Comparative efficacy of sertraline vs. fluoxetine in patients age 70 or over with major depression

Cognitive Outcomes After Antidepressant Pharmacotherapy for Late-Life Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The authors evaluated whether treatment of late-life depression (LLD) with antidepressants leads to changes in cognitive function.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies of antidepressant pharmacotherapy for adults age 50 or older (or mean age of 65 or older) with LLD was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycInfo were searched through December 31, 2022. The primary outcome was a change on cognitive test scores from baseline to after treatment. Secondary outcomes included the effects of specific medications and the associations between changes in depressive symptoms and cognitive test scores. Participants with bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, dementia, or neurological disease were excluded. Findings from all eligible studies were synthesized at a descriptive level, and a random-effects model was used to pool the results for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included. Thirteen of 19 studies showed an improvement on at least one cognitive test after antidepressant pharmacotherapy, with the most robust evidence for the memory and learning (nine of 16 studies) and processing speed (seven of 10 studies) domains and for sertraline (all five studies). Improvements in depressive symptoms were associated with improvement in cognitive test scores in six of seven relevant studies. The meta-analysis (eight studies; N=493) revealed a statistically significant overall improvement in memory and learning (five studies: effect size=0.254, 95% CI=0.103-0.404, SE=0.077); no statistically significant changes were seen in other cognitive domains. The evaluated risk of publication bias was low.

CONCLUSION

Antidepressant pharmacotherapy of LLD appears to improve certain domains of cognitive function, particularly memory and learning. This effect may be mediated by an improvement in depressive symptoms. Studies comparing individuals receiving pharmacotherapy with untreated control participants are needed.

The effect of second-generation antidepressant treatment on the attention and mental processing speed of patients with major depressive disorder: A meta-analysis study with structural equation models

Major depressive disorder (MDD) has been linked to attention and mental processing speed deficits that can be improved after pharmacological treatment. However, it is unclear whether a class of antidepressants is more effective than others to ameliorate these deficits in MDD. Additionally, the possible effects of clinical and demographic variables on improving MDD attention and processing speed deficits after antidepressant treatment are unknown. We aimed to study the possible neuropsychological effects of second-generation antidepressant classes on the attention and processing speed of MDD patients and the potential influences of clinical and demographic variables as moderators of these effects using a meta-analytic approach. Twenty-five papers were included in our study. A structural equation model meta-analysis was performed. The improvement of attention and processing speed after pharmacological treatment is clinically relevant but incomplete. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and dual inhibitors are the drugs causing the greatest improvement in the processing speed of MDD patients. Antidepressant class is an important variable linked to processing speed improvement after MDD treatment. However, the degree of improvement in both cognitive functions is strongly influenced by some clinical and demographic variables of depressed patients, such are age and education of the MDD patients, the duration of the antidepressant treatment, and the depression status of the patients.

Efficacy of Buspirone Augmentation of Escitalopram in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder with and without Atypical Features: A Randomized, 8 Week, Multicenter, Open-Label Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the treatment response and cognitive enhancement effects of buspirone augmentation of escitalopram in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), according to atypical feature subtypes of MDD.

METHODS

An 8 week, randomized, parallel-controlled, open-label study was conducted. The Columbia Atypical Depression Diagnostic Scale was administered to evaluate atypical features. Patients were assigned randomly to the buspirone augmentation or non-buspirone groups. Symptom severity and cognitive function were evaluated using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Beck Depression Inventory, Beck Anxiety Inventory, digit span test, word fluency test, and Trail Making Tests A and B.

RESULTS

A total of 89 patients were recruited. There were no significant differences in the measures between the groups; however, among the MDD patients without atypical features, the digit span and word fluency tests were improved by treatment. In the MDD patients without atypical features, the buspirone augmentation group showed a significant improvement on the digit span test compared to the non-buspirone group.

CONCLUSION

Buspirone augmentation did not demonstrate significant benefits in MDD patients; however, buspirone augmentation showed greater efficacy for the improvement of cognitive function in MDD patients without atypical features. Our study suggests that atypical features are an important factor for cognitive enhancement in buspirone augmentation treatment in patients with MDD.

Efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions in older patients with major depressive disorder: A systematic review, pairwise and network meta-analysis

As there is currently no comprehensive evaluation about the efficacy and safety of interventions in elderly patients with major depressive disorder, we did a systematic review and network meta-analysis about all interventions in this population. We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane common mental disorders group, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CochraneLibrary, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO registry until Dec 12, 2017 to identify all randomized controlled trials about the treatment of major depressive disorder in patients over an age of 65. The primary outcome was response defined as reduction of at least 50% on the Hamilton Depression Scale or any other validated depression scale. Secondary outcomes were remission, depressive symptoms, dropouts total, dropouts owing to inefficacy and dropouts due to adverse events, quality of life and social functioning. Additionally, we analysed 116 adverse events. We identified 129 references from 53 RCTs with 9274 participants published from 1990 to 2017. The mean participant age was 73.7 years. In terms of the primary outcome response to treatment the network-meta-analysis showed significant superiority compared to placebo for quetiapine and duloxetine; in addition, agomelatine, imipramine and vortioxetine outperformed placebo in pairwise meta-analyses, and there were also significant superiorities of several antidepressants compared to placebo in secondary efficacy outcomes. Very limited evidence suggests that competitive memory training, geriatric home treatment group and detached mindfulness condition reduce depressive symptoms. Several antidepressants and quetiapine have been shown to be efficacious in elderly patients with major depressive disorder, but due to the comparably few available data, the results are not robust. Differences in the multiple side-effects analysed should also be considered in drug choice. Although there were significant effects for some non-pharmacological treatments, the overall evidence for non-pharmacological treatments in major depressive disorder is insufficient, because it is based on a few trials with usually small sample sizes.

(R)-fluoxetine enhances cognitive flexibility and hippocampal cell proliferation in mice

Fluoxetine is a clinically successful antidepressant. It is a racemic mixture of (R) and (S) stereoisomers. In preclinical studies, chronic treatment with fluoxetine (10 mg/kg) had antidepressant effects correlated with increased hippocampal cell proliferation in adult rodents. However, the contribution of the enantiomers of fluoxetine is largely unknown. We investigated the effects of treatment with (R)- and (S)-fluoxetine on cognitive behavioral paradigms and examined cell proliferation in the hippocampus of C57BL/6J female mice. In a behavioral sequencing task using the IntelliCage system in which discriminated spatial patterns of rewarded and never-rewarded corners were reversed serially, (R)-fluoxetine-treated mice showed rapid acquisition of behavioral sequencing (compared with S-fluoxetine) and cognitive flexibility in subsequent reversal stages in intra- and inter-session analysis. (R)-fluoxetine also increased cell proliferation in the hippocampus, in particular in the suprapyramidal blade of the dentate gyrus. (R)-fluoxetine had superior effects to (S)-fluoxetine in elevated plus maze, forced-swim and tail-suspension tests. These results suggest that (R)-fluoxetine, which has been reported to have a shorter half-life than (S)-fluoxetine, has superior antidepressant effects and more consistently improves spatial learning and memory. This profile offers advantages in depression treatment and may also aid management of the neurocognitive impairments associated with depression.

The Cognitive Effects of Antidepressants in Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Cognitive dysfunction is often present in major depressive disorder (MDD). Several clinical trials have noted a pro-cognitive effect of antidepressants in MDD. The objective of the current systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the pooled efficacy of antidepressants on various domains of cognition in MDD.

METHODS

Trials published prior to April 15, 2015, were identified through searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, Clinicaltrials.gov, and relevant review articles. Data from randomized clinical trials assessing the cognitive effects of antidepressants were pooled to determine standard mean differences (SMD) using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Nine placebo-controlled randomized trials (2 550 participants) evaluating the cognitive effects of vortioxetine (n = 728), duloxetine (n = 714), paroxetine (n = 23), citalopram (n = 84), phenelzine (n = 28), nortryptiline (n = 32), and sertraline (n = 49) were identified. Antidepressants had a positive effect on psychomotor speed (SMD 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05-0.27; I(2) = 46%) and delayed recall (SMD 0.24; 95% CI 0.15-0.34; I(2) = 0%). The effect on cognitive control and executive function did not reach statistical significance. Of note, after removal of vortioxetine from the analysis, statistical significance was lost for psychomotor speed. Eight head-to-head randomized trials comparing the effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; n = 371), selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs; n = 25), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs; n = 138), and norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitors (NDRIs; n = 46) were identified. No statistically significant difference in cognitive effects was found when pooling results from head-to-head trials of SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, and NDRIs. Significant limitations were the heterogeneity of results, limited number of studies, and small sample sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence suggests that antidepressants have a significant positive effect on psychomotor speed and delayed recall.

Effects of remission speed and improvement of cognitive functions of depressed patients

Major depressive disorder (MDD) presents neuropsychological alterations which improve after the treatment, but it might be mediated by clinical variables. Our goal is to study whether the speed of remission of MDD bears any relation to the improvement of the patients' cognitive functioning after a successful treatment. We carried out clinical and neuropsychological assessments of 51 patients with MDD. After these procedures they underwent a 24-week treatment with fluoxetine, and were assessed again with the same battery used prior to treatment. They were arranged into three groups according to how rapid their symptoms remitted. The patients with a rapid remission presented improvements in working memory, speed of information processing, and some executive functions, unlike the other groups. Rapid remitters also improved in episodic memory and executive functions more than the other patients.

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.

Efficacy of treatment in older depressed patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials with antidepressants

BACKGROUND

This systematic review evaluated all published double-blind, randomized controlled antidepressant trials (RCTs) of acute phase treatment of older depressed patients.

METHODS

Meta-analyses were conducted in 51 double-blind RCTs of antidepressants in older patients. The results were also compared with 29 double-blind RCTs that did not produce extractable data to enter the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

All classes of antidepressant (TCA's, SSRIs and other antidepressants) were more effective than placebo in achieving response. In achieving remission however, only pooling all 3 classes of antidepressants together showed a statistically significant difference from placebo. No differences were found in remission or response rates between classes of antidepressants. TCAs were also equally effective compared with SSRIs in achieving response in more severely depressed patients. The numbers needed to treat (NNT) were 14.4 (95% CI 8.3-50) for one additional remission to antidepressants compared with placebo and 6.7 (95% CI 4.8-10) for response. The results of the double-blind RCTs that did not produce extractable data to enter the meta-analysis were in concordance with the RCTs that were included in the meta-analysis.

LIMITATIONS

Only 4 RCTs were found that have not been published. Few studies have focused on severely depressed older people.

CONCLUSIONS

Antidepressant treatment in older depressed patients is efficacious. We could not demonstrate differences in effectiveness between different classes of antidepressants; this was also the case in more severely depressed patients.

Cognitive outcomes after sertaline treatment in patients with depression of Alzheimer disease

OBJECTIVES

Although many depressed patients with Alzheimer disease (AD) are treated with antidepressants, the effect of such treatment on cognitive performance in these patients is not known. The authors report cognitive outcomes in patients with depression of AD (dAD) after a 24-week trial of sertraline or placebo.

DESIGN

Placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind trial.

SETTING

Outpatient memory clinics at five academic medical centers in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 131 patients with dAD (60 men) and Mini-Mental State Examination scores of 10-26.

INTERVENTION

Sertraline (n = 67), target dose of 100 mg daily or matching placebo (n = 64). Caregivers received standardized psychosocial intervention throughout the trial.

MEASUREMENTS

Mini-Mental State Examination, cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale, letter fluency, backward digit span, Symbol Digit Modalities Test, and Finger Tapping Test, administered at baseline, and 8, 16, and 24 weeks following baseline.

RESULTS

A series of linear models indicated no effect of treatment or of depression remission on cognitive test performance at 24 weeks. Regardless of treatment condition, very little change in cognitive test performance was noted in general.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with sertraline in patients with dAD is not associated with greater improvement in cognition at week 24 than treatment with placebo.

Change in cognitive functioning in depressed older adults following treatment with sertraline or nortriptyline

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the impact of nortriptyline to sertraline on change in cognitive functioning in depressed older adults.

METHODS

We used pre-post neuropsychological data collected as part of a 12-week medication trial comparing sertraline to nortriptyline in the treatment of older adults with non-psychotic, unipolar major depression to examine change in cognitive functioning. Neuropsychological assessments included mental status (Mini-Mental Status Exam), psychomotor speed (Purdue Pegboard), attention (Continuous Performance Test, Trail Making Test A), executive functioning (Stroop Color/word Test, Trail Making Test B), and memory (Buschke Selective Reminding Test).

RESULTS

Within treatment groups, patients treated with sertraline improved only on verbal learning. This change did not depend on responder status. Between treatment groups, patients treated with sertraline improved more in verbal learning compared with patients treated with nortriptyline. Looking at change in cognition as a function of medication condition and responder status revealed that sertraline responders improved more in verbal learning compared with nortriptyline responders but not more than sertraline non-responders or nortriptyline non-responders. Nortriptyline responders were the only treatment by responder status group to show no improvement in verbal learning from baseline to endpoint.

CONCLUSIONS

Unexpectedly, nortriptyline responders showed no improvement in verbal learning as compared with patients treated with sertraline or nortriptyline non-responders. However, given the small sample sizes and number of statistical tests (potential for type 1 error), replication is warranted.

Neurocognitive costs and benefits of psychotropic medications in older adults

Psychotropic medications are widely used in older adults and may cause neurocognitive deficits. Older adults are at increased risk of developing adverse effects because of age-related pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic changes. This article provides a comprehensive review of the undesirable, and at times beneficial, effects of psychotropic medications. The review covers a wide range of medications that impair executive function, memory, and attention, as well as a much smaller group of medications that lead to improved neurocognitive function. Some of the most commonly used psychotropic medications in older adults, namely, antidepressants, sedatives, and hypnotics, are among the drugs that most consistently lead to cognitive impairments. Medications with anticholinergic properties almost invariably lead to neurocognitive dysfunction, despite symptom improvement. The neurocognitive costs and benefits of psychiatric medications should be considered in the context of disease treatment in older adults.

Advances in the treatment of geriatric depression

Late-life depression is a rather difficult and complicated issue. Although there have been significant advances in our knowledge in this area, a large number of questions still remain unanswered. The aim of this review is a critical presentation of the current evidence for treatment of depression in the elderly. We summarize the evidence for the effectiveness and safety of a range of proposed treatments, including pharmacological, psychological and alternative therapies and lifestyle changes. The treatments with best evidence of effectiveness are antidepressant pharmacotherapy, electroconvulsive therapy, cognitive–behavioral therapy, psychodynamic psychotherapy, reminiscence therapy, problem-solving therapy and exercise. Implications for future research are discussed.

A meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing milnacipran, a serotonin--norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor for the treatment of major depressive disorder

CONTEXT

Over the past few years, a number of studies have emerged suggesting that the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) with antidepressants which enhance both noradrenergic as well as serotonergic neurotransmission may result in higher response or remission rates than treatment with antidepressants which selectively enhance serotonergic neurotransmission.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper was to compare response rates among patients with MDD treated with either milnacipran, an antidepressant thought to simultaneously enhance both noradrenergic and serotonergic neurotransmission, or a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI).

DATA SOURCES

Medline/Pubmed were searched. No year of publication or language limits were used.

STUDY SELECTION

Double-blind, randomized clinical trials comparing milnacipran with an SSRI for the treatment of MDD.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted with the use of a pre-coded form.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Analyses were performed comparing response rates between the two antidepressant agents. Data from 6 reports involving a total of 1082 outpatients with MDD were identified and combined using a random-effects model. Patients randomized to treatment with milnacipran were as likely to experience clinical response as patients randomized to treatment with an SSRI according to the MADRS (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.88-1.23, p = 0.533) or the HDRS (RR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.90-1.24, p = 0.456) for the random effects model. Simply pooling MADRS-based response rates between the two agents revealed a 58.9% response rate for milnacipran and a 58.3% response rate for the SSRIs. Similarly, HDRS-based response rates were 59.7% and 57.5%. There was also no difference in overall discontinuation rates (RR = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.76-1.14; p = 0.506), the rate of discontinuation due to adverse events (RR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.55-1.1; p = 0.157), or the rate of discontinuation due to inefficacy (RR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.7-1.38; p = 0.95) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that milnacipran and the SSRIs do not differ with respect to their overall efficacy in the treatment of MDD.

Acute treatment with the antidepressants bupropion and sertraline do not influence memory retrieval in man

OBJECTIVE

Several evidences implicate that monoamines play a modulatory role in the brain mechanisms underlying encoding and retrieval of emotional memories. Recent experiments demonstrate that acute monoaminergic potentiation with the antidepressants bupropion or sertraline enhance the retrieval of longterm emotional memory in rodents. In the present study, we tested the hypothesis that acute monoaminergic re-uptake inhibition with these antidepressants might enhance retrieval of emotional memory in man.

METHODS

The central monoaminergic system was stimulated with either bupropion or sertraline in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled design with 105 healthy adult subjects divided in three groups (placebo, 150 mg-bupropion and 50 mg-sertraline). Memory was evaluated with a 'surprise' memory test 7 days after the presentation of an emotional story and with a word-cued autobiographical memory test.

RESULTS

A total of 99 volunteers completed the experimental procedures. Contrasting to our prediction, we found no memory enhancing effect for either drug in both memory tests. All groups showed the expected heightened memory performance to the middle 'emotive' phase of the story.

CONCLUSION

Stimulation of the central monoaminergic system with the antidepressants bupropion and sertraline did not enhance the retrieval of long-term emotional memories in man.

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.

Sertraline versus fluvoxamine in the treatment of elderly patients with major depression: a double-blind, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Major depression is a common psychiatric disorder in the elderly population. The efficacy of tricyclic antidepressants is well established, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors appear to have a similar effectiveness along with advantages in terms of tolerability and safety. Given the lack of literature data regarding fluvoxamine in the treatment of depressed elderly patients, the aim of the present study was to compare its efficacy and tolerability with those of sertraline in a sample of elderly patients.

METHODS

Under double-blind conditions, 93 hospitalized patients older than 59 years, who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria for a major depressive episode, were randomly assigned to receive sertraline (150 mg daily) or fluvoxamine (200 mg daily) for 7 weeks. The clinical response was defined as a reduction on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score to 8 or below.

RESULTS

At study completion, the response rates were 55.6% (25/45) and 71.8% (28/39) for sertraline and fluvoxamine, respectively. No significant difference in final response rates was found between the 2 treatment groups (P = 0.12). A repeated-measures analysis of variance on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores revealed a significantly different decrease of depressive symptoms between the 2 treatment groups, favoring fluvoxamine (P = 0.007). The overall safety profile of sertraline and fluvoxamine was favorable with no differences between the 2 drugs.

CONCLUSION

The results of this double-blind trial show that sertraline and fluvoxamine may be effective compounds in the treatment of elderly depression with the latter showing some advantage in terms of speed of response. These findings warrant further replication in placebo-controlled studies.

International dosage differences in fluoxetine clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

International differences are thought to exist in dosages used by clinicians treating mood disorders. This study examined international dosage differences in antidepressant clinical trials, using a database formed and maintained as a component of a Cochrane review of comparative clinical trials of fluoxetine.

METHODS

This systematic review included 132 studies. A detailed set of methodological features and results were abstracted from the original publications and entered into an electronic database. Mean and maximum fluoxetine dosages were compared across countries. To evaluate the dosages of comparison medications, a defined daily dosage (DDD) ratio was calculated as the trial mean dosage divided by the DDD for that drug.

RESULTS

Both the maximum and mean dosages for fluoxetine and comparison medications were higher in trials conducted in the US (fluoxetine weighted mean dosage 49.18 mg; 95% CI, 41.30 to 57.05), compared with trials conducted in Europe (fluoxetine weighted mean dosage 29.98 mg; 95% CI, 25.28 to 34.68). Since most clinical trials were conducted in Europe or the US, we could not determine whether different dosages tended to be used in other regions.

CONCLUSIONS

International differences in prescriber behaviour may influence, and in turn be influenced by, the conduct of clinical trials. It is difficult to reconcile such differences with the principles of evidence-based medicine.

Time Course of Response to Antidepressants in Late-Life Major Depression

In the treatment of depression, there is considerable interest in the time course of response and, in particular, the speed with which individuals recover from depressive episodes. Examination of the time course and speed of response is critical for assessing the usefulness of specific treatments. However, while this issue has received attention in mid-life adult populations, it has received little consideration in the context of late-life major depression. The synthesis of empirical reports indicates that, while older adults with depression seem to respond with the same speed as mid-life adults, several factors have consistently been associated with reduced speed of response to antidepressant treatment, including greater severity of depressive symptoms and co-occurring anxiety symptoms. Limited evidence suggests that sleep impairment and genetic factors (e.g. presence of the s allele of the serotonin transporter gene promoter region) may also be associated with reduced speed of response. Some factors have consistently been found to be unrelated to speed of response (demographic characteristics, nonpsychiatric physical illnesses) whereas other factors have only mixed evidence supporting any effect (psychosocial and other clinical factors). While there is little work available to date, some evidence suggests that time course and speed of response affect longer-term outcomes of depression pharmacotherapy; thus, older adults with more rapid versus slower patterns of response may differ in the types of maintenance treatment needed to avert additional depressive episodes. None of potential strategies for accelerating speed of response have been clearly shown to be effective in late-life depression. Future treatment studies for late-life depression should routinely consider not only overall efficacy of a given pharmacotherapy (i.e. total rate of response), but time course and speed of response. To this end, new investigations must be designed to overcome the methodological limitations of prior studies that have examined time course and they should include a range of potential covariates and outcomes of between-patient differences in speed of response. Better understanding of factors related to such differences may suggest new intervention strategies to accelerate response.

Quality of life in geriatric patients with mood and anxiety disorders

This article reviews the impact of depressive and anxiety disorders on quality of life (QOL), disability, and economic burden in the lives of older individuals. Distinctions between the terms QOL, disability, and burden are important in understanding the extent of improvement needed in treatment for elderly patients with depression or anxiety. Treatment efforts should be extended to remediate not only signs and symptoms of psychiatric syndromes but QOL and disability as well; increased understanding toward this end is evolving, yet it is clear that these issues need to be the focus of more investigation.

Epidemiology, implications and mechanisms underlying drug-induced weight gain in psychiatric patients

Body weight gain frequently occurs during drug treatment of psychiatric disorders and is often accompanied by increased appetite or food craving. While occurrence and time course of this side effect are difficult to predict, it ultimately results in obesity and the morbidity associated therewith in a substantial part of patients, often causing them to discontinue treatment even if it is effective. This paper reviews the available epidemiological data on the frequency and extent of weight gain associated with antidepressant, mood-stabilizing, and antipsychotic treatment. Possible underlying pathomechanisms are discussed with special attention to central nervous control of appetite including the role of leptin and the tumor necrosis factor system. Metabolic alterations induced by drug treatment such as type 2 diabetes mellitus and the metabolic syndrome are also considered. Weight gain appears to be most prominent in patients treated with some of the second generation antipsychotic drugs and with some mood stabilizers. Marked weight gain also frequently occurs during treatment with most tricyclic antidepressants, while conventional antipsychotics typically induce only slight to moderate weight gain. Serotonin reuptake inhibitors may induce weight loss during the first few weeks, but some of them induce weight gain during long-term treatment. Several antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs are identified which reliably do not cause weight gain or even reduce weight. Based on these insights, countermeasures to manage drug-induced weight gain are suggested.

Sertraline: a review of its use in the management of major depressive disorder in elderly patients

Sertraline is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) with well established antidepressant and anxiolytic activity. Results from several well designed trials show that sertraline (50 to 200 mg/day) is effective in the treatment of major depressive disorder in elderly patients (> or =60 years of age). Primary endpoints in most studies included the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), Clinical Global Impression (CGI) score and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Sertraline was significantly more effective than placebo, and was as effective as fluoxetine, nortriptyline and imipramine in elderly patients. During one trial, amitriptyline was significantly more effective than sertraline [mean reduction from baseline on one of six primary outcomes (HDRS)], although no quantitative data were provided. Subgroup analysis of data from a randomised, double-blind trial in elderly patients with major depressive disorder suggests that vascular morbidity, diabetes mellitus or arthritis does not affect the antidepressant effect of sertraline. Secondary endpoints from these clinical trials suggest that sertraline has significant benefits over nortriptyline in terms of quality of life. In addition, significant differences favouring sertraline in comparison with nortriptyline and fluoxetine have been recorded for a number of cognitive functioning parameters. Sertraline is generally well tolerated in elderly patients with major depressive disorder, and lacks the marked anticholinergic effects that characterise the adverse event profiles of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). The most frequently reported adverse events in patients aged > or =60 years with major depressive disorder receiving sertraline 50 to 150 mg/day were dry mouth, headache, diarrhoea, nausea, insomnia, somnolence, constipation, dizziness, sweating and taste abnormalities. The tolerability profile of sertraline is generally similar in younger and elderly patients. Sertraline has a low potential for drug interactions at the level of the cytochrome P450 enzyme system. In addition, no dosage adjustments are warranted for elderly patients solely based on age.

CONCLUSION

Sertraline is an effective and well tolerated antidepressant for the treatment of major depressive disorder in patients aged > or =60 years. Since elderly patients are particularly prone to the anticholinergic effects of TCAs as a class, SSRIs such as sertraline are likely to be a better choice for the treatment of major depressive disorder in this age group. In addition, sertraline may have advantages over the SSRIs paroxetine, fluoxetine and fluvoxamine in elderly patients because of the drug's comparatively low potential for drug interactions, which is of importance in patient groups such as the elderly who are likely to receive more than one drug regimen.

Drug and ECT treatment of depression in the elderly, 1996-2001: a literature review

A computer-based literature search of all antidepressant and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) treatment studies published between 1995 and September 2001 was conducted. In addition, a review of published chapters, review articles, and metaanalyses was also conducted. Articles were categorized into those reporting comparative studies, those in which the therapeutic agent was not compared with another, articles about ECT, and review articles. These recent publications support the conclusions from prior reviews that antidepressants and ECT are effective and safe treatments for depressed elderly patients. Differences in efficacy and side effects appear to be slight among the various types of antidepressants. Research studies of depressed elderly increased markedly since 1995 compared with all previous years although more studies are still necessary.

How well do antidepressants work in older people? A systematic review of Number Needed to Treat

OBJECTIVES

To make direct comparisons between studies of antidepressant treatment of older people using Number Needed to Treat (NNT) analysis.

METHODS

Medline and Embase Search 1966-1999 and contact with manufacturers of antidepressant drugs asking for any relevant data on file; NNT analyses of outcome in terms of efficacy and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Most antidepressant trials show efficacy; this is less clear for moclobemide and fluoxetine. Head-to-head comparisons between antidepressants showed significant superiority for paroxetine over fluoxetine and a trend in favour of SSRIs and venlafaxine over tricyclics.

CONCLUSIONS

NNT analysis is one way of providing intelligible information on antidepressant efficacy and adverse effects which can inform clinical decisions.

LIMITATIONS

Many studies do not present data in a form amenable to NNT analysis. Most head-to-head comparisons between antidepressants are underpowered.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for late-life depression: a comparative review

Late-life depression is a serious health problem that is challenging to manage but generally responds well to pharmacotherapy. Selective serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine: 5-HT) reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), the most commonly prescribed antidepressants, are usually used as first-line agents for elderly patients with depression. Like most drugs, SSRIs have not been widely tested in clinical trials that approximate 'real-life' geriatric situations. However, studies completed to date provide valuable information about the efficacy, safety and tolerability of this class of antidepressants among older patients with depression, including those with depression secondary to stroke or dementia and those with other comorbid physical disorders. Although one SSRI may be more efficacious or better tolerated by elderly patients than another, existing data do not support such claims. However, other distinguishing features may influence the choice of agent. For example, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine and paroxetine are more likely to be involved in significant drug-drug interactions than are citalopram or sertraline. In contrast to the other SSRIs, fluoxetine has a half-life well in excess of 1 day, which can be an advantage when weaning the patient off therapy in that it may reduce the incidence of discontinuation symptoms, but a significant disadvantage if the patient cannot tolerate the drug or experiences an adverse drug-drug interaction.

Neuropsychological evaluation of higher functioning homeless persons: a comparison of an abbreviated test battery to the mini-mental state exam

This study examined neuropsychological functioning in a heterogeneous population of persons who were homeless (N = 60) and compared the value of the Abbreviated Halstead-Reitan Test Battery with the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE). A high incidence of neuropsychological dysfunction was evident with 80% of patients showing impaired test battery performance and 35% showing an impaired MMSE. Performance on the Trail Making Test, Part B was especially impaired. Patients impaired on Trails B more often showed impaired test battery performance, suggesting it may be a better screening tool than the MMSE. Neuropsychological performance was not significantly affected by the patients' gender, age, diagnosis, or past psychiatric and medical history. Regression analysis suggested that 29% of the variance in test battery performance was accounted for by the patients' education. Results support previous findings that large numbers of people who are homeless are neuropsychologically impaired; this should be considered when planning treatment and rehabilitation.