-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2013Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a common cause of physical, psychological and social problems in women of reproductive age. The key characteristic of PMS is the timing of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a common cause of physical, psychological and social problems in women of reproductive age. The key characteristic of PMS is the timing of symptoms, which occur only during the two weeks leading up to menstruation (the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle). Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are increasingly used as first line therapy for PMS. SSRIs can be taken either in the luteal phase or else continuously (every day). SSRIs are generally considered to be effective for reducing premenstrual symptoms but they can cause adverse effects.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of SSRIs for treating premenstrual syndrome.
SEARCH METHODS
Electronic searches for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were undertaken in the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL (February 2013). Where insufficient data were presented in a report, attempts were made to contact the original authors for further details.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were considered in which women with a prospective diagnosis of PMS, PMDD or late luteal phase dysphoric disorder (LPDD) were randomised to receive SSRIs or placebo for the treatment of premenstrual syndrome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed eligible studies for risk of bias, and extracted data on premenstrual symptoms and adverse effects. Studies were pooled using random-effects models. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for premenstrual symptom scores, using separate analyses for different types of continuous data (that is end scores and change scores). Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. Analyses were stratified by type of drug administration (luteal or continuous) and by drug dose (low, medium, or high). We calculated the number of women who would need to be taking a moderate dose of SSRI in order to cause one additional adverse event (number needed to harm: NNH). The overall quality of the evidence for the main findings was assessed using the GRADE working group methods.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-one RCTs were included in the review. They compared fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, escitalopram and citalopram versus placebo. SSRIs reduced overall self-rated symptoms significantly more effectively than placebo. The effect size was moderate when studies reporting end scores were pooled (for moderate dose SSRIs: SMD -0.65, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.84, nine studies, 1276 women; moderate heterogeneity (I(2) = 58%), low quality evidence). The effect size was small when studies reporting change scores were pooled (for moderate dose SSRIs: SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.51, four studies, 657 women; low heterogeneity (I(2)=29%), moderate quality evidence).SSRIs were effective for symptom relief whether taken only in the luteal phase or continuously, with no clear evidence of a difference in effectiveness between these modes of administration. However, few studies directly compared luteal and continuous regimens and more evidence is needed on this question.Withdrawals due to adverse effects were significantly more likely to occur in the SSRI group (moderate dose: OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.84 to 3.53, 15 studies, 2447 women; no heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%), moderate quality evidence). The most common side effects associated with a moderate dose of SSRIs were nausea (NNH = 7), asthenia or decreased energy (NNH = 9), somnolence (NNH = 13), fatigue (NNH = 14), decreased libido (NNH = 14) and sweating (NNH = 14). In secondary analyses, SSRIs were effective for treating specific types of symptoms (that is psychological, physical and functional symptoms, and irritability). Adverse effects were dose-related.The overall quality of the evidence was low to moderate, the main weakness in the included studies being poor reporting of methods. Heterogeneity was low or absent for most outcomes, though (as noted above) there was moderate heterogeneity for one of the primary analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
SSRIs are effective in reducing the symptoms of PMS, whether taken in the luteal phase only or continuously. Adverse effects are relatively frequent, the most common being nausea and asthenia. Adverse effects are dose-dependent.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Female; Humans; Luteal Phase; Middle Aged; Premenstrual Syndrome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Young Adult
PubMed: 23744611
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001396.pub3 -
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry Apr 2013Depression is often not optimally treated during pregnancy, partially because of conflicting data regarding antidepressant medication risk. This meta-analysis was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Depression is often not optimally treated during pregnancy, partially because of conflicting data regarding antidepressant medication risk. This meta-analysis was conducted to determine whether antenatal antidepressant exposure is associated with congenital malformations and to assess the effect of known methodological limitations.
DATA SOURCES
EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE were searched from their start dates to June 2010. Keywords of various combinations were used, including, but not limited to depressive/mood disorder, pregnancy, antidepressant drug/agent, congenital malformation, and cardiac malformation.
STUDY SELECTION
English language studies reporting congenital malformations associated with antidepressants were included. Of 3,074 abstracts reviewed, 735 studies were retrieved and 27 studies were included.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers working independently assessed article quality. Data on use of any antidepressant, including fluoxetine and paroxetine specifically, were extracted. Outcomes included congenital malformations, major congenital malformations, cardiovascular defects, septal heart defects (ventral septal defects and atrial septal defects), and ventral septal defects only.
RESULTS
Nineteen studies were above quality threshold and make up the primary meta-analyses. Pooled relative risks (RRs) were derived by using random-effects methods. Antidepressant exposure was not associated with congenital malformations (RR = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.02; P = .113) or major malformations (RR = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.99-1.17; P = .095). However, increased risk for cardiovascular malformations (RR = 1.36; 95% CI, 1.08-1.71; P = .008) and septal heart defects (RR = 1.40; 95% CI, 1.10-1.77; P = .005) were found; the RR for ventral septal defects was similar to septal defects, although not significant (RR = 1.54; 95% CI, 0.71-3.33; P = .274). Pooled effects were significant for paroxetine and cardiovascular malformations (RR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.08-1.88; P = .012). These results are contrasted with those addressing methodological limitations but are typically consistent.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, antidepressants do not appear to be associated with an increased risk of congenital malformations, but statistical significance was found for cardiovascular malformations. Results were robust in several sensitivity analyses. Given that the RRs are marginal, they may be the result of uncontrolled confounders. Although the RRs were statistically significant, none reached clinically significant levels.
Topics: Abnormalities, Drug-Induced; Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Heart Defects, Congenital; Humans; Pregnancy; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects
PubMed: 23656855
DOI: 10.4088/JCP.12r07966 -
Daru : Journal of Faculty of Pharmacy,... Nov 2012Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most frequently used antidepressants during pregnancy. There are conflicting results about their influence on...
Increasing the risk of spontaneous abortion and major malformations in newborns following use of serotonin reuptake inhibitors during pregnancy: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis.
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most frequently used antidepressants during pregnancy. There are conflicting results about their influence on pregnancy outcomes. The goal of this study was to update our previous meta-analysis about pregnancy outcomes following exposure to SSRIs. For this purpose, all relevant databases were searched from 1990 to March 2012 for studies investigating the pregnancy outcomes following exposure to any therapeutic dosage of any SSRI (fluoxetine, paroxetine, citalopram, escitalopram, sertraline, fluvoxamine) during pregnancy. Types of outcome investigated were spontaneous abortion, major malformations, cardiovascular malformations, and minor malformations. A total of 25 studies met our criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The odds ratio (OD) values are 1.87 (95% CI: 1.5 to 2.33, P< 0.0001) for spontaneous abortion, 1.272 (95% CI: 1.098 to 1.474, P = 0.0014) for major malformations, 1.192 (95% CI: 0.39 to 3.644, P= 0.7578) for cardiovascular malformations, and 1.36 (95% CI: 0.61 to 3.04, P= 0.4498) for minor malformations. The results demonstrated that SSRIs increase the risk of spontaneous abortion and major malformations during pregnancy while they don't increase the risk of cardiovascular malformations and minor malformations. Our previous meta-analysis only showed an increase in the risk of spontaneous abortion following the use of SSRIs during pregnancy. This might be due to increase in the number of studies included or addition of two new SSRIs (citalopram and escitalopram). The message to researchers is to try considering SSRIs individually during pregnancy to reduce heterogeneity, although all are aware of inevitable limitations to study on pregnant mothers.
PubMed: 23351929
DOI: 10.1186/2008-2231-20-75 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2012Stroke is the major cause of adult disability. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been used for many years to manage depression. Recently, small trials... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Stroke is the major cause of adult disability. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been used for many years to manage depression. Recently, small trials have demonstrated that SSRIs might improve recovery after stroke, even in people who are not depressed. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are the least biased way to bring together data from several trials. Given the promising effect of SSRIs on stroke recovery seen in small trials, a systematic review and meta-analysis is needed.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether SSRIs improve recovery after stroke, and whether treatment with SSRIs was associated with adverse effects.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (August 2011), Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis Group Trials Register (November 2011), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 8), MEDLINE (from 1948 to August 2011), EMBASE (from 1980 to August 2011), CINAHL (from 1982 to August 2011), AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine) (from 1985 to August 2011), PsycINFO (from 1967 to August 2011) and PsycBITE (Pyschological Database for Brain Impairment Treatment Efficacy) (March 2012). To identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials we searched trials registers, pharmaceutical websites, reference lists, contacted experts and performed citation tracking of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that recruited stroke survivors (ischaemic or haemorrhagic) at any time within the first year. The intervention was any SSRI, given at any dose, for any period. We excluded drugs with mixed pharmacological effects. The comparator was usual care or placebo. In order to be included, trials had to collect data on at least one of our primary (dependence and disability) or secondary (impairments, depression, anxiety, quality of life, fatigue, healthcare cost, death, adverse events and leaving the trial early) outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data on demographics, type of stroke, time since stroke, our primary and secondary outcomes, and sources of bias. For trials in English, two review authors independently extracted data. For Chinese papers, one review author extracted data. We used standardised mean differences (SMD) to estimate treatment effects for continuous variables, and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous effects, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 56 completed trials of SSRI versus control, of which 52 trials (4059 participants) provided data for meta-analysis. There were statistically significant benefits of SSRI on both of the primary outcomes: RR for reducing dependency at the end of treatment was 0.81 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.97) based on one trial, and for disability score, the SMD was 0.91 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.22) (22 trials involving 1343 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 87%; P < 0.0001). For neurological deficit, depression and anxiety, there were statistically significant benefits of SSRIs. For neurological deficit score, the SMD was -1.00 (95% CI -1.26 to -0.75) (29 trials involving 2011 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 86%; P < 0.00001). For dichotomous depression scores, the RR was 0.43 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.77) (eight trials involving 771 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 77%; P < 0.0001). For continuous depression scores, the SMD was -1.91 (95% CI -2.34 to -1.48) (39 trials involving 2728 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 95%; P < 0.00001). For anxiety, the SMD was -0.77 (95% CI -1.52 to -0.02) (eight trials involving 413 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 92%; P < 0.00001). There was no statistically significant benefit of SSRI on cognition, death, motor deficits and leaving the trial early. For cognition, the SMD was 0.32 (95% CI -0.23 to 0.86), (seven trials involving 425 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 86%; P < 0.00001). The RR for death was 0.76 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.70) (46 trials involving 3344 participants) with no heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 0%; P = 0.85). For motor deficits, the SMD was -0.33 (95% CI -1.22 to 0.56) (two trials involving 145 participants). The RR for leaving the trial early was 1.02 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.21) in favour of control, with no heterogeneity between trials. There was a non-significant excess of seizures (RR 2.67; 95% CI 0.61 to 11.63) (seven trials involving 444 participants), a non-significant excess of gastrointestinal side effects (RR 1.90; 95% CI 0.94 to 3.85) (14 trials involving 902 participants) and a non-significant excess of bleeding (RR 1.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 13.05) (two trials involving 249 participants) in those allocated SSRIs. Data were not available on quality of life, fatigue or healthcare costs.There was no clear evidence from subgroup analyses that one SSRI was consistently superior to another, or that time since stroke or depression at baseline had a major influence on effect sizes. Sensitivity analyses suggested that effect sizes were smaller when we excluded trials at high or unclear risk of bias.Only eight trials provided data on outcomes after treatment had been completed; the effect sizes were generally in favour of SSRIs but CIs were wide.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
SSRIs appeared to improve dependence, disability, neurological impairment, anxiety and depression after stroke, but there was heterogeneity between trials and methodological limitations in a substantial proportion of the trials. Large, well-designed trials are now needed to determine whether SSRIs should be given routinely to patients with stroke.
Topics: Adult; Anxiety; Citalopram; Cognition; Depression; Fluoxetine; Humans; Nervous System Diseases; Paroxetine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Sertraline; Stroke; Stroke Rehabilitation
PubMed: 23152272
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009286.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2012Depressive disorders are common in young people and are associated with significant negative impacts. Newer generation antidepressants, particularly selective serotonin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Depressive disorders are common in young people and are associated with significant negative impacts. Newer generation antidepressants, particularly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), are often used, however evidence of their effectiveness in children and adolescents is not clear. Furthermore, there have been warnings against their use in this population due to concerns about increased risk of suicidal ideation and behaviour.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and adverse outcomes, including definitive suicidal behaviour and suicidal ideation, of newer generation antidepressants compared with placebo in the treatment of depressive disorders in children and adolescents.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update of the review, we searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) to October 2011. The CCDANCTR includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: CENTRAL (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) (all years), EMBASE (1974 -), MEDLINE (1950 -) and PsycINFO (1967 -). We searched clinical trial registries and pharmaceutical company websites. We checked reference lists of included trials and other reviews, and sent letters to key researchers and the pharmaceutical companies of included trials from January to August 2011.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over trials and cluster trials comparing a newer generation antidepressant with a placebo in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years old and diagnosed with a depressive disorder were eligible for inclusion. In this update, we amended the selection criteria to include newer generation antidepressants rather than SSRIs only.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two or three review authors selected the trials, assessed their quality, and extracted trial and outcome data. We used a random-effects meta-analysis. We used risk ratio (RR) to summarise dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) to summarise continuous measures.
MAIN RESULTS
Nineteen trials of a range of newer antidepressants compared with placebo, containing 3335 participants, were included. The trials excluded young people at high risk of suicide and many co-morbid conditions and the participants are likely to be less unwell than those seen in clinical practice. We judged none of these trials to be at low risk of bias, with limited information about many aspects of risk of bias, high drop out rates and issues regarding measurement instruments and the clinical usefulness of outcomes, which were often variously defined across trials. Overall, there was evidence that those treated with an antidepressant had lower depression severity scores and higher rates of response/remission than those on placebo. However, the size of these effects was small with a reduction in depression symptoms of 3.51 on a scale from 17 to 113 (14 trials; N = 2490; MD -3.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.55 to -2.47). Remission rates increased from 380 per 1000 to 448 per 1000 for those treated with an antidepressant. There was evidence of an increased risk (58%) of suicide-related outcome for those on antidepressants compared with a placebo (17 trials; N = 3229; RR 1.58; 95% CI 1.02 to 2.45). This equates to an increased risk in a group with a median baseline risk from 25 in 1000 to 40 in 1000. Where rates of adverse events were reported, this was higher for those prescribed an antidepressant. There was no evidence that the magnitude of intervention effects (compared with placebo) were modified by individual drug class.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Caution is required in interpreting the results given the methodological limitations of the included trials in terms of internal and external validity. Further, the size and clinical meaningfulness of statistically significant results are uncertain. However, given the risks of untreated depression in terms of completed suicide and impacts on functioning, if a decision to use medication is agreed, then fluoxetine might be the medication of first choice given guideline recommendations. Clinicians need to keep in mind that there is evidence of an increased risk of suicide-related outcomes in those treated with antidepressant medications.
Topics: Adolescent; Antidepressive Agents; Child; Citalopram; Depressive Disorder; Fluoxetine; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Paroxetine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Sertraline; Suicide
PubMed: 23152227
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004851.pub3 -
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... Sep 2012This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 4, 2006 and previously updated in 2009.Tinnitus is described as the perception of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 4, 2006 and previously updated in 2009.Tinnitus is described as the perception of sound or noise in the absence of real acoustic stimulation. It has been compared with chronic pain, and may be associated with depression or depressive symptoms which can affect quality of life and the ability to work. Antidepressant drugs have been used to treat tinnitus in patients with and without depressive symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of antidepressants in the treatment of tinnitus and to ascertain whether any benefit is due to a direct tinnitus effect or a secondary effect due to treatment of concomitant depressive states.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 5 January 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled clinical studies of antidepressant drugs versus placebo in patients with tinnitus.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors critically appraised the retrieved studies and extracted data independently. Where necessary we contacted study authors for further information.
MAIN RESULTS
Six trials involving 610 patients were included. Trial quality was generally low. Four of the trials looked at the effect of tricyclic antidepressants on tinnitus, investigating 405 patients. One trial investigated the effect of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) in a group of 120 patients. One study investigated trazodone, an atypical antidepressant, versus placebo. Only the trial using the SSRI drug reached the highest quality standard. None of the other included trials met the highest quality standard, due to use of inadequate outcome measures, large drop-out rates or failure to separate the effects on tinnitus from the effects on symptoms of anxiety and depression. All the trials assessing tricyclic antidepressants suggested that there was a slight improvement in tinnitus but these effects may have been attributable to methodological bias. The trial that investigated the SSRI drug found no overall improvement in any of the validated outcome measures that were used in the study although there was possible benefit for a subgroup that received higher doses of the drug. This observation merits further investigation. In the trial investigating trazodone, the results showed an improvement in tinnitus intensity and in quality of life after treatment, but in neither case reached statistical significance. Reports of side effects including sedation, sexual dysfunction and dry mouth were common.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is as yet insufficient evidence to say that antidepressant drug therapy improves tinnitus.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Humans; Nortriptyline; Paroxetine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Tinnitus; Trazodone; Trimipramine
PubMed: 22972065
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003853.pub3 -
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 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2012Obsessions or compulsions that cause personal distress or social dysfunction affect about 1% of adult men and 1.5% of adult women. About half of adults with obsessive... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Obsessions or compulsions that cause personal distress or social dysfunction affect about 1% of adult men and 1.5% of adult women. About half of adults with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) have an episodic course, whereas the other half have continuous problems. Prevalence in children and adolescents is 2.7%. The disorder persists in about 40% of children and adolescents at mean follow-up of 5.7 years.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of initial treatments for obsessive compulsive disorder in adults? What are the effects of initial treatments for obsessive compulsive disorder in children and adolescents? What are the effects of maintenance treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder in adults? What are the effects of maintenance treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder in children and adolescents? What are the effects of treatments for obsessive compulsive disorder in adults who have not responded to initial treatment with serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs)? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2011 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 43 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: addition of antipsychotics to serotonin reuptake inhibitors, behavioural therapy alone or with serotonin reuptake inhibitors, cognitive therapy or cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) (alone or with serotonin reuptake inhibitors), electroconvulsive therapy, optimum duration of maintenance treatment, psychosurgery, serotonin reuptake inhibitors (citalopram, clomipramine, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, or sertraline), and transcranial magnetic stimulation.
Topics: Electroconvulsive Therapy; Emotions; Humans; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Psychosurgery; Treatment Outcome; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 22305974
DOI: No ID Found -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Mar 2012Noncardiac chest pain (NCCP) is a common condition, affecting approximately 25% of the general population. The cause of NCCP can be classified as gastro-oesophageal... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Noncardiac chest pain (NCCP) is a common condition, affecting approximately 25% of the general population. The cause of NCCP can be classified as gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD)-related NCCP, where antireflux therapy is the main treatment modality or alternatively as non-GERD-related NCCP, where pain modulators, including antidepressants, are utilised.
AIM
To provide a systematic review evaluating the evidence for the use of antidepressants in the treatment of non-GERD-related NCCP.
METHODS
A computerised literature and manual search was conducted to identify relevant randomised, placebo-controlled studies, published in any language for the evaluation of the effectiveness of antidepressant as a therapeutic intervention for NCCP.
RESULTS
Six randomised placebo-controlled trials of antidepressant treatment for NCCP were identified. The medications included were selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [paroxetine (n = 2), sertraline (n = 1)], tricyclic antidepressant [impramine (n = 1)], serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor [venlafaxine (n = 1)] and a triazolopyridine [trazodone (n = 1)]. The percentage reduction in chest pain was statistically significant with venlafaxine (50% vs. 10%; P < 0.001), sertraline (63% vs. 15%; P = 0.02) and imipramine (52% vs. 1%; P = 0.03). The improvement in chest pain symptoms was independent of improvement in depression scores. Clinical global improvement also significantly improved in patients on venlafaxine, sertraline, paroxetine and trazodone. The percentage of patients in treatment groups reporting adverse effects were relatively high compared with those in placebo groups, although majority were statistically insignificant or significance was not reported. Nonetheless, adverse events were the reported reason for discontinuation of trials in 53% of patients from the antidepressant groups compared with 29% from the placebo group.
CONCLUSIONS
There is modest evidence for the benefit of antidepressants in reducing NCCP and improving patients' general health. However, there is significant heterogeneity amongst the studies with several study limitations to warrant more rigorous trials and to assess the usefulness of low-dose antidepressants in non-GERD NCCP.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Chest Pain; Diagnosis, Differential; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Pain Measurement; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 22239853
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04978.x