Efficacy of antidepressants: bias in randomized clinical trials and related issues

Clinical outcomes associated with antidepressant use in inflammatory bowel disease patients and a matched control cohort

Antidepressant medications (AMs) are frequently used in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Many AMs enhance serotonin (5-HT) availability, but this phenomenon may actually worsen IBD. We hypothesized that use of 5-HT-enhancing AMs would be associated with poor clinical outcomes in these disorders. We performed a retrospective cohort study using the Merative Health Marketscan® commercial claims database between 1/1/05 and 12/31/14. Participants (18-63 years) were either controls or had ≥ 2 ICD-9 diagnoses for IBD with ≥ 1 year of continuous insurance enrollment before index diagnosis and 2 years after. We identified new AM prescriptions using the medication possession ratio. Primary outcomes were corticosteroid use (IBD-only), IBD-related complication (IBD-only), IBD-related surgery (IBD-only), hospitalization, and emergency department (ED) visit(s) within 2 years of diagnosis or starting AM. We calculated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) in IBD AM users (for each outcome). We also performed subgroup analyses considering IBD and AM subtype. In the IBD cohort (n = 29,393, 41.4% female; 42.2%CD), 5.2% used AMs. In IBD, AM use was independently associated with corticosteroid use, ED visits, and hospitalizations, but not IBD-related complications. AM use was associated with a decreased risk of surgery. In the control cohort (n = 29,393, 41.4% female), AM use was also independently associated with ED visits and hospitalizations, and there was an increased likelihood of these two outcomes compared to the IBD cohort. In conclusion, while AM use was independently associated with an increased risk of ED visits and hospitalization in IBD, these risks were statistically more common in a matched control cohort. Additionally, AM use was associated with reduced risk of surgery in IBD, demonstrating a potential protective role in this setting.

The Effects of CYP2C19 Genotype on Proxies of SSRI Antidepressant Response in the UK Biobank

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most commonly used psychopharmaceutical treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD), but individual responses to SSRIs vary greatly. CYP2C19 is a key enzyme involved in the metabolism of several drugs, including SSRIs. Variations in the CYP2C19 gene are associated with differential metabolic activity, and thus differential SSRI exposure; accordingly, the CYP2C19 genotype may affect the therapeutic response and clinical outcomes, though existing evidence of this link is not entirely consistent. Therefore, we analysed data from the UK Biobank, a large, deeply phenotyped prospective study, to investigate the effects of CYP2C19 metaboliser phenotypes on several clinical outcomes derived from primary care records, including multiple measures of antidepressant switching, discontinuation, duration, and side effects. In this dataset, 24,729 individuals were prescribed citalopram, 3012 individuals were prescribed escitalopram, and 12,544 individuals were prescribed sertraline. Consistent with pharmacological expectations, CYP2C19 poor metabolisers on escitalopram were more likely to switch antidepressants, have side effects following first prescription, and be on escitalopram for a shorter duration compared to normal metabolisers. CYP2C19 poor and intermediate metabolisers on citalopram also exhibited increased odds of discontinuation and shorter durations relative to normal metabolisers. Generally, no associations were found between metabolic phenotypes and proxies of response to sertraline. Sensitivity analyses in a depression subgroup and metabolic activity scores corroborated results from the primary analysis. In summary, our findings suggest that CYP2C19 genotypes, and thus metabolic phenotypes, may have utility in determining clinical responses to SSRIs, particularly escitalopram and citalopram, though further investigation of such a relationship is warranted.

Biases in reporting of adverse effects in clinical trials, and potential impact on safety assessments in systematic reviews and therapy guidelines

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are an important source of adverse effects data, including analyses in systematic reviews and recommendations in therapy guidelines. Trial publication bias may have profound effects on safety perceptions. This MiniReview presents and discusses biases in reporting of safety data in clinical trials and the implications for systematic reviews and guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this work are to analyse risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in systemic corticosteroid trials and to assess adverse effects reporting in a fluoxetine trial in depression (Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study [TADS]) and descriptions of adverse effects in adolescent depression therapy guidelines.

METHODS

We performed literature reviews and descriptive analyse of clinical trials with corticosteroids, and publications from the TADS trial. Risk of gastrointestinal bleeding from corticosteroids was analysed by meta-analysis.

FINDINGS

Gastrointestinal bleeding definitions varied considerably between trials. The incidence was significantly increased in hospitalized, but not in ambulant, patients compared to placebo. We identified several biases concerning TADS safety reporting, including severity thresholds and nonpublication of most adverse effects data beyond the initial 12 weeks. Therapy guidelines on adolescent depression mentioned suicidality risk, but many failed to mention other adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified several pitfalls in adverse effects reporting in clinical trials. These include heterogeneous disease definitions, reporting thresholds, and incomplete reporting. Trial bias may have great impact on risk assessments in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Dysregulation of adult hippocampal neuroplasticity in major depression: pathogenesis and therapeutic implications

Major depressive disorder (MDD) was previously hypothesized to be a disease of monoamine deficiency in which low levels of monoamines in the synaptic cleft were believed to underlie depressive symptoms. More recently, however, there has been a paradigm shift toward a neuroplasticity hypothesis of depression in which downstream effects of antidepressants, such as increased neurogenesis, contribute to improvements in cognition and mood. This review takes a top-down approach to assess how changes in behavior and hippocampal-dependent circuits may be attributed to abnormalities at the molecular, structural, and synaptic level. We conclude with a discussion of how antidepressant treatments share a common effect in modulating neuroplasticity and consider outstanding questions and future perspectives.

Engagement and Usability of a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Mobile App Compared With Web-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Among College Students: Randomized Heuristic Trial

Background

Recent evidence in mobile health has demonstrated that, in some cases, apps are an effective way to improve health care delivery. Health care interventions delivered via mobile technology have demonstrated both practicality and affordability. Lately, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) interventions delivered over the internet have also shown a meaningful impact on patients with anxiety and depression.

Objective

Given the growing proliferation of smartphones and the trust in apps to support improved health behaviors and outcomes, we were interested in comparing a mobile app with Web-based methods for the delivery of CBT. This study aimed to compare the usability of a CBT mobile app called MoodTrainer with an evidence-based website called MoodGYM.

Methods

We used convenience sampling to recruit 30 students from a large Midwestern university and randomly assigned them to either the MoodGYM or MoodTrainer user group. The trial period ran for 2 weeks, after which the students completed a self-assessment survey based on Nielsen heuristics. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the survey results from the 2 groups. We also compared the number of modules attempted or completed and the time spent on CBT strategies.

Results

The results indicate that the MoodTrainer app received a higher usability score when compared with MoodGYM. Overall, 87% (13/15) of the participants felt that it was easy to navigate through the MoodTrainer app compared with 80% (12/15) of the MoodGYM participants. All MoodTrainer participants agreed that the app was easy to use and did not require any external assistance, whereas only 67% (10/15) had the same opinion for MoodGYM. Furthermore, 67% (10/15) of the MoodTrainer participants found that the navigation controls were easy to locate compared with 80% (12/15) of the MoodGYM participants. MoodTrainer users, on average, completed 2.5 modules compared with 1 module completed by MoodGYM users.

Conclusions

As among the first studies to directly compare the usability of a mobile app–based CBT with smartphone-specific features against a Web-based CBT, there is an opportunity for app-based CBT as, at least in our limited trial, it was more usable and engaging. The study was limited to evaluate usability only and not the clinical effectiveness of the app.

Guidelines for the pharmacological acute treatment of major depression: conflicts with current evidence as demonstrated with the German S3-guidelines

Several international guidelines for the acute treatment of moderate to severe unipolar depression recommend a first-line treatment with antidepressants (AD). This is based on the assumption that AD obviously outperform placebo, at least in the case of severe depression. The efficacy of AD for severe depression can only be definitely clarified with individual patient data, but corresponding studies have only been available recently. In this paper, we point out discrepancies between the content of guidelines and the scientific evidence by taking a closer look at the German S3-guidelines for the treatment of depression. Based on recent studies and a systematic review of studies using individual patient data, it turns out that AD are marginally superior to placebo in both moderate and severe depression. The clinical significance of this small drug-placebo-difference is questionable, even in the most severe forms of depression. In addition, the modest efficacy is likely an overestimation of the true efficacy due to systematic method biases. There is no related discussion in the S3-guidelines, despite substantial empirical evidence confirming these biases. In light of recent data and with their underlying biases, the recommendations in the S3-guidelines are in contradiction with the current evidence. The risk-benefit ratio of AD for severe depression may be similar to the one estimated for mild depression and thus could be unfavorable. Downgrading of the related grade of recommendation would be a logical consequence.

History of Psychopharmacology

We live in an age of psychopharmacology. One in six persons currently takes a psychotropic drug. These drugs have profoundly shaped our scientific and cultural understanding of psychiatric disease. By way of a historical review, we try to make sense of psychiatry's dependency on psychiatric drugs in the care of patients. Modern psychopharmacology began in 1950 with the synthesis of chlorpromazine. Over the course of the next 50 years, the psychiatric understanding and treatment of mental illness radically changed. Psychotropic drugs played a major part in these changes as state hospitals closed and psychotherapy gave way to drug prescriptions. Our review suggests that the success of psychopharmacology was not the consequence of increasingly more effective drugs for discrete psychiatric diseases. Instead, a complex mix of political economic realities, pharmaceutical marketing, basic science advances, and changes in the mental health-care system have led to our current infatuation with psychopharmacology.

Addressing the Side Effects of Contemporary Antidepressant Drugs: A Comprehensive Review

Randomized trials have shown that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) have better safety profiles than classical tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). However, an increasing number of studies, including meta-analyses, naturalistic studies, and longer-term studies suggested that SSRIs and SNRIs are no less safe than TCAs. We focused on comparing the common side effects of TCAs with those of newer generation antidepressants including SSRIs, SNRIs, mirtazapine, and bupropion. The main purpose was to investigate safety profile differences among drug classes rather than the individual antidepressants, so studies containing comparison data on drug groups were prioritized. In terms of safety after overdose, the common belief on newer generation antidepressants having fewer side effects than TCAs appears to be true. TCAs were also associated with higher drop-out rates, lower tolerability, and higher cardiac side-effects. However, evidence regarding side effects including dry mouth, gastrointestinal side effects, hepatotoxicity, seizure, and weight has been inconsistent, some studies demonstrated the superiority of SSRIs and SNRIs over TCAs, while others found the opposite. Some other side effects such as sexual dysfunction, bleeding, and hyponatremia were more prominent with either SSRIs or SNRIs.