-
Advances in Clinical and Experimental... Oct 2023Psychosis is a very common feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD) that can emerge as the neurodegenerative disease progresses. The 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT2A) receptors... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of negative allosteric modulators of 5-hydroxytryptamine 2A receptors in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease psychosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Psychosis is a very common feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD) that can emerge as the neurodegenerative disease progresses. The 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT2A) receptors are located postsynaptically to serotonergic neurons in the frontal cortex and mediate both excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmissions. However, the effectiveness and tolerance of negative modulators of 5-HT2A receptors in Alzheimer's disease psychosis (ADP) are uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To detect the negative modulators of the 5-HT2A receptor as a cure for ADP.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The primary outcome indicator was the total Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) score. Other prognostic indicators included Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living (KATZ), the discontinuation rate, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Compared to placebo, 5-HT2A inverse agonists significantly reduced the NPI total score, the KATZ and the MMSE score. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was 1.64 (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.01-2.65) and the heterogeneity variance was estimated at Tau2 = 0.52 with an I2 value of 90%, a χ2 value of 111.31, p = 0.04, and z-value of 2.01. The risk difference (RD) between the 5-HT2A receptor negative modulators and placebo groups was 0.12 (95% CI: 0.00-0.24) and the heterogeneity was estimated at Tau2 = 0.03, χ2 value of 127.23, degrees of freedom (df) value of 9, I2 value of 93%, z-value of 1.92, and p-value of 0.01 (<0.05).
CONCLUSION
Our results suggest that negative modulators of 5-HT2A receptors are beneficial and well-tolerated in the treatment of ADP.
Topics: Humans; Alzheimer Disease; Serotonin; Neurodegenerative Diseases; Activities of Daily Living; Drug Inverse Agonism; Receptor, Serotonin, 5-HT2A; Psychotic Disorders
PubMed: 37166012
DOI: 10.17219/acem/161159 -
Alpha Psychiatry Sep 2021The aim of the article is to review systematically current researches investigating the relationship between intrauterine exposure to antidepressants and neonatal... (Review)
Review
The aim of the article is to review systematically current researches investigating the relationship between intrauterine exposure to antidepressants and neonatal hypoglycemia. This paper included studies published in electronic databases from January 2005 to July 2020. The searched keywords were as follows: antidepressants, pregnancy, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), citalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, escitalopram, sertraline, fluvoxamine, selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), venlafaxine, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), neonatal outcomes, neonatal hypoglycemia, imipramine, clomipramine, amitriptyline, bupropion, trazodone, and mirtazapine. This review examined 10 relevant studies. The odds ratio/risk ratio reported in the studies were 1.33-1.73 for any antidepressant, 1.30-1.35 for SSRI, 1.42-2.11 for SNRI, and 2.07 for TCAs. The risk of neonatal hypoglycemia in infants exposed to maternal TCAs appears to be slightly higher compared to infants exposed to maternal SSRIs. Data from current studies consistently show that exposure to maternal antidepressants during pregnancy may be related to increased risk of neonatal hypoglycemia in infants.
PubMed: 36447450
DOI: 10.1530/alphapsychiatry.2021.21143 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Harmful alcohol use is defined as unhealthy alcohol use that results in adverse physical, psychological, social, or societal consequences and is among the leading risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Harmful alcohol use is defined as unhealthy alcohol use that results in adverse physical, psychological, social, or societal consequences and is among the leading risk factors for disease, disability and premature mortality globally. The burden of harmful alcohol use is increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and there remains a large unmet need for indicated prevention and treatment interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in these settings. Evidence regarding which interventions are effective and feasible for addressing harmful and other patterns of unhealthy alcohol use in LMICs is limited, which contributes to this gap in services.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of psychosocial and pharmacologic treatment and indicated prevention interventions compared with control conditions (wait list, placebo, no treatment, standard care, or active control condition) aimed at reducing harmful alcohol use in LMICs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indexed in the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, the Cochrane Clinical Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) through 12 December 2021. We searched clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Web of Science, and Opengrey database to identify unpublished or ongoing studies. We searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles for eligible studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All RCTs comparing an indicated prevention or treatment intervention (pharmacologic or psychosocial) versus a control condition for people with harmful alcohol use in LMICs were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 66 RCTs with 17,626 participants. Sixty-two of these trials contributed to the meta-analysis. Sixty-three studies were conducted in middle-income countries (MICs), and the remaining three studies were conducted in low-income countries (LICs). Twenty-five trials exclusively enrolled participants with alcohol use disorder. The remaining 51 trials enrolled participants with harmful alcohol use, some of which included both cases of alcohol use disorder and people reporting hazardous alcohol use patterns that did not meet criteria for disorder. Fifty-two RCTs assessed the efficacy of psychosocial interventions; 27 were brief interventions primarily based on motivational interviewing and were compared to brief advice, information, or assessment only. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to brief interventions given the high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Studies reporting continuous outcomes: Tau² = 0.15, Q =139.64, df =16, P<.001, I² = 89%, 3913 participants, 17 trials, very low certainty; Studies reporting dichotomous outcomes: Tau²=0.18, Q=58.26, df=3, P<.001, I² =95%, 1349 participants, 4 trials, very low certainty). The other types of psychosocial interventions included a range of therapeutic approaches such as behavioral risk reduction, cognitive-behavioral therapy, contingency management, rational emotive therapy, and relapse prevention. These interventions were most commonly compared to usual care involving varying combinations of psychoeducation, counseling, and pharmacotherapy. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to psychosocial treatments due to high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 1.15; Q = 444.32, df = 11, P<.001; I²=98%, 2106 participants, 12 trials, very low certainty). Eight trials compared combined pharmacologic and psychosocial interventions with placebo, psychosocial intervention alone, or another pharmacologic treatment. The active pharmacologic study conditions included disulfiram, naltrexone, ondansetron, or topiramate. The psychosocial components of these interventions included counseling, encouragement to attend Alcoholics Anonymous, motivational interviewing, brief cognitive-behavioral therapy, or other psychotherapy (not specified). Analysis of studies comparing a combined pharmacologic and psychosocial intervention to psychosocial intervention alone found that the combined approach may be associated with a greater reduction in harmful alcohol use (standardized mean difference (standardized mean difference (SMD))=-0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.61 to -0.24; 475 participants; 4 trials; low certainty). Four trials compared pharmacologic intervention alone with placebo and three with another pharmacotherapy. Drugs assessed were: acamprosate, amitriptyline, baclofen disulfiram, gabapentin, mirtazapine, and naltrexone. None of these trials evaluated the primary clinical outcome of interest, harmful alcohol use. Thirty-one trials reported rates of retention in the intervention. Meta-analyses revealed that rates of retention between study conditions did not differ in any of the comparisons (pharmacologic risk ratio (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.44, 247 participants, 3 trials, low certainty; pharmacologic in addition to psychosocial intervention: RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.40, 363 participants, 3 trials, moderate certainty). Due to high levels of heterogeneity, we did not calculate pooled estimates comparing retention in brief (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Q = 172.59, df = 11, P<.001; I = 94%; 5380 participants; 12 trials, very low certainty) or other psychosocial interventions (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; Q = 34.07, df = 8, P<.001; I = 77%; 1664 participants; 9 trials, very low certainty). Two pharmacologic trials and three combined pharmacologic and psychosocial trials reported on side effects. These studies found more side effects attributable to amitriptyline relative to mirtazapine, naltrexone and topiramate relative to placebo, yet no differences in side effects between placebo and either acamprosate or ondansetron. Across all intervention types there was substantial risk of bias. Primary threats to validity included lack of blinding and differential/high rates of attrition.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In LMICs there is low-certainty evidence supporting the efficacy of combined psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use relative to psychosocial interventions alone. There is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of pharmacologic or psychosocial interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use largely due to the substantial heterogeneity in outcomes, comparisons, and interventions that precluded pooling of these data in meta-analyses. The majority of studies are brief interventions, primarily among men, and using measures that have not been validated in the target population. Confidence in these results is reduced by the risk of bias and significant heterogeneity among studies as well as the heterogeneity of results on different outcome measures within studies. More evidence on the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions, specific types of psychosocial interventions are needed to increase the certainty of these results.
Topics: Humans; Male; Acamprosate; Alcoholism; Amitriptyline; Developing Countries; Disulfiram; Mirtazapine; Naltrexone; Ondansetron; Topiramate
PubMed: 37158538
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013350.pub2 -
Schizophrenia Research Nov 2014Cognitive impairment in schizophrenia is disabling, but current treatment options remain limited. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cognitive impairment in schizophrenia is disabling, but current treatment options remain limited.
OBJECTIVE
To meta-analyze the efficacy and safety of adjunctive antidepressants for cognitive impairment in schizophrenia.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION
PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases were searched until 12/2013 for randomized controlled trials comparing antidepressant augmentation of antipsychotics with placebo regarding effects on cognitive functioning in schizophrenia.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two authors independently extracted data. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for categorical outcomes. SMDs of individual cognitive tests were pooled on a study level within domains (primary outcome) and across domains. When results were heterogeneous, random instead of fixed effects models were used.
RESULTS
We meta-analyzed 11 studies (duration = 8.7 ± 3.7 weeks) including 568 patients (mean age = 39.5 ± 6.9 years, males = 67.2%, illness duration = 12.5 ± 8.0 years). Antidepressants included mirtazapine (4 studies; n = 126), citalopram (2 studies; n = 231), fluvoxamine (1 study; n = 47), duloxetine (1 study; n = 40), mianserin (1 study; n = 30), bupropion (1 study; n = 61), and reboxetine (1 study; n = 33). Statistically significant, but clinically negligible, advantages were found for pooled antidepressants compared to placebo in executive function (Hedges' g = 0.17, p = 0.02) and a composite cognition score (Hedges' g = 0.095, p = 0.012). Depression improved with serotonergic antidepressants (p = 0.0009) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (p = 0.009), but not with pooled antidepressants (p = 0.39). Sedation was more common with pooled antidepressants (p = 0.04).
CONCLUSION
Adjunctive antidepressants do not demonstrate clinically significant effects on cognition in schizophrenia patients, however, larger studies, preferably in euthymic schizophrenia patients and using full neurocognitive batteries, are needed to confirm this finding.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Cognition Disorders; Drug Synergism; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 25240772
DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2014.08.015 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Rates of major depression among people living with HIV (PLWH) are substantially higher than those seen in the general population and this may adversely affect... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rates of major depression among people living with HIV (PLWH) are substantially higher than those seen in the general population and this may adversely affect antiretroviral treatment outcomes. Several unique clinical and psychosocial factors may contribute to the development and persistence of depression in PLWH. Given these influences, it is unclear if antidepressant therapy is as effective for PLWH as the general population.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of antidepressant therapy for treatment of depression in PLWH.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's specialised register (CCMD-CTR), the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase and ran a cited reference search on the Web of Science for reports of all included studies. We conducted additional searches of the international trial registers including; ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization Trials Portal (ICTRP), and the HIV and AIDS - Clinical trials register. We searched grey literature and reference lists to identify additional studies and contacted authors to obtain missing data. We applied no restrictions on date, language or publication status to the searches, which included studies conducted between 1 January 1980 and 18 April 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials of antidepressant drug therapy compared to placebo or another antidepressant drug class. Participants eligible for inclusion had to be aged 18 years and older, from any setting, and have both HIV and depression. Depression was defined according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or International Statistical Classification of Diseases criteria.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria and extracted data. We presented categorical outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Continuous outcomes were presented mean (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with standard deviations (SD). We assessed quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 studies with 709 participants in this review. Of the 10 studies, eight were conducted in high income countries (USA and Italy), seven were conducted prior to 2000 and seven had predominantly men. Seven studies assessed antidepressants versus placebo, two compared different antidepressant classes and one had three arms comparing two antidepressant classes with placebo.Antidepressant therapy may result in a greater improvement in depression compared to placebo. There was a moderate improvement in depression when assessed with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score as a continuous outcome (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.96; participants = 357; studies = 6; I = 62%, low quality evidence). However, there was no evidence of improvement when this was assessed with HAM-D score as a dichotomized outcome (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.35; participants = 434; studies = 5; I = 0%, low quality evidence) or Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) score (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.77; participants = 346; studies = 4; I = 29%, low quality evidence). There was little to no difference in the proportion of study dropouts between study arms (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.80; participants = 306; studies = 4; I = 0%, moderate quality evidence).The methods of reporting adverse events varied substantially between studies, this resulted in very low quality evidence contributing to a pooled estimate (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.21; participants = 167; studies = 2; I = 34%; very low quality evidence). Based on this, we were unable to determine if there was a difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events in the antidepressant versus placebo arms. However, sexual dysfunction was reported commonly in people receiving selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). People receiving tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) frequently reported anticholinergic adverse effects such as dry mouth and constipation. There were no reported grade 3 or 4 adverse events in any study group.There was no evidence of a difference in follow-up CD4 count at study termination (MD -6.31 cells/mm, 95% CI -72.76 to 60.14; participants = 176; studies = 3; I = 0%; low quality evidence). Only one study evaluated quality of life score (MD 3.60, 95% CI -0.38 to 7.58; participants = 87; studies = 1; very low quality evidence), due to the poor quality evidence we could not draw conclusions for this outcome.There were few studies comparing different antidepressant classes. We are uncertain if SSRIs differ from TCAs with regard to improvement in depression as evaluated by HAM-D score (MD -3.20, 95% CI -10.87 to 4.47; participants = 14; studies = 1; very low quality evidence). There was some evidence that mirtazapine resulted in a greater improvement in depression compared to an SSRI (MD 9.00, 95% CI 3.61 to 14.39; participants = 70; studies = 1; low quality evidence); however, this finding was not consistent for all measures of improvement in depression for this comparison.No studies reported on virological suppression or any other HIV specific outcomes.The studies included in this review had an overall unclear or high risk of bias due to under-reporting of study methods, high risk of attrition bias and inadequate sequence generation methods. Heterogeneity between studies and the limited number of participants, and events lead to downgrading of the quality of the evidence for several outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review demonstrates that antidepressant therapy may be more beneficial than placebo for the treatment of depression in PLWH. The low quality of the evidence contributing to this assessment and the lack of studies representing PLWH from generalized epidemics in low- to middle-income countries make the relevance of these finding in today's context limited. Future studies that evaluate the effectiveness of antidepressant therapy should be designed and conducted rigorously. Such studies should incorporate evaluation of stepped care models and health system strengthening interventions in the study design. In addition, outcomes related to HIV care and antiretroviral therapy should be reported.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Confidence Intervals; Depression; Female; HIV Infections; Humans; Male; Patient Dropouts; Placebos; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 29355886
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008525.pub3 -
PloS One 2024To evaluate the efficacy and safety of multi-drug therapy based on eszopiclone in the treatment of insomnia after stroke using a network meta-analysis method and to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of multi-drug therapy based on eszopiclone in the treatment of insomnia after stroke using a network meta-analysis method and to provide evidence for clinical practice.
METHOD
Computer searches of PubMed, Excerpt Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, APA PsycInfo, CNKI, WanFang, Sinomed and other databases were performed to search for clinical randomized controlled studies (RCTs) on multi-drug therapy based on eszopiclone in the treatment of insomnia patients after stroke. The search time was from the establishment of each database until July 2023. The bias risk assessment tool recommended by Cochrane was used to evaluate the quality of the included RCTs. Stata 14.0 was applied to perform network meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3 software for traditional meta-analysis.
RESULT
Eighteen RCTs and 1646 patients were ultimately included, involving 11 treatment options. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that the ranking of Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) decline was eszopiclone combined with sweet dream oral liquid (ESZ+SDOL)>eszopiclone combined with a shugan jieyu capsule (ESZ+SGJYC)>eszopiclone combined with agomelatine (ESZ+AGO)>eszopiclone combined with flupentixol and melitracen tablets (ESZ+FMT)>eszopiclone combined with yangxue qingnao granules (ESZ+YXQNG)>eszopiclone combined with mirtazapine (ESZ+MIR)>ESZ>FMT; the modified Edinburgh Scandinavia Stroke Scale (MESSS) decline ranking was ESZ+SDOL>ESZ+AGO>ESZ; and the clinical total effective rate ranking was eszopiclone combined with a xuefu zhuyu capsule (ESZ+XFZYC)>ESZ+MIR>ESZ+SGJYC>ESZ+SDOL> ESZ+FMT>ESZ+YXQNG>ESZ>FMT. In terms of clinical adverse reactions, in addition to ESZ therapy, ESZ+ESC had the highest number of adverse reactions, with abdominal pain being the most common. ESZ+YXQNG had the most types of adverse reactions, with 8 types.
CONCLUSION
Multi-drug therapy based on eszopiclone can effectively improve the sleep quality of patients with insomnia after stroke, and ESZ+SDOL has significant efficacy and safety. However, due to the limitations of this study, efficacy ranking cannot fully explain the superiority or inferiority of clinical efficacy. In the future, more multicentre, large sample, double-blind randomized controlled trials are needed to supplement and demonstrate the results of this study.
Topics: Humans; Eszopiclone; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Network Meta-Analysis; Stroke; Double-Blind Method; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38315683
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297064 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2017Antidepressants are widely used in the treatment of chronic pain. Applied doses are lower than those needed to unfold an antidepressive effect. While efficacy of...
BACKGROUND
Antidepressants are widely used in the treatment of chronic pain. Applied doses are lower than those needed to unfold an antidepressive effect. While efficacy of antidepressants for chronic pain has been reported in large randomized-controlled trials (RCT), there is inconsistent data on adverse effects and tolerability. We aimed at synthesizing data from RCT to explore adverse effect profiles and tolerability of antidepressants for treatment of chronic pain.
METHODS
Systematic literature research and meta-analyses were performed regarding side effects and safety of different antidepressants in the treatment of chronic pain according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The National Center for Biotechnology Information library and MEDLINE were searched. Randomized placebo-controlled trials were included in quantitative data synthesis.
RESULTS
Out of 1,975 screened articles, 33 papers published between 1995 and 2015 were included in our review and 23 studies were included in the meta-analyses. A higher risk for adverse effects compared to placebo was observed in all antidepressants included in our analyses, except nortriptyline. The most prevalent adverse effects were dry mouth, dizziness, nausea, headache, and constipation. Amitriptyline, mirtazapine, desipramine, venlafaxine, fluoxetine, and nortriptyline showed the highest placebo effect-adjusted risk of adverse effects. Risk for withdrawal due to adverse effects was highest in desipramine (risk ratio: 4.09, 95%-confidence interval [1.31; 12.82]) followed by milnacipran, venlafaxine, and duloxetine. The most common adverse effects under treatment with antidepressants were dry mouth, dizziness, nausea, headache, and constipation followed by palpitations, sweating, and drowsiness. However, overall tolerability was high. Each antidepressant showed distinct risk profiles of adverse effects.
CONCLUSION
Our synthesized data analysis confirmed overall tolerability of low-dose antidepressants for the treatment of chronic pain and revealed drug specific risk profiles. This encompassing characterization of adverse effect profiles might be useful in defining multimodal treatment regimens for chronic pain which also consider patients' comorbidities and co-medication.
PubMed: 28769859
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2017.00307 -
Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) Apr 2020(Reprinted with permission from . 2019 Jul;6(7):601-609).
(Reprinted with permission from . 2019 Jul;6(7):601-609).
PubMed: 33343239
DOI: 10.1176/appi.focus.18204 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019Although antidepressants are often a first-line treatment for adults with moderate to severe depression, many people do not respond adequately to medication, and are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Although antidepressants are often a first-line treatment for adults with moderate to severe depression, many people do not respond adequately to medication, and are said to have treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Little evidence exists to inform the most appropriate 'next step' treatment for these people.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of standard pharmacological treatments for adults with TRD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR) (March 2016), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science (31 December 2018), the World Health Organization trials portal and ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished and ongoing studies, and screened bibliographies of included studies and relevant systematic reviews without date or language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with participants aged 18 to 74 years with unipolar depression (based on criteria from DSM-IV-TR or earlier versions, International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10, Feighner criteria or Research Diagnostic Criteria) who had not responded to a minimum of four weeks of antidepressant treatment at a recommended dose. Interventions were: (1) increasing the dose of antidepressant monotherapy; (2) switching to a different antidepressant monotherapy; (3) augmenting treatment with another antidepressant; (4) augmenting treatment with a non-antidepressant. All were compared with continuing antidepressant monotherapy. We excluded studies of non-standard pharmacological treatments (e.g. sex hormones, vitamins, herbal medicines and food supplements).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers used standard Cochrane methods to extract data, assess risk of bias, and resolve disagreements. We analysed continuous outcomes with mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated a relative risk (RR) and 95% CI. Where sufficient data existed, we conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 RCTs (2731 participants). Nine were conducted in outpatient settings and one in both in- and outpatients. Mean age of participants ranged from 42 - 50.2 years, and most were female. One study investigated switching to, or augmenting current antidepressant treatment with, another antidepressant (mianserin). Another augmented current antidepressant treatment with the antidepressant mirtazapine. Eight studies augmented current antidepressant treatment with a non-antidepressant (either an anxiolytic (buspirone) or an antipsychotic (cariprazine; olanzapine; quetiapine (3 studies); or ziprasidone (2 studies)). We judged most studies to be at a low or unclear risk of bias. Only one of the included studies was not industry-sponsored. There was no evidence of a difference in depression severity when current treatment was switched to mianserin (MD on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) = -1.8, 95% CI -5.22 to 1.62, low-quality evidence)) compared with continuing on antidepressant monotherapy. Nor was there evidence of a difference in numbers dropping out of treatment (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 4.59, low-quality evidence; dropouts 38% in the mianserin switch group; 18% in the control). Augmenting current antidepressant treatment with mianserin was associated with an improvement in depression symptoms severity scores from baseline (MD on HAM-D -4.8, 95% CI -8.18 to -1.42; moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in numbers dropping out (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.72; low-quality evidence; 19% dropouts in the mianserin-augmented group; 38% in the control). When current antidepressant treatment was augmented with mirtazapine, there was little difference in depressive symptoms (MD on Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) -1.7, 95% CI -4.03 to 0.63; high-quality evidence) and no evidence of a difference in dropout numbers (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.62; dropouts 2% in mirtazapine-augmented group; 3% in the control). Augmentation with buspirone provided no evidence of a benefit in terms of a reduction in depressive symptoms (MD on Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) -0.30, 95% CI -9.48 to 8.88; low-quality evidence) or numbers of drop-outs (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.53; low-quality evidence; dropouts 11% in buspirone-augmented group; 19% in the control). Severity of depressive symptoms reduced when current treatment was augmented with cariprazine (MD on MADRS -1.50, 95% CI -2.74 to -0.25; high-quality evidence), olanzapine (MD on HAM-D -7.9, 95% CI -16.76 to 0.96; low-quality evidence; MD on MADRS -12.4, 95% CI -22.44 to -2.36; low-quality evidence), quetiapine (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.18; I2 = 6%, high-quality evidence), or ziprasidone (MD on HAM-D -2.73, 95% CI -4.53 to -0.93; I2 = 0, moderate-quality evidence) compared with continuing on antidepressant monotherapy. However, a greater number of participants dropped out when antidepressant monotherapy was augmented with an antipsychotic (cariprazine RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.41; quetiapine RR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.14 to 2.17; ziprasidone RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.55) compared with antidepressant monotherapy, although estimates for olanzapine augmentation were imprecise (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.69). Dropout rates ranged from 10% to 39% in the groups augmented with an antipsychotic, and from 12% to 23% in the comparison groups. The most common reasons for dropping out were side effects or adverse events. We also summarised data about response and remission rates (based on changes in depressive symptoms) for included studies, along with data on social adjustment and social functioning, quality of life, economic outcomes and adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
A small body of evidence shows that augmenting current antidepressant therapy with mianserin or with an antipsychotic (cariprazine, olanzapine, quetiapine or ziprasidone) improves depressive symptoms over the short-term (8 to 12 weeks). However, this evidence is mostly of low or moderate quality due to imprecision of the estimates of effects. Improvements with antipsychotics need to be balanced against the increased likelihood of dropping out of treatment or experiencing an adverse event. Augmentation of current antidepressant therapy with a second antidepressant, mirtazapine, does not produce a clinically important benefit in reduction of depressive symptoms (high-quality evidence). The evidence regarding the effects of augmenting current antidepressant therapy with buspirone or switching current antidepressant treatment to mianserin is currently insufficient. Further trials are needed to increase the certainty of these findings and to examine long-term effects of treatment, as well as the effectiveness of other pharmacological treatment strategies.
Topics: Humans; Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Depression; Drug Resistance; Drug Therapy, Combination; Mianserin; Patient Dropouts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31846068
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010557.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2005Depression is common in primary care and it is associated with marked personal, social and economic morbidity, and creates significant demands on service providers in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Depression is common in primary care and it is associated with marked personal, social and economic morbidity, and creates significant demands on service providers in terms of workload. Treatment is predominantly pharmaceutical or psychological. Fluoxetine, the first of a group of antidepressant (AD) agents known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), has been studied in many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in comparison with tricyclic (TCA), heterocyclic and related ADs, and other SSRIs. These comparative studies provided contrasting findings. In addition, systematic reviews of RCTs have always considered the SSRIs as a group, and evidence applicable to this group of drugs might not be applicable to fluoxetine alone. The present systematic review assessed the efficacy and tolerability profile of fluoxetine in comparison with TCAs, SSRIs and newer agents.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy of fluoxetine, compared with other ADs, in alleviating the acute symptoms of depression, and to review its acceptability.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Relevant studies were located by searching the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline (1966-2004) and Embase (1974-2004). Non-English language articles were included.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Only RCTs were included. For trials which have a crossover design only results from the first randomisation period were considered.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were independently extracted by two reviewers using a standard form. Responders to treatment were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis: drop-outs were always included in this analysis. When data on drop-outs were carried forward and included in the efficacy evaluation, they were analysed according to the primary studies; when dropouts were excluded from any assessment in the primary studies, they were considered as treatment failures. Scores from continuous outcomes were analysed including patients with a final assessment or with the last observation carried forward. Tolerability data were analysed by calculating the proportion of patients who failed to complete the study and who experienced adverse reactions out of the total number of randomised patients. The primary analyses used a fixed effects approach, and presented Peto Odds Ratio (PetoOR) and Standardised Mean Difference (SMD).
MAIN RESULTS
On a dichotomous outcome fluoxetine was less effective than dothiepin (PetoOR: 2.09, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.05), sertraline (PetoOR: 1.40, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.76), mirtazapine (PetoOR: 1.64, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.65) and venlafaxine (Peto OR: 1.40, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.70). On a continuous outcome, fluoxetine was more effective than ABT-200 (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) random effects: - 1.85, 95% CI - 2.25 to - 1.45) and milnacipran (SMD random effects: - 0.38, 95% CI - 0.71 to - 0.06); conversely, it was less effective than venlafaxine (SMD random effect: 0.11, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.23), however these figures were of borderline statistical significance. Fluoxetine was better tolerated than TCAs considered as a group (PetoOR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.89), and was better tolerated in comparison with individual ADs, in particular than amitriptyline (PetoOR: 0.64, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.85) and imipramine (PetoOR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.99), and among newer ADs than ABT-200 (PetoOR: 0.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.41), pramipexole (PetoOR: 0.20, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.47) and reboxetine (PetoOR: 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.94).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There are statistically significant differences in terms of efficacy and tolerability between fluoxetine and certain ADs, but the clinical meaning of these differences is uncertain, and no definitive implications for clinical practice can be drawn. From a clinical point of view the analysis of antidepressants' safety profile (adverse effect and suicide risk) remains of crucial importance and more reliable data about these outcomes are needed. Waiting for more robust evidence, treatment decisions should be based on considerations of clinical history, drug toxicity, patient acceptability, and cost. We need for large, pragmatic trials, enrolling heterogeneous populations of patients with depression to generate clinically relevant information on the benefits and harms of competitive pharmacological options. A meta-analysis of individual patient data from the randomised trials is clearly necessary.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Depression; Fluoxetine; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 16235353
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004185.pub2