-
The Lancet. Psychiatry Sep 2018The benefits and safety of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) remain controversial, and guidelines are inconsistent on which medications are... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and tolerability of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents, and adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The benefits and safety of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) remain controversial, and guidelines are inconsistent on which medications are preferred across different age groups. We aimed to estimate the comparative efficacy and tolerability of oral medications for ADHD in children, adolescents, and adults.
METHODS
We did a literature search for published and unpublished double-blind randomised controlled trials comparing amphetamines (including lisdexamfetamine), atomoxetine, bupropion, clonidine, guanfacine, methylphenidate, and modafinil with each other or placebo. We systematically contacted study authors and drug manufacturers for additional information. Primary outcomes were efficacy (change in severity of ADHD core symptoms based on teachers' and clinicians' ratings) and tolerability (proportion of patients who dropped out of studies because of side-effects) at timepoints closest to 12 weeks, 26 weeks, and 52 weeks. We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and confidence of estimates with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for network meta-analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014008976.
FINDINGS
133 double-blind randomised controlled trials (81 in children and adolescents, 51 in adults, and one in both) were included. The analysis of efficacy closest to 12 weeks was based on 10 068 children and adolescents and 8131 adults; the analysis of tolerability was based on 11 018 children and adolescents and 5362 adults. The confidence of estimates varied from high or moderate (for some comparisons) to low or very low (for most indirect comparisons). For ADHD core symptoms rated by clinicians in children and adolescents closest to 12 weeks, all included drugs were superior to placebo (eg, SMD -1·02, 95% CI -1·19 to -0·85 for amphetamines, -0·78, -0·93 to -0·62 for methylphenidate, -0·56, -0·66 to -0·45 for atomoxetine). By contrast, for available comparisons based on teachers' ratings, only methylphenidate (SMD -0·82, 95% CI -1·16 to -0·48) and modafinil (-0·76, -1·15 to -0·37) were more efficacious than placebo. In adults (clinicians' ratings), amphetamines (SMD -0·79, 95% CI -0·99 to -0·58), methylphenidate (-0·49, -0·64 to -0·35), bupropion (-0·46, -0·85 to -0·07), and atomoxetine (-0·45, -0·58 to -0·32), but not modafinil (0·16, -0·28 to 0·59), were better than placebo. With respect to tolerability, amphetamines were inferior to placebo in both children and adolescents (odds ratio [OR] 2·30, 95% CI 1·36-3·89) and adults (3·26, 1·54-6·92); guanfacine was inferior to placebo in children and adolescents only (2·64, 1·20-5·81); and atomoxetine (2·33, 1·28-4·25), methylphenidate (2·39, 1·40-4·08), and modafinil (4·01, 1·42-11·33) were less well tolerated than placebo in adults only. In head-to-head comparisons, only differences in efficacy (clinicians' ratings) were found, favouring amphetamines over modafinil, atomoxetine, and methylphenidate in both children and adolescents (SMDs -0·46 to -0·24) and adults (-0·94 to -0·29). We did not find sufficient data for the 26-week and 52-week timepoints.
INTERPRETATION
Our findings represent the most comprehensive available evidence base to inform patients, families, clinicians, guideline developers, and policymakers on the choice of ADHD medications across age groups. Taking into account both efficacy and safety, evidence from this meta-analysis supports methylphenidate in children and adolescents, and amphetamines in adults, as preferred first-choice medications for the short-term treatment of ADHD. New research should be funded urgently to assess long-term effects of these drugs.
FUNDING
Stichting Eunethydis (European Network for Hyperkinetic Disorders), and the UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Bupropion; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Clonidine; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Methylphenidate; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30097390
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30269-4 -
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry May 2022Altered glutamatergic neurotransmission has been implicated in the pathogenesis of depression. This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of AXS-05... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Altered glutamatergic neurotransmission has been implicated in the pathogenesis of depression. This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of AXS-05 (dextromethorphan-bupropion), an oral -methyl--aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist and σ receptor agonist, in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). This double-blind, phase 3 trial, was conducted between June 2019 and December 2019. Patients with a diagnosis of MDD were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive dextromethorphan-bupropion (45 mg-105 mg tablet) or placebo, orally (once daily for days 1-3, twice daily thereafter) for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to week 6 in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Other efficacy endpoints and variables included MADRS changes from baseline at week 1 and 2, clinical remission (MADRS score ≤ 10), clinical response (≥ 50% reduction in MADRS score from baseline), clinician- and patient-rated global assessments, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Rated, Sheehan Disability Scale, and quality of life measures. A total of 327 patients were randomized: 163 patients to dextromethorphan-bupropion and 164 patients to placebo. Mean baseline MADRS total scores were 33.6 and 33.2 in the dextromethorphan-bupropion and placebo groups, respectively. The least-squares mean change from baseline to week 6 in MADRS total score was -15.9 points in the dextromethorphan-bupropion group and -12.0 points in the placebo group (least-squares mean difference, -3.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.39 to -6.36; = .002). Dextromethorphan-bupropion was superior to placebo for MADRS improvement at all time points including week 1 ( = .007) and week 2 ( < .001). Remission was achieved by 39.5% of patients with dextromethorphan-bupropion versus 17.3% with placebo (treatment difference, 22.2; 95% CI, 11.7 to 32.7; < .001), and clinical response by 54.0% versus 34.0%, respectively (treatment difference, 20.0%; 95% CI, 8.4%, 31.6%; < .001), at week 6. Results for most secondary endpoints were significantly better with dextromethorphan-bupropion than with placebo at almost all time points (eg, CGI-S least-squares mean difference at week 6, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.48 to -0.79; = .002). The most common adverse events in the dextromethorphan-bupropion group were dizziness, nausea, headache, somnolence, and dry mouth. Dextromethorphan-bupropion was not associated with psychotomimetic effects, weight gain, or increased sexual dysfunction. In this phase 3 trial in patients with MDD, treatment with dextromethorphan-bupropion (AXS-05) resulted in significant improvements in depressive symptoms compared to placebo starting 1 week after treatment initiation and was generally well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04019704.
Topics: Bupropion; Depressive Disorder, Major; Dextromethorphan; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35649167
DOI: 10.4088/JCP.21m14345 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Mar 2023The benefits and risks of augmenting or switching antidepressants in older adults with treatment-resistant depression have not been extensively studied. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
The benefits and risks of augmenting or switching antidepressants in older adults with treatment-resistant depression have not been extensively studied.
METHODS
We conducted a two-step, open-label trial involving adults 60 years of age or older with treatment-resistant depression. In step 1, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to augmentation of existing antidepressant medication with aripiprazole, augmentation with bupropion, or a switch from existing antidepressant medication to bupropion. Patients who did not benefit from or were ineligible for step 1 were randomly assigned in step 2 in a 1:1 ratio to augmentation with lithium or a switch to nortriptyline. Each step lasted approximately 10 weeks. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in psychological well-being, assessed with the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Positive Affect and General Life Satisfaction subscales (population mean, 50; higher scores indicate greater well-being). A secondary outcome was remission of depression.
RESULTS
In step 1, a total of 619 patients were enrolled; 211 were assigned to aripiprazole augmentation, 206 to bupropion augmentation, and 202 to a switch to bupropion. Well-being scores improved by 4.83 points, 4.33 points, and 2.04 points, respectively. The difference between the aripiprazole-augmentation group and the switch-to-bupropion group was 2.79 points (95% CI, 0.56 to 5.02; P = 0.014, with a prespecified threshold P value of 0.017); the between-group differences were not significant for aripiprazole augmentation versus bupropion augmentation or for bupropion augmentation versus a switch to bupropion. Remission occurred in 28.9% of patients in the aripiprazole-augmentation group, 28.2% in the bupropion-augmentation group, and 19.3% in the switch-to-bupropion group. The rate of falls was highest with bupropion augmentation. In step 2, a total of 248 patients were enrolled; 127 were assigned to lithium augmentation and 121 to a switch to nortriptyline. Well-being scores improved by 3.17 points and 2.18 points, respectively (difference, 0.99; 95% CI, -1.92 to 3.91). Remission occurred in 18.9% of patients in the lithium-augmentation group and 21.5% in the switch-to-nortriptyline group; rates of falling were similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
In older adults with treatment-resistant depression, augmentation of existing antidepressants with aripiprazole improved well-being significantly more over 10 weeks than a switch to bupropion and was associated with a numerically higher incidence of remission. Among patients in whom augmentation or a switch to bupropion failed, changes in well-being and the occurrence of remission with lithium augmentation or a switch to nortriptyline were similar. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; OPTIMUM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02960763.).
Topics: Aged; Humans; Antidepressive Agents; Aripiprazole; Bupropion; Depression; Drug Therapy, Combination; Nortriptyline; Treatment Switching; Lithium Compounds
PubMed: 36867173
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2204462 -
Current Obesity Reports Mar 2021As a chronic and relapsing disease, obesity impairs metabolism and causes cardiovascular diseases. Although behavioral modification is important for the treatment of... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
As a chronic and relapsing disease, obesity impairs metabolism and causes cardiovascular diseases. Although behavioral modification is important for the treatment of obesity, it is difficult to achieve an ideal weight or sustain the process of long-term weight loss. Therefore, the obesity control guidelines strongly recommend lifestyle interventions along with medical treatment for patients who are overweight. There is sufficient evidence supporting that pharmacotherapy in combination with behavior-based interventions can result in significant weight loss and improved cardiometabolism.
RECENT FINDINGS
Recent meta-analyses of new anti-obesity drugs and their weight-loss efficacy have shown that the overall placebo-subtracted weight reduction (%) for at least 12 months ranged from 2.9 to 6.8% for the following drugs: phentermine/topiramate (6.8%), liraglutide (5.4%), naltrexone/bupropion (4.0%), orlistat (2.9%), and lorcaserin (3.1%). However, very recently, on February 13, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered the withdrawal of lorcaserin from markets, as a clinical trial to assess drug safety showed an increased risk of cancer. Currently, the anti-obesity medications that have been approved by the FDA for chronic weight management are orlistat, phentermine/topiramate, naltrexone/bupropion, and liraglutide. However, they are costly and may have adverse effects in some individuals. Therefore, drug therapy should be initiated in obese individuals after weighing its benefits and risks. One of the strategies for long-term obesity control is that anti-obesity medications should be tailored for specific patients depending on their chronic conditions, comorbidities, and preferences.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Obesity Agents; Benzazepines; Bupropion; Humans; Liraglutide; Naltrexone; Obesity; Orlistat; Overweight; Phentermine; Topiramate; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration; Weight Loss
PubMed: 33410104
DOI: 10.1007/s13679-020-00422-w -
Bipolar Disorders Mar 2018The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) previously published treatment guidelines for bipolar disorder in 2005, along with international...
Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) 2018 guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder.
The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) previously published treatment guidelines for bipolar disorder in 2005, along with international commentaries and subsequent updates in 2007, 2009, and 2013. The last two updates were published in collaboration with the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD). These 2018 CANMAT and ISBD Bipolar Treatment Guidelines represent the significant advances in the field since the last full edition was published in 2005, including updates to diagnosis and management as well as new research into pharmacological and psychological treatments. These advances have been translated into clear and easy to use recommendations for first, second, and third- line treatments, with consideration given to levels of evidence for efficacy, clinical support based on experience, and consensus ratings of safety, tolerability, and treatment-emergent switch risk. New to these guidelines, hierarchical rankings were created for first and second- line treatments recommended for acute mania, acute depression, and maintenance treatment in bipolar I disorder. Created by considering the impact of each treatment across all phases of illness, this hierarchy will further assist clinicians in making evidence-based treatment decisions. Lithium, quetiapine, divalproex, asenapine, aripiprazole, paliperidone, risperidone, and cariprazine alone or in combination are recommended as first-line treatments for acute mania. First-line options for bipolar I depression include quetiapine, lurasidone plus lithium or divalproex, lithium, lamotrigine, lurasidone, or adjunctive lamotrigine. While medications that have been shown to be effective for the acute phase should generally be continued for the maintenance phase in bipolar I disorder, there are some exceptions (such as with antidepressants); and available data suggest that lithium, quetiapine, divalproex, lamotrigine, asenapine, and aripiprazole monotherapy or combination treatments should be considered first-line for those initiating or switching treatment during the maintenance phase. In addition to addressing issues in bipolar I disorder, these guidelines also provide an overview of, and recommendations for, clinical management of bipolar II disorder, as well as advice on specific populations, such as women at various stages of the reproductive cycle, children and adolescents, and older adults. There are also discussions on the impact of specific psychiatric and medical comorbidities such as substance use, anxiety, and metabolic disorders. Finally, an overview of issues related to safety and monitoring is provided. The CANMAT and ISBD groups hope that these guidelines become a valuable tool for practitioners across the globe.
Topics: Adolescent; Aged; Algorithms; Antipsychotic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Bupropion; Child; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Humans; Lamotrigine; Lithium Compounds; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Societies, Medical; Suicide; Valproic Acid; Suicide Prevention
PubMed: 29536616
DOI: 10.1111/bdi.12609 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Jan 2021The use of naltrexone plus bupropion to treat methamphetamine use disorder has not been well studied. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
The use of naltrexone plus bupropion to treat methamphetamine use disorder has not been well studied.
METHODS
We conducted this multisite, double-blind, two-stage, placebo-controlled trial with the use of a sequential parallel comparison design to evaluate the efficacy and safety of extended-release injectable naltrexone (380 mg every 3 weeks) plus oral extended-release bupropion (450 mg per day) in adults with moderate or severe methamphetamine use disorder. In the first stage of the trial, participants were randomly assigned in a 0.26:0.74 ratio to receive naltrexone-bupropion or matching injectable and oral placebo for 6 weeks. Those in the placebo group who did not have a response in stage 1 underwent rerandomization in stage 2 and were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive naltrexone-bupropion or placebo for an additional 6 weeks. Urine samples were obtained from participants twice weekly. The primary outcome was a response, defined as at least three methamphetamine-negative urine samples out of four samples obtained at the end of stage 1 or stage 2, and the weighted average of the responses in the two stages is reported. The treatment effect was defined as the between-group difference in the overall weighted responses.
RESULTS
A total of 403 participants were enrolled in stage 1, and 225 in stage 2. In the first stage, 18 of 109 participants (16.5%) in the naltrexone-bupropion group and 10 of 294 (3.4%) in the placebo group had a response. In the second stage, 13 of 114 (11.4%) in the naltrexone-bupropion group and 2 of 111 (1.8%) in the placebo group had a response. The weighted average response across the two stages was 13.6% with naltrexone-bupropion and 2.5% with placebo, for an overall treatment effect of 11.1 percentage points (Wald z-test statistic, 4.53; P<0.001). Adverse events with naltrexone-bupropion included gastrointestinal disorders, tremor, malaise, hyperhidrosis, and anorexia. Serious adverse events occurred in 8 of 223 participants (3.6%) who received naltrexone-bupropion during the trial.
CONCLUSIONS
Among adults with methamphetamine use disorder, the response over a period of 12 weeks among participants who received extended-release injectable naltrexone plus oral extended-release bupropion was low but was higher than that among participants who received placebo. (Funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and others; ADAPT-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03078075.).
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Amphetamine-Related Disorders; Bupropion; Delayed-Action Preparations; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Injections; Male; Medication Adherence; Methamphetamine; Middle Aged; Naltrexone; Narcotic Antagonists; Young Adult
PubMed: 33497547
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2020214 -
Diabetes & Metabolism Journal Dec 2020Obesity is among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide and its prevalence continues to increase globally. Because obesity is a chronic, complex, and... (Review)
Review
Obesity is among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide and its prevalence continues to increase globally. Because obesity is a chronic, complex, and heterogeneous disease influenced by genetic, developmental, biological, and environmental factors, it is necessary to approach obesity with an integrated and comprehensive treatment strategy. As it is difficult to achieve and sustain successful long-term weight loss in most patients with obesity through lifestyle modifications (e.g., diet, exercise, and behavioral therapy), pharmacological approaches to the treatment of obesity should be considered as an adjunct therapy. Currently, four drugs (orlistat, naltrexone extended-release [ER]/bupropion ER, phentermine/topiramate controlled-release, and liraglutide) can be used long-term (>12 weeks) to promote weight loss by suppressing appetite or decreasing fat absorption. Pharmacotherapy for obesity should be conducted according to a proper assessment of the clinical evidence and customized to individual patients considering the characteristics of each drug and comorbidities associated with obesity. In this review, we discuss the mechanisms of action, efficacy, and safety of these available long-term anti-obesity drugs and introduce other potential agents under investigation. Furthermore, we discuss the need for research on personalized obesity medicine.
Topics: Anti-Obesity Agents; Benzazepines; Humans; Orlistat; Phentermine; Weight Loss
PubMed: 33389955
DOI: 10.4093/dmj.2020.0258 -
The American Journal of Psychiatry Dec 2022Binge-eating disorder, the most prevalent eating disorder, is a serious public health problem associated with obesity, psychiatric and medical comorbidities, and... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVE
Binge-eating disorder, the most prevalent eating disorder, is a serious public health problem associated with obesity, psychiatric and medical comorbidities, and functional impairments. Binge-eating disorder remains underrecognized and infrequently treated, and few evidence-based treatments exist. The authors tested the effectiveness of naltrexone-bupropion and behavioral weight loss therapy (BWL), alone and combined, for binge-eating disorder comorbid with obesity.
METHODS
In a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial conducted from February 2017 to February 2021, using a 2×2 balanced factorial design, 136 patients with binge-eating disorder (81.6% women; mean age, 46.5 years; mean BMI, 37.1) were randomized to one of four 16-week treatments: placebo (N=34), naltrexone-bupropion (N=32), BWL+placebo (N=35), or BWL+naltrexone-bupropion (N=35). Overall, 81.7% of participants completed independent posttreatment assessments.
RESULTS
Intention-to-treat binge-eating remission rates were 17.7% in the placebo group, 31.3% in the naltrexone-bupropion group, 37.1% in the BWL+placebo group, and 57.1% in the BWL+naltrexone-bupropion group. Logistic regression of binge-eating remission revealed that BWL was significantly superior to no BWL, and that naltrexone-bupropion was significantly superior to placebo, but there was no significant interaction between BWL and medication. Mixed models of complementary measures of binge-eating frequency also indicated that BWL was significantly superior to no BWL. The rates of participants attaining 5% weight loss were 11.8% in the placebo group, 18.8% in the naltrexone-bupropion group, 31.4% in the BWL+placebo group, and 38.2% in the BWL+naltrexone-bupropion group. Logistic regression of 5% weight loss and mixed models of percent weight loss both revealed that BWL was significantly superior to no BWL. Mixed models revealed significantly greater improvements for BWL than no BWL on secondary measures (eating disorder psychopathology, depression, eating behaviors, and cholesterol and HbA levels).
CONCLUSIONS
BWL and naltrexone-bupropion were associated with significant improvements in binge-eating disorder, with a consistent pattern of BWL being superior to no BWL.
Topics: Humans; Female; Middle Aged; Male; Binge-Eating Disorder; Bupropion; Naltrexone; Treatment Outcome; Weight Loss; Behavior Therapy; Obesity; Double-Blind Method
PubMed: 36285406
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.20220267 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Jul 2015Dose equivalence of antidepressants is critically important for clinical practice and for research. There are several methods to define and calculate dose equivalence...
BACKGROUND
Dose equivalence of antidepressants is critically important for clinical practice and for research. There are several methods to define and calculate dose equivalence but for antidepressants, only daily defined dose and consensus methods have been applied to date. The purpose of the present study is to examine dose equivalence of antidepressants by a less arbitrary and more systematic method.
METHODS
We used data from all randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose trials comparing fluoxetine or paroxetine as standard drugs with any other active antidepressants as monotherapy in the acute phase treatment of unipolar depression. We calculated the ratio of the mean doses for each study and weighted it by the total sample size to find the weighted mean ratio for each drug, which was then used to define the drug׳s dosage equivalent to fluoxetine 40mg/d.
RESULTS
We included 83 studies (14 131 participants). In the primary analysis, fluoxetine 40mg/day was equivalent to paroxetine dosage of 34.0mg/day, agomelatine 53.2mg/day, amitriptyline, 122.3mg/day, bupropion 348.5mg/day, clomipramine 116.1mg/day, desipramine 196.3mg/day, dothiepin 154.8mg/day, doxepin 140.1mg/day, escitalopram 18.0mg/day, fluvoxamine 143.3mg/day, imipramine 137.2mg/day, lofepramine 250.2mg/day, maprotiline 118.0mg/day, mianserin, 101.1mg/day, mirtazapine 50.9mg/day, moclobemide 575.2mg/day, nefazodone 535.2mg/day, nortriptyline 100.9mg/day, reboxetine 11.5mg/day, sertraline 98.5mg/day, trazodone 401.4mg/day, and venlafaxine 149.4mg/day. Sensitivity analyses corroborated the results except for doxepin.
LIMITATIONS
The number of studies for some drugs was small. The current method assumes dose response relationship of antidepressants.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings can be useful for clinicians when they switch antidepressants and for researchers when they compare various antidepressants in their research.
Topics: Adult; Amitriptyline; Antidepressive Agents; Bupropion; Citalopram; Depressive Disorder, Major; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Fluoxetine; Fluvoxamine; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Moclobemide; Nortriptyline; Paroxetine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Sertraline; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25911132
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2015.03.021 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Whilst the pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco. Firstly,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Whilst the pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco. Firstly, nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms and antidepressants may relieve these. Additionally, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence for the efficacy, safety and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Specialized Register, which includes reports of trials indexed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO, clinicaltrials.gov, the ICTRP, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in May 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited smokers, and compared antidepressant medications with placebo or no treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used in a different way. We excluded trials with less than six months follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length in safety analyses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months follow-up, expressed as a risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. Similarly, we presented incidence of safety and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropout due to drug, as RRs (95% CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 115 studies (33 new to this update) in this review; most recruited adult participants from the community or from smoking cessation clinics. We judged 28 of the studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk did not change clinical interpretation of the results. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased long-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.52 to 1.77; I = 15%; 45 studies, 17,866 participants). There was insufficient evidence to establish whether participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs compared to those taking placebo. Results were imprecise and CIs encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I = 0%; 21 studies, 10,625 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded one level due to imprecision). We found high-certainty evidence that use of bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to adverse events of the drug than placebo (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.56; I = 19%; 25 studies, 12,340 participants). Participants randomized to bupropion were also more likely to report psychiatric AEs compared with those randomized to placebo (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.37; I = 15%; 6 studies, 4439 participants). We also looked at the safety and efficacy of bupropion when combined with other non-antidepressant smoking cessation therapies. There was insufficient evidence to establish whether combination bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.51; I = 52%; 12 studies, 3487 participants), or whether combination bupropion and varenicline resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). We judged the certainty of evidence to be low and moderate, respectively; in both cases due to imprecision, and also due to inconsistency in the former. Safety data were sparse for these comparisons, making it difficult to draw clear conclusions. A meta-analysis of six studies provided evidence that bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.79; I = 0%; 6 studies, 6286 participants), whilst there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and NRT (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; I = 18%; 10 studies, 8230 participants). We also found some evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), whilst there was insufficient evidence to determine whether bupropion or nortriptyline were more effective when compared with one another (RR 1.30 (favouring bupropion), 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants). There was no evidence that any of the other antidepressants tested (including St John's Wort, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)) had a beneficial effect on smoking cessation. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion also increases the number of adverse events, including psychiatric AEs, and there is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with placebo. However, there is no clear evidence to suggest whether people taking bupropion experience more or fewer SAEs than those taking placebo (moderate certainty). Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo. Evidence suggests that bupropion may be as successful as NRT and nortriptyline in helping people to quit smoking, but that it is less effective than varenicline. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the other antidepressants tested, such as SSRIs, aid smoking cessation, and when looking at safety and tolerance outcomes, in most cases, paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions. Due to the high-certainty evidence, further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over front-line smoking cessation aids already available. However, it is important that where studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation are carried out they measure and report safety and tolerability clearly.
Topics: Anti-Anxiety Agents; Antidepressive Agents; Bupropion; Humans; Nortriptyline; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Varenicline
PubMed: 32319681
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000031.pub5