-
Annals of General Psychiatry 2017Despite an increasingly recognized relationship between depression and smoking, little is known about how smoking influences antidepressant response and treatment... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite an increasingly recognized relationship between depression and smoking, little is known about how smoking influences antidepressant response and treatment outcomes. The aim of this study was to systematically review the evidence of the impact of smoking on new-generation antidepressants with an emphasis on the pharmacokinetic perspective.
METHODS
We present a systematic review of clinical trials comparing the serum levels of new-generation antidepressants in smokers and nonsmokers. Data were obtained from MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and other sources. Risk of bias was assessed for selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting of individual studies.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies met inclusion criteria; seven involved fluvoxamine, two evaluated fluoxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, duloxetine or mirtazapine, and escitalopram, citalopram, trazodone and bupropion were the subject of a single study. No trials were found involving other common antidepressants such as paroxetine or agomelatine. Serum levels of fluvoxamine, duloxetine, mirtazapine and trazodone were significantly higher in nonsmokers compared with smokers.
CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence showing a reduction in the concentration of serum levels of fluvoxamine, duloxetine, mirtazapine and trazodone in smoking patients as compared to nonsmokers. The evidence regarding other commonly used antidepressants is scarce. Nonetheless, smoking status should be considered when choosing an antidepressant treatment, given the risk of pharmacokinetic interactions.
PubMed: 28286537
DOI: 10.1186/s12991-017-0140-8 -
American Family Physician Dec 2016The results of large clinical trials have led physicians and patients to question the safety of hormone therapy for menopause. In the past, physicians prescribed hormone... (Review)
Review
The results of large clinical trials have led physicians and patients to question the safety of hormone therapy for menopause. In the past, physicians prescribed hormone therapy to improve overall health and prevent cardiac disease, as well as for symptoms of menopause. Combined estrogen/progestogen therapy, but not estrogen alone, increases the risk of breast cancer when used for more than three to five years. Therefore, in women with a uterus, it is recommended that physicians prescribe combination therapy only to treat menopausal symptoms such as vasomotor symptoms (hot flashes) and vaginal atrophy, using the smallest effective dosage for the shortest possible duration. Although estrogen is the most effective treatment for hot flashes, nonhormonal alternatives such as low-dose paroxetine, venlafaxine, and gabapentin are effective alternatives. Women with a uterus who are using estrogen should also take a progestogen to reduce the risk of endometrial cancer. Women who cannot tolerate adverse effects of progestogens may benefit from a combined formulation of estrogen and the selective estrogen receptor modulator bazedoxifene. There is no highquality, consistent evidence that yoga, paced respiration, acupuncture, exercise, stress reduction, relaxation therapy, and alternative therapies such as black cohosh, botanical products, omega-3 fatty acid supplements, and dietary Chinese herbs benefit patients more than placebo. One systematic review suggests modest improvement in hot flashes and vaginal dryness with soy products, and small studies suggest that clinical hypnosis significantly reduces hot flashes. Patients with genitourinary syndrome of menopause may benefit from vaginal estrogen, nonhormonal vaginal moisturizers, or ospemifene (the only nonhormonal treatment approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for dyspareunia due to menopausal atrophy). The decision to use hormone therapy depends on clinical presentation, a thorough evaluation of the risks and benefits, and an informed discussion with the patient.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Administration, Intravaginal; Amines; Antidepressive Agents; Atrophy; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Dietary Supplements; Drug Therapy, Combination; Dyspareunia; Estrogen Replacement Therapy; Estrogens; Exercise Therapy; Female; Gabapentin; Hot Flashes; Humans; Hypnosis; Indoles; Menopause; Paroxetine; Progestins; Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators; Tamoxifen; Vagina; Vaginal Diseases; Vasomotor System; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 27929271
DOI: No ID Found -
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Nov 2016To access frequency and severity of adverse effects (AE) of non-hormonal drugs (NHD) for hot flashes in breast cancer survivors compared to controls and analyze... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To access frequency and severity of adverse effects (AE) of non-hormonal drugs (NHD) for hot flashes in breast cancer survivors compared to controls and analyze adverse-effect risk by reviewing published randomized trials.
METHODS
Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO and PubMed databases were searched. Trials were included where participants were survivors of breast cancer suffering from hot flashes, treatment included self-administered venlafaxine, gabapentin or clonidine, and AE were reported. AE frequency and severity were graded. A meta-analysis of ten trials with sub-group analyses was conducted.
RESULTS
Forty-nine studies were identified, and 12 were included. A total of 1467 participants experienced 772 adverse effects, 81 % (n = 627) in the treatment group and 19 % (n = 145) in the control group. Sixty-seven percent of AE was graded as mild and 33 % as moderate. The frequency of AE for NHD was overall significant compared to placebo. Sub-group analysis indicated that AE frequency and severity increased at higher doses of venlafaxine and gabapentin compared to placebo.
CONCLUSION
The odds for experiencing AE was significantly higher in patients randomized to high-dose NHD than those randomized to controls, including placebo, low-dose medication and acupuncture. These therapies should be considered as a potential treatment alternative.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Cancer Survivors; Combined Modality Therapy; Female; Hot Flashes; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27709351
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-016-4002-x -
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Apr 2016Patient-centered decision making about hot flash treatments often incorporates a balance of efficacy and side effects in addition to patient preference. This systematic... (Review)
Review
Patient-centered decision making about hot flash treatments often incorporates a balance of efficacy and side effects in addition to patient preference. This systematic review examines randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least two non-hormonal hot flash treatments in breast cancer survivors. In July 2015, PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched for RCTs comparing active, non-hormonal hot flash treatments in female breast cancer survivors. Thirteen trials were included after identifying 906 potential studies. Four trials were dose comparison studies of pharmacologic treatments citalopram, venlafaxine, gabapentin, and paroxetine. Hot flash reduction did not differ by tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor use. Citalopram 10, 20, and 30 mg daily had comparable outcomes. Venlafaxine 75 mg daily improved hot flashes without additional side effects from higher dosing. Gabapentin 900 mg daily improved hot flashes more than 300 mg. Paroxetine 10 mg daily had fewer side effects than 20 mg. Among four trials comparing different pharmacologic treatments, venlafaxine alleviated hot flash symptoms faster than clonidine; participants preferred venlafaxine over gabapentin. Five trials compared pharmacologic to non-pharmacologic treatments. Acupuncture had similar efficacy to venlafaxine and gabapentin but may have longer durability after completing treatment and fewer side effects. We could not perform a pooled meta-analysis because outcomes were not reported in comparable formats. Clinical trial data on non-hormonal hot flash treatments provide comparisons of hot flash efficacy and other patient important outcomes to guide clinical management. Clinicians can use the information to help patients select hot flash interventions.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Disease Management; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Hot Flashes; Humans; Patient Preference; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Survivors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27015968
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-016-3765-4 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jan 2016To study serious harms associated with selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To study serious harms associated with selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Mortality and suicidality. Secondary outcomes were aggressive behaviour and akathisia.
DATA SOURCES
Clinical study reports for duloxetine, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine obtained from the European and UK drug regulators, and summary trial reports for duloxetine and fluoxetine from Eli Lilly's website.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION
Double blind placebo controlled trials that contained any patient narratives or individual patient listings of harms.
DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS
Two researchers extracted data independently; the outcomes were meta-analysed by Peto's exact method (fixed effect model).
RESULTS
We included 70 trials (64,381 pages of clinical study reports) with 18,526 patients. These trials had limitations in the study design and discrepancies in reporting, which may have led to serious under-reporting of harms. For example, some outcomes appeared only in individual patient listings in appendices, which we had for only 32 trials, and we did not have case report forms for any of the trials. Differences in mortality (all deaths were in adults, odds ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 4.06), suicidality (1.21, 0.84 to 1.74), and akathisia (2.04, 0.93 to 4.48) were not significant, whereas patients taking antidepressants displayed more aggressive behaviour (1.93, 1.26 to 2.95). For adults, the odds ratios were 0.81 (0.51 to 1.28) for suicidality, 1.09 (0.55 to 2.14) for aggression, and 2.00 (0.79 to 5.04) for akathisia. The corresponding values for children and adolescents were 2.39 (1.31 to 4.33), 2.79 (1.62 to 4.81), and 2.15 (0.48 to 9.65). In the summary trial reports on Eli Lilly's website, almost all deaths were noted, but all suicidal ideation events were missing, and the information on the remaining outcomes was incomplete.
CONCLUSIONS
Because of the shortcomings identified and having only partial access to appendices with no access to case report forms, the harms could not be estimated accurately. In adults there was no significant increase in all four outcomes, but in children and adolescents the risk of suicidality and aggression doubled. To elucidate the harms reliably, access to anonymised individual patient data is needed.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depressive Disorder; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Psychomotor Agitation; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Suicidal Ideation; Suicide; Suicide Prevention
PubMed: 26819231
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i65 -
Basic & Clinical Pharmacology &... Jan 2016Major depressive disorder is common among women in child-bearing age, and medical treatment is subject to substantial discussions and controversies. For Selective... (Review)
Review
Major depressive disorder is common among women in child-bearing age, and medical treatment is subject to substantial discussions and controversies. For Selective Serotonin reuptake inhibitors, SSRIs, a vast amount of data are available. For the newer antidepressant group of serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, SNRIs, significantly less data are available. Following the PRISMA guideline for systematic reviews, we performed a systematic search on the risk of major congenital malformations after first trimester in utero exposure to venlafaxine or duloxetine. We identified eight cohort studies reporting on the outcome upon in utero exposure to venlafaxine or duloxetine during the first trimester. The cumulated data for venlafaxine were 3186 exposed infants and 107 major malformations, resulting in a relative risk estimate and 95% confidence interval of 1.12 (0.92-1.35). The corresponding data for duloxetine were 668 infants and 16 major malformations, resulting in a relative risk estimate and 95% confidence interval of 0.80 (0.46-1.29). First-trimester in utero exposure to venlafaxine is not associated with an increased risk of major congenital malformations. The amount of data for duloxetine are significantly smaller but does not suggest a clinically important increased risk.
Topics: Abnormalities, Drug-Induced; Cohort Studies; Depressive Disorder, Major; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 26435496
DOI: 10.1111/bcpt.12497 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015Neuropathic pain, which is caused by nerve damage, is increasing in prevalence worldwide. This may reflect improved diagnosis, or it may be due to increased incidence of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Neuropathic pain, which is caused by nerve damage, is increasing in prevalence worldwide. This may reflect improved diagnosis, or it may be due to increased incidence of diabetes-associated neuropathy, linked to increasing levels of obesity. Other types of neuropathic pain include post-herpetic neuralgia, trigeminal neuralgia, and neuralgia caused by chemotherapy. Antidepressant drugs are sometimes used to treat neuropathic pain; however, their analgesic efficacy is unclear. A previous Cochrane review that included all antidepressants for neuropathic pain is being replaced by new reviews of individual drugs examining chronic neuropathic pain in the first instance. Venlafaxine is a reasonably well-tolerated antidepressant and is a serotonin reuptake inhibitor and weak noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor. Although not licensed for the treatment of chronic or neuropathic pain in most countries, it is sometimes used for this indication.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy of, and the adverse effects associated with the clinical use of, venlafaxine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via The Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE and EMBASE via Ovid up to 14 August 2014. We reviewed the bibliographies of any randomised trials identified and review articles, contacted authors of one excluded study and searched www.clinicaltrials.gov to identify additional published or unpublished data. We also searched the meta-Register of controlled trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com/mrct) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (apps.who.int/trialsearch/) for ongoing trials but did not find any relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing venlafaxine with either placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain in adults. All participants were aged 18 years or over and all included studies had at least 10 participants per treatment arm. We only included studies with full journal publication.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently extracted data using a standard form and assessed study quality. We intend to analyse data in three tiers of evidence as described by Hearn 2014, but did not find any first-tier evidence (ie evidence meeting current best standards, with minimal risk of bias) or second-tier evidence, that was considered at some risk of bias but with adequate participant numbers (at least 200 in the comparison). Third-tier evidence is that arising from studies with small numbers of participants; studies of short duration, studies that are likely to be of limited clinical utility due to other limitations, including selection bias and attrition bias; or a combination of these.
MAIN RESULTS
We found six randomised, double-blind trials of at least two weeks' duration eligible for inclusion. These trials included 460 participants with neuropathic pain, with most participants having painful diabetic neuropathy. Four studies were of cross-over design and two were parallel trials. Only one trial was both parallel design and placebo-controlled. Mean age of participants ranged from 48 to 59 years. In three studies (Forssell 2004, Jia 2006 and Tasmuth 2002), only mean data were reported. Comparators included placebo, imipramine, and carbamazepine and duration of treatment ranged from two to eight weeks. The risk of bias was considerable overall in the review, especially due to the small size of most studies and due to attrition bias. Four of the six studies reported some positive benefit for venlafaxine. In the largest study by Rowbotham, 2004, 56% of participants receiving venlafaxine 150 to 225 mg achieved at least a 50% reduction in pain intensity versus 34% of participants in the placebo group and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was 4.5. However, this study was subject to significant selection bias. Known adverse effects of venlafaxine, including somnolence, dizziness, and mild gastrointestinal problems, were reported in all studies but were not particularly problematic and, overall, adverse effects were equally prominent in placebo or other active comparator groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found little compelling evidence to support the use of venlafaxine in neuropathic pain. While there was some third-tier evidence of benefit, this arose from studies that had methodological limitations and considerable risk of bias. Placebo effects were notably strong in several studies. Given that effective drug treatments for neuropathic pain are in current use, there is no evidence to revise prescribing guidelines to promote the use of venlafaxine in neuropathic pain. Although venlafaxine was generally reasonably well tolerated, there was some evidence that it can precipitate fatigue, somnolence, nausea, and dizziness in a minority of people.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Carbamazepine; Humans; Imipramine; Middle Aged; Neuralgia; Off-Label Use; Patient Dropouts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 26298465
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011091.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015This is an updated version of the Cochrane review published in 2005 on selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for preventing migraine and tension-type... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane review published in 2005 on selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for preventing migraine and tension-type headache. The original review has been split in two parts and this review now only regards tension-type headache prevention. Another updated review covers migraine. Tension-type headache is the second most common disorder worldwide and has high social and economic relevance. As serotonin and other neurotransmitters may have a role in pain mechanisms, SSRIs and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) have been evaluated for the prevention of tension-type headache.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and tolerability of SSRIs and SNRIs compared to placebo and other active interventions in the prevention of episodic and chronic tension-type headache in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
For the original review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2003, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1994 to May 2003), and Headache Quarterly (1990 to 2003). For this update, we revised the original search strategy to reflect the broader type of intervention (SSRIs and SNRIs). We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 10) on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to November 2014), EMBASE (1980 to November 2014), and PsycINFO (1987 to November 2014). We also checked the reference lists of retrieved articles and searched trial registries for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing SSRIs or SNRIs with any type of control intervention in participants 18 years and older, of either sex, with tension-type headache.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data (headache frequency, index, intensity, and duration; use of symptomatic/analgesic medication; quality of life; and withdrawals) and assessed the risk of bias of trials. The primary outcome is tension-type headache frequency, measured by the number of headache attacks or the number of days with headache per evaluation period.
MAIN RESULTS
The original review included six studies on tension-type headache. We now include eight studies with a total of 412 participants with chronic forms of tension-type headache. These studies evaluated five SSRIs (citalopram, sertraline, fluoxetine, paroxetine, fluvoxamine) and one SNRI (venlafaxine). The two new studies included in this update are placebo controlled trials, one evaluated sertraline and one venlafaxine. Six studies, already included in the previous version of this review, compared SSRIs to other antidepressants (amitriptyline, desipramine, sulpiride, mianserin). Most of the included studies had methodological and/or reporting shortcomings and lacked adequate power. Follow-up ranged between two and four months.Six studies explored the effect of SSRIs or SNRIs on tension-type headache frequency, the primary endpoint. At eight weeks of follow-up, we found no difference when compared to placebo (two studies, N = 127; mean difference (MD) -0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.95 to 2.03; I(2)= 0%) or amitriptyline (two studies, N = 152; MD 0.76, 95% CI -2.05 to 3.57; I(2)= 44%).When considering secondary outcomes, SSRIs reduce the symptomatic/analgesic medication use for acute headache attacks compared to placebo (two studies, N = 118; MD -1.87, 95% CI -2.09 to -1.65; I(2)= 0%). However, amitriptyline appeared to reduce the intake of analgesic more efficiently than SSRIs (MD 4.98, 95% CI 1.12 to 8.84; I(2)= 0%). The studies supporting these findings were considered at unclear risk of bias. We found no differences compared to placebo or other antidepressants in headache duration and intensity.SSRIs or SNRI were generally more tolerable than tricyclics. However, the two groups did not differ in terms of number of participants who withdrew due to adverse events or for other reasons (four studies, N = 257; odds ratio (OR) 1.04; 95% CI 0.41 to 2.60; I(2)= 25% and OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.38; I(2)= 0%).We did not find any study comparing SSRIs or SNRIs with pharmacological treatments other than antidepressants (e.g. botulinum toxin) or non-drug therapies (e.g. psycho-behavioural treatments, manual therapy, acupuncture).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since the last version of this review, the new included studies have not added high quality evidence to support the use of SSRIs or venlafaxine (a SNRI) as preventive drugs for tension-type headache. Over two months of treatment, SSRIs or venlafaxine are no more effective than placebo or amitriptyline in reducing headache frequency in patients with chronic tension-type headache. SSRIs seem to be less effective than tricyclic antidepressants in terms of intake of analgesic medications. Tricyclic antidepressants are associated with more adverse events; however, this did not cause a greater number of withdrawals. No reliable information is available at longer follow-up. Our conclusion is that the use of SSRIs and venlafaxine for the prevention of chronic tension-type headache is not supported by evidence.
Topics: Adrenergic Uptake Inhibitors; Adult; Citalopram; Cyclohexanols; Fluoxetine; Fluvoxamine; Humans; Norepinephrine; Paroxetine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Sertraline; Tension-Type Headache; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 25931277
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011681 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2015This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2005 on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for preventing migraine and tension-type... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2005 on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for preventing migraine and tension-type headache. The original review has been split in two parts and this review now only regards migraine prevention. Another updated review is under development to cover tension-type headache.Migraine is a common disorder. The chronic forms are associated with disability and have a high economic impact. In view of discoveries about the role of serotonin and other neurotransmitters in pain mechanisms, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) have been evaluated for the prevention of migraine.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and tolerability of SSRIs and SNRIs compared to placebo and other active interventions in the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
For the original review, we searched MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1994 to May 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2003, Issue 4), and Headache Quarterly (1990 to 2003). For this update, we applied a revised search strategy to reflect the broader type of intervention (SSRIs and SNRIs). We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1946 to November 2014), EMBASE (1980 to November 2014), and PsycINFO (1987 to November 2014). We also checked the reference lists of retrieved articles and searched trial registries for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing SSRIs or SNRIs with any type of control intervention in participants 18 years and older of either sex with migraine.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data (migraine frequency, index, intensity, and duration; use of symptomatic/analgesic medication; days off work; quality of life; mood improvement; cost-effectiveness; and adverse events) and assessed the risk of bias of trials. The primary outcome of this updated review is migraine frequency.
MAIN RESULTS
The original review included eight studies on migraine. Overall, we now include 11 studies on five SSRIs and one SNRI with a total of 585 participants. Six studies were placebo-controlled, four compared a SSRI or SNRI to amitriptyline, and one was a head-to-head comparison (escitalopram versus venlafaxine). Most studies had methodological or reporting shortcomings (or both): all studies were at unclear risk of selection and reporting bias. Follow-up rarely extended beyond three months. The lack of adequate power of most of the studies is also a major concern.Few studies explored the effect of SSRIs or SNRIs on migraine frequency, the primary endpoint. Two studies with unclear reporting compared SSRIs and SNRIs to placebo, suggesting a lack of evidence for a difference. Two studies compared SSRIs or SNRIs versus amitriptyline and found no evidence for a difference in terms of migraine frequency (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to 0.80; I(2) = 72%), or other secondary outcomes such as migraine intensity and duration.SSRIs or SNRIs were generally more tolerable than tricyclics. However, the two groups did not differ in terms of the number of participants who withdrew due to adverse advents or for other reasons (one study, odds ratio (OR) 0.39, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.50 and OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.34).We did not find studies comparing SSRIs or SNRIs with pharmacological treatments other than antidepressants (e.g. antiepileptics and anti-hypertensives).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since the last version of this review, the new included studies have not added high quality evidence to support the use of SSRIs or venlafaxine as preventive drugs for migraine. There is no evidence to consider SSRIs or venlafaxine as more effective than placebo or amitriptyline in reducing migraine frequency, intensity, and duration over two to three months of treatment. No reliable information is available at longer-term follow-up. Our conclusion is that the use of SSRIs and SNRIs for migraine prophylaxis is not supported by evidence.
Topics: Adult; Amitriptyline; Citalopram; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 25829028
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002919.pub3 -
Annals of Family Medicine 2015The purpose of this study was to investigate whether antidepressants are more effective than placebo in the primary care setting, and whether there are differences... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether antidepressants are more effective than placebo in the primary care setting, and whether there are differences between substance classes regarding efficacy and acceptability.
METHODS
We conducted literature searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PsycINFO up to December 2013. Randomized trials in depressed adults treated by primary care physicians were included in the review. We performed both conventional pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect evidence. Main outcome measures were response and study discontinuation due to adverse effects.
RESULTS
A total of 66 studies with 15,161 patients met the inclusion criteria. In network meta-analysis, tricyclic and tetracyclic antidepressants (TCAs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI; venlafaxine), a low-dose serotonin antagonist and reuptake inhibitor (SARI; trazodone) and hypericum extracts were found to be significantly superior to placebo, with estimated odds ratios between 1.69 and 2.03. There were no statistically significant differences between these drug classes. Reversible inhibitors of monoaminoxidase A (rMAO-As) and hypericum extracts were associated with significantly fewer dropouts because of adverse effects compared with TCAs, SSRIs, the SNRI, a noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (NRI), and noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant agents (NaSSAs).
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with other drugs, TCAs and SSRIs have the most solid evidence base for being effective in the primary care setting, but the effect size compared with placebo is relatively small. Further agents (hypericum, rMAO-As, SNRI, NRI, NaSSAs, SARI) showed some positive results, but limitations of the currently available evidence makes a clear recommendation on their place in clinical practice difficult.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depressive Disorder; Humans; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Primary Health Care; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25583895
DOI: 10.1370/afm.1687