-
CNS Spectrums Feb 2021More than 50% patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) have severe functional impairment. The restoration of patient functioning is a critical therapeutic goal...
Comparative efficacy of pharmacological treatments on measures of self-rated functional outcomes using the Sheehan Disability Scale in patients with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
More than 50% patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) have severe functional impairment. The restoration of patient functioning is a critical therapeutic goal among patients with MDD. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological treatments on self-rated functional outcomes using the Sheehan Disability Scale in adults with MDD in randomized clinical trials.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to December 10, 2019. Summary statistics are reported as weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Interventions were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities.
RESULTS
We included 42 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 18 998) evaluating the efficacy of 13 different pharmacological treatments on functional outcomes, as measured by the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). Duloxetine was the most effective pharmacological agent on functional outcomes, followed by (ranked by efficacy): paroxetine, levomilnacipran, venlafaxine, quetiapine, desvenlafaxine, agomelatine, escitalopram, amitriptyline, bupropion, sertraline, vortioxetine, and fluoxetine. Serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors were more effective than other drug classes. Additionally, the comparison-adjusted funnel plot suggested the publication bias between small and large studies was relatively low.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results indicate that there may be differences across antidepressant agents and classes with respect to self-reported functional outcomes. Validation and replication of these findings in large-scale RCTs are warranted. Our research results will be clinically useful for guiding psychiatrists in treating patients with MDD and functional impairment. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018116663.
PubMed: 33583460
DOI: 10.1017/S1092852921000171 -
Progress in Neuro-psychopharmacology &... Jul 2021Gastrointestinal side effects (SEs) are frequently observed in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) while taking antidepressants and may lead to treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Gastrointestinal side effects (SEs) are frequently observed in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) while taking antidepressants and may lead to treatment discontinuation. The aim of this meta-analysis is to provide quantitative measures on short-term rates of gastrointestinal SEs in MDD patients treated with second-generation antidepressants. An electronic search of the literature was conducted by using MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science - Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Library databases. Eligible studies had to focus on the use of at least one of 15 antidepressants commonly used in MDD (i.e., agomelatine, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, mirtazapine, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine) and report data on treatment-emergent gastrointestinal SEs (i.e. nausea/vomiting, diarrhoea, constipation, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, anorexia, increased appetite and dry mouth) within 12 weeks of treatment. Overall, 304 studies were included in the meta-analyses. All the considered antidepressants showed higher rates of gastrointestinal SEs than placebo. Escitalopram and sertraline were shown to be the least tolerated antidepressants on the gastrointestinal tract, being associated with all the considered SEs with the exception of constipation and increased appetite, while mirtazapine was shown to be the antidepressant with fewer side effects on the gut, being only associated with increased appetite. In conclusion, commonly used antidepressants showed different profiles of gastrointestinal SEs, possibly related to their mechanisms of action. The specific tolerability profile of each compound should be considered by clinicians when prescribing antidepressants in order to improve adherence to treatment and increase positive outcomes in patients with MDD.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Constipation; Depressive Disorder, Major; Diarrhea; Humans; Nausea; Vomiting
PubMed: 33549697
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2021.110266 -
Drug Safety Mar 2021Antidepressant use during the first trimester is reported in 4-8% of pregnancies. The use of some selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors during the first trimester has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Antidepressant use during the first trimester is reported in 4-8% of pregnancies. The use of some selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors during the first trimester has been identified as increasing the odds for congenital heart defects; however, little is known about the safety of non-selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to assess the odds of congenital heart defects associated with the use of antidepressants during the first trimester of pregnancy, and to update the literature as newer studies have been published since the latest systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
PubMed and Embase were searched till 3 June, 2020. Study quality was assessed, and study details were extracted. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4, which assessed: (1) any antidepressant usage; (2) classes of antidepressants; and (3) individual antidepressants.
RESULTS
Twenty studies were identified, encompassing 5,337,223 pregnancies. The odds ratio for maternal use of any antidepressant during the first trimester of pregnancy and the presence of congenital heart defects from the random effects meta-analysis was 1.28 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-1.41). Significant odds ratios of 1.69 (95% CI 1.37-2.10) and 1.25 (95% CI 1.15-1.37) were reported for serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, respectively. A non-statistically significant odds ratio of 1.02 (95% CI 0.82-1.25) was reported for the tricyclic antidepressants. Analyses of individual SSRIs produced significant odds ratios of 1.57 (95% CI 1.25-1.97), 1.36 (95% CI 1.08-1.72), and 1.29 (95% CI 1.14-1.45) for paroxetine, fluoxetine, and sertraline, respectively. The norepinephrine-dopamine-reuptake inhibitor bupropion also produced a significant odds ratio of 1.23 (95% CI 1.01-1.49).
CONCLUSIONS
The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor classes of antidepressants pose a greater risk for causing congenital heart defects than the tricyclic antidepressants. However, this risk for individual antidepressants within each class varies, and information regarding some antidepressants is still lacking.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Female; Heart Defects, Congenital; Humans; Norepinephrine; Pregnancy; Serotonin; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 33354752
DOI: 10.1007/s40264-020-01027-x -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2020: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common psychiatric disorders associated with substantial dysfunction and socioeconomic burden. Pharmacotherapy is... (Review)
Review
Comparative Remission Rates and Tolerability of Drugs for Generalised Anxiety Disorder: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trials.
: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common psychiatric disorders associated with substantial dysfunction and socioeconomic burden. Pharmacotherapy is the first choice for GAD. Remission [Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) score ≤7] is regarded as a crucial treatment goal for patients with GAD. There is no up-to-date evidence to compare remission rate and tolerability of all available drugs by using network meta-analysis. Therefore, the goal of our study is to update evidence and determine the best advantageous drugs for GAD in remission rate and tolerability profiles. : We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, wanfang data, China Biology Medicine and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to March 2020 to identify eligible double-blind, RCTs reporting the outcome of remission in adult patients who received any pharmacological treatment for GAD. Two reviewers independently assessed quality of included studies utilizing the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool as described in Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and extracted data from all manuscripts. Our outcomes were remission rate (proportion of participants with a final score of seven or less on HAM-A) and tolerability (treatments discontinuations due to adverse events). We calculated summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of each outcome via pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. : Overall, 30 studies were included, comprising 32 double-blind RCTs, involving 13,338 participants diagnosed as GAD by DSM-IV criteria. Twenty-eight trials were rated as moderate risk of bias, four trials as low. For remission rate, agomelatine (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.74-4.19), duloxetine (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.47-2.40), escitalopram (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48-2.78), paroxetine (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.25-2.42), quetiapine (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.39-2.55), and venlafaxine (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.69-3.07) were superior to placebo. For tolerability, sertraline, agomelatine, vortioxetine, and pregabalin were found to be comparable to placebo. However, the others were worse than placebo in terms of tolerability, with ORs ranging between 1.86 (95% CI 1.25-2.75) for tiagabine and 5.98 (95% CI 2.41-14.87) for lorazepam. In head-to-head comparisons, agomelatine, duloxetine, escitalopram, quetiapine, and venlafaxine were more efficacious than tiagabine in terms of remission rate, ORs from 1.66 (95% CI 1.04-2.65) for duloxetine to 2.38 (95% CI 1.32-4.31) for agomelatine. We also found that agomelatine (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.15-3.75) and venlafaxine (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.08-2.86) were superior to vortioxetine. Lorazepam and quetiapine were poorly tolerated when compared with other drugs. : Of these interventions, only agomelatine manifested better remission with relatively good tolerability but these results were limited by small sample sizes. Duloxetine, escitalopram, venlafaxine, paroxetine, and quetiapine showed better remission but were poorly tolerated.
PubMed: 33343351
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.580858 -
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 -
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 -
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience :... Oct 2020The type and quantities of antidepressants are increasing, but the efficacy and safety of first-line and emerging drugs vary between studies. In this article, we... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The type and quantities of antidepressants are increasing, but the efficacy and safety of first-line and emerging drugs vary between studies. In this article, we estimated the efficacy and safety of first-line and emerging antidepressants (anti-inflammatory drugs and ketamine).
METHOD
ystematic search of EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE, psycARTICLES, and psycINFO without language restriction for studies on the depression, depressive symptoms, antidepressants, fluoxetine (Prozac), paroxetine, escitalopram, sertraline, fluvoxamine, venlafaxine, duloxetine, NSAIDs, anti-cytokine drugs or pioglitazone published before May 1st, 2019. Information on study characteristics, depression or depressive symptoms, antidepressants and the descriptive statistics (including efficacy and safety of antidepressants) was extracted independently by 2 investigators. Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Differences by study-level characteristics were estimated using stratified meta-analysis and meta-regression. The response and remission of antidepressants were used as clinical evaluation indicators, and the evaluation criteria were clinical depression scales. OR value of antidepressants as assessed by meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The literature search retrieved 5529 potentially relevant articles of which 49 studies were finally included. We compared the efficacy of antidepressants (seven first-line antidepressants (fluoxetine, paroxetine, escitalopram, sertraline, fluvoxamine, venlafaxine, duloxetine), there kinds of anti-inflammatory drugs(NASIDs, cytokine-inhibitor, pioglitazone) and ketamine) by comparing the OR values.
CONCLUSION
The three drugs with the highest OR value in response were NASID (OR = 3.62(1.58, 8.32)), venlafaxin (OR = 3.50(1.83, 6.70)) and ketamine (OR = 3.28(1.89, 5.68)), while the highest OR value in remission were NASID (OR = 3.17(1.60, 6.29)), ketamine (OR = 2.99(1.58, 5.67)) and venlafaxin (OR = 2.55(1.72, 3.78)). Through reading the literature, we found 69 SNPs associated with depression. Major depression was a debilitating disorder that could ultimately lead to enormous societal and economical challenge [1]. The number of person which affected by depression was up to 16% of the population worldwide. More than 300 million individuals were estimated to suffer depression these days [1,2]. Therefore, it is apparent that safety and effective treatments for depression are necessary. In the 1930 s, the first drug for schizophrenia was discovered. This finding was a landmark for the emerging of biological psychiatry. In the 1950 s, pharmacologists had stumbled upon the antidepressant effect of imipramine. Since then, every 30 years, the use of antidepressants had made a pulsatile leap. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most widely-prescribed psychiatric drugs for the treatment of depression. However, the efficacy was variable and incomplete: 60%-70% of the patients do not experience remission, while 30%-40% do not show a significant response [3,4]. Nevertheless, SSRIs, SNRIs (selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, which can block norepinephrine at the same time) and NaSSAs (norepinephrine and selective serotonin receptor agonist), constituted the first-line clinical drugs. Nearly 30 years after the outbreak of SSRIs, antidepressants have ushered in a new chapter. It has been found that anti-inflammatory drugs could also have the small and moderate antidepressant effect and it's widely discussed [5]. More than 40 anti-inflammatory drugs have been certificated to have antidepressant effects in preclinical and clinical studies [6]. The antidepressant that has been approved for use recently is ketamine. There is no comprehensive comparison of the efficacy of all these drugs. In this review, we tried to estimate the efficacy and safety of first-line antidepressants, anti-inflammatory drugs and ketamine. On the other hand, with the development of GWAS, SNPs related to depression have been reported, and the corresponding mechanisms have been elaborated, respectively. However, patients with these SNPs have not been treated with individualized drugs according to the mechanisms. We hope to push this process forward through the summary of this article.
METHODS
Search Strategy and Study Eligibility.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Humans
PubMed: 33099342
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2020.08.013 -
Expert Opinion on Drug Safety Dec 2020A review of current meta-analyses examining the relationship between maternal use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) during pregnancy and congenital...
A review of current meta-analyses examining the relationship between maternal use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) during pregnancy and congenital anomalies. PubMed was searched for meta-analyses published in English language between January 2010 and April 2020 by using the following combinations of key words: A total of 15 meta-analyses met the search criteria. These meta-analyses consistently suggested a significant positive association between the use of SSRIs in general and paroxetine and fluoxetine in particular and the risk of major congenital anomalies. The data also showed a consistency in increased cardiovascular defects in infants due to maternal use of paroxetine. The risk of cardiovascular defects in infants of women using SSRIs in general and fluoxetine and sertraline in particular was controversial. Further large-scale prospective observational studies and meta-analyses on the effects of individual SSRIs other than paroxetine, especially escitalopram and fluvoxamine, are required to reach definitive conclusions.
Topics: Abnormalities, Drug-Induced; Antidepressive Agents; Cardiovascular Abnormalities; Depression; Female; Humans; Infant; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 33001713
DOI: 10.1080/14740338.2020.1832080 -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2020Antidepressants are prescribed for the treatment of a number of psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents, however there is still controversy about whether they...
Antidepressants are prescribed for the treatment of a number of psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents, however there is still controversy about whether they should be used in this population. This meta-review aimed to assess the effects of antidepressants for the acute treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety disorders (ADs), autistic spectrum disorder (ASD), enuresis, major depressive disorder (MDD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in children and adolescents. Efficacy was measured as response to treatment (either as mean overall change in symptoms or as a dichotomous outcome) and tolerability was measured as the proportion of patients discontinuing treatment due to adverse events. Suicidality was measured as suicidal ideation, behavior (including suicide attempts) and completed suicide. PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were systematically searched (until 31 October 2019) for existing systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of double-blind randomized controlled trials. The quality of the included reviews was appraised using AMSTAR-2. Our meta-review included nine systematic reviews/meta-analyses (2 on ADHD; 1 on AD; 2 on ASD; 1 on enuresis; 1 on MDD, 1 on OCD and 1 on PTSD). In terms of efficacy this review found that, compared to placebo: fluoxetine was more efficacious in the treatment of MDD, fluvoxamine and paroxetine were better in the treatment of AD; fluoxetine and sertraline were more efficacious in the treatment of OCD; bupropion and desipramine improved clinician and teacher-rated ADHD symptoms; clomipramine and tianeptine were superior on some of the core symptoms of ASD; and no antidepressant was more efficacious for PTSD and enuresis. With regard to tolerability: imipramine, venlafaxine, and duloxetine were less well tolerated in MDD; no differences were found for any of the antidepressants in the treatment of anxiety disorders (ADs), ADHD, and PTSD; tianeptine and citalopram, but not clomipramine, were less well tolerated in children and adolescents with ASD. For suicidal behavior/ideation, venlafaxine (in MDD) and paroxetine (in AD) were associated with a significantly increased risk; by contrast, sertraline (in AD) was associated with a reduced risk. The majority of included systematic reviews/meta-analyses were rated as being of high or moderate in quality by the AMSTAR-2 critical appraisal tool (one and five, respectively). One included study was of low quality and two were of critically low quality. Compared to placebo, selected antidepressants can be efficacious in the acute treatment of some common psychiatric disorders, although statistically significant differences do not always translate into clinically significant results. Little information was available about tolerability of antidepressants in RCTs of OCD and in the treatment of ADHD, ASD, MDD, and PTSD. There is a paucity of data on suicidal ideation/behavior, but paroxetine may increase the risk of suicidality in the treatment of AD and venlafaxine for MDD. Findings from this review must be considered in light of potential limitations, such as the lack of comparative information about many antidepressants, the short-term outcomes and the quality of the available evidence.
PubMed: 32982805
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00717 -
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Dec 2020Recent meta-analyses on dose-response relationships of SSRIs are largely based on indirect evidence. We analyzed RCTs directly comparing different SSRI doses. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Recent meta-analyses on dose-response relationships of SSRIs are largely based on indirect evidence. We analyzed RCTs directly comparing different SSRI doses.
METHOD
Systematic literature search for RCTs. Two raters independently screened articles and extracted data. Across SSRIs, doses defined as low, medium, and high doses, based on drug manufacturers' product monographs, were analyzed in pairwise random-effects meta-analyses and in a sensitivity network meta-analysis with regard to differences in antidepressive efficacy (primary outcome). We also analyzed all direct comparisons of different dosages of specific SSRIs. (Prospero CRD42018081031).
RESULTS
Out of 5333 articles screened, we included 33. Comparisons of dosage groups (low, medium, and high) resulted in only small and clinically non-significant differences for SSRIs as a group, the strongest relating to medium vs low doses (SMD: -0.15 [95%-CI: -0.28; -0.01) and not sustained in a sensitivity analysis. Among different doses of specific SSRIs, no statistically significant trend emerged for efficacy at higher doses, but 60 mg/day fluoxetine are statistically significantly inferior to 20 mg/day. Paroxetine results are inconclusive: 10 mg/day are inferior to higher doses, but 30 and 40 mg/day are inferior to 20 mg/day. Meaningful effects cannot be ruled out for certain drugs and dosages, often investigated in only one trial. Dropout rates increase with dose-particularly due to side effects. Network meta-analyses supported our findings.
CONCLUSIONS
There is no conclusive level I or level II evidence of a clinically meaningful dose-response relationship of SSRIs as a group or of single substances. High SSRI doses are not recommended as routine treatment.
Topics: Depression; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Fluoxetine; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Paroxetine; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32970827
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13235