Sertraline; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 36044916
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1755459 -
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Oct 2022Rapid cycling is a common and disabling phenomenon in individuals with bipolar disorders. In the absence of a recent literature examination, this systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Rapid cycling is a common and disabling phenomenon in individuals with bipolar disorders. In the absence of a recent literature examination, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesise the evidence of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of treatments for individuals with rapid cycling bipolar disorder (RCBD).
METHOD
A systematic search was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials assigning participants with RCBD to pharmacological and/or non-pharmacological interventions. Study inclusion and data extraction were undertaken by two reviewers independently. The primary outcome was continuous within-subject RCBD illness severity before and after treatment. Pre-post random effects meta-analyses were conducted for each outcome/intervention arm studied, generating a standardised effect size (hedge's g) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
A total of 34 articles describing 30 studies were included. A total of 16 separate pharmacological treatments were examined in contrast to 1 psychological therapy study. Only quetiapine and lamotrigine were assessed in >5 studies. By assessing 95% CI overlap of within-subject efficacy effects compared to placebo, the only interventions suggesting significant depression benefits (placebo g = 0.60) were olanzapine (with/without fluoxetine; g = 1.01), citalopram (g = 1.10) and venlafaxine (g = 2.48). For mania, benefits were indicated for quetiapine (g = 1.01), olanzapine (g = 1.19) and aripiprazole (g = 1.09), versus placebo (g = 0.33). Most of these effect sizes were from only one trial per treatment. Heterogeneity between studies was variable, and 20% were rated to have a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
While many interventions appeared efficacious, there was a lack of robust evidence for most treatments. Given the limited and heterogeneous evidence base, the optimal treatment strategies for people with RCBD are yet to be established.
Topics: Aripiprazole; Bipolar Disorder; Citalopram; Fluoxetine; Humans; Lamotrigine; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 35778967
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13471 -
Psychopharmacology Bulletin May 2022Bipolar II disorder (BD-II) has limited evidence-based treatment guidelines. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the efficacy and safety... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Bipolar II disorder (BD-II) has limited evidence-based treatment guidelines. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the efficacy and safety of second-generation antidepressant (SGAD) monotherapy in acute BD-II depression.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted from the database inception through March 2021. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Outcome measures included: response rates, treatment-emergent affective switch (TEAS) rates, discontinuation due to side-effects, and all-cause discontinuation. Risk ratio (RR) was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel random effects model.
RESULTS
3301 studies were screened, and 15 articles were selected for full-text review. Five studies met the inclusion criteria: Four double-blind RCTs (n = 533) and one open-label RCT (n = 83) were included. Two double-blind RCTs [n = 223, SGAD = 110 (venlafaxine = 65, sertraline = 45), lithium/control = 113] were included for meta-analysis. The response rate for SGAD monotherapy compared to lithium monotherapy were similar (RR = 1.44, 95% CI 0.78, 2.66). The TEAS rate for SGAD monotherapy was not significantly different from lithium monotherapy (p = 0.76). The discontinuation rate due to side-effects for SGAD monotherapy was significantly lower than lithium monotherapy with a RR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.11, 0.96, p = 0.04 but all-cause discontinuation rates were similar in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Limited data suggests short-term efficacy of venlafaxine and sertraline monotherapy in patients with acute BD-II depression with good side effect tolerability and without significantly increased switch rate. There is an urgent need for RCTs investigating the role of SGAD monotherapy in short and long-term among patients with BD-II.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Bipolar Disorder; Depression; Humans; Lithium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sertraline; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 35721812
DOI: No ID Found -
L'Encephale Aug 2022Major depression is a significant public health problem since its lifetime prevalence is estimated at 15-18 %. Its standard treatment is based on the use of...
OBJECTIVE
Major depression is a significant public health problem since its lifetime prevalence is estimated at 15-18 %. Its standard treatment is based on the use of antidepressant medications but their effectiveness is limited. Indeed, only two thirds of patients with a major depressive episode will reach remission after two lines of conventional treatment. In major depression, there are arguments in favour of disturbances in neuronal glutamatergic transmission. Esketamine appears to have an antidepressant action through modulation of the NMDA receptors involved in this glutamatergic neurotransmission. The aim of this review to systematically investigate the efficacy of esketamine combined with an SSRI or SNRI for major depressive disorder resistant to treatment.
METHOD
A systematic review on the efficacy of esketamine in combination with an SSRI or SNRI for resistant major depressive disorder was performed in July 2021 in the PUBMED database according to the PRISMA criteria. The key words used are: "depressed" [All Fields] OR "depression" [MeSH Terms] OR "depression" [All Fields] OR "depressions" [All Fields] OR "depression s" [All Fields] OR "depressive disorder"[MeSH Terms] OR ("depressive"[All Fields] AND"disorder"[All Fields]) OR"depressive disorder"[All Fields] OR"depressivity"[All Fields] OR"depressive"[All Fields] OR "depressively" [All Fields] OR "depressiveness" [All Fields] OR "depressives" [All Fields]) AND ("esketamine" [Supplementary Concept] OR "esketamine" [All Fields] OR "esketamine" [All Fields]. The inclusion criteria were: efficacy on depressive symptoms of intranasal esketamine combined with an SSRI or an SNRI for major depressive disorder resistant to at least two lines of treatment, RCT and meta-analysis, individual≥18 years, articles in English and French.
RESULTS
Four randomized double-blind studies were selected on the basis of these criteria. The included studies are of grade A and B which leads to a high level of scientific evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
Intranasal esketamine in combination with sertraline, escitalopram, duloxetine or venlafaxine prolonged release is more effective than the monotherapy use of these four molecules for the treatment of resistant depression. It has been shown to be effective for a population aged between 18 and 74 years at doses between 28mg and 84mg. Currently, based on these results, intranasal esketamine should be proposed as a second level of treatment after an unsuccessful trial of two antidepressants. It is nevertheless advisable to be careful in its use in a clinical psychiatric population: exclusion of suicidal ideation or antecedent of suicidal acting, absence of psychotic depression, use exclusively for unipolar major depressive disorder. The different conditions of use are also notified in the product characteristics of the European Medicines Agency. Finally, further comparative studies are needed in the future, in the absence of funding from the pharmaceutical company producing esketamine.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antidepressive Agents; Depressive Disorder, Major; Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Humans; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Young Adult
PubMed: 35221019
DOI: 10.1016/j.encep.2021.12.002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Major depressive disorders have a significant impact on children and adolescents, including on educational and vocational outcomes, interpersonal relationships, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Major depressive disorders have a significant impact on children and adolescents, including on educational and vocational outcomes, interpersonal relationships, and physical and mental health and well-being. There is an association between major depressive disorder and suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide. Antidepressant medication is used in moderate to severe depression; there is now a range of newer generations of these medications.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate, via network meta-analysis (NMA), the comparative effectiveness and safety of different newer generation antidepressants in children and adolescents with a diagnosed major depressive disorder (MDD) in terms of depression, functioning, suicide-related outcomes and other adverse outcomes. The impact of age, treatment duration, baseline severity, and pharmaceutical industry funding was investigated on clinician-rated depression (CDRS-R) and suicide-related outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, the Cochrane Library (Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)), together with Ovid Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO till March 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials of six to 18 year olds of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed major depressive disorder were included. Trials that compared the effectiveness of newer generation antidepressants with each other or with a placebo were included. Newer generation antidepressants included: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs); norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine disinhibitors (NDDIs); and tetracyclic antidepressants (TeCAs).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data as Odds Ratios (ORs), and continuous data as Mean Difference (MD) for the following outcomes: depression symptom severity (clinician rated), response or remission of depression symptoms, depression symptom severity (self-rated), functioning, suicide related outcomes and overall adverse outcomes. Random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted in a frequentist framework using multivariate meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA). We used "informative statements" to standardise the interpretation and description of the results.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-six studies were included. There were no data for the two primary outcomes (depressive disorder established via clinical diagnostic interview and suicide), therefore, the results comprise only secondary outcomes. Most antidepressants may be associated with a "small and unimportant" reduction in depression symptoms on the CDRS-R scale (range 17 to 113) compared with placebo (high certainty evidence: paroxetine: MD -1.43, 95% CI -3.90, 1.04; vilazodone: MD -0.84, 95% CI -3.03, 1.35; desvenlafaxine MD -0.07, 95% CI -3.51, 3.36; moderate certainty evidence: sertraline: MD -3.51, 95% CI -6.99, -0.04; fluoxetine: MD -2.84, 95% CI -4.12, -1.56; escitalopram: MD -2.62, 95% CI -5.29, 0.04; low certainty evidence: duloxetine: MD -2.70, 95% CI -5.03, -0.37; vortioxetine: MD 0.60, 95% CI -2.52, 3.72; very low certainty evidence for comparisons between other antidepressants and placebo). There were "small and unimportant" differences between most antidepressants in reduction of depression symptoms (high- or moderate-certainty evidence). Results were similar across other outcomes of benefit. In most studies risk of self-harm or suicide was an exclusion criterion for the study. Proportions of suicide-related outcomes were low for most included studies and 95% confidence intervals were wide for all comparisons. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of mirtazapine (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.03, 8.04), duloxetine (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.72, 1.82), vilazodone (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.68, 1.48), desvenlafaxine (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59, 1.52), citalopram (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.76, 3.87) or vortioxetine (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.29, 8.60) on suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo. There is low certainty evidence that escitalopram may "at least slightly" reduce odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.43, 1.84). There is low certainty evidence that fluoxetine (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87, 1.86), paroxetine (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.85, 3.86), sertraline (OR 3.03, 95% CI 0.60, 15.22), and venlafaxine (OR 13.84, 95% CI 1.79, 106.90) may "at least slightly" increase odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo. There is moderate certainty evidence that venlafaxine probably results in an "at least slightly" increased odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with desvenlafaxine (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56) and escitalopram (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56). There was very low certainty evidence regarding other comparisons between antidepressants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, methodological shortcomings of the randomised trials make it difficult to interpret the findings with regard to the efficacy and safety of newer antidepressant medications. Findings suggest that most newer antidepressants may reduce depression symptoms in a small and unimportant way compared with placebo. Furthermore, there are likely to be small and unimportant differences in the reduction of depression symptoms between the majority of antidepressants. However, our findings reflect the average effects of the antidepressants, and given depression is a heterogeneous condition, some individuals may experience a greater response. Guideline developers and others making recommendations might therefore consider whether a recommendation for the use of newer generation antidepressants is warranted for some individuals in some circumstances. Our findings suggest sertraline, escitalopram, duloxetine, as well as fluoxetine (which is currently the only treatment recommended for first-line prescribing) could be considered as a first option. Children and adolescents considered at risk of suicide were frequently excluded from trials, so that we cannot be confident about the effects of these medications for these individuals. If an antidepressant is being considered for an individual, this should be done in consultation with the child/adolescent and their family/caregivers and it remains critical to ensure close monitoring of treatment effects and suicide-related outcomes (combined suicidal ideation and suicide attempt) in those treated with newer generation antidepressants, given findings that some of these medications may be associated with greater odds of these events. Consideration of psychotherapy, particularly cognitive behavioural therapy, as per guideline recommendations, remains important.
Topics: Adolescent; Antidepressive Agents; Bias; Child; Citalopram; Depressive Disorder, Major; Desvenlafaxine Succinate; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Female; Fluoxetine; Humans; Male; Mirtazapine; Network Meta-Analysis; Paroxetine; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Sertraline; Suicidal Ideation; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Vilazodone Hydrochloride; Vortioxetine
PubMed: 34029378
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013674.pub2 -
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 2021A clear picture of neonatal withdrawal signs due to in utero selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) exposure and its consequences is still missing. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
A clear picture of neonatal withdrawal signs due to in utero selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) exposure and its consequences is still missing.
OBJECTIVE
A systematic review and a meta-analysis were performed to provide an overview of neonatal withdrawal signs following late in utero exposure to SSRIs and to quantify the corresponding risks.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase were searched from inception to January 2021. The Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines were followed. English-language observational studies reporting on acute postpartum outcomes following late in utero exposure to SSRIs or SSRIs/venlafaxine were evaluated.
RESULTS
Of 2,269 citations reviewed, 79 studies were assessed for eligibility; 13 were included in the qualitative analysis of the literature, which allowed us to identify 26 signs. A meta-analysis was run separately for studies on SSRI exposure (n = 3) and those on SSRI/venlafaxine exposure (n = 6). Hypoglycemia was identified as a withdrawal sign based on the SSRI studies. Tremors, hypotonia, tachycardia, rapid breathing, respiratory distress, and hypertonia were identified as withdrawal signs based on the SSRI/venlafaxine studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The present work provides a framework for the identification of neonatal SSRI withdrawal syndrome. Tapering and discontinuation of antidepressant drugs before and during the early phase of pregnancy are worth attempting to prevent the occurrence of this syndrome.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome; Pregnancy; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 33971648
DOI: 10.1159/000516031 -
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Aug 2021Evidence of larger drug effects in highly standardized studies (efficacy) compared to clinical routine (effectiveness) is discussed as efficacy-effectiveness gap. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Evidence of larger drug effects in highly standardized studies (efficacy) compared to clinical routine (effectiveness) is discussed as efficacy-effectiveness gap. This study aimed to quantify effect size differences of RCTs and non-RCTs in the treatment of depression with venlafaxine and duloxetine and to identify effect modifying predictors.
METHODS
A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted, including all prospective trials, which evaluated the treatment effects of duloxetine or venlafaxine in patients with depression. The primary outcome was the pre-post effect size after acute therapy, which were compared between RCTs and non-RCTs. Moreover, an exploratory analysis of predictors in a mixed meta-regression model within an information-theoretic approach was performed.
RESULTS
171 RCTs and 74 non-RCTs were included. The pre-post effect size differed significantly between RCTs and non-RCTs (-3.04 vs. -2.62, Δ = 0.41, p = 0.012, high heterogeneity). Study characteristics were very similar between RCTs and non-RCTs. Most important variables to predict effect sizes were 'depression severity', 'dose' and 'number of participants'.
CONCLUSION
Despite differences in effect sizes between RCTs and non-RCTs, study design is not clearly an important predictor for the effect sizes. Our results question the common assumption that non-RCTs are generally better suited to describe a drug's effectiveness in clinical practice than RCTs. Future studies and their reporting should put more emphasis on the description of external validity, in order to allow better assessments of clinical relevance.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Humans; Prospective Studies; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 33661520
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13293 -
JAMA Psychiatry Mar 2021Precise estimation of the drug metabolism capacity for individual patients is crucial for adequate dose personalization. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Precise estimation of the drug metabolism capacity for individual patients is crucial for adequate dose personalization.
OBJECTIVE
To quantify the difference in the antipsychotic and antidepressant exposure among patients with genetically associated CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 poor (PM), intermediate (IM), and normal (NM) metabolizers.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Clinicaltrialsregister.eu, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and CENTRAL databases were screened for studies from January 1, 1990, to June 30, 2020, with no language restrictions.
STUDY SELECTION
Two independent reviewers performed study screening and assessed the following inclusion criteria: (1) appropriate CYP2C19 or CYP2D6 genotyping was performed, (2) genotype-based classification into CYP2C19 or CYP2D6 NM, IM, and PM categories was possible, and (3) 3 patients per metabolizer category were available.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines were followed for extracting data and quality, validity, and risk of bias assessments. A fixed-effects model was used for pooling the effect sizes of the included studies.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Drug exposure was measured as (1) dose-normalized area under the plasma level (time) curve, (2) dose-normalized steady-state plasma level, or (3) reciprocal apparent total drug clearance. The ratio of means (RoM) was calculated by dividing the mean drug exposure for PM, IM, or pooled PM plus IM categories by the mean drug exposure for the NM category.
RESULTS
Based on the data derived from 94 unique studies and 8379 unique individuals, the most profound differences were observed in the patients treated with aripiprazole (CYP2D6 PM plus IM vs NM RoM, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.41-1.57; 12 studies; 1038 patients), haloperidol lactate (CYP2D6 PM vs NM RoM, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.40-2.02; 9 studies; 423 patients), risperidone (CYP2D6 PM plus IM vs NM RoM, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.28-1.44; 23 studies; 1492 patients), escitalopram oxalate (CYP2C19 PM vs NM, RoM, 2.63; 95% CI, 2.40-2.89; 4 studies; 1262 patients), and sertraline hydrochloride (CYP2C19 IM vs NM RoM, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.27-1.51; 3 studies; 917 patients). Exposure differences were also observed for clozapine, quetiapine fumarate, amitriptyline hydrochloride, mirtazapine, nortriptyline hydrochloride, fluoxetine hydrochloride, fluvoxamine maleate, paroxetine hydrochloride, and venlafaxine hydrochloride; however, these differences were marginal, ambiguous, or based on less than 3 independent studies.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the association between CYP2C19/CYP2D6 genotype and drug levels of several psychiatric drugs was quantified with sufficient precision as to be useful as a scientific foundation for CYP2D6/CYP2C19 genotype-based dosing recommendations.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C19; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2D6; Humans; Pharmacogenomic Variants
PubMed: 33237321
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.3643