Venlafaxine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression

New generation antidepressants for depression in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorders have a significant impact on children and adolescents, including on educational and vocational outcomes, interpersonal relationships, and physical and mental health and well-being. There is an association between major depressive disorder and suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide. Antidepressant medication is used in moderate to severe depression; there is now a range of newer generations of these medications.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate, via network meta-analysis (NMA), the comparative effectiveness and safety of different newer generation antidepressants in children and adolescents with a diagnosed major depressive disorder (MDD) in terms of depression, functioning, suicide-related outcomes and other adverse outcomes. The impact of age, treatment duration, baseline severity, and pharmaceutical industry funding was investigated on clinician-rated depression (CDRS-R) and suicide-related outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, the Cochrane Library (Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)), together with Ovid Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO till March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of six to 18 year olds of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed major depressive disorder were included. Trials that compared the effectiveness of newer generation antidepressants with each other or with a placebo were included. Newer generation antidepressants included: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs); norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine disinhibitors (NDDIs); and tetracyclic antidepressants (TeCAs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data as Odds Ratios (ORs), and continuous data as Mean Difference (MD) for the following outcomes: depression symptom severity (clinician rated), response or remission of depression symptoms, depression symptom severity (self-rated), functioning, suicide related outcomes and overall adverse outcomes. Random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted in a frequentist framework using multivariate meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA). We used "informative statements" to standardise the interpretation and description of the results.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six studies were included. There were no data for the two primary outcomes (depressive disorder established via clinical diagnostic interview and suicide), therefore, the results comprise only secondary outcomes. Most antidepressants may be associated with a "small and unimportant" reduction in depression symptoms on the CDRS-R scale (range 17 to 113) compared with placebo (high certainty evidence: paroxetine: MD -1.43, 95% CI -3.90, 1.04; vilazodone: MD -0.84, 95% CI -3.03, 1.35; desvenlafaxine MD -0.07, 95% CI -3.51, 3.36; moderate certainty evidence: sertraline: MD -3.51, 95% CI -6.99, -0.04; fluoxetine: MD -2.84, 95% CI -4.12, -1.56; escitalopram: MD -2.62, 95% CI -5.29, 0.04; low certainty evidence: duloxetine: MD -2.70, 95% CI -5.03, -0.37; vortioxetine: MD 0.60, 95% CI -2.52, 3.72; very low certainty evidence for comparisons between other antidepressants and placebo). There were "small and unimportant" differences between most antidepressants in reduction of depression symptoms (high- or moderate-certainty evidence). Results were similar across other outcomes of benefit. In most studies risk of self-harm or suicide was an exclusion criterion for the study. Proportions of suicide-related outcomes were low for most included studies and 95% confidence intervals were wide for all comparisons. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of mirtazapine (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.03, 8.04), duloxetine (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.72, 1.82), vilazodone (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.68, 1.48), desvenlafaxine (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59, 1.52), citalopram (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.76, 3.87) or vortioxetine (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.29, 8.60) on suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo. There is low certainty evidence that escitalopram may "at least slightly" reduce odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.43, 1.84). There is low certainty evidence that fluoxetine (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87, 1.86), paroxetine (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.85, 3.86), sertraline (OR 3.03, 95% CI 0.60, 15.22), and venlafaxine (OR 13.84, 95% CI 1.79, 106.90) may "at least slightly" increase odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo. There is moderate certainty evidence that venlafaxine probably results in an "at least slightly" increased odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with desvenlafaxine (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56) and escitalopram (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56). There was very low certainty evidence regarding other comparisons between antidepressants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, methodological shortcomings of the randomised trials make it difficult to interpret the findings with regard to the efficacy and safety of newer antidepressant medications. Findings suggest that most newer antidepressants may reduce depression symptoms in a small and unimportant way compared with placebo. Furthermore, there are likely to be small and unimportant differences in the reduction of depression symptoms between the majority of antidepressants. However, our findings reflect the average effects of the antidepressants, and given depression is a heterogeneous condition, some individuals may experience a greater response. Guideline developers and others making recommendations might therefore consider whether a recommendation for the use of newer generation antidepressants is warranted for some individuals in some circumstances. Our findings suggest sertraline, escitalopram, duloxetine, as well as fluoxetine (which is currently the only treatment recommended for first-line prescribing) could be considered as a first option. Children and adolescents considered at risk of suicide were frequently excluded from trials, so that we cannot be confident about the effects of these medications for these individuals. If an antidepressant is being considered for an individual, this should be done in consultation with the child/adolescent and their family/caregivers and it remains critical to ensure close monitoring of treatment effects and suicide-related outcomes (combined suicidal ideation and suicide attempt) in those treated with newer generation antidepressants, given findings that some of these medications may be associated with greater odds of these events. Consideration of psychotherapy, particularly cognitive behavioural therapy, as per guideline recommendations, remains important.

Newer generation antidepressants for depressive disorders in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Depressive disorders are common in young people and are associated with significant negative impacts. Newer generation antidepressants, particularly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), are often used, however evidence of their effectiveness in children and adolescents is not clear. Furthermore, there have been warnings against their use in this population due to concerns about increased risk of suicidal ideation and behaviour.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and adverse outcomes, including definitive suicidal behaviour and suicidal ideation, of newer generation antidepressants compared with placebo in the treatment of depressive disorders in children and adolescents.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update of the review, we searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) to October 2011. The CCDANCTR includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: CENTRAL (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) (all years), EMBASE (1974 -), MEDLINE (1950 -) and PsycINFO (1967 -). We searched clinical trial registries and pharmaceutical company websites. We checked reference lists of included trials and other reviews, and sent letters to key researchers and the pharmaceutical companies of included trials from January to August 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over trials and cluster trials comparing a newer generation antidepressant with a placebo in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years old and diagnosed with a depressive disorder were eligible for inclusion. In this update, we amended the selection criteria to include newer generation antidepressants rather than SSRIs only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or three review authors selected the trials, assessed their quality, and extracted trial and outcome data. We used a random-effects meta-analysis. We used risk ratio (RR) to summarise dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) to summarise continuous measures.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen trials of a range of newer antidepressants compared with placebo, containing 3335 participants, were included. The trials excluded young people at high risk of suicide and many co-morbid conditions and the participants are likely to be less unwell than those seen in clinical practice. We judged none of these trials to be at low risk of bias, with limited information about many aspects of risk of bias, high drop out rates and issues regarding measurement instruments and the clinical usefulness of outcomes, which were often variously defined across trials. Overall, there was evidence that those treated with an antidepressant had lower depression severity scores and higher rates of response/remission than those on placebo. However, the size of these effects was small with a reduction in depression symptoms of 3.51 on a scale from 17 to 113 (14 trials; N = 2490; MD -3.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.55 to -2.47). Remission rates increased from 380 per 1000 to 448 per 1000 for those treated with an antidepressant. There was evidence of an increased risk (58%) of suicide-related outcome for those on antidepressants compared with a placebo (17 trials; N = 3229; RR 1.58; 95% CI 1.02 to 2.45). This equates to an increased risk in a group with a median baseline risk from 25 in 1000 to 40 in 1000. Where rates of adverse events were reported, this was higher for those prescribed an antidepressant. There was no evidence that the magnitude of intervention effects (compared with placebo) were modified by individual drug class.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Caution is required in interpreting the results given the methodological limitations of the included trials in terms of internal and external validity. Further, the size and clinical meaningfulness of statistically significant results are uncertain. However, given the risks of untreated depression in terms of completed suicide and impacts on functioning, if a decision to use medication is agreed, then fluoxetine might be the medication of first choice given guideline recommendations. Clinicians need to keep in mind that there is evidence of an increased risk of suicide-related outcomes in those treated with antidepressant medications.

Mirtazapine versus other antidepressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

Mirtazapine has a unique mechanism of antidepressive action and is one of the commonly used antidepressants in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present review was to assess the evidence on the efficacy and acceptability of mirtazapine compared with other antidepressive agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis review group's specialised register (CCDANCTR), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years to April 2011), EMBASE, (1980 to July 2011) MEDLINE (1950 to July 2011) and PsycINFO (1974 to July 2011). Reference lists of the reports of relevant studies were checked and experts in the field contacted. The review was not limited to English-language articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) allocating participants with major depression to mirtazapine versus any other antidepressive agent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome was response to treatment. The secondary outcomes included dropouts and individual adverse events.Meta-analyses were conducted using the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 29 RCTs (n = 4974), mostly following up the participants for six weeks in outpatient clinics and inadequately reporting the risk of bias, were included. In comparison with tricyclic antidepressants (10 trials, n = 1553) there was no robust evidence to detect a difference between mirtazapine and tricyclics in terms of response at two weeks (odds ratio (OR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.13) or at the end of acute-phase treatment (at 6 to 12 weeks) (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.10). In comparison with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (12 trials, n = 2626) mirtazapine was significantly more effective at two weeks (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.88) and at the end of acute-phase treatment (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.39). Mirtazapine was significantly more effective than a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (venlafaxine only, two trials, n = 415) at two weeks (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.45 to 3.59) and at the end of acute-phase treatment (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.25).In terms of dropouts, there was no robust evidence to detect a difference between mirtazapine and other antidepressants. Mirtazapine was more likely to cause weight gain or increased appetite and somnolence than SSRIs but less likely to cause nausea or vomiting and sexual dysfunction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some statistically significant and possibly clinically meaningful differences between mirtazapine and other antidepressive agents were found for the acute-phase treatment of major depression. Mirtazapine is likely to have a faster onset of action than SSRIs during the acute-phase treatment. Dropouts occur similarly in participants treated with mirtazapine and those treated with other antidepressants, although the adverse event profile of mirtazapine is unique.

Fluvoxamine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

Fluvoxamine, one of the oldest selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), is prescribed to patients with major depression in many countries. Several studies have previously reviewed the efficacy and tolerability of fluvoxamine for the treatment of major depression. However, these reviews are now outdated.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective is to evaluate the effectiveness, tolerability and side effect profile of fluvoxamine for major depression in comparison with other anti-depressive agents, including tricyclics (TCAs), heterocyclics, other SSRIs, SNRIs, other newer agents and other conventional psychotropic drugs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register. Trial databases and ongoing trial registers in North America, Europe, Japan and Australia, were handsearched for randomised controlled trials. We checked reference lists of the articles included in the review, previous systematic reviews and major textbooks of affective disorder for published reports and citations of unpublished research. The date of last search was 31 August 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials, published in any language, that compared fluvoxamine with any other active antidepressants in the acute phase treatment of major depression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors inspected citations and abstracts, obtained papers, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We analysed dichotomous data using odds ratios (ORs) and continuous data using the standardised mean difference (SMD). A random effects model was used to combine studies.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 54 randomised controlled trials (n = 5122) were included. No strong evidence was found to indicate that fluvoxamine was either superior or inferior to other antidepressants regarding response, remission and tolerability. However, differing side effect profiles were evident, especially with regard to gastrointestinal side effects of fluvoxamine when compared to other antidepressants. For example, fluvoxamine was generally associated with a higher incidence of vomiting/nausea (versus imipramine, OR 2.23, CI 1.59 to 3.14; versus clomipramine, OR 2.13, CI 1.06 to 4.27; versus amitriptyline, OR 2.86, CI 1.31 to 2.63).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no strong evidence that fluvoxamine was either superior or inferior to any other antidepressants in terms of efficacy and tolerability in the acute phase treatment of depression. However, differing side effect profiles were evident. Based on these findings, we conclude that clinicians should focus on practical or clinically relevant considerations, including these differences in side effect profiles.

Escitalopram versus other antidepressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

Although pharmacological and psychological interventions are both effective for major depression, antidepressant drugs remain the mainstay of treatment in primary and secondary care settings. During the last 20 years, antidepressant prescribing has risen dramatically in western countries, mainly because of the increasing consumption of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and newer antidepressants, which have progressively become the most commonly prescribed antidepressants. Escitalopram is the pure S-enantiomer of the racemic citalopram.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of escitalopram in comparison with tricyclics, other SSRIs, heterocyclics and newer agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic databases were searched up to July 2008. Trial databases of drug-approving agencies were hand-searched for published, unpublished and ongoing controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing escitalopram against any other antidepressant (including non-conventional agents such as hypericum) for patients with major depressive disorder (regardless of the diagnostic criteria used).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were entered by two review authors (double data entry). Responders and remitters to treatment were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. For dichotomous data, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Continuous data were analysed using standardised mean differences (with 95% CI) using the random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials compared escitalopram with another SSRI and eight compared escitalopram with a newer antidepressive agent (venlafaxine, bupropion and duloxetine). Escitalopram was shown to be significantly more effective than citalopram in achieving acute response (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.87). Escitalopram was also more effective than citalopram in terms of remission (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.93). Significantly fewer patients allocated to escitalopram withdrew from trials compared with patients allocated to duloxetine, for discontinuation due to any cause (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.99).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some statistically significant differences favouring escitalopram over other antidepressive agents for the acute phase treatment of major depression were found, in terms of efficacy (citalopram and fluoxetine) and acceptability (duloxetine). There is insufficient evidence to detect a difference between escitalopram and other antidepressants in early response to treatment (after two weeks of treatment). Cost-effectiveness information is also needed in the field of antidepressant trials. Furthermore, as with most standard systematic reviews, the findings rely on evidence from direct comparisons. The potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should also be borne in mind.