-
Lancet (London, England) Apr 2018Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide in adults. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide in adults. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments are available; however, because of inadequate resources, antidepressants are used more frequently than psychological interventions. Prescription of these agents should be informed by the best available evidence. Therefore, we aimed to update and expand our previous work to compare and rank antidepressants for the acute treatment of adults with unipolar major depressive disorder.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS database, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, PsycINFO, the websites of regulatory agencies, and international registers for published and unpublished, double-blind, randomised controlled trials from their inception to Jan 8, 2016. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 21 antidepressants used for the acute treatment of adults (≥18 years old and of both sexes) with major depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. We excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials that were incomplete or included 20% or more of participants with bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, or treatment-resistant depression; or patients with a serious concomitant medical illness. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy. In network meta-analysis, we used group-level data. We assessed the studies' risk of bias in accordance to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (response rate) and acceptability (treatment discontinuations due to any cause). We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012002291.
FINDINGS
We identified 28 552 citations and of these included 522 trials comprising 116 477 participants. In terms of efficacy, all antidepressants were more effective than placebo, with ORs ranging between 2·13 (95% credible interval [CrI] 1·89-2·41) for amitriptyline and 1·37 (1·16-1·63) for reboxetine. For acceptability, only agomelatine (OR 0·84, 95% CrI 0·72-0·97) and fluoxetine (0·88, 0·80-0·96) were associated with fewer dropouts than placebo, whereas clomipramine was worse than placebo (1·30, 1·01-1·68). When all trials were considered, differences in ORs between antidepressants ranged from 1·15 to 1·55 for efficacy and from 0·64 to 0·83 for acceptability, with wide CrIs on most of the comparative analyses. In head-to-head studies, agomelatine, amitriptyline, escitalopram, mirtazapine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine were more effective than other antidepressants (range of ORs 1·19-1·96), whereas fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, and trazodone were the least efficacious drugs (0·51-0·84). For acceptability, agomelatine, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, and vortioxetine were more tolerable than other antidepressants (range of ORs 0·43-0·77), whereas amitriptyline, clomipramine, duloxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, trazodone, and venlafaxine had the highest dropout rates (1·30-2·32). 46 (9%) of 522 trials were rated as high risk of bias, 380 (73%) trials as moderate, and 96 (18%) as low; and the certainty of evidence was moderate to very low.
INTERPRETATION
All antidepressants were more efficacious than placebo in adults with major depressive disorder. Smaller differences between active drugs were found when placebo-controlled trials were included in the analysis, whereas there was more variability in efficacy and acceptability in head-to-head trials. These results should serve evidence-based practice and inform patients, physicians, guideline developers, and policy makers on the relative merits of the different antidepressants.
FUNDING
National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depressive Disorder, Major; Double-Blind Method; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Patient Dropouts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29477251
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32802-7 -
The Lancet. Neurology Feb 2015New drug treatments, clinical trials, and standards of quality for assessment of evidence justify an update of evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
New drug treatments, clinical trials, and standards of quality for assessment of evidence justify an update of evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), we revised the Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain based on the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Between April, 2013, and January, 2014, NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, double-blind studies of oral and topical pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January, 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies. We used number needed to treat (NNT) for 50% pain relief as a primary measure and assessed publication bias; NNT was calculated with the fixed-effects Mantel-Haenszel method.
FINDINGS
229 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis of publication bias suggested a 10% overstatement of treatment effects. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater effects than did unpublished studies (r(2) 9·3%, p=0·009). Trial outcomes were generally modest: in particular, combined NNTs were 6·4 (95% CI 5·2-8·4) for serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, mainly including duloxetine (nine of 14 studies); 7·7 (6·5-9·4) for pregabalin; 7·2 (5·9-9·21) for gabapentin, including gabapentin extended release and enacarbil; and 10·6 (7·4-19·0) for capsaicin high-concentration patches. NNTs were lower for tricyclic antidepressants, strong opioids, tramadol, and botulinum toxin A, and undetermined for lidocaine patches. Based on GRADE, final quality of evidence was moderate or high for all treatments apart from lidocaine patches; tolerability and safety, and values and preferences were higher for topical drugs; and cost was lower for tricyclic antidepressants and tramadol. These findings permitted a strong recommendation for use and proposal as first-line treatment in neuropathic pain for tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, pregabalin, and gabapentin; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as second line for lidocaine patches, capsaicin high-concentration patches, and tramadol; and a weak recommendation for use and proposal as third line for strong opioids and botulinum toxin A. Topical agents and botulinum toxin A are recommended for peripheral neuropathic pain only.
INTERPRETATION
Our results support a revision of the NeuPSIG recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain. Inadequate response to drug treatments constitutes a substantial unmet need in patients with neuropathic pain. Modest efficacy, large placebo responses, heterogeneous diagnostic criteria, and poor phenotypic profiling probably account for moderate trial outcomes and should be taken into account in future studies.
FUNDING
NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Humans; Neuralgia; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25575710
DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70251-0 -
Journal of the ASEAN Federation of... 2022The weight loss benefit of semaglutide in patients with diabetes is well-documented, but its clinical utility in treating obesity among patients without diabetes is less... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The weight loss benefit of semaglutide in patients with diabetes is well-documented, but its clinical utility in treating obesity among patients without diabetes is less described. We therefore assessed the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous semaglutide as treatment for obesity in patients without diabetes.
METHODOLOGY
A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane and Google scholar was performed to identify trials on the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous semaglutide on patients with obesity without diabetes. Primary outcome was expressed as percent mean weight difference. Secondary outcomes including risk for gastrointestinal adverse events, discontinuation of treatment and serious adverse events were expressed as risk ratios. These were calculated using the random effects model.
RESULTS
The study included 4 randomized controlled trials having a total of 3,613 individuals with obesity without diabetes. The mean difference for weight reduction was -11.85%, favoring semaglutide [95% confidence interval (CI) (-12.81,-10.90), <0.00001]. Secondary outcomes showed that the risk of developing gastrointestinal adverse events was 1.59 times more likely with semaglutide (RR 1.59, 95%CI [1.34, 1.88], <0.00001). Risk for discontinuation due to adverse events was twice as likely in the semaglutide group (RR 2.19, 95%CI [1.36,3.55], =0.001) and the risk for serious adverse events was 1.6 times more likely for semaglutide (RR1.60, 95%CI [1.24, 2.07], =0.0003). Serious events were mostly of gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary disorders such as acute pancreatitis and cholelithiasis.
CONCLUSION
Among individuals with obesity without type 2 diabetes, subcutaneous semaglutide is effective for weight loss with an 11.85% reduction from baseline compared to placebo. This supports the use of semaglutide for weight management in obesity. However, risk of gastrointestinal adverse events, discontinuation of treatment and serious adverse events were higher in the semaglutide group versus placebo.
Topics: Humans; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Hypoglycemic Agents; Acute Disease; Treatment Outcome; Double-Blind Method; Pancreatitis; Weight Loss; Obesity; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36578889
DOI: 10.15605/jafes.037.02.14 -
International Angiology : a Journal of... Apr 2018The use of a venoactive drug is considered an important component of medical treatment of chronic venous disease (CVD), although the efficacy of certain venoactive drugs... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy of micronized purified flavonoid fraction (Daflon®) on improving individual symptoms, signs and quality of life in patients with chronic venous disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials.
INTRODUCTION
The use of a venoactive drug is considered an important component of medical treatment of chronic venous disease (CVD), although the efficacy of certain venoactive drugs (VADs) on one or more individual leg symptoms or signs may have not been extensively studied to justify a strong recommendation in guidelines on CVD. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to study the effectiveness of the micronized purified flavonoid fraction (MPFF, Daflon®) across the spectrum of defined venous symptoms, signs, quality of life (QoL) and treatment assessment by the physician.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
On September 9, 2017, a systematic review of the databases MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane Central was performed, supplemented by hand searching, to identify randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials on MPFF in patients with CVD.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
The main outcome measures were the individual and global symptoms, leg edema and redness, skin changes, QoL and evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the treatment by the physician. The effectiveness of MPFF compared with placebo was expressed as risk ratio (RR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Trial quality of evidence was graded using the GRADE system.
RESULTS
We identified 7 trials, mostly with low risk of bias, involving 1,692 patients. On qualitative analysis, MPFF significantly improved nine defined leg symptoms, including pain, heaviness, feeling of swelling, cramps, paresthesia, burning sensation, and pruritus (itching), but also functional discomfort compared with placebo, leg redness, skin changes and QoL. On quantitative analysis, MPFF compared with placebo, assessed as a categorical variable, reduced leg pain (RR 0.53, P=0.0001, NNT=4.2), heaviness (RR 0.35, P<0.00001, NNT=2.0), feeling of swelling (RR 0.39, P<0.00001, NNT=3.1), cramps (RR 0.51, P=0.02, NNT=4.8), paresthesia (RR 0.45, P=0.03, NNT=3.5), and functional discomfort (RR 0.41, P=0.0004, NNT=3.0). Similarly, MPFF compared with placebo, assessed as a continuous variable reduced pain (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.11), heaviness (SMD -0.80, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.54), feeling of swelling (SMD -0.99, 95% CI -1.25 to -0.73), burning sensation (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.14), cramps (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.14), and functional discomfort (SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.13 to -0.61). Regarding objective assessments of leg edema, the use of MPFF compared with placebo reduced ankle circumference (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -1.15 to -0.02), and leg redness (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.07, RR 0.50, P=0.03, NNT=3.6), improved skin changes (RR 0.18, P=0.0003, NNT=1.6) and quality of life (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.04) and was associated with clinical improvement as assessed by the physician (RR 0.28, P<0.00001, NNT=2.5). Heterogeneity was mostly minimal. The existing evidence where sufficient was mostly of high quality.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on high quality evidence, MPFF is highly effective in improving leg symptoms, edema and quality of life in patients with CVD.
Topics: Cardiovascular Agents; Chi-Square Distribution; Chronic Disease; Diosmin; Double-Blind Method; Edema; Humans; Odds Ratio; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome; Varicose Veins; Venous Insufficiency
PubMed: 29385792
DOI: 10.23736/S0392-9590.18.03975-5 -
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 2017Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a debilitating mental health problem hampering the child's development. The underlying causes include both genetic and... (Review)
Review
Diet and ADHD, Reviewing the Evidence: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses of Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trials Evaluating the Efficacy of Diet Interventions on the Behavior of Children with ADHD.
INTRODUCTION
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a debilitating mental health problem hampering the child's development. The underlying causes include both genetic and environmental factors and may differ between individuals. The efficacy of diet treatments in ADHD was recently evaluated in three reviews, reporting divergent and confusing conclusions based on heterogeneous studies and subjects. To address this inconsistency we conducted a systematic review of meta-analyses of double-blind placebo-controlled trials evaluating the effect of diet interventions (elimination and supplementation) on ADHD.
METHODS
Our literature search resulted in 14 meta-analyses, six of which confined to double-blind placebo-controlled trials applying homogeneous diet interventions, i.e. artificial food color (AFC) elimination, a few-foods diet (FFD) and poly-unsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) supplementation. Effect sizes (ES) and Confidence intervals (CI) of study outcomes were depicted in a forest plot. I2 was calculated to assess heterogeneity if necessary and additional random effects subgroup meta-regression was conducted if substantial heterogeneity was present.
RESULTS
The AFC ESs were 0.44 (95% CI: 0.16-0.72, I2 = 11%) and 0.21 (95% CI: -0.02-0.43, I2 = 68%) [parent ratings], 0.08 (95% CI: -0.07-0.24, I2 = 0%) [teacher ratings] and 0.11 (95% CI: -0.13-0.34, I2 = 12%) [observer ratings]. The FFD ESs were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.41-1.19, I2 = 61%) [parent ratings] and 0.51 (95% CI: -0.02-1.04, I2 = 72%) [other ratings], while the PUFA ESs were 0.17 (95% CI: -0.03-0.38, I2 = 38%) [parent ratings], -0.05 (95% CI: -0.27-0.18, I2 = 0%) [teacher ratings] and 0.16 (95% CI: 0.01-0.31, I2 = 0%) [parent and teacher ratings]. Three meta-analyses (two FFD and one AFC) resulted in high I2 without presenting subgroup results. The FFD meta-analyses provided sufficient data to perform subgroup analyses on intervention type, resulting in a decrease of heterogeneity to 0% (diet design) and 37.8% (challenge design).
CONCLUSION
Considering the small average ESs PUFA supplementation is unlikely to provide a tangible contribution to ADHD treatment, while further research is required for AFC elimination before advising this intervention as ADHD treatment. The average FFD ES is substantial, offering treatment opportunities in subgroups of children with ADHD not responding to or too young for medication. Further FFD research should focus on establishing the underlying mechanisms of food (e.g. incrimination of gut microbiota) to simplify the FFD approach in children with ADHD.
Topics: Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Child; Child Behavior; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Problem Behavior; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28121994
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169277 -
Journal of the European Academy of... Sep 2021Given the lack of head-to-head studies of systemic therapies in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), network meta-analyses (NMAs) can provide comparative efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Given the lack of head-to-head studies of systemic therapies in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), network meta-analyses (NMAs) can provide comparative efficacy and safety data to inform clinical decision-making. In this NMA, eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before 24 October 2019 were identified by a systematic literature review. Short-term (12-16 weeks) efficacy (Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] and Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI] responses), patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and safety data from each trial were abstracted and analysed separately for monotherapy and combination therapy (systemic plus topical anti-inflammatory therapy). RCTs were analysed in fixed-effects and random-effects Bayesian NMA models. Overall, 19 phase 2 and phase 3 RCTs of abrocitinib, baricitinib, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, nemolizumab, tralokinumab and upadacitinib were included. In monotherapy RCTs, upadacitinib 30 mg once daily (QD) had the numerically highest efficacy (83.6% achieved ≥50% improvement in EASI [EASI-50 response]), followed by abrocitinib 200 mg QD (74.6%), upadacitinib 15 mg QD (70.5%), dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) (63.4%) and abrocitinib 100 mg QD (56.7%). Similar trends in EASI-75 and EASI-90 response were observed. In combination therapy RCTs, abrocitinib 200 mg QD had the highest EASI-50 (86.6%), followed by dupilumab 300 mg Q2W (82.4%) and abrocitinib 100 mg QD (79.7%). Similar findings were observed for IGA response and PROs. In monotherapy and combination therapy RCTs, the probability of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was higher among all active treatments than with placebo (except for dupilumab 300 mg Q2W [odds ratio (OR), 0.96; 95% credible interval (CrI), 0.45-2.18] and abrocitinib 100 mg QD [OR, 0.95; 95% CrI, 0.35-2.66] in combination therapy RCTs), although active treatments did not significantly differ from one another. Abrocitinib, dupilumab and upadacitinib were consistently the most effective systemic therapies in adult and adolescent patients with AD, with no significant TEAE differences in short-term RCTs.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Dermatitis, Atopic; Double-Blind Method; Eczema; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33991374
DOI: 10.1111/jdv.17351 -
Brain and Behavior Feb 2022Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a severe psychiatric disorder characterized by starvation and malnutrition, a high incidence of coexisting psychiatric conditions, and treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a severe psychiatric disorder characterized by starvation and malnutrition, a high incidence of coexisting psychiatric conditions, and treatment resistance. The effect of pharmacotherapy has been controversial.
METHOD
A systematic review was conducted for evidence of an effect of olanzapine versus placebo in adults or its effect as adjuvant treatment of AN in adolescents.
RESULTS
A total of seven articles (304 patients with AN) were identified. There were four double-blind, randomized studies examining the effect of olanzapine in the treatment of AN. The mean difference in body mass index (BMI) at the end of treatment between olanzapine and placebo was 0.67 kg/m (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15-1.18 kg/m ; p = 0.01; I = 0%, p for heterogeneity < 0.79). The olanzapine groups showed a significant increase in BMI of 0.68 kg/m (95% CI 0.22-1.13 kg/m ; p < 0.001; I = 0%, p for heterogeneity = 0.74) compared to the placebo groups. Only two studies examined the effect of olanzapine as adjuvant treatment in adolescents and showed an increase in BMI of 0.66 kg/m (95% CI -0.36 to 1.67 kg/m ; p = 0.21; I = 11%, p for heterogeneity = 0.32).
DISCUSSION
Olanzapine showed efficacy in the treatment of AN with an increased BMI at the end of treatment in adults. The effect of olanzapine as adjuvant treatment in adolescents remains unclear.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anorexia Nervosa; Benzodiazepines; Body Mass Index; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Olanzapine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35020271
DOI: 10.1002/brb3.2498 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry Jul 2019Depression is the single largest contributor to non-fatal health loss worldwide. Second-generation antidepressants are the first-line option for pharmacological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Depression is the single largest contributor to non-fatal health loss worldwide. Second-generation antidepressants are the first-line option for pharmacological management of depression. Optimising their use is crucial in reducing the burden of depression; however, debate about their dose dependency and their optimal target dose is ongoing. We have aimed to summarise the currently available best evidence to inform this clinical question.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of double-blind, randomised controlled trials that examined fixed doses of five selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, and sertraline), venlafaxine, or mirtazapine in the acute treatment of adults (aged 18 years or older) with major depression, identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, AMED, PSYNDEX, websites of drug licensing agencies and pharmaceutical companies, and trial registries. We imposed no language restrictions, and the search was updated until Jan 8, 2016. Doses of SSRIs were converted to fluoxetine equivalents. Trials of antidepressants for patients with depression and a serious concomitant physical illness were excluded. The main outcomes were efficacy (treatment response defined as 50% or greater reduction in depression severity), tolerability (dropouts due to adverse effects), and acceptability (dropouts for any reasons), all after a median of 8 weeks of treatment (range 4-12 weeks). We used a random-effects, dose-response meta-analysis model with flexible splines for SSRIs, venlafaxine, and mirtazapine.
FINDINGS
28 554 records were identified through our search (24 524 published and 4030 unpublished records). 561 published and 121 unpublished full-text records were assessed for eligibility, and 77 studies were included (19 364 participants; mean age 42·5 years, SD 11·0; 7156 [60·9%] of 11 749 reported were women). For SSRIs (99 treatment groups), the dose-efficacy curve showed a gradual increase up to doses between 20 mg and 40 mg fluoxetine equivalents, and a flat to decreasing trend through the higher licensed doses up to 80 mg fluoxetine equivalents. Dropouts due to adverse effects increased steeply through the examined range. The relationship between the dose and dropouts for any reason indicated optimal acceptability for the SSRIs in the lower licensed range between 20 mg and 40 mg fluoxetine equivalents. Venlafaxine (16 treatment groups) had an initially increasing dose-efficacy relationship up to around 75-150 mg, followed by a more modest increase, whereas for mirtazapine (11 treatment groups) efficacy increased up to a dose of about 30 mg and then decreased. Both venlafaxine and mirtazapine showed optimal acceptability in the lower range of their licensed dose. These results were robust to several sensitivity analyses.
INTERPRETATION
For the most commonly used second-generation antidepressants, the lower range of the licensed dose achieves the optimal balance between efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability in the acute treatment of major depression.
FUNDING
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Swiss National Science Foundation, and National Institute for Health Research.
Topics: Depressive Disorder, Major; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Mirtazapine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin Agents; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 31178367
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30217-2 -
Cureus Dec 2023With increasing life expectancy, the quest for skin rejuvenation has gained prominence among individuals of diverse age groups. The popularity of nutricosmetics, notably... (Review)
Review
With increasing life expectancy, the quest for skin rejuvenation has gained prominence among individuals of diverse age groups. The popularity of nutricosmetics, notably dietary supplements, has garnered significant attention in recent years. Many scientific investigations have amassed compelling evidence highlighting the positive impact of hydrolyzed collagen supplementation in mitigating the visible signs of skin aging. This study aims to know the powerful effect of hydrolyzed collagen on the skin. This research method is to conduct a systematic review followed by a meta-analysis of the clinical trial focusing on randomized, double-blind, and controlled trials that examined the oral consumption of hydrolyzed collagen and reported outcomes related to skin aging, wrinkles, moisture levels, elasticity, and firmness. The selected articles from CENTRAL, PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect databases were published from 2017 to 2023. The subsequent meta-analysis, comprising 14 distinct studies and a collective cohort of 967 participants, revealed encouraging findings favoring hydrolyzed collagen supplementation. It consistently demonstrated substantial enhancements in skin moisture levels and elasticity compared to the placebo group, a trend robustly corroborated by subgroup analysis. These compelling findings underscore the effectiveness of a 12-week regimen of hydrolyzed collagen supplementation in revitalizing the skin by augmenting its hydration and elasticity.
PubMed: 38192916
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.50231