Factors associated with non-completion in a double-blind randomized controlled trial of olanzapine plus sertraline versus olanzapine plus placebo for psychotic depression

Effect of age, sex, and morbidity count on trial attrition: meta-analysis of individual participant level data from phase 3/4 industry funded clinical trials

Objectives

To estimate the association between individual participant characteristics and attrition from randomised controlled trials.

Design

Meta-analysis of individual participant level data (IPD).

Data sources

Clinical trial repositories (Clinical Study Data Request and Yale University Open Data Access).

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Eligible phase 3 or 4 trials identified according to prespecified criteria (PROSPERO CRD42018048202).

Main outcome measures

Association between comorbidity count (identified using medical history or concomitant drug treatment data) and trial attrition (failure for any reason to complete the final trial visit), estimated in logistic regression models and adjusted for age and sex. Estimates were meta-analysed in bayesian linear models, with partial pooling across index conditions and drug classes.

Results

In 92 trials across 20 index conditions and 17 drug classes, the mean comorbidity count ranged from 0.3 to 2.7. Neither age nor sex was clearly associated with attrition (odds ratio 1.04, 95% credible interval 0.98 to 1.11; and 0.99, 0.93 to 1.05, respectively). However, comorbidity count was associated with trial attrition (odds ratio per additional comorbidity 1.11, 95% credible interval 1.07 to 1.14). No evidence of non-linearity (assessed via a second order polynomial) was seen in the association between comorbidity count and trial attrition, with minimal variation across drug classes and index conditions. At a trial level, an increase in participant comorbidity count has a minor impact on attrition: for a notional trial with high level of attrition in individuals without comorbidity, doubling the mean comorbidity count from 1 to 2 translates to an increase in trial attrition from 29% to 31%.

Conclusions

Increased comorbidity count, irrespective of age and sex, is associated with a modest increased odds of participant attrition. The benefit of increased generalisability of including participants with multimorbidity seems likely to outweigh the disadvantages of increased attrition.

Pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression

BACKGROUND

Evidence is limited regarding the most effective pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression: monotherapy with an antidepressant, monotherapy with an antipsychotic, another treatment (e.g. mifepristone), or combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and last updated in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

1. To compare the clinical efficacy of pharmacological treatments for patients with an acute psychotic depression: antidepressant monotherapy, antipsychotic monotherapy, mifepristone monotherapy, and the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic versus placebo and/or each other. 2. To assess whether differences in response to treatment in the current episode are related to non-response to prior treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

A search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR); Ovid MEDLINE (1950-); Embase (1974-); and PsycINFO (1960-) was conducted on 21 February 2020. Reference lists of all included studies and related reviews were screened and key study authors contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with acute major depression with psychotic features, as well as RCTs consisting of participants with acute major depression with or without psychotic features, that reported separately on the subgroup of participants with psychotic features.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies, according to criteria from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data were entered into RevMan 5.1. We used intention-to-treat data. Primary outcomes were clinical response for efficacy and overall dropout rate for harm/tolerance. Secondary outcome were remission of depression, change from baseline severity score, quality of life, and dropout rate due to adverse effects. For dichotomous efficacy outcomes (i.e. response and overall dropout), risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.  Regarding the primary outcome of harm, only overall dropout rates were available for all studies. If the study did not report any of the response criteria as defined above, remission as defined here could be used as an alternative. For continuously distributed outcomes, it was not possible to extract data from the RCTs.  MAIN RESULTS: The search identified 3947 abstracts, but only 12 RCTs with a total of 929 participants could be included in the review. Because of clinical heterogeneity, few meta-analyses were possible. The main outcome was reduction in severity (response) of depression, not of psychosis. For depression response, we found no evidence of a difference between antidepressant and placebo (RR 8.40, 95% CI 0.50 to 142.27; participants = 27, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or between antipsychotic and placebo (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.73; participants = 201, studies = 2; very low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, we found no evidence of a difference in overall dropouts with antidepressant (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.51; participants = 27, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.08; participants = 201, studies = 2; very low-certainty evidence). No evidence suggests a difference in depression response (RR 2.09, 95% CI 0.64 to 6.82; participants = 36, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or overall dropouts (RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.18 to 18.02; participants = 36, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) between antidepressant and antipsychotic. For depression response, low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests that the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic may be more effective than antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.38; participants = 447, studies = 4), more effective than antidepressant monotherapy (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.80; participants = 245, studies = 5), and more effective than placebo (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.82; participants = 148, studies = 2). Very low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in overall dropouts between the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic versus antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; participants = 447, studies = 4), antidepressant monotherapy (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.50; participants = 245, studies = 5), or placebo alone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.18; participants = 148, studies = 2). No study measured change in depression severity from baseline, quality of life, or dropouts due to adverse events. We found no RCTs with mifepristone that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Risk of bias is considerable: we noted differences between studies with regards to diagnosis, uncertainties around randomisation and allocation concealment, treatment interventions (pharmacological differences between various antidepressants and antipsychotics), and outcome criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychotic depression is heavily under-studied, limiting confidence in the conclusions drawn. Some evidence indicates that combination therapy with an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than either treatment alone or placebo. Evidence is limited for treatment with an antidepressant alone or with an antipsychotic alone. Evidence for efficacy of mifepristone is lacking.

Trajectories of depressive symptoms in the acute phase of psychosis: Implications for treatment

Depression is common in schizophrenia and associated with negative outcomes. Previous studies have identified heterogeneity in treatment response in schizophrenia. We aimed to investigate different trajectories of depression in patients suffering from psychosis and predictors of change in depressive symptoms during antipsychotic treatment. Two hundred and twenty-six patients >18 years acutely admitted due to psychosis were consecutively included and the follow-up was 27 weeks. The Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) sum score was the primary outcome. Latent growth curve (LGCM) and Growth Mixture Models (GMM) were conducted. Predictors were the Positive sum score of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale for Schizophrenia (PANSS), Schizophrenia spectrum/non-spectrum psychoses, gender and being antipsychotic naive at inclusion. We found support for three depression-trajectories, including a high- (14.7%), a low depression-level (69.6%) class and a third depressed class quickly decreasing to a low level (15.7%). Change in CDSS was associated with change in PANSS positive score in all time intervals (4 weeks: b = 0.18, p < 0.001, 3 months: 0.21, p < 0.023, 6 months: 0.43, p < 0.001) and with a diagnosis within schizophrenia spectrum but not with antipsychotic naivety or gender. The schizophrenia-spectrum patients had less depressive symptoms at inclusion (-2.63, p < 0.001). In conclusion, an early responding and a treatment refractory group were identified. The treatment-refractory patients are candidates for enhanced anti-depressive treatment, for which current evidence is limited. The post-psychotic depression group was characterized by depressive symptoms in the acute phase as well. We could not identify differentiating characteristics of the depression trajectories.

The effect of counseling on willingness to use a hypothetical medication and perceptions of medication safety

BACKGROUND

Poor medication adherence is an ongoing issue, and contributes to increased hospitalizations and healthcare costs. Although most adverse effects are rare, the perceived risk of adverse effects may contribute to low adherence rates.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to determine how adverse effect likelihood and pharmacist counseling on adverse effect prevention affects individuals': (1) willingness to use a hypothetical medication and (2) perceptions of medication safety.

METHODS

This study used a 3 × 3 experimental design. Participants (n = 601) viewed a hypothetical scenario asking them to imagine being prescribed an anti-asthma medication that could cause fungal infections of the throat. Participants were randomized to 1 of 9 scenarios that differed on: probability of developing an infection (5%, 20%, no probability mentioned) and whether they were told how to reduce the risk of infection (no prevention strategy discussed, prevention strategy discussed, prevention strategy discussed with explanation for how it works). Participants were recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk.

RESULTS

Participants were less willing to take the medication (F = 12.86, p < 0.0001) and considered it less safe (F = 13.11, p < 0.0001) when the probability of fungal infection was presented as 20% compared to 5% or when no probability information was given. Participants were more willing to take the medication (F = 11.78, p < 0.0001) and considered it safer (F = 11.17, p < 0.0001) when a prevention strategy was given. Finally, there was a non-statistically significant interaction between the probability and prevention strategy information such that provision of prevention information reduced the effect of variation in the probability of infection on both willingness to use the medication and perceived medication safety.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal risk communication involves more than informing patients about possible adverse effects. Pharmacists could potentially improve patient acceptance of therapeutic recommendations, and allay medication safety concerns, by counseling about strategies patients can implement to reduce the perceived risk of adverse effects.

Use of drug therapy in the management of symptomatic ureteric stones in hospitalised adults: a multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis of a calcium channel blocker (nifedipine) and an alpha-blocker (tamsulosin) (the SUSPEND trial)

BACKGROUND

Ureteric colic, the term used to describe the pain felt when a stone passes down the ureter from the kidney to the bladder, is a frequent reason for people to seek emergency health care. Treatment with the muscle-relaxant drugs tamsulosin hydrochloride (Petyme, TEVA UK Ltd) and nifedipine (Coracten(®), UCB Pharma Ltd) as medical expulsive therapy (MET) is increasingly being used to improve the likelihood of spontaneous stone passage and lessen the need for interventional procedures. However, there remains considerable uncertainty around the effectiveness of these drugs for routine use.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether or not treatment with either tamsulosin 400 µg or nifedipine 30 mg for up to 4 weeks increases the rate of spontaneous stone passage for people with ureteric colic compared with placebo, and whether or not it is cost-effective for the UK NHS.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, randomised controlled trial comparing two active drugs, tamsulosin and nifedipine, against placebo. Participants, clinicians and trial staff were blinded to treatment allocation. A cost-utility analysis was performed using data gathered during trial participation.

SETTING

Urology departments in 24 UK NHS hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged between 18 and 65 years admitted as an emergency with a single ureteric stone measuring ≤ 10 mm, localised by computerised tomography, who were able to take trial medications and complete trial procedures.

INTERVENTIONS

Eligible participants were randomised 1 : 1 : 1 to take tamsulosin 400 µg, nifedipine 30 mg or placebo once daily for up to 4 weeks to make the following comparisons: tamsulosin or nifedipine (MET) versus placebo and tamsulosin versus nifedipine.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary effectiveness outcome was the proportion of participants who spontaneously passed their stone. This was defined as the lack of need for active intervention for ureteric stones at up to 4 weeks after randomisation. This was determined from 4- and 12-week case-report forms completed by research staff, and from the 4-week participant self-reported questionnaire. The primary economic outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over 12 weeks. We estimated costs from NHS sources and calculated QALYs from participant completion of the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions health status questionnaire 3-level response (EQ-5D-3L™) at baseline, 4 weeks and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Primary outcome analysis included 97% of the 1167 participants randomised (378/391 tamsulosin, 379/387 nifedipine and 379/399 placebo participants). The proportion of participants who spontaneously passed their stone did not differ between MET and placebo [odds ratio (OR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.43; absolute difference 0.8%, 95% CI -4.1% to 5.7%] or between tamsulosin and nifedipine [OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.53; absolute difference 1%, 95% CI -4.6% to 6.6%]. There was no evidence of a difference in QALYs gained or in cost between the trial groups, which means that the use of MET would be very unlikely to be considered cost-effective. These findings were unchanged by extensive sensitivity analyses around predictors of stone passage, including sex, stone size and stone location.

CONCLUSIONS

Tamsulosin and nifedipine did not increase the likelihood of stone passage over 4 weeks for people with ureteric colic, and use of these drugs is very unlikely to be cost-effective for the NHS. Further work is required to investigate the phenomenon of large, high-quality trials showing smaller effect size than meta-analysis of several small, lower-quality studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN69423238. European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT) number 2010-019469-26.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression

BACKGROUND

Evidence is limited regarding the most effective pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression: combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic, monotherapy with an antidepressant or monotherapy with an antipsychotic. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and last updated in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

1. To compare the clinical efficacy of pharmacological treatments for patients with an acute psychotic depression: antidepressant monotherapy, antipsychotic monotherapy and the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic, compared with each other and/or with placebo.2. To assess whether differences in response to treatment in the current episode are related to non-response to prior treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

A search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group Register (CCDANCTR) was carried out (to 12 April 2013). These registers include reports of randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: EMBASE (1970-), MEDLINE (1950-) and PsycINFO (1960-). Reference lists of all studies and related reviews were screened and key authors contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with acute major depression with psychotic features, as well as RCTs consisting of participants with acute major depression with or without psychotic features, that reported separately on the subgroup of participants with psychotic features.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies, according to the criteria of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data were entered into RevMan 5.1. We used intention-to-treat data. For dichotomous efficacy outcomes, the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. For continuously distributed outcomes, it was not possible to extract data from the RCTs. Regarding the primary outcome of harm, only overall dropout rates were available for all studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 3659 abstracts, but only 12 RCTs with a total of 929 participants could be included in the review. Because of clinical heterogeneity, few meta-analyses were possible. The main outcome was reduction of severity (response) of depression, not of psychosis.We found no evidence for the efficacy of monotherapy with an antidepressant or an antipsychotic.However, evidence suggests that the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than antidepressant monotherapy (three RCTs; RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.98, P = 0.006), more effective than antipsychotic monotherapy (four RCTs; RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.38, P = 0.00001) and more effective than placebo (two identical RCTs; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.82, P = 0.003).Risk of bias is considerable: there were differences between studies with regard to diagnosis, uncertainties around randomisation and allocation concealment, differences in treatment interventions (pharmacological differences between the various antidepressants and antipsychotics) and different outcome criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychotic depression is heavily understudied, limiting confidence in the conclusions drawn. Some evidence indicates that combination therapy with an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than either treatment alone or placebo. Evidence is limited for treatment with an antidepressant alone or with an antipsychotic alone.

Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses of previous randomised controlled trials concluded that the smooth muscle relaxant drugs tamsulosin and nifedipine assisted stone passage for people managed expectantly for ureteric colic, but emphasised the need for high-quality trials with wide inclusion criteria. We aimed to fulfil this need by testing effectiveness of these drugs in a standard clinical care setting.

METHODS

For this multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited adults (aged 18-65 years) undergoing expectant management for a single ureteric stone identified by CT at 24 UK hospitals. Participants were randomly assigned by a remote randomisation system to tamsulosin 400 μg, nifedipine 30 mg, or placebo taken daily for up to 4 weeks, using an algorithm with centre, stone size (≤5 mm or >5 mm), and stone location (upper, mid, or lower ureter) as minimisation covariates. Participants, clinicians, and trial personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who did not need further intervention for stone clearance within 4 weeks of randomisation, analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population defined as all eligible patients for whom we had primary outcome data. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT number 2010-019469-26, and as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 69423238.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 11, 2011, and Dec 20, 2013, we randomly assigned 1167 participants, 1136 (97%) of whom were included in the primary analysis (17 were excluded because of ineligibility and 14 participants were lost to follow-up). 303 (80%) of 379 participants in the placebo group did not need further intervention by 4 weeks, compared with 307 (81%) of 378 in the tamsulosin group (adjusted risk difference 1·3% [95% CI -5·7 to 8·3]; p=0·73) and 304 (80%) of 379 in the nifedipine group (0·5% [-5·6 to 6·5]; p=0·88). No difference was noted between active treatment and placebo (p=0·78), or between tamsulosin and nifedipine (p=0·77). Serious adverse events were reported in three participants in the nifedipine group (one had right loin pain, diarrhoea, and vomiting; one had malaise, headache, and chest pain; and one had severe chest pain, difficulty breathing, and left arm pain) and in one participant in the placebo group (headache, dizziness, lightheadedness, and chronic abdominal pain).

INTERPRETATION

Tamsulosin 400 μg and nifedipine 30 mg are not effective at decreasing the need for further treatment to achieve stone clearance in 4 weeks for patients with expectantly managed ureteric colic.

FUNDING

UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Antidepressant medication treatment patterns in Asian patients with major depressive disorder

PURPOSE

To describe pharmacological treatment patterns in Asian patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), including duration of treatment, reasons for medication discontinuation, rate of medication nonadherence, factors associated with medication nonadherence, and impact of medication nonadherence on depression outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were from a prospective, observational 3-month study of East Asian MDD inpatients from 40 sites in six East Asian countries who initiated antidepressant treatment at baseline (n=569). Assessments included the Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale (CGI-S), 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17), painful physical symptoms, response and remission, employment status, quality of life (QoL) (EuroQOL Questionnaire-5 Dimensions [EQ-5D]) and health state using the visual analog scale, adherence by clinician opinion, and patient self-report. Cox proportional hazards modeling, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and regression modeling were employed.

RESULTS

Median time to discontinuation for any reason was 70 days (95% confidence interval: 47; 95). Reasons for discontinuation were inadequate response in 64.1%, nonadherence in 6.2%, and adverse events in 4.1%; 25.6% who discontinued experienced an adequate response to treatment. In those patients who had an adequate response, age and country were significantly associated with time to medication discontinuation. Patient-reported nonadherence was 57.5% and clinician-reported nonadherence was 14.6% (62/426). At 3 months, nonadherent patients had significantly higher disease severity (CGI-S, P=0.0001; HAMD-17, P<0.0001), lower QoL ratings (EQ-5D tariff, P=0.0007; EQ-5D visual analog scale, P=0.0024), and lower response and remission rates (both P<0.0001) compared with adherent patients. The odds of response and remission were greater among adherent patients.

CONCLUSION

Early discontinuation of antidepressants among Asian MDD patients was high. A total of 25.6% who discontinued prematurely were experiencing an adequate response to treatment. Nonadherent patients had significantly higher disease severity, lower QoL ratings, and lower response and remission rates compared with adherent patients.

Pharmacologic treatment of depression in the elderly

OBJECTIVE

To discuss pharmacologic treatment of depression in the elderly, including choice of antidepressants, titration of dose, monitoring of response and side effects, and treatment of unresponsive cases.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

The 2006 Canadian Coalition for Seniors' Mental Health guideline on the assessment and treatment of depression was used as a primary source. To identify articles published since the guideline, MEDLINE was searched from 2007 to 2012 using the terms depression, treatment, drug therapy, and elderly.

MAIN MESSAGE

The goal of treatment should be remission of symptoms. Improvement of symptoms can be monitored by identifying patient goals or by use of a clinical tool such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Treatment should be considered in 3 phases: an acute treatment phase to achieve remission of symptoms, a continuation phase to prevent recurrence of the same episode of illness (relapse), and a maintenance (prophylaxis) phase to prevent future episodes (recurrence). Initial dosing should be half of the usual adult starting dose and be titrated regularly until the patient responds, until the maximum dose is reached, or until side effects limit further increases. Common side effects of medications include falls, nausea, dizziness, headaches, and, less commonly, hyponatremia and QT interval changes. Strategies for switching or augmenting antidepressants are discussed. Older patients should be treated for at least a year from when clinical improvement is noted, and those with recurrent depression or severe symptoms should continue treatment indefinitely. Treatment of specific situations such as severe depression or depression with psychosis is discussed, including the use of electroconvulsive therapy. Criteria for referral to geriatric psychiatry are provided; however, many family physicians do not have easy access to this resource or to other nonpharmacologic clinical strategies.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness of pharmacologic treatment of depression is not substantially affected by age. Identification of depression, choice of appropriate treatment, titration of medications, monitoring of side effects, and adequate duration of treatment will improve outcomes for older patients.

Pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression

BACKGROUND

Evidence is limited regarding the most effective pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression: combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic, monotherapy with an antidepressant or monotherapy with an antipsychotic. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and last updated in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

1. To compare the clinical efficacy of pharmacological treatments for patients with an acute psychotic depression: antidepressant monotherapy, antipsychotic monotherapy and the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic, compared with each other and/or with placebo.2. To assess whether differences in response to treatment in the current episode are related to non-response to prior treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

A search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group Register (CCDANCTR) was carried out (to 12 April 2013). These registers include reports of randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: EMBASE (1970-), MEDLINE (1950-) and PsycINFO (1960-). Reference lists of all studies and related reviews were screened and key authors contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with acute major depression with psychotic features, as well as RCTs consisting of participants with acute major depression with or without psychotic features, that reported separately on the subgroup of participants with psychotic features.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies, according to the criteria of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data were entered into RevMan 5.1. We used intention-to-treat data. For dichotomous efficacy outcomes, the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. For continuously distributed outcomes, it was not possible to extract data from the RCTs. Regarding the primary outcome of harm, only overall dropout rates were available for all studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 3659 abstracts, but only 12 RCTs with a total of 929 participants could be included in the review. Because of clinical heterogeneity, few meta-analyses were possible. The main outcome was reduction of severity (response) of depression, not of psychosis.We found no evidence for the efficacy of monotherapy with an antidepressant or an antipsychotic.However, evidence suggests that the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than antidepressant monotherapy (three RCTs; RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.98, P = 0.006), more effective than antipsychotic monotherapy (four RCTs; RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.38, P = 0.00001) and more effective than placebo (two identical RCTs; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.82, P = 0.003).Risk of bias is considerable: there were differences between studies with regard to diagnosis, uncertainties around randomisation and allocation concealment, differences in treatment interventions (pharmacological differences between the various antidepressants and antipsychotics) and different outcome criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychotic depression is heavily understudied, limiting confidence in the conclusions drawn. Some evidence indicates that combination therapy with an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than either treatment alone or placebo. Evidence is limited for treatment with an antidepressant alone or with an antipsychotic alone.

Psychotic depression--beyond the antidepressant/antipsychotic combination

Psychotic depression is an identified subtype of major depression that has many features of a distinct psychiatric disorder. Recent studies support previous findings that psychotic depression is associated with a less favorable course of illness. Moreover, the presence of a single psychotic symptom appears to predict decreased responsiveness to antidepressant monotherapy. Recent studies also support biological differences between psychotic and non-psychotic depression. Previous findings of greater HPA axis dysregulation are supported by evidence of diminished cortisol suppression with the mineralocorticoid antagonist fludrocortisone in psychotic depression. Moreover, a functional neuroimaging study demonstrated greater activation in parahippocampal and tempoparietal regions in psychotic depression during a memory task. In support of several previous treatment studies, a recent meta-analysis of studies that compared an antidepressant-antipsychotic combination to antidepressants or antipsychotics alone found a therapeutic advantage with the combined treatment over monotherapy. A recent clinical trial suggests that mifepristone, a glucocorticoid antagonist, may be an effective adjunctive treatment for psychotic depression.

Antidepressants for people with both schizophrenia and depression

BACKGROUND

Depressive symptoms, often of substantial severity, are found in 50% of newly diagnosed suffers of schizophrenia and 33% of people with chronic schizophrenia who have relapsed. Depression is associated with dysphoria, disability, reduction of motivation to accomplish tasks and the activities of daily living, an increased duration of illness and more frequent relapses.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effects of antidepressant medication for the treatment of depression in people who also suffer with schizophrenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We undertook electronic searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (October 2000), ClinPsych (1988-2000), The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2000), EMBASE (1980-2000) and MEDLINE (1966-2000). This was supplemented by citation searching, personal contact with authors and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised clinical trials that compared antidepressant medication with placebo for people with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who were also suffering from depression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently selected and extracted. For homogeneous dichotomous data the fixed effects risk difference (RD), the 95% confidence intervals (CI) and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, reviewers calculated weighted mean differences. Statistical tests for heterogeneity were also undertaken.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. All were small, and randomised fewer than 30 people to each group. Most included people after the most acute phase of psychosis and investigated a wide range of antidepressants. The quality of reporting varied a great deal. For the outcome of 'no important clinical response' antidepressants were significantly better than placebo (n=209, 5 RCTs, summary risk difference fixed effects -0.26, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.13, NNT 4 95% CI 3 to 8). The depression score at the end of the trial, as assessed by the Hamilton Rating Scale (HAM-D), seemed to suggest that using antidepressants was beneficial, but this was only statistically significant when a fixed effects model was used (n=261, 6 RCTs, WMD fixed effects -2.2 95% CI -3.8 to -0.6; WMD random effects -2.1 95% CI -5.04 to 0.84). There was no evidence that antidepressant treatment led to a deterioration of psychotic symptoms in the included trials. Heterogeneous data on 'any adverse effect' are equivocal (n=110, 2 RCTs, RD fixed 0.11 CI -0.03 to 0.25, Chi square 7.5, df=1, p=0.0062). In one small study extrapyramidal adverse effects were reported less often by those allocated to antidepressant (n=52, 1 RCT, RD fixed -0.28 CI -0.5 to -0.04). Only about 10% of people left these studies by 12 weeks. There was no apparent difference between those allocated placebo and those given an antidepressant (n=426, 10 RCTs, RD fixed 0.04 CI -0.02 to 0.1).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the literature was of poor quality, and only a small number of trials made useful contributions. Though our results provide some evidence to indicate that antidepressants may be beneficial for people with depression and schizophrenia, the results, at best, are likely to overestimate the treatment effect, and, at worst, could merely reflect selective reporting of statistically significant results and publication bias. At present, there is no convincing evidence to support or refute the use of antidepressants in treating depression in people with schizophrenia. We need further well-designed, conducted and reported research to determine the best approach towards treating depression in people with schizophrenia.