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

Sigma-1 Receptor Signaling: In Search of New Therapeutic Alternatives for Cardiovascular and Renal Diseases

Cardiovascular and renal diseases are among the leading causes of death worldwide, and regardless of current efforts, there is a demanding need for therapeutic alternatives to reduce their progression to advanced stages. The stress caused by diseases leads to the activation of protective mechanisms in the cell, including chaperone proteins. The Sigma-1 receptor (Sig-1R) is a ligand-operated chaperone protein that modulates signal transduction during cellular stress processes. Sig-1R interacts with various ligands and proteins to elicit distinct cellular responses, thus, making it a potential target for pharmacological modulation. Furthermore, Sig-1R ligands activate signaling pathways that promote cardioprotection, ameliorate ischemic injury, and drive myofibroblast activation and fibrosis. The role of Sig-1R in diseases has also made it a point of interest in developing clinical trials for pain, neurodegeneration, ischemic stroke, depression in patients with heart failure, and COVID-19. Sig-1R ligands in preclinical models have significantly beneficial effects associated with improved cardiac function, ventricular remodeling, hypertrophy reduction, and, in the kidney, reduced ischemic damage. These basic discoveries could inform clinical trials for heart failure (HF), myocardial hypertrophy, acute kidney injury (AKI), and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Here, we review Sig-1R signaling pathways and the evidence of Sig-1R modulation in preclinical cardiac and renal injury models to support the potential therapeutic use of Sig-1R agonists and antagonists in these diseases.

Antidepressant effect in older depressed patients: the lessons of two agomelatine trials

The present paper reports in parallel the findings of the two phase III trials that evaluated the efficacy of agomelatine in older depressed patients. It describes how the particular methodological innovations (particularly in relation to patient selection, design and accuracy of diagnosis of depression) introduced in study 2 have improved the quality of recruitment of patients and the assay sensitivity. Study 1 lacked assay sensitivity, and among the many differences with study 2, the inclusion of unexpected mildly ill patients could have inflated the placebo response. The increased demands on investigators in study 2 appear to have reduced the placebo effect and showed a robust benefit of agomelatine. The two agomelatine studies offer the opportunity to discuss hypotheses that have been raised to explain the low level of response of older patients to available antidepressants.

Unilateral and bilateral MRI-targeted repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Several factors may mitigate the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over sham rTMS in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). These factors include unilateral stimulation (i.e., treatment of only the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex [DLPFC]), suboptimal methods of targeting the DLPFC and insufficient stimulation intensity (based on coil-to-cortex distance).

METHODS

We recruited patients with TRD between the ages of 18 and 85 years from a university hospital, and participants were randomized to receive sequential bilateral rTMS (600 pulses at 1 Hz followed by 1500 pulses at 10 Hz), unilateral high-frequency left (HFL)-rTMS (2100 pulses at 10 Hz) or sham rTMS for 3 or 6 weeks depending on treatment response. Stimulation was targeted with MRI localization over the junction of the middle and anterior thirds of the middle frontal gyrus, using 120% of the coil-to-cortex adjusted motor threshold. Our primary outcome of interest was the remission rate.

RESULTS

A total of 121 patients participated in this study. The remission rate was significantly higher in the bilateral group than the sham group. The remission rate in the HFL-rTMS group was intermediate and did not differ statistically from the rate in the 2 other groups. There were no significant differences in reduction of depression scores among the 3 groups.

LIMITATIONS

The number of pulses used per session in the unilateral group was somewhat lower in our trial than in more recent trials, and the sham condition did not involve active stimulation.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that sequential bilateral rTMS is superior to sham rTMS; however, adjusting for coil-to-cortex distance did not yield enhanced efficacy rates.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Specificity profile of venlafaxine and sertraline in major depression: metaregression of double-blind, randomized clinical trials

Despite the well-known efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) in the treatment of major depressive disorder, there is a lack of indications for each drug in different groups of patients. The aim of this study is to investigate the possible role of clinical sociodemographic factors as moderators of clinical response to venlafaxine (SNRI) and sertraline (SSRI). Research was performed on Medline and EMBASE for randomized control trials in English focused on sertraline and venlafaxine in the treatment of major depressive disorder and 59 studies were included. Clinical efficacy of each treatment was assessed on the basis of Hamilton Depressive Rating Scale and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. A metaregression analysis was performed to evaluate the role of clinical and sociodemographic factors as moderators of outcome, calculating the effect of each variable with the random-effects method. Gender, ethnicity and duration of depressive episode could have a role in prediction of clinical response to both antidepressants. Venlafaxine seems to have better effects in females and in Caucasian patients. Sertraline seems to be more efficacious in the treatment of females. Both drugs were more efficacious in patients who suffered a shorter episode of illness. Our results could represent an interesting point of view in the perspective of choosing the most suitable therapy based on clinical and social features for each patient. Metaregression is a retrospective analysis, based on the cumulative results of previous studies, so the lack of original data could represent the main limitation in this report and in the interpretation of the results obtained.

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.

Acute treatment with fluvoxamine elevates rat brain serotonin synthesis in some terminal regions: an autoradiographic study

INTRODUCTION

A considerable body of evidence indicates the involvement of the neurotransmitter serotonin (5-HT) in the pathogenesis and treatment of depression.

METHODS

The acute effect of fluvoxamine, on 5-HT synthesis rates was investigated in rat brain regions, using α-(14)C-methyl-L-tryptophan as a tracer. Fluvoxamine (25 mg/kg) and saline (control) were injected intraperitoneally, one hour before the injection of the tracer (30 μCi).

RESULTS

There was no significant effect of fluvoxamine on plasma free tryptophan. After Benjamini-Hochberg False Discovery Rate correction, a significant decrease in the 5-HT synthesis rate in the fluvoxamine treated rats, was found in the raphe magnus (-32%), but not in the median (-14%) and dorsal (-3%) raphe nuclei. In the regions with serotonergic axon terminals, significant increases in synthesis rates were observed in the dorsal (+41%) and ventral (+43%) hippocampus, visual (+38%), auditory (+65%) and parietal (+37%) cortex, and the substantia nigra pars compacta (+56%). There were no significant changes in the 5-HT synthesis rates in the median (+11%) and lateral (+24%) part of the caudate-putamen, nucleus accumbens (+5%), VTA (+16%) or frontal cortex (+ 6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The data show that the acute administration of fluvoxamine affects 5-HT synthesis rates in a regionally specific pattern, with a general elevation of the synthesis in the terminal regions and a reduction in some cell body structures. The reasons for the regional specific effect of fluvoxamine on 5-HT synthesis are unclear, but may be mediated by the presynaptic serotonergic autoreceptors.

Sertraline versus other antidepressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence clinical practice guideline on the treatment of depressive disorder recommended that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors should be the first-line option when drug therapy is indicated for a depressive episode. Preliminary evidence suggested that sertraline might be slightly superior in terms of effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE (1966 to 2008), EMBASE (1974 to 2008), the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to July 2008. No language restriction was applied. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were hand-searched. Pharmaceutical companies and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials allocating patients with major depression to sertraline versus any other antidepressive agent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. Discrepancies were resolved with another member of the team. A double-entry procedure was employed by two reviewers. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy (the number of patients who responded or remitted), acceptability (the number of patients who failed to complete the study) and tolerability (side-effects).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 59 studies, mostly of low quality, were included in the review, involving multiple treatment comparisons between sertraline and other antidepressant agents. Evidence favouring sertraline over some other antidepressants for the acute phase treatment of major depression was found, either in terms of efficacy (fluoxetine) or acceptability/tolerability (amitriptyline, imipramine, paroxetine and mirtazapine). However, some differences favouring newer antidepressants in terms of efficacy (mirtazapine) and acceptability (bupropion) were also found. In terms of individual side effects, sertraline was generally associated with a higher rate of participants experiencing diarrhoea.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis highlighted a trend in favour of sertraline over other antidepressive agents both in terms of efficacy and acceptability, using 95% confidence intervals and a conservative approach, with a random effects analysis. However, the included studies did not report on all the outcomes that were pre-specified in the protocol of this review. Outcomes of clear relevance to patients and clinicians were not reported in any of the included studies.

Fluvoxamine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Sertraline versus other antidepressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence clinical practice guideline on the treatment of depressive disorder recommended that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors should be the first-line option when drug therapy is indicated for a depressive episode. Preliminary evidence suggested that sertraline might be slightly superior in terms of effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE (1966 to 2008), EMBASE (1974 to 2008), the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to July 2008. No language restriction was applied. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were hand-searched. Pharmaceutical companies and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials allocating patients with major depression to sertraline versus any other antidepressive agent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. Discrepancies were resolved with another member of the team. A double-entry procedure was employed by two reviewers. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy (the number of patients who responded or remitted), acceptability (the number of patients who failed to complete the study) and tolerability (side-effects).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 59 studies, mostly of low quality, were included in the review, involving multiple treatment comparisons between sertraline and other antidepressant agents. Evidence favouring sertraline over some other antidepressants for the acute phase treatment of major depression was found, either in terms of efficacy (fluoxetine) or acceptability/tolerability (amitriptyline, imipramine, paroxetine and mirtazapine). However, some differences favouring newer antidepressants in terms of efficacy (mirtazapine) and acceptability (bupropion) were also found. In terms of individual side effects, sertraline was generally associated with a higher rate of participants experiencing diarrhoea.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis highlighted a trend in favour of sertraline over other antidepressive agents both in terms of efficacy and acceptability, using 95% confidence intervals and a conservative approach, with a random effects analysis. However, the included studies did not report on all the outcomes that were pre-specified in the protocol of this review. Outcomes of clear relevance to patients and clinicians were not reported in any of the included studies.

An evidence-based review of the clinical use of sertraline in mood and anxiety disorders

Sertraline is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor that has been used and studied extensively throughout the world and found to be safe and well tolerated in numerous patient populations, including those with either psychiatric and/or medical comorbidities. Randomized clinical trials have shown that it is an effective treatment for depressive and anxiety disorders and its efficacy is unaffected by psychiatric comorbidity. In non-comorbid patients, sertraline is effective for the acute treatment of major depressive disorders and prevention of relapse or recurrence. It is effective for acute treatment and longer-term management of social anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder,panic disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder. In adults and in pediatric patients, it is an effective short-term and long-term treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder.Sertraline has a good tolerability profile and has low fatal toxicity. In summary, sertraline is as effective as other antidepressants over a wide range of indications but may offer tolerability benefits as well as efficacy in patients with psychiatric and/or medical comorbidities and certain subtypes of depression.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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