-
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Treatment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is challenging for clinicians, and many clinical trials and meta-analyses on CIPN are controversial....
Treatment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is challenging for clinicians, and many clinical trials and meta-analyses on CIPN are controversial. There are also few comparisons of the efficacy among drugs used to treat CIPN. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to study the efficacy of drugs in treating CIPN using existing randomized controlled trials. Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving any pharmaceutical intervention and/or combination therapy of treating CIPN. Seventeen RCTs investigating 16 drug categories, duloxetine, pregabalin, crocin, tetrodotoxin, venlafaxine, monosialotetrahexosyl ganglioside (GM1), lamotrigine, KA (ketamine and amitriptyline) cream, nortriptyline, amitriptyline, topical (bitter apple) oil, BAK (baclofen, amitriptyline hydrochloride, and ketamine) pluronic lecithin organogel, gabapentin, and acetyl l-carnitine (ALC), in the treatment of CIPN were retrieved. Many of the included RCTs consisted of small sample sizes and short follow-up periods. It was difficult to quantify due to the highly variable nature of outcome indicators. Duloxetine, venlafaxine, pregabalin, crocin, tetrodotoxin, and monosialotetrahexosyl ganglioside exhibited some beneficial effects in treating CIPN. Duloxetine, GM1, and crocin showed moderate benefits based on the evidence review, while lamotrigine, KA cream, nortriptyline, amitriptyline, and topical (bitter apple) oil were not beneficial. Further studies were necessary to confirm the efficacy of gabapentin in the treatment of CIPN because of the controversy of efficacy of gabapentin. Furthermore, BAK topicalcompound analgesic gel only had a tendency to improve the CIPN symptoms, but the difference was not statistically significant. ALC might result in worsening CIPN. Most studies were not of good quality because of small sample sizes. Therefore, standardized randomized controlled trials with large samples were needed to critically assess the effectiveness of these drugs in treating CIPN in the future.
PubMed: 36618919
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1080888 -
Psychopharmacology Feb 2024The selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor venlafaxine is among the most prescribed antidepressant drugs worldwide and, according to guidelines, its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor venlafaxine is among the most prescribed antidepressant drugs worldwide and, according to guidelines, its dose titration should be guided by drug-level monitoring of its active moiety (AM) which consists of venlafaxine (VEN) plus active metabolite O-desmethylvenlafaxine (ODV). This indication of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), however, assumes a clear concentration/effect relationship for a drug, which for VEN has not been systematically explored yet.
OBJECTIVES
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the relationship between blood levels, efficacy, and adverse reactions in order to suggest an optimal target concentration range for VEN oral formulations for the treatment of depression.
METHODS
Four databases (MEDLINE (PubMed), PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Library) were systematically searched in March 2022 for relevant articles according to a previously published protocol. Reviewers independently screened references and performed data extraction and critical appraisal.
RESULTS
High-quality randomized controlled trials investigating concentration/efficacy relationships and studies using a placebo lead-in phase were not found. Sixty-eight articles, consisting mostly of naturalistic TDM studies or small noncontrolled studies, met the eligibility criteria. Of them, five cohort studies reported a positive correlation between blood levels and antidepressant effects after VEN treatment. Our meta-analyses showed (i) higher AM and (ii) higher ODV concentrations in patients responding to VEN treatment when compared to non-responders (n = 360, k = 5). AM concentration-dependent occurrence of tremor was reported in one study. We found a linear relationship between daily dose and AM concentration within guideline recommended doses (75-225 mg/day). The population-based concentration ranges (25-75% interquartile) among 11 studies (n = 3200) using flexible dosing were (i) 225-450 ng/ml for the AM and (ii) 144-302 ng/ml for ODV. One PET study reported an occupancy of 80% serotonin transporters for ODV serum levels above 85 ng/ml. Based on our findings, we propose a therapeutic reference range for AM of 140-600 ng/ml.
CONCLUSION
VEN TDM within a range of 140 to 600 ng/ml (AM) will increase the probability of response in nonresponders. A titration within the proposed reference range is recommended in case of non-response at lower drug concentrations as a consequence of VEN's dual mechanism of action via combined serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibition. Drug titration towards higher concentrations will, however, increase the risk for ADRs, in particular with supratherapeutic drug concentrations.
Topics: Humans; Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Desvenlafaxine Succinate; Norepinephrine; Reference Values; Serotonin; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 37857898
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-023-06484-7 -
Psychopharmacology Bulletin May 2022Bipolar II disorder (BD-II) has limited evidence-based treatment guidelines. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the efficacy and safety... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Bipolar II disorder (BD-II) has limited evidence-based treatment guidelines. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the efficacy and safety of second-generation antidepressant (SGAD) monotherapy in acute BD-II depression.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted from the database inception through March 2021. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Outcome measures included: response rates, treatment-emergent affective switch (TEAS) rates, discontinuation due to side-effects, and all-cause discontinuation. Risk ratio (RR) was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel random effects model.
RESULTS
3301 studies were screened, and 15 articles were selected for full-text review. Five studies met the inclusion criteria: Four double-blind RCTs (n = 533) and one open-label RCT (n = 83) were included. Two double-blind RCTs [n = 223, SGAD = 110 (venlafaxine = 65, sertraline = 45), lithium/control = 113] were included for meta-analysis. The response rate for SGAD monotherapy compared to lithium monotherapy were similar (RR = 1.44, 95% CI 0.78, 2.66). The TEAS rate for SGAD monotherapy was not significantly different from lithium monotherapy (p = 0.76). The discontinuation rate due to side-effects for SGAD monotherapy was significantly lower than lithium monotherapy with a RR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.11, 0.96, p = 0.04 but all-cause discontinuation rates were similar in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Limited data suggests short-term efficacy of venlafaxine and sertraline monotherapy in patients with acute BD-II depression with good side effect tolerability and without significantly increased switch rate. There is an urgent need for RCTs investigating the role of SGAD monotherapy in short and long-term among patients with BD-II.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Bipolar Disorder; Depression; Humans; Lithium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sertraline; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 35721812
DOI: No ID Found -
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 -
Basic & Clinical Pharmacology &... Jan 2016Major depressive disorder is common among women in child-bearing age, and medical treatment is subject to substantial discussions and controversies. For Selective... (Review)
Review
Major depressive disorder is common among women in child-bearing age, and medical treatment is subject to substantial discussions and controversies. For Selective Serotonin reuptake inhibitors, SSRIs, a vast amount of data are available. For the newer antidepressant group of serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, SNRIs, significantly less data are available. Following the PRISMA guideline for systematic reviews, we performed a systematic search on the risk of major congenital malformations after first trimester in utero exposure to venlafaxine or duloxetine. We identified eight cohort studies reporting on the outcome upon in utero exposure to venlafaxine or duloxetine during the first trimester. The cumulated data for venlafaxine were 3186 exposed infants and 107 major malformations, resulting in a relative risk estimate and 95% confidence interval of 1.12 (0.92-1.35). The corresponding data for duloxetine were 668 infants and 16 major malformations, resulting in a relative risk estimate and 95% confidence interval of 0.80 (0.46-1.29). First-trimester in utero exposure to venlafaxine is not associated with an increased risk of major congenital malformations. The amount of data for duloxetine are significantly smaller but does not suggest a clinically important increased risk.
Topics: Abnormalities, Drug-Induced; Cohort Studies; Depressive Disorder, Major; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 26435496
DOI: 10.1111/bcpt.12497 -
BMC Psychiatry Jul 2006Data comparing duloxetine with existing antidepressant treatments is limited. A comparison of duloxetine with fluoxetine has been performed but no comparison with... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Data comparing duloxetine with existing antidepressant treatments is limited. A comparison of duloxetine with fluoxetine has been performed but no comparison with venlafaxine, the other antidepressant in the same therapeutic class with a significant market share, has been undertaken. In the absence of relevant data to assess the place that duloxetine should occupy in the therapeutic arsenal, indirect comparisons are the most rigorous way to go. We conducted a systematic review of the efficacy of duloxetine, fluoxetine and venlafaxine versus placebo in the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), and performed indirect comparisons through meta-regressions.
METHODS
The bibliography of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research and the CENTRAL, Medline, and Embase databases were interrogated using advanced search strategies based on a combination of text and index terms. The search focused on randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials involving adult patients treated for acute phase Major Depressive Disorder. All outcomes were derived to take account for varying placebo responses throughout studies. Primary outcome was treatment efficacy as measured by Hedge's g effect size. Secondary outcomes were response and dropout rates as measured by log odds ratios. Meta-regressions were run to indirectly compare the drugs. Sensitivity analysis, assessing the influence of individual studies over the results, and the influence of patients' characteristics were run.
RESULTS
22 studies involving fluoxetine, 9 involving duloxetine and 8 involving venlafaxine were selected. Using indirect comparison methodology, estimated effect sizes for efficacy compared with duloxetine were 0.11 [-0.14;0.36] for fluoxetine and 0.22 [0.06;0.38] for venlafaxine. Response log odds ratios were -0.21 [-0.44;0.03], 0.70 [0.26;1.14]. Dropout log odds ratios were -0.02 [-0.33;0.29], 0.21 [-0.13;0.55]. Sensitivity analyses showed that results were consistent.
CONCLUSION
Fluoxetine was not statistically different in either tolerability or efficacy when compared with duloxetine. Venlafaxine was significantly superior to duloxetine in all analyses except dropout rate. In the absence of relevant data from head-to-head comparison trials, results suggest that venlafaxine is superior compared with duloxetine and that duloxetine does not differentiate from fluoxetine.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Cyclohexanols; Depressive Disorder, Major; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fluoxetine; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Regression Analysis; Thiophenes; Treatment Outcome; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 16867188
DOI: 10.1186/1471-244X-6-30 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2017Recognition is growing that social anxiety disorder (SAnD) is a chronic and disabling disorder, and data from early trials demonstrate that medication may be effective... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Recognition is growing that social anxiety disorder (SAnD) is a chronic and disabling disorder, and data from early trials demonstrate that medication may be effective in its treatment. This systematic review is an update of an earlier review of pharmacotherapy of SAnD.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pharmacotherapy for social anxiety disorder in adults and identify which factors (methodological or clinical) predict response to treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR-Studies and CCMDCTR-References) to 17 August 2015. The CCMDCTR contains reports of relevant RCTs from MEDLINE (1950-), Embase (1974-), PsycINFO (1967-) and CENTRAL (all years). We scanned the reference lists of articles for additional studies. We updated the search in August 2017 and placed additional studies in Awaiting Classification, these will be incorporated in the next version of the review, as appropriate.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We restricted studies to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacotherapy versus placebo in the treatment of SAnD in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors (TW and JI) assessed trials for eligibility and inclusion for this review update. We extracted descriptive, methodological and outcome information from each trial, contacting investigators for missing information where necessary. We calculated summary statistics for continuous and dichotomous variables (if provided) and undertook subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 66 RCTs in the review (> 24 weeks; 11,597 participants; age range 18 to 70 years) and 63 in the meta-analysis. For the primary outcome of treatment response, we found very low-quality evidence of treatment response for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) compared with placebo (number of studies (k) = 24, risk ratio (RR) 1.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48 to 1.85, N = 4984). On this outcome there was also evidence of benefit for monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) (k = 4, RR 2.36; 95% CI 1.48 to 3.75, N = 235), reversible inhibitors of monoamine oxidase A (RIMAs) (k = 8, RR 1.83; 95% CI 1.32 to 2.55, N = 1270), and the benzodiazepines (k = 2, RR 4.03; 95% CI 2.45 to 6.65, N = 132), although the evidence was low quality. We also found clinical response for the anticonvulsants with gamma-amino butyric acid (GABA) analogues (k = 3, RR 1.60; 95% CI 1.16 to 2.20, N = 532; moderate-quality evidence). The SSRIs were the only medication proving effective in reducing relapse based on moderate-quality evidence. We assessed tolerability of SSRIs and the serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) venlafaxine on the basis of treatment withdrawal; this was higher for medication than placebo (SSRIs: k = 24, RR 2.59; 95% CI 1.97 to 3.39, N = 5131, low-quality evidence; venlafaxine: k = 4, RR 3.23; 95% CI 2.15 to 4.86, N = 1213, moderate-quality evidence), but there were low absolute rates of withdrawal for both these medications classes compared to placebo. We did not find evidence of a benefit for the rest of the medications compared to placebo.For the secondary outcome of SAnD symptom severity, there was benefit for the SSRIs, the SNRI venlafaxine, MAOIs, RIMAs, benzodiazepines, the antipsychotic olanzapine, and the noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant (NaSSA) atomoxetine in the reduction of SAnD symptoms, but most of the evidence was of very low quality. Treatment with SSRIs and RIMAs was also associated with a reduction in depression symptoms. The SSRIs were the only medication class that demonstrated evidence of reduction in disability across a number of domains.We observed a response to long-term treatment with medication for the SSRIs (low-quality evidence), for the MAOIs (very low-quality evidence) and for the RIMAs (moderate-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found evidence of treatment efficacy for the SSRIs, but it is based on very low- to moderate-quality evidence. Tolerability of SSRIs was lower than placebo, but absolute withdrawal rates were low.While a small number of trials did report treatment efficacy for benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants, MAOIs, and RIMAs, readers should consider this finding in the context of potential for abuse or unfavourable side effects.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Anticonvulsants; Chronic Disease; Humans; Middle Aged; Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors; Phobia, Social; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Young Adult
PubMed: 29048739
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001206.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015Neuropathic pain, which is caused by nerve damage, is increasing in prevalence worldwide. This may reflect improved diagnosis, or it may be due to increased incidence of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Neuropathic pain, which is caused by nerve damage, is increasing in prevalence worldwide. This may reflect improved diagnosis, or it may be due to increased incidence of diabetes-associated neuropathy, linked to increasing levels of obesity. Other types of neuropathic pain include post-herpetic neuralgia, trigeminal neuralgia, and neuralgia caused by chemotherapy. Antidepressant drugs are sometimes used to treat neuropathic pain; however, their analgesic efficacy is unclear. A previous Cochrane review that included all antidepressants for neuropathic pain is being replaced by new reviews of individual drugs examining chronic neuropathic pain in the first instance. Venlafaxine is a reasonably well-tolerated antidepressant and is a serotonin reuptake inhibitor and weak noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor. Although not licensed for the treatment of chronic or neuropathic pain in most countries, it is sometimes used for this indication.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy of, and the adverse effects associated with the clinical use of, venlafaxine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via The Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE and EMBASE via Ovid up to 14 August 2014. We reviewed the bibliographies of any randomised trials identified and review articles, contacted authors of one excluded study and searched www.clinicaltrials.gov to identify additional published or unpublished data. We also searched the meta-Register of controlled trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com/mrct) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (apps.who.int/trialsearch/) for ongoing trials but did not find any relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing venlafaxine with either placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain in adults. All participants were aged 18 years or over and all included studies had at least 10 participants per treatment arm. We only included studies with full journal publication.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently extracted data using a standard form and assessed study quality. We intend to analyse data in three tiers of evidence as described by Hearn 2014, but did not find any first-tier evidence (ie evidence meeting current best standards, with minimal risk of bias) or second-tier evidence, that was considered at some risk of bias but with adequate participant numbers (at least 200 in the comparison). Third-tier evidence is that arising from studies with small numbers of participants; studies of short duration, studies that are likely to be of limited clinical utility due to other limitations, including selection bias and attrition bias; or a combination of these.
MAIN RESULTS
We found six randomised, double-blind trials of at least two weeks' duration eligible for inclusion. These trials included 460 participants with neuropathic pain, with most participants having painful diabetic neuropathy. Four studies were of cross-over design and two were parallel trials. Only one trial was both parallel design and placebo-controlled. Mean age of participants ranged from 48 to 59 years. In three studies (Forssell 2004, Jia 2006 and Tasmuth 2002), only mean data were reported. Comparators included placebo, imipramine, and carbamazepine and duration of treatment ranged from two to eight weeks. The risk of bias was considerable overall in the review, especially due to the small size of most studies and due to attrition bias. Four of the six studies reported some positive benefit for venlafaxine. In the largest study by Rowbotham, 2004, 56% of participants receiving venlafaxine 150 to 225 mg achieved at least a 50% reduction in pain intensity versus 34% of participants in the placebo group and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was 4.5. However, this study was subject to significant selection bias. Known adverse effects of venlafaxine, including somnolence, dizziness, and mild gastrointestinal problems, were reported in all studies but were not particularly problematic and, overall, adverse effects were equally prominent in placebo or other active comparator groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found little compelling evidence to support the use of venlafaxine in neuropathic pain. While there was some third-tier evidence of benefit, this arose from studies that had methodological limitations and considerable risk of bias. Placebo effects were notably strong in several studies. Given that effective drug treatments for neuropathic pain are in current use, there is no evidence to revise prescribing guidelines to promote the use of venlafaxine in neuropathic pain. Although venlafaxine was generally reasonably well tolerated, there was some evidence that it can precipitate fatigue, somnolence, nausea, and dizziness in a minority of people.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Carbamazepine; Humans; Imipramine; Middle Aged; Neuralgia; Off-Label Use; Patient Dropouts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 26298465
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011091.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Major depressive disorder is a common mental disorder affecting a person's mind, behaviour and body. It is expressed as a variety of symptoms and is associated with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Major depressive disorder is a common mental disorder affecting a person's mind, behaviour and body. It is expressed as a variety of symptoms and is associated with substantial impairment. Despite a range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options, there is still room for improvement of the pharmacological treatment of depression in terms of efficacy and tolerability. The latest available antidepressant is vortioxetine. It is assumed that vortioxetine's antidepressant action is related to a direct modulation of serotonergic receptor activity and inhibition of the serotonin transporter. The mechanism of action is not fully understood, but it is claimed to be novel. Vortioxetine was placed in the category of "Other" antidepressants and may therefore provide an alternative to existing antidepressant drugs.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and acceptability of vortioxetine compared with placebo and other antidepressant drugs in the treatment of acute depression in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane's Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register to May 2016 without applying any restrictions to date, language or publication status. We checked reference lists of relevant studies and reviews, regulatory agency reports and trial databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy, tolerability, or both of vortioxetine versus placebo or any other antidepressant agent in the treatment of acute depression in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the studies and extracted data. We extracted data on study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability. We analysed intention-to-treat (ITT) data only and used risk ratios (RR) as effect sizes for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Meta-analyses used random-effects models.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 studies (7746 participants) in this review. Seven studies were placebo controlled; eight studies compared vortioxetine to serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). We were unable to identify any study that compared vortioxetine to antidepressant drugs from other classes, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).Vortioxetine may be more effective than placebo across the three efficacy outcomes: response (Mantel-Haenszel RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.49; 14 studies, 6220 participants), remission (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.53; 14 studies, 6220 participants) and depressive symptoms measured using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Scale (MADRS) (score range: 0 to 34; higher score means worse outcome: MD -2.94, 95% CI -4.07 to -1.80; 14 studies, 5566 participants). The quality of the evidence was low for response and remission and very low for depressive symptoms. We found no evidence of a difference in total dropout rates (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.19; 14 studies, 6220 participants). More participants discontinued vortioxetine than placebo because of adverse effects (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.81; 14 studies, 6220 participants) but fewer discontinued due to inefficacy (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.90, P = 0.02; 14 studies, 6220 participants). The quality of the evidence for dropouts was moderate.The subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not reveal factors that significantly influenced the results.In comparison with other antidepressants, very low-quality evidence from eight studies showed no clinically significant difference between vortioxetine and SNRIs as a class for response (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.00; 3159 participants) or remission (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; 3155 participants). There was a small difference favouring SNRIs for depressive symptom scores on the MADRS (MD 1.52, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.53; 8 studies, 2807 participants). Very low quality evidence from eight studies (3159 participants) showed no significant differences between vortioxetine and the SNRIs as a class for total dropout rates (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.08), dropouts due to adverse events (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.08) and dropouts due to inefficacy (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.30).Against individual antidepressants, analyses suggested that vortioxetine may be less effective than duloxetine in terms of response rates (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94; 6 studies, 2392 participants) and depressive symptoms scores on the MADRS scale (MD 1.99, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.83; 6 studies; 2106 participants). Against venlafaxine, meta-analysis of two studies found no statistically significant differences (response: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.25; 767 participants; depressive symptom scores: MD 0.02, 95% CI -2.49 to 2.54; 701 participants). In terms of number of participants reporting at least one adverse effect (tolerability), vortioxetine was better than the SNRIs as a class (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.94; 8 studies, 3134 participants) and duloxetine (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; 6 studies; 2376 participants). However, the sensitivity analysis casts some doubts on this result, as only two studies used comparable dosing.We judged none of the studies to have a high risk of bias for any domain, but we rated all studies to have an unclear risk of bias of selective reporting and other biases.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The place of vortioxetine in the treatment of acute depression is unclear. Our analyses showed vortioxetine may be more effective than placebo in terms of response, remission and depressive symptoms, but the clinical relevance of these effects is uncertain. Furthermore, the quality of evidence to support these findings was generally low. In comparison to SNRIs, we found no advantage for vortioxetine. Vortioxetine was less effective than duloxetine, but fewer people reported adverse effects when treated with vortioxetine compared to duloxetine. However, these findings are uncertain and not well supported by evidence. A major limitation of the current evidence is the lack of comparisons with the SSRIs, which are usually recommended as first-line treatments for acute depression. Studies with direct comparisons to SSRIs are needed to address this gap and may be supplemented by network meta-analyses to define the role of vortioxetine in the treatment of depression.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Depressive Disorder, Major; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Humans; Patient Dropouts; Piperazines; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Sulfides; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Vortioxetine
PubMed: 28677828
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011520.pub2 -
Neuropsychopharmacology Reports Mar 2024To update the major depressive disorder (MDD) treatment guidelines of the Japanese Society of Mood Disorders, we conducted a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To update the major depressive disorder (MDD) treatment guidelines of the Japanese Society of Mood Disorders, we conducted a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of available antidepressants in Japan for older adults with MDD.
METHODS
Outcome measures included response rate (primary), improvement in depressive symptom scale score, remission rate, all-cause discontinuation, discontinuation due to adverse events, and at least one adverse event. A random-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI).
RESULTS
Nine double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (n = 2145) were identified. No study has been conducted in Japan. Our meta-analysis included the following antidepressants: duloxetine, escitalopram, imipramine, sertraline, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine. Antidepressants have significantly higher response rates than placebo (RR [95% CI] = 1.38 [1.04, 1.83], p = 0.02). Antidepressants outperformed placebo in terms of improving depressive symptom scale score (SMD [95% CI] = -0.62 [-0.92, -0.33], p < 0.0001). However, antidepressants were associated with a higher discontinuation rate due to adverse events (RR [95% CI] = 1.94 [1.30, 2.88], p = 0.001) and a higher incidence of at least one adverse event (RR [95% CI] = 1.11 [1.02, 1.21], p = 0.02) compared to placebo. The groups did not differ significantly in terms of remission rate or all-cause discontinuation.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis concluded that treatment with antidepressants available in Japan is only weakly recommended for moderate to severe MDD in older adults.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Depressive Disorder, Major; Japan; Antidepressive Agents; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38318955
DOI: 10.1002/npr2.12422