Fluvoxamine versus fluoxetine in major depressive episode: a double-blind randomised comparison

Effect of antidepressants on ejaculation dysfunction in patients with depression and anxiety: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Antidepressants may lead to a series of sexual adverse effects (SAEs), among which ejaculation dysfunction (EjD) is often overlooked by clinicians. The purpose of the present network meta-analysis was to assist drug adjustment by comparing and ranking the incidence of EjD among various antidepressants.

METHODS

Relevant studies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and other additional records. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed the rate of EjD in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and anxiety disorder after taking anti-depressants. The incidences of EjD, erectile dysfunction (ED), decreased libido (DL), adverse events (AE), withdrawal due to adverse events (WDAE) and withdrawal due to lack of efficacy (WDLE) were pooled using odds ratio (OR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). The values of surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) helped to rank the risk of each outcome in different antidepressants.

RESULTS

Thirty RCTs comprising 18,157 patients were included. Results of all node-splitting analysis demonstrated no statistical inconsistency (all P > 0.05). Clomipramine (OR 42.11, 95% CI [9.90, 179.08]), WS5570 (OR 28.99, 95% CI [1.48, 568.97]) and paroxetine (OR 18.63, 95% CI [9.33, 37.23]) had significant risk of EjD comparing to placebo. Additionally, duloxetine (OR 7.37, 95% CI [2.61, 20.78]), clomipramine (OR 5.29, 95% CI [1.72, 16.25]), paroxetine (OR 3.75, 95% CI [1.37, 10.26]) and escitalopram (OR 3.04, 95% CI [1.20, 7.71]) presented higher risk of ED comparing to placebo. Agomelatine, levomilnacipran, vortioxetine, trazodone, vilazodone, fluvoxamine and imipramine exhibited similar incidence of EjD with placebo (all P > 0.05). Besides, trazodone, vilazodone and vortioxetine had the top-five SUCRA values in each of SAEs (EjD, ED and DL), and agomelatine might be alternative in EjD and DL. Considering about AE, WDAE and WDLE, vilazodone appeared to offer more satisfactory performance across all these aspects.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing SAEs following the administration of antidepressants, trazodone, vortioxetine, vilazodone and agomelatine are alternative antidepressants.

D-Pinitol mitigates post-traumatic stress disorder-like behaviors induced by single prolonged stress in mice through mineralocorticoid receptor antagonism

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a mental illness that can occur in individuals who have experienced trauma. Current treatments for PTSD, typically serotonin reuptake inhibitors, have limited effectiveness for patients and often cause serious adverse effects. Therefore, a novel class of treatment with better pharmacological profile is necessary. D-Pinitol has been reported to be effective for depression and anxiety disorders, but there are no reports associated with PTSD. In the present study, we investigated the effects of D-pinitol in a mouse model of PTSD induced by a single prolonged stress (SPS) protocol. We examined the therapeutic effects of D-pinitol on emotional and cognitive impairments in the SPS mouse model. We also investigated the effects of D-pinitol on fear memory formation. Mineralocorticoid receptor transactivation assay, Western blot, and quantitative PCR were employed to investigate how D-pinitol exerts its pharmacological activities. D-Pinitol ameliorated PTSD-like behaviors in a SPS mouse model. D-Pinitol also normalized the increased mRNA expression levels and protein levels of the mineralocorticoid receptor in the amygdala. A mineralocorticoid receptor agonist reversed the effects of D-pinitol on fear extinction and recall, and the antagonistic property of D-pinitol against the mineralocorticoid receptor was confirmed in vitro. Our findings suggest that D-pinitol could serve as a potential therapeutic agent for PTSD due to its antagonistic effect on the mineralocorticoid receptor.

[Fluvoxamine in the treatment of anxiety-depressive spectrum disorders]

The RSCI and PubMed search databases have requested publications over the past 40 years on the search queries «fluvoxamine», «anxiety-depressive disorders», «anxiety», «depression», «comorbidity», devoted to the effectiveness of fluvoxamine in various variants of disorders of the anxiety-depressive spectrum, anxiety depressions. The data of the above studies indicate that fluvoxamine (Zovart San) in doses of 50-300 mg / day is a highly effective remedy for the treatment of not only anxiety depressions and genesis (psychogenic, organic, mixed, autochthonous-endogenous) and severity (up to psychotic), but also a wider range of anxiety-depressive disorders, including adaptation disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatized, dysmorphic, insomniac symptom complexes and eating disorders. A wide range of clinical effects of fluvoxamine is due to its main and additional mechanisms of action: blockade of serotonin reuptake, σ1-agonist activity and the effect on the metabolism of melatonin and neurosteroids catabolism.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor fluvoxamine ameliorates stress- and NSAID-induced peptic ulcer possibly by involving Hsp70

Background Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have recently become potential candidates for a new therapeutic approach to ulcer and gastric bleeding. Heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70) plays an important role in cellular resistance to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). However, there is lack of evidence that fluvoxamine recruits Hsp70 to affect stress-induced gastric ulcer. Therefore, we investigated the effect of fluvoxamine on NSAID- and stress-induced gastric ulcer and the possible involvement of Hsp70. Methods ICR mice were used in the study. Stress induction was made by the water-immersion-plus-restraint method. NSAID-induced gastric ulcer was produced by oral administration of indomethacin. Fluvoxamine was given orally 30 min before stress induction and indomethacin treatment. Results Stress and indomethacin treatment significantly increased the ulcer index and intraluminal bleeding score. Stress and indomethacin treatment also significantly increased the expression of Hsp70. Fluvoxamine significantly decreased the ulcer index and intraluminal bleeding in both ulcer models. Moreover, fluvoxamine further increased the expression of Hsp70 in the gastric tissue of stress- and indomethacin-treated mice. Conclusions Our results indicate that fluvoxamine may have a protective effect against stress- as well as NSAID-induced gastric ulcer. In addition, the present study suggests the possible involvement of Hsp70 in the amelioration of gastric ulcer by fluvoxamine.

Fluvoxamine stimulates oligodendrogenesis of cultured neural stem cells and attenuates inflammation and demyelination in an animal model of multiple sclerosis

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) require medications controlling severity of the pathology and depression, affecting more than half of the patients. In this study, the effect of antidepressant drug fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, was investigated in vitro and in vivo. Nanomolar concentrations of fluvoxamine significantly increased cell viability and proliferation of neural stem cells (NSCs) through increasing mRNA expression of Notch1, Hes1 and Ki-67, and protein levels of NICD. Also, physiological concentrations of fluvoxamine were optimal for NSC differentiation toward oligodendrocytes, astrocytes and neurons. In addition, fluvoxamine attenuated experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) severity, a rat MS model, by significantly decreasing its clinical scores. Moreover, fluvoxamine treated EAE rats showed a decrease in IFN-γ serum levels and an increase in IL-4, pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines respectively, compared to untreated EAE rats. Furthermore, immune cell infiltration and demyelination plaque significantly decreased in spinal cords of fluvoxamine-treated rats, which was accompanied by an increase in protein expression of MBP and GFAP positive cells and a decrease in lactate serum levels, a new biomarker of MS progression. In summary, besides its antidepressant activity, fluvoxamine stimulates proliferation and differentiation of NSCs particularly toward oligodendrocytes, a producer of CNS myelin.

Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of New Generation Antidepressants

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) impacts health, quality of life and workplace productivity. Antidepressant treatment is the primary therapeutic intervention. This study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of new generation antidepressants and their cost-effectiveness in the Singapore healthcare system.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search for head-to-head randomised controlled trials on ten antidepressants (agomelatine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, fluoxetine, mirtazapine, paroxetine, sertraline, trazodone and venlafaxine) employed as monotherapy in acute MDD management. We performed a network meta-analysis to compare their relative efficacy. The outcome measures for efficacy were response and remission rate, and mean change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score; and for tolerability, study withdrawal rates due to adverse events. To evaluate their relative cost effectiveness, a decision tree simulating a cohort of MDD patients using antidepressant as monotherapy was constructed from a societal perspective over 6 months. We used effectiveness data from our network meta-analysis and local data on resource use for depression in Singapore. The incremental cost expected for each additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was calculated and presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

We identified 76 relevant articles for the network meta-analysis. Of the ten agents included in the analysis, mirtazapine and agomelatine were most efficacious in achieving response and remission, respectively. Mirtazapine and duloxetine resulted in the greatest magnitude of change in the HDRS score. Agomelatine, escitalopram and sertraline were the best tolerated of the drugs analysed, while duloxetine was the least well tolerated drug. Using a composite outcome of efficacy (response and remission rates) and tolerability, agomelatine, escitalopram and mirtazapine were the favoured treatments. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, apart from agomelatine, all the treatments were dominated by mirtazapine. Against mirtazapine, agomelatine was not cost effective given that its ICER exceeded the threshold value.

CONCLUSION

Agomelatine, escitalopram and mirtazapine had favourable balance between efficacy and tolerability. In addition, mirtazapine was a cost-effective option in the Singapore healthcare system.

Insomnia and somnolence associated with second-generation antidepressants during the treatment of major depression: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sleep reduction or enhancement is frequently observed with second-generation antidepressant treatments, and they can be beneficial or harmful depending on the symptom profile of each subject. Nevertheless, relatively little attention has been given so far to rank those effects across compounds. The aim of this meta-analysis is to provide quantitative data about short-term rates of insomnia and somnolence associated with 14 second-generation antidepressants during the treatment of major depression.

METHODS

A literature search and a search of unpublished documents were performed. Eligible studies focusing on MD patients treated with second-generation antidepressants were entered in the analysis. Our primary outcome measures were insomnia and somnolence rates induced by antidepressants as compared with those associated with placebo. Sensitivity analyses were carried out as well.

RESULTS

Ten second-generation antidepressants showed higher rates of insomnia than placebo. The highest incidence was found for bupropion and desvenlafaxine. Agomelatine was the only antidepressant with a lower likelihood of inducing insomnia than placebo. Eleven antidepressants were associated with higher rates of somnolence than placebo. Fluvoxamine and mirtazapine showed the highest frequency of somnolence. Bupropion induced somnolence to a lower extent than placebo. Sensitivity analyses showed a degree of variation of those findings.

DISCUSSION

Antidepressants are associated with different insomnia and somnolence rates, mainly depending on their mechanisms of action. Despite some limitations, we underscore that the treatment-emergent insomnia and/or somnolence are frequent, and they could be used in clinical practice to face the specific needs of each patient.

Sexual dysfunction associated with second-generation antidepressants in patients with major depressive disorder: results from a systematic review with network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sexual dysfunction (SD) is prevalent in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and is also associated with second-generation antidepressants (SGADs) that are commonly used to treat the condition. Evidence indicates under-reporting of SD in efficacy studies. SD associated with antidepressant treatment is a serious side effect that may lead to early termination of treatment and worsening of quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to systematically assess the harms of SD associated with SGADs in adult patients with MDD by drug type.

METHODS

We retrieved English-language abstracts from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 1980 to October 2012 as well as from reference lists of pertinent review articles and grey literature searches. Two independent reviewers identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 6 weeks' duration and observational studies with at least 1,000 participants.

STUDY SELECTION

Reviewers abstracted data on study design, conduct, participants, interventions, outcomes and method of SD ascertainment, and rated risk of bias. A senior reviewer checked and confirmed extracted data and risk-of-bias ratings.

ANALYSES

Random effects network meta-analysis using Bayesian methods for data from head-to-head trials and placebo-controlled comparisons; descriptive analyses calculating weighted mean rates from individual trials and observational studies.

RESULTS/SYNTHESIS

Data from 63 studies of low and moderate risk of bias (58 RCTs, five observational studies) with more than 26,000 patients treated with SGADs were included. Based on network meta-analyses of 66 pairwise comparisons from 37 RCTs, most comparisons showed a similar risk of SD among included SGADs. However, credible intervals were wide and included differences that would be considered clinically relevant. We observed three main patterns: bupropion had a statistically significantly lower risk of SD than some other SGADs, and both escitalopram and paroxetine showed a statistically significantly higher risk of SD than some other SGADs. We found reporting of harms related to SD inconsistent and insufficient in some trials.

LIMITATIONS

Most trials were conducted in highly selected populations. Search was restricted to English-language only.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Because of the indirect nature of the comparisons, the often wide credible intervals, and the high variation in magnitude of outcome, we rated the overall strength of evidence with respect to our findings as low. The current degree of evidence does not allow a precise estimate of comparative risk of SD associated with a specific antidepressant. In the absence of such evidence, clinicians need to be aware of SD as a common adverse event and should discuss patients' preferences before initiating antidepressant therapy.

A randomized double-blind comparison of fluoxetine augmentation by high and low dosage folic acid in patients with depressive episodes

BACKGROUND

Though encouraging evidence exists for the use of folic acid as an augmenting agent to antidepressants, evidence regarding its optimal dosage is lacking.

METHODS

Forty-two female out-patients with moderate (with or without somatic syndrome) or severe depressive episodes (without psychotic symptoms) diagnosed as per ICD-10 criteria, were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive either 20 mg fluoxetine and a relatively low dose folic acid (1.5 mg/day; n=23; Group I) or 20 mg fluoxetine and high dose folic acid (5 mg/day; n=19; Group II). Primary outcome measures were weekly changes of scores on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) for 6 weeks.

RESULTS

Group II patients showed greater improvement in both HDRS [Mean (SD) baseline HDRS score=21 (2.3) for group I and 20.0 (1.4) for group-II; time X group interaction effect: p=0.01] and BDI [Mean (SD) baseline BDI score=25.1 (5.2) for group-1 and 23.1 (2.7) for group-II; time X group interaction effect: p=0.01]. With regard to HDRS, 7 (36.8%) group II patients remitted compared to 2 (8.7%) group I patients (p=0.03); 9 (47.4%) patients of group II responded when compared to 6 (26.1%) from group I (p=0.15). When BDI was considered, 5 (26.3%) group II patients remitted when compared to 2 (8.7%) from group I (p=0.13); 10 patients (52.6%) from group II responded when compared to 5 (21.7%) from group I (p=0.04). No adverse effects were noted in either group.

LIMITATIONS

Lack of a placebo arm and small sample size.

CONCLUSION

Compared to folic acid 1.5 mg/day, augmentation with 5 mg/day may be more beneficial in female patients with depressive episodes taking fluoxetine 20 mg/day.

Fluoxetine versus other types of pharmacotherapy for depression

BACKGROUND

Depression is common in primary care and is associated with marked personal, social and economic morbidity, thus creating significant demands on service providers. The antidepressant fluoxetine has been studied in many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in comparison with other conventional and unconventional antidepressants. However, these studies have produced conflicting findings.Other systematic reviews have considered selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRIs) as a group which limits the applicability of the indings for fluoxetine alone. Therefore, this review intends to provide specific and clinically useful information regarding the effects of fluoxetine for depression compared with tricyclics (TCAs), SSRIs, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), monoamineoxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and newer agents, and other conventional and unconventional agents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of fluoxetine in comparison with all other antidepressive agents for depression in adult individuals with unipolar major depressive disorder.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR)to 11May 2012. This register includes relevant RCTs from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (all years),MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). No language restriction was applied. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were handsearched. The pharmaceutical company marketing fluoxetine and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs comparing fluoxetine with any other AD (including non-conventional agents such as hypericum) for patients with unipolar major depressive disorder (regardless of the diagnostic criteria used) were included. For trials that had a cross-over design only results from the first randomisation period were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted by two review authors using a standard form. Responders to treatment were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis: dropouts were always included in this analysis. When data on dropouts 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 by 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 due to any causes and due to side effects or inefficacy. For dichotomous data, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random-effects model. Continuous data were analysed using standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 171 studies were included in the analysis (24,868 participants). The included studies were undertaken between 1984 and 2012. Studies had homogenous characteristics in terms of design, intervention and outcome measures. The assessment of quality with the risk of bias tool revealed that the great majority of them failed to report methodological details, like the method of random sequence generation, the allocation concealment and blinding. Moreover, most of the included studies were sponsored by drug companies, so the potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should be considered in interpreting the results. Fluoxetine was as effective as the TCAs when considered as a group both on a dichotomous outcome (reduction of at least 50% on the Hamilton Depression Scale) (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.22, 24 RCTs, 2124 participants) and a continuous outcome (mean scores at the end of the trial or change score on depression measures) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.14, 50 RCTs, 3393 participants). On a dichotomousoutcome, fluoxetine was less effective than dothiepin or dosulepin (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.20; number needed to treat (NNT) =6, 95% CI 3 to 50, 2 RCTs, 144 participants), sertraline (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.74; NNT = 13, 95% CI 7 to 58, 6 RCTs, 1188 participants), mirtazapine (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.04; NNT = 12, 95% CI 6 to 134, 4 RCTs, 600 participants) and venlafaxine(OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.51; NNT = 11, 95% CI 8 to 16, 12 RCTs, 3387 participants). On a continuous outcome, fluoxetine was more effective than ABT-200 (SMD -1.85, 95% CI -2.25 to -1.45, 1 RCT, 141 participants) and milnacipran (SMD -0.36, 95% CI-0.63 to -0.08, 2 RCTs, 213 participants); conversely, it was less effective than venlafaxine (SMD 0.10, 95% CI 0 to 0.19, 13 RCTs,3097 participants). Fluoxetine was better tolerated than TCAs considered as a group (total dropout OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.96;NNT = 20, 95% CI 13 to 48, 49 RCTs, 4194 participants) and was better tolerated in comparison with individual ADs, in particular amitriptyline (total dropout OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.85; NNT = 13, 95% CI 8 to 39, 18 RCTs, 1089 participants), and among the newer ADs ABT-200 (total dropout OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.39; NNT = 3, 95% CI 2 to 5, 1 RCT, 144 participants), pramipexole(total dropout OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42, NNT = 3, 95% CI 2 to 5, 1 RCT, 105 participants), and reboxetine (total dropout OR0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82, NNT = 9, 95% CI 6 to 24, 4 RCTs, 764 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The present study detected differences in terms of efficacy and tolerability between fluoxetine and certain ADs, but the clinical meaning of these differences is uncertain.Moreover, the assessment of quality with the risk of bias tool showed that the great majority of included studies failed to report details on methodological procedures. Of consequence, no definitive implications can be drawn from the studies' results. The better efficacy profile of sertraline and venlafaxine (and possibly other ADs) over fluoxetine may be clinically meaningful,as already suggested by other systematic reviews. In addition to efficacy data, treatment decisions should also be based on considerations of drug toxicity, patient acceptability and cost.

Less is more in antidepressant clinical trials: a meta-analysis of the effect of visit frequency on treatment response and dropout

OBJECTIVE

We investigated how the number of follow-up visits affects response rates and dropout among patients in antidepressant trials for major depressive disorder (MDD).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and PubMed were searched to identify trials contrasting antidepressants to placebo or active comparator in adults with depression. The index terms depression-drug therapy, depressive disorder-drug therapy, and antidepressant agents, in addition to the classes and individual generic names of all antidepressants, were combined using the "or" operator. Results were limited to (1) English-language articles, (2) publication year 1985 or later, (3) age group ≥ 18 years, and (4) publication types including clinical trials, controlled clinical trials, meta-analysis, multicenter study, randomized controlled trial, or review.

STUDY SELECTION

Included articles reported trials of approved antidepressant medications for MDD in outpatients aged 18-65 years, were 6-12 weeks in duration, and had response rates specified using a standardized measure. Trials were excluded for enrolling inpatients, pregnant women, psychotic subjects, or those with treatment-resistant depression. These criteria allowed 9,189 articles identified in the literature review to be narrowed to 111 reports.

DATA EXTRACTION

Demographic characteristics, the number of study visits planned in each treatment cell, duration of active treatment, attrition rates, and response rates to medication and placebo were entered into a database.

RESULTS

In a multilevel meta-analysis, active medication versus placebo (OR = 1.96, P < .001), active comparator versus placebo-controlled study design (OR = 1.82, P < .001), and longer versus shorter duration (OR = 1.87, P < .001) were associated with significantly increased odds of treatment response. After controlling for these variables, the number of study visits did not significantly influence response rates (OR = 0.97, P = .877). The odds of dropout were significantly decreased for active comparator versus placebo-controlled trials (OR = 0.67, P = .002) and longer versus shorter duration trials (OR = 0.54, P = .035), while increasing numbers of study visits significantly increased the odds of participant dropout (OR = 2.77, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Visit schedules that are much more frequent than are commonly practiced in the community treatment of depression may increase the expense of clinical trials and make them less generalizable to standard clinical treatment.

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.

The effect of study sponsorship on a systematically evaluated body of evidence of head-to-head trials was modest: secondary analysis of a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the effect of industry bias in a systematically reviewed body of evidence of head-to-head trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We limited our analysis to published head-to-head randomized controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) identified in a comparative effectiveness review. Two reviewers independently determined the status of funding for each trial. We classified drugs into one of two groups: (1) drugs associated with the funding source and (2) drugs not associated with the funding source. To determine the effect of any underlying industry bias, we conducted relative-benefit meta-analyses comparing the response rates of drugs when associated with the funding source with response rates of the same drugs when not associated with the funding source.

RESULTS

Thirteen out of 20 studies (65%) numerically favored drugs associated with the funding source over drugs used as controls. The pooled response rates of SSRIs, when associated with the funding source, are significantly greater than those of the same SSRIs when not associated with the sponsor (relative benefit=1.07; 95% confidence interval=1.02-1.11). The difference, however, is likely to be not of clinical importance.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of industry bias in comparative effectiveness reviews might play a lesser role than in systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials.

Does study design influence outcome? The effects of placebo control and treatment duration in antidepressant trials

BACKGROUND

Clinicians and researchers synthesize data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants to make conclusions about the efficacy of medications for depression. All treatments include nonspecific factors in addition to the specific effects of drugs, and study design may influence patient outcomes via nonspecific factors. This study investigated whether placebo control and treatment duration affect the outcome in antidepressant RCTs.

METHODS

Medline and the Cochrane Database were searched to identify RCTs of antidepressants for major depression approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Included studies enrolled outpatient participants aged 18-65, lasted 6-12 weeks, compared an antidepressant to placebo or another antidepressant and were published in English after 1985. Excluded trials enrolled inpatients, pregnant women and subjects with psychosis or mania. Mixed-effects logistic regression models including study type (placebo-controlled or comparator) and study duration (6, 8 or 12 weeks) as fixed effects determined whether these factors affected response and remission rates.

RESULTS

In the 90 trials analyzed, the odds of depression response (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.45-2.17, p < 0.001) and remission (OR 1.53, 95% CI = 1.11-2.11, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in comparator relative to placebo-controlled trials. Trials lasting 8 (OR = 1.37, CI = 1.14-1.64, p = 0.001) and 12 (OR = 1.52, CI = 1.12-2.07, p = 0.008) weeks had significantly greater response rates than 6-week trials without differing themselves.

CONCLUSIONS

Response and remission rates to antidepressants are significantly affected by study type and duration. Clinicians and researchers must consider the study design when interpreting and designing RCTs of antidepressant medications.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Conventional meta-analyses have shown inconsistent results for efficacy of second-generation antidepressants. We therefore did a multiple-treatments meta-analysis, which accounts for both direct and indirect comparisons, to assess the effects of 12 new-generation antidepressants on major depression.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed 117 randomised controlled trials (25 928 participants) from 1991 up to Nov 30, 2007, which compared any of the following antidepressants at therapeutic dose range for the acute treatment of unipolar major depression in adults: bupropion, citalopram, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients who responded to or dropped out of the allocated treatment. Analysis was done on an intention-to-treat basis.

FINDINGS

Mirtazapine, escitalopram, venlafaxine, and sertraline were significantly more efficacious than duloxetine (odds ratios [OR] 1.39, 1.33, 1.30 and 1.27, respectively), fluoxetine (1.37, 1.32, 1.28, and 1.25, respectively), fluvoxamine (1.41, 1.35, 1.30, and 1.27, respectively), paroxetine (1.35, 1.30, 1.27, and 1.22, respectively), and reboxetine (2.03, 1.95, 1.89, and 1.85, respectively). Reboxetine was significantly less efficacious than all the other antidepressants tested. Escitalopram and sertraline showed the best profile of acceptability, leading to significantly fewer discontinuations than did duloxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, reboxetine, and venlafaxine.

INTERPRETATION

Clinically important differences exist between commonly prescribed antidepressants for both efficacy and acceptability in favour of escitalopram and sertraline. Sertraline might be the best choice when starting treatment for moderate to severe major depression in adults because it has the most favourable balance between benefits, acceptability, and acquisition cost.

A meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing mirtazapine with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for the treatment of major depressive disorder

Over the past few years, a number of studies have suggested that the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) with anti-depressants enhancing both noradrenergic as well as serotonergic neurotransmission may result in higher response or remission rates than treatment with anti-depressants selectively enhancing serotonergic neurotransmission. The objective of this paper was to compare response rates among patients with MDD treated with either mirtazapine, an anti-depressant thought to simultaneously enhance both noradrenergic and serotonergic neurotransmission, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Medline/Pubmed were searched. No year of publication limits were used. Double-blind, randomized clinical trials comparing mirtazapine with an SSRI for the treatment of MDD. Data were extracted with the use of a pre-coded form. Analyses were performed comparing response rates between the two anti-depressant agents. Data from 10 reports involving a total of 1904 outpatients with MDD were identified and combined using a random-effects model. Patients randomized to treatment with mirtazapine were as likely to experience clinical response as patients randomized to treatment with an SSRI (RR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.96-1.2, P = 0.181). Simply pooling response rates between the two agents revealed a 67.1% response rate for mirtazapine and a 62.1% response rate for the SSRIs. There was no difference in overall discontinuation rates (RR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.7-1.5; P = 0.550), discontinuation rates due to adverse events (RR = 0.9; 95% CI: 0.6-1.2; P = 0.497), or discontinuation rates due to lack of efficacy (RR = 0.9; 95% CI: 0.4-2.0; P = 0.871) between the two groups. Fewer mirtazapine-treated patients complained of insomnia (RR = 0.5; 95% CI: 0.3-0.9; P = 0.017), nausea (RR = 0.3; 95% CI: 0.3-0.5; P < 0.0001), whereas fewer SSRI-treated patients complained of fatigue (RR = 1.5; 95% CI: 1.1-2.4; P = 0.028), excessive sleepiness (RR = 1.3; 95% CI: 1.1-1.7; P = 0.020), weight-gain (RR = 3.8; 95% CI: 2.3-6.4; P < 0.0001) or dry mouth (RR = 1.8; 95% CI: 1.3-2.4; P < 0.0001) during the course of treatment. These results suggest that mirtazapine and the SSRIs differ with respect to their side-effect profile but not their overall efficacy in the treatment of MDD.

Association study between vesicle-associated membrane protein 2 gene polymorphisms and fluvoxamine response in Japanese major depressive patients

BACKGROUND

Vesicle-associated membrane protein 2 (VAMP2) is a key component of the synaptic vesicle docking/fusion machinery and its mRNA reportedly increases in the frontal cortex of rats following chronic antidepressant and electroconvulsive treatment. VAMP2 is therefore thought to be involved in the mechanism of action of antidepressants and may alter their efficacy. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the VAMP2 gene is associated with clinical responses to a specific antidepressant, fluvoxamine.

METHODS

A total of 106 patients with major depressive disorder were given fluvoxamine (50-200 mg/day) for 8 weeks and assessed for severity of depression using the Semi-Structured Interview Guide of the Hamilton Depressive Scale (SIGH-D; 17 items) at 0 and 8 weeks. We defined a clinical response as more than a 50% reduction in baseline SIGH-D within 8 weeks, and defined clinical remission as a SIGH-D score of less than 7 at 8 weeks. Genotyping was performed by PCR-RFLP.

RESULTS

Analysis of haplotype tagging single nucleotide polymorphisms as well as haplotype analysis did not reveal any significant associations.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the VAMP2 gene is unlikely to play a major role in the efficacy of fluvoxamine.

Tolerability and safety of fluvoxamine and other antidepressants

Selective serotonin [5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)] reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and the 5-HT noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, venlafaxine, are mainstays in treatment for depression. The highly specific actions of SSRIs of enhancing serotonergic neurotransmission appears to explain their benefit, while lack of direct actions on other neurotransmitter systems is responsible for their superior safety profile compared with tricyclic antidepressants. Although SSRIs (and venlafaxine) have similar adverse effects, certain differences are emerging. Fluvoxamine may have fewer effects on sexual dysfunction and sleep pattern. SSRIs have a cardiovascular safety profile superior to that of tricyclic antidepressants for patients with cardiovascular disease; fluvoxamine is safe in patients with cardiovascular disease and in the elderly. A discontinuation syndrome may develop upon abrupt SSRI cessation. SSRIs are more tolerable than tricyclic antidepressants in overdose, and there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that they are associated with an increased risk of suicide. Although the literature suggests that there are no clinically significant differences in efficacy amongst SSRIs, treatment decisions need to be based on considerations such as patient acceptability, response history and toxicity.

The future of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in psychiatric treatment

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are widely prescribed and widely regarded as a first-line treatment for depression. Yet, a growing body of evidence indicates that these agents are only moderately more effective than placebo in treating major depressive disorder. In recent years, it has been debated whether SSRIs offer any clinically meaningful advantage over placebos. As part of this debate, it has been argued that these agents are first-line treatments for some forms of depression but not necessarily for others. The present paper examines two hypotheses that are central to these issues. The first hypothesis is that SSRIs are more effective than placebo for some types of depression but not for others. The second is that SSRIs are more effective than psychotherapies for some types of depression than others. A review of the empirical literature reveals three main classifications of depression that are relevant to the first hypothesis: (a) more vs. less severe depression, (b) melancholic vs. non-melancholic depression, and (c) depression defined according to associated genetic factors (particularly the long vs. short allele of the serotonin transporter gene promoter). There is no strong or consistent support for (a) or (b). There is, however, emerging and consistent evidence for (c), and so the first hypothesis is tentatively supported, but only for (c). Most of the empirical evidence does not support the second hypothesis. Psychotherapies (cognitive-behavioral and interpersonal therapies) and SSRIs generally have equivalent efficacy, regardless of the severity of depression. The research literature also suggests a third hypothesis that remains to be evaluated: that SSRIs are more effective for treating anxiety disorders (and possibly other disorders) than they are for treating depression. If that hypothesis is supported by subsequent research, then the future of SSRIs may lie largely in the treatment of anxiety disorders, and in the management of particular subtypes of depression.

Antidepressants and their effect on sleep

Given the relationship between sleep and depression, there is inevitably going to be an effect of antidepressants on sleep. Current evidence suggests that this effect depends on the class of antidepressant used and the dosage. The extent of variation between the effects of antidepressants and sleep may relate to their mechanism of action. This systematic review examines randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) that have reported the effect that antidepressants appear to have on sleep. RCTs are not restricted to depressed populations, since several studies provide useful information about the effects on sleep in other groups. Nevertheless, the distinction is made between those studies because the participant's health may influence the baseline sleep profiles and the effect of the antidepressant. Insomnia is often seen with monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), with all tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) except amitriptyline, and all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with venlafaxine and moclobemide as well. Sedation has been reported with all TCAs except desipramine, with mirtazapine and nefazodone, the TCA-related maprotiline, trazodone and mianserin, and with all MAOIs. REM sleep suppression has been observed with all TCAs except trimipramine, but especially clomipramine, with all MAOIs and SSRIs and with venlafaxine, trazodone and bupropion. However, the effect on sleep varies between compounds within antidepressant classes, differences relating to the amount of sedative or alerting (insomnia) effects, changes to baseline sleep parameters, differences relating to REM sleep, and the degree of sleep-related side effects.

Effects of dopaminergic and serotonergic manipulation on emotional processing: a pharmacological fMRI study

Recent neuroimaging studies have demonstrated abnormal central emotional processing in psychiatric disorders. The dopamine (DA) systems and serotonin (5-HT) systems are the main target of psychopharmacotherapy. DA D2 receptor antagonists and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are widely used in psychiatric practice. Investigating the effects of these drugs on emotional processing should lead to a better understanding of the pathophysiology and pharmacotherapy of neuropsychiatric disorders. We aimed to examine effects of dopaminergic and serotonergic manipulation on neural responses to unpleasant pictures in healthy volunteers using pharmacological fMRI. Thirteen healthy male subjects participated in a single-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled design study. Each subject participated in three fMRI sessions. In each session, participants were orally administered either 25 mg of sultopride or 50 mg of fluvoxamine or placebo prior to scanning, and neural responses to unpleasant and neutral pictures were recorded. Despite no significant differences being found in the subjective ratings of affective pictures across three sessions, compared to placebo, acute treatments of DA D2 receptor antagonists and SSRIs commonly attenuated the amygdala activity, although both treatments had slightly different modulatory effects on other components of the neural circuit of emotional processing. This study has shown that even acute treatment of drugs that manipulate neurotransmitter systems could affect brain activation associated with emotional processing in human brain. At the same time, our findings suggest that pharmacological fMRI could be a powerful tool for investigating the neurophysiological properties of drugs targeting neuropsychiatric disorders.

Fluoxetine versus other types of pharmacotherapy for depression

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.