-
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Jul 2015Toxicity due to treatment causes a negative impact on quality of life in breast cancer survivors. Hot flash symptoms, described as intense sensations of heat, sweating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Toxicity due to treatment causes a negative impact on quality of life in breast cancer survivors. Hot flash symptoms, described as intense sensations of heat, sweating and flushing occur in more than 50 % of breast cancer patients taking tamoxifen. We hypothesized that venlafaxine, a selective-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor drug, was effective for reducing patient-reported hot flash scores among women treated for breast cancer compared to other non-hormonal treatments. We searched Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception till May 2015 for venlafaxine (75 mg once daily or greater) with non-hormonal comparators for the treatment of hot flashes in female breast cancer patients. The primary outcome was hot flash score (derived from patient-reported hot flash severity and frequency) in randomized controlled trials. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated for each study due to variation in the outcome measures. Heterogeneity was determined using I (2) statistics, and publication bias was assessed using a contour funnel plot and Egger's tests. Pooled analyses demonstrated that venlafaxine significantly reduced hot flash scores compared to the trial comparators (overall SMD 2.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.40, 3.72]). There was significant heterogeneity among these studies (I (2) = 98.7%, P < 0.001). Asymmetry in the contour funnel plot suggests the presence of publication bias and a trend towards small study effects (Egger's test, P = 0.096). Venlafaxine is efficacious in managing hot flashes among women with breast cancer. This review highlights methodological issues that arise from eligible trials and recommends a collaborative approach in survivorship studies.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Disease Management; Female; Hot Flashes; Humans; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 26067931
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-015-3465-5 -
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 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and... Feb 2015Fibromyalgia is a painful disease affecting 1-2% of the United States population. Serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), such as duloxetine and... (Review)
Review
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE
Fibromyalgia is a painful disease affecting 1-2% of the United States population. Serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), such as duloxetine and milnacipran, are well studied and frequently used for treating this disorder. However, efficacy data are limited for the SNRI venlafaxine despite its use in nearly a quarter of patients with fibromyalgia. Accordingly, we systematically reviewed the efficacy of venlafaxine for treatment of fibromyalgia.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Database were searched using the terms 'venlafaxine' and 'fibromyalgia'. Results were classified as primary studies or review articles based on abstract review. References of review articles were evaluated to ensure no primary studies evaluating venlafaxine were overlooked. All clinical studies that investigated venlafaxine for the treatment of fibromyalgia were included and graded on strength of evidence.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Five studies met the inclusion criteria, including 4 open-label cohort studies and 1 randomized, controlled trial. Study durations ranged from 6 weeks to 6 months, and study sizes ranged from 11 to 102 participants. Four of the five published studies reported improvement in at least one outcome. Generally consistent improvements were observed in pain-related outcome measures, including the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (range, 26-29% reduction; n = 2 studies), Visual Analog Scale (range, 36-45% reduction; n = 2 studies), McGill Pain Questionnaire (48% reduction; n = 1 study) and Clinical Global Impression scale (51% had significant score change; n = 1 study). However, the few studies identified were limited by small sample size, inconsistent use of outcomes and methodological concerns.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION
Studies assessing the efficacy of venlafaxine in the treatment of fibromyalgia to date have been limited by small sample size, inconsistent venlafaxine dosing, lack of placebo control and lack of blinding. In the context of these limitations, venlafaxine appears to be at least modestly effective in treating fibromyalgia. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to further elucidate the full benefit of venlafaxine.
Topics: Cyclohexanols; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 25294655
DOI: 10.1111/jcpt.12216 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Feb 2015Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is common among cancer patients who undergo chemotherapy with platinum analogues, taxanes, vinca alkaloids, epothilone,... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is common among cancer patients who undergo chemotherapy with platinum analogues, taxanes, vinca alkaloids, epothilone, bortezomib, and thalidomide. The purpose of this study was to investigate the evidence of using drugs affecting the central nervous system (CNS) to alleviate CIPN in cancer patients.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted using the CINAHL, EMBASE, and Medline databases to identify randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) reported in English up to 2013. We identified ten trials of CNS-acting drugs used to treat CIPN in cancer patients and reviewed efficacy and safety of CNS-acting drugs for CIPN using a standard data collection form. The risk of bias in each RCT was also assessed.
RESULTS
Antidepressants were used in six studies and anticonvulsants in four studies. We found positive results for amitriptyline (topical), venlafaxine, and oxcarbazepine in one study each, but the results were not sufficient to draw definite conclusions. One trial with duloxetine showed a moderate effect (effect size, 0.513, P = .003) on CIPN pain relief. However, none of the results has yet been duplicated in an RCT with a large sample size.
CONCLUSIONS
Insufficient RCTs exist to confirm the efficacy of CNS agents to reduce CIPN. This study highlighted the need for and the importance of conducting well-designed RCTs to generate evidence on CIPN symptom management. Additional RCTs are warranted to accelerate the potential use of CNS drugs for CIPN in cancer patients.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Antineoplastic Agents; Boronic Acids; Bortezomib; Carbamazepine; Central Nervous System; Cyclohexanols; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Epothilones; Humans; Neoplasms; Neuralgia; Oxcarbazepine; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases; Pyrazines; Taxoids; Thalidomide; Thiophenes; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Vinca Alkaloids
PubMed: 25256375
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-014-2408-8 -
Journal of the American Association of... Jan 2015To systematically review the evidence related to the efficacy and tolerability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To systematically review the evidence related to the efficacy and tolerability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) used for the treatment of vasomotor symptoms in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Eighteen trials met the criteria for review.
CONCLUSIONS
Results from these trials indicate that paroxetine, citalopram, escitalopram, venlafaxine, and desvenlafaxine are effective in reducing the frequency and severity of hot flashes. Fluoxetine and sertraline appear to be less effective and should be considered second-line options for treatment.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
The SSRIs and SNRIs can reduce hot flashes by 65% and begin working within the first week. Patient response is variable and if one drug does not improve hot flashes, another can be tried after a 1- to 2-week drug trial. Paroxetine, citalopram, and escitalopram appear to have the fewest adverse effects. Considering cost, paroxetine and citalopram are the most cost-efficient.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Citalopram; Desvenlafaxine Succinate; Female; Fluoxetine; Hot Flashes; Humans; Menopause; Middle Aged; Paroxetine; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Sertraline; Vasomotor System; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 24944075
DOI: 10.1002/2327-6924.12137 -
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical... Oct 2013The incidence of hot flashes under hormone manipulation therapy is so high that this symptom caused by sex hormone blocking agents has been bothering patients and has a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The incidence of hot flashes under hormone manipulation therapy is so high that this symptom caused by sex hormone blocking agents has been bothering patients and has a negative impact on their quality of life. Venlafaxine and gabapentin are most promising novel nonestrogenic agents to control the symptom. We seek to quatitatively summarize the efficacy of these novel agents.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies on the efficacy of venlafaxine/gabapentin to hot flashes in cancer patient under hormone deprivation therapies. A search for Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ichushi, and Google Scholar yielded 733 citations, which were independently assessed by two authors. We estimated overall effect sizes and its 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for the efficacy of these agents compared with the controls with standardized mean difference.
RESULTS
A total of 5 studies involving 588 cancer patients with hot flashes finally fulfilled the predefined inclusion criteria. Overall effect size of the efficacy of venlafaxine/gabapentin was -0.630 (95 % CI [-0.801, -0.459]).
CONCLUSION
Venlafaxine/gabapentin significantly improved hot flashes in cancer patients under hormone manipulation therapies.
Topics: Amines; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Cyclohexanols; Gabapentin; Hot Flashes; Humans; Neoplasms, Hormone-Dependent; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 23974271
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-013-1491-4 -
Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials Mar 2013Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common psychiatric disorder in children and adolescents. Stimulants are commonly prescribed for ADHD management.... (Review)
Review
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common psychiatric disorder in children and adolescents. Stimulants are commonly prescribed for ADHD management. There is clinical trial evidence that some medications with noradrenergic properties such as atomoxetine are effective. It is of theoretical and practical importance if other agents with noradrenergic properties display a comparable pattern of efficacy. This paper is a systematic review of the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine for treating children and adolescents with ADHD. MEDLINE, Google scholar, Scopus, and Web of science (ISI) databases were electronically searched in July 2012, updated on November 2012. Time and language of publication were not exclusion criteria. Efficacy outcomes were assessed by a valid and reliable parent- and/or teacher-reported instrument to evaluate clinical symptoms. Adverse effects were also evaluated. There were three uncontrolled trials and only two double blind controlled clinical trials. Venlafaxine appeared effective for treating ADHD. The rates of some adverse effects of venlafaxine were less than those documented for methylphenidate. While one of the two small controlled trials did not find difference between venlafaxine ad methylphenidate, the other trial reported lower efficacy for venlafaxine. Headache, insomnia, and nausea were among the most common adverse effects. This systematic review provides preliminary support that venlafaxine may have short term utility in treating ADHD in children and adolescents. However, before recommending venlafaxine for treatment, more robust and larger clinical trials, in particular providing evidence of its long-term efficacy, safety and tolerability are required.
Topics: Adolescent; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cyclohexanols; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Methylphenidate; Research Design; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 23157376
DOI: 10.2174/1574887111308010002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2012Although pharmacological and psychological interventions are both effective for major depression, in primary and secondary care settings antidepressant drugs remain the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although pharmacological and psychological interventions are both effective for major depression, in primary and secondary care settings antidepressant drugs remain the mainstay of treatment. Amongst antidepressants many different agents are available. Duloxetine hydrochloride is a dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin and norepinephrine and has been licensed by the Food and Drug Administration in the US for major depressive disorder (MDD), generalised anxiety disorder, diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia and chronic musculoskeletal pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of duloxetine in comparison with all other antidepressant agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression.
SEARCH METHODS
MEDLINE (1966 to 2012), EMBASE (1974 to 2012), the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2012. No language restriction was applied. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were hand-searched. Pharmaceutical company marketing duloxetine and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials allocating patients with major depression to duloxetine versus any other antidepressive agent.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and a double-entry procedure was employed. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 16 randomised controlled trials (overall 5735 participants) were included in this systematic review. Of these, three trials were unpublished. We found 11 studies (overall 3304 participants) comparing duloxetine with one selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) (six studies versus paroxetine, three studies versus escitalopram and two versus fluoxetine), four studies (overall 1978 participants) comparing duloxetine with a newer antidepressants (three with venlafaxine and one with desvenlafaxine, respectively) and one study (overall 453 participants) comparing duloxetine with an antipsychotic drug which is also used as an antidepressive agent, quetiapine. No studies were found comparing duloxetine with tricyclic antidepressants. The pooled confidence intervals were rather wide and there were no statistically significant differences in efficacy when comparing duloxetine with other antidepressants. However, when compared with escitalopram or venlafaxine, there was a higher rate of drop out due to any cause in the patients randomised to duloxetine (odds ratio (OR) 1.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 2.62 and OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.15, respectively). There was also some weak evidence suggesting that patients taking duloxetine experienced more adverse events than paroxetine (OR 1.24; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.55).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Duloxetine did not seem to provide a significant advantage in efficacy over other antidepressive agents for the acute-phase treatment of major depression. No differences in terms of efficacy were found, even though duloxetine was worse than some SSRIs (most of all, escitalopram) and newer antidepressants (like venlafaxine) in terms of acceptability and tolerability. Unfortunately, we only found evidence comparing duloxetine with a handful of other active antidepressive agents and only a few trials per comparison were found (in some cases we retrieved just one trial). This limited the power of the review to detect moderate, but clinically meaningful differences between the drugs. As many statistical tests have been used in the review, the findings from this review are better thought of as hypothesis forming rather than hypothesis testing and it would be very comforting to see the conclusions replicated in future trials. Most of included studies were sponsored by the drug industry manufacturing duloxetine. As for all other new investigational compounds, the potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should be borne in mind. In the present review no trials reported economic outcomes. Given that several SSRIs and the great majority of antidepressants are now available as generic formulation (only escitalopram, desvenlafaxine and duloxetine are still on patent), more comprehensive economic estimates of antidepressant treatment effect should be considered to better inform healthcare policy.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Citalopram; Cyclohexanols; Depression; Desvenlafaxine Succinate; Dibenzothiazepines; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fluoxetine; Humans; Paroxetine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thiophenes; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 23076926
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006533.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2012Recent US and UK clinical practice guidelines recommend that second-generation antidepressants should be considered amongst the best first-line options when drug therapy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Recent US and UK clinical practice guidelines recommend that second-generation antidepressants should be considered amongst the best first-line options when drug therapy is indicated for a depressive episode. Systematic reviews have already highlighted some differences in efficacy between second-generation antidepressants. Citalopram, one of the first selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) introduced in the market, is one of these antidepressant drugs that clinicians use for routine depression care.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of citalopram in comparison with tricyclics, heterocyclics, other SSRIs and other conventional and non-conventional antidepressants in the acute-phase treatment of major depression.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to February 2012. No language restriction was applied. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts in this field for supplemental data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials allocating patients with major depression to citalopram versus any other antidepressants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently extracted data. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy (the number of patients who responded or remitted), patient acceptability (the number of patients who failed to complete the study) and tolerability (side-effects).
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-seven trials compared citalopram with other antidepressants (such as tricyclics, heterocyclics, SSRIs and other antidepressants, either conventional ones, such as mirtazapine, venlafaxine and reboxetine, or non-conventional, like hypericum). Citalopram was shown to be significantly less effective than escitalopram in achieving acute response (odds ratio (OR) 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 2.02), but more effective than paroxetine (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.96) and reboxetine (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91). Significantly fewer patients allocated to citalopram withdrew from trials due to adverse events compared with patients allocated to tricyclics (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.78) and fewer patients allocated to citalopram reported at least one side effect than reboxetine or venlafaxine (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.97 and OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.88, respectively).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Some statistically significant differences between citalopram and other antidepressants for the acute phase treatment of major depression were found in terms of efficacy, tolerability and acceptability. Citalopram was more efficacious than paroxetine and reboxetine and more acceptable than tricyclics, reboxetine and venlafaxine, however, it seemed to be less efficacious than escitalopram. As with most systematic reviews in psychopharmacology, the potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias and publication bias should be borne in mind when interpreting review findings. Economic analyses were not reported in the included studies, however, cost effectiveness information is needed in the field of antidepressant trials.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Citalopram; Cyclohexanols; Depression; Humans; Morpholines; Paroxetine; Reboxetine; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 22786497
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006534.pub2