The effect of low dose lofepramine in depressed elderly patients in general medical wards

Implications of Epidemiological Findings for the Management of Mental Disorders Encountered in Primary Care Settings

Recent epidemiological surveys that have attempted to include the need for treatment of mental disorders are reviewed, and it is concluded that the greatest unmet need is for those with non-psychotic disorders. Recent studies on factors that influence the natural history of such disorders reveal that these are largely social and environmental; one study suggests that genetic factors are only important in the group that have longer time courses. Those factors within the medical encounter that produce better outcomes are reviewed, and non-specific factors and supportive therapy are found to be important. Some additional advantages are to be obtained with specific antidepressant treatments (either pharmacological or problem-solving) and with re-attribution skills for psychologically determined somatic symptoms. The implications of these findings are discussed from the standpoint of the primary care team, the community mental health team and self-help materials.

Predictors of treatment outcome in depression in later life: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Predictor analyses of late-life depression can be used to identify variables associated with outcomes of treatments, and hence ways of tailoring specific treatments to patients. The aim of this review was to systematically identify, review and meta-analyse predictors of outcomes of any type of treatment for late-life depression.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and PsycINFO were searched for studies published up to December 2016. Primary and secondary studies reported treatment predictors from randomised controlled trials of any treatment for patients with major depressive disorder aged over 60 were included. Treatment outcomes included response, remission and change in depression score.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Of 65 identified statistically significant predictors, only 7 were reported in at least 3 studies. Of these, 5 were included in meta-analyses, and only 3 were statistically significant. Most studies were rated as being of moderate to strong quality and satisfied key quality criteria for predictor analyses.

LIMITATIONS

The searches were limited to randomised controlled trials and most of the included studies were secondary analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline depression severity, co-morbid anxiety, executive dysfunction, current episode duration, early improvement, physical illnesses and age were reported as statistically significant predictors of treatment outcomes. Only the first three were significant in meta-analyses. Subgroup analyses showed differences in predictor effect between biological and psychosocial treatment. However, high heterogeneity and small study numbers suggest a cautious interpretation of results. These predictors were associated with various mechanisms including brain pathophysiology, perceived social support and proposed distinct types of depressive disorder. Further investigation of the clinical utility of these predictors is suggested.

Antidepressants in elderly: metaregression of double-blind, randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Depression is common in the elderly and in the last few years this led to a significant increase in antidepressant prescription rates. However, little is known about antidepressant efficacy profile in relation with socio-demographic and clinical features in this population. The aim of the present study was to define the most suitable socio-demographic and clinical profile for the use of antidepressant treatments in late-life depression.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focused on efficacy of antidepressants of all classes in major depressed elderly subjects (>60 years old). Reviews and meta-analyses focusing on this topic have been considered as well. Thirty-four RCTs were included and socio-demographic and clinical features were investigated via meta-regression analysis as moderators of efficacy measures (standardized mean difference based on Hamilton Depressive Rating Scale and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale).

RESULTS

A lower rate of response to antidepressants of all classes was found in patients of male gender, of older age, and with a longer mean duration of the current episode. On the contrary, a higher rate of response was found in patients with a higher baseline severity and at their first episode of illness. Subsamples treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors alone yielded similar results.

LIMITATIONS

RCTs only have been included.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of socio-demographic and clinical features have been found to moderate antidepressant efficacy in elderly population. Those variables could help clinicians for a more individualized treatment.

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.

Pharmacological interventions for people with depression and chronic physical health problems: systematic review and meta-analyses of safety and efficacy

BACKGROUND

Antidepressant drugs are widely used in the treatment of depression in people with chronic physical health problems.

AIMS

To examine evidence related to efficacy, tolerability and safety of antidepressants for people with depression and with chronic physical health problems.

METHOD

Meta-analyses of randomised controlled efficacy trials of antidepressants in depression in chronic physical health conditions. Systematic review of safety studies.

RESULTS

Sixty-three studies met inclusion criteria (5794 participants). In placebo-controlled studies, antidepressants showed a significant advantage in respect to remission and/or response: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) risk ratio (RR) = 0.81 (95% CI 0.73-0.91) for remission, RR = 0.83 (95% CI 0.71-0.97) for response; tricyclics RR = 0.70 (95% CI 0.40-1.25 (not significant)) for remission, RR = 0.55 (95% 0.43-0.70) for response. Both groups of drugs were less well tolerated than placebo (leaving study early due to adverse effects) for SSRIs RR = 1.80 (95% CI 1.16-2.78), for tricyclics RR = 2.00 (95% CI 0.99-3.57). Only SSRIs were shown to improve quality of life. Direct comparisons of SSRIs and tricyclics revealed no advantage for either group for remission, response, effect size or tolerability. Effectiveness studies suggest a neutral or beneficial effect on mortality for antidepressants in participants with recent myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

Antidepressants are efficacious and safe in the treatment of depression occurring in the context of chronic physical health problems. The SSRIs are probably the antidepressants of first choice given their demonstrable effect on quality of life and their apparent safety in cardiovascular disease.

Antidepressants for depression in physically ill people

BACKGROUND

There is an increased risk of depression in people with a physical illness. Depression is associated with reduced treatment adherence, poor prognosis, increased disability and higher mortality in many physical illnesses. Antidepressants are effective in the treatment of depression in physically healthy populations, but there is less clarity regarding their use in physically ill patients. This review updates Gill's Cochrane review (2000), which found that antidepressants were effective for depression in physical illness. Since Gill there have been a number of larger trials assessing the efficacy of antidepressants in this context.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of antidepressants in the treatment of depression in patients with a physical illness.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group (CCDAN) trial registers were conducted together with supplementary searches of The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the standard bibliographic databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Reference lists of included studies were scanned and trials registers were searched to identify additional unpublished data. Last searches were run in December 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of antidepressants and placebo in the treatment of depression in adults with a physical illness. Depression included diagnoses of Major Depression, Adjustment Disorder and Dysthymia based on standardised criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was efficacy 6-8 weeks after randomisation. Data were also extracted at three additional time-points (4-5 weeks, 9-18 weeks, >18 weeks). Acceptability and tolerability were assessed by comparing the number of drop-outs and adverse events. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for dichotomous data (response to treatment). Standardised mean differences with 95% CI were calculated for continuous data (mean depression score). Data were pooled using a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-one studies including 3603 participants were included in the review. Forty-four studies including 3372 participants contributed data towards the efficacy analyses. Pooled efficacy data for the primary outcome provided an OR of 2.33, CI 1.80-3.00, p<0.00001 (25 studies, 1674 patients) favouring antidepressants. Antidepressants were also more efficacious than placebo at the other time-points. At 6-8 weeks, fewer patients receiving placebo dropped out compared to patients treated with an antidepressant. Dry mouth and sexual dysfunction were more common in patients treated with an antidepressant.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence that antidepressants are superior to placebo in treating depression in physical illness. However, it is likely that publication and reporting biases exaggerated the effect sizes obtained. Further research is required to determine the comparative efficacy and acceptability of particular antidepressants in this population.

Differences in adverse effect reporting in placebo groups in SSRI and tricyclic antidepressant trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biases in adverse effect reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [e.g. due to investigator expectations or assessment quality] can be quantified by studying the rates of adverse events reported in the placebo arms of such trials.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the rates of adverse effects reported in the placebo arms of tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) trials and placebo arms of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) trials.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search for RCTs across PUBMED, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Only studies allowing adverse effect analysis were included. Publication year ranged from 1981 to 2007.

RESULTS

Our systematic review and meta-analysis included 143 placebocontrolled RCTs and data from 12,742 patients. Only 21% of studies used structured and systematic adverse effect ascertainment strategies. The way in which trials recorded adverse events influenced the rate of adverse effects substantially. Systematic assessment led to higher rates than less systematic assessment. Far more adverse effects were reported in TCA-placebo groups compared with SSRI-placebo groups, e.g. dry mouth (odds ratio [OR] = 3.5; 95% CI 2.9, 4.2); drowsiness (OR = 2.7; 95%CI 2.2, 3.4); constipation (OR= 2.7; 95%CI 2.1, 3.6); sexual problems (OR =2.3; 95%CI 1.5, 3.5). Regression analyses controlling for various influencing factors confirmed the results.

CONCLUSION

Adverse effect profiles reported in clinical trials are strongly influenced by expectations from investigators and patients. This difference cannot be attributed to ascertainment methods. Adverse effect patterns of the drug group are closely related to adverse effects of the placebo group. These results question the validity of the assumption that adverse effects in placebo groups reflect the 'drug-unspecific effects'.

Does depression predict adverse outcomes for older medical inpatients? A prospective cohort study of individuals screened for a trial

OBJECTIVE

to examine the relationship between depressive symptoms and hospital outcomes in an unselected consecutive sample of older medical inpatients.

DESIGN

a prospective cohort study of individuals screened for a trial.

SETTING

medical wards of UK district general hospital in rural East Anglia.

PARTICIPANTS

six hundred and seventeen medical inpatients aged 65+ were randomly selected from consecutive admissions. Baseline measures: 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15), the Abbreviated Mental Test Score (AMTS) and the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale-Geriatric (CIRS-G).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

length of hospital stay; discharge to a community hospital (for rehabilitation), institutional care or usual place of residence; dying in hospital.

RESULTS

depressive symptoms are independently associated with an increased likelihood of inpatient death and transfer to a community hospital for rehabilitation, but are not associated with longer length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

research evaluating effectiveness of identification and treatment of depression in older medical inpatients should consider including inpatient death and use of rehabilitation services as potential outcomes.

Effectiveness of liaison psychiatric nursing in older medical inpatients with depression: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare liaison psychiatric nursing with usual medical care in the management of older medical inpatients who screen positive for depression.

DESIGN

Pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Medical wards of UK district general hospital in rural East Anglia.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and thirty-eight medical inpatients aged 65+ screened positive on the 15-item geriatric depression scale (GDS). One hundred and twenty-one out of 138 screen positives entered the trial (58/121 fulfilled criteria for depressive disorder at baseline).

INTERVENTIONS

(i) A liaison psychiatric nurse assessed participants, formulated a care plan for treatment of their depression, ensured its implementation through liaison with appropriate agencies, and monitored participants' mood and response to treatment for up to 12 weeks. (ii) Usual treatment by hospital and primary care staff.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

ICD-10 depressive disorder, change in GDS-15 score, quality-adjusted life weeks (QALWs) and patient satisfaction rating.

RESULTS

Eighty-six out of 121 participants completed the 16-week trial. Participants in the intervention group were more satisfied with their care, but no significant differences in depressive disorder, depression rating or QALWs gained were found between groups. However, there was a trend towards improvement in the intervention group and effect sizes were higher in the subgroup with depressive disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first RCT to evaluate liaison psychiatric nursing specifically for depression in older medical inpatients; the findings suggest improvement in mental health and quality of life, but a larger trial is required to provide convincing evidence.

Treatment and Prevention of Depression After Surgery for Hip Fracture in Older People: Randomized, Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of a psychiatric intervention in treating depression (treatment study) and the effect of a psychological treatment in preventing depression (prevention study) after hip fracture in older people.

DESIGN

Two linked randomized, controlled trials.

SETTING

Orthopedic units in Manchester, England.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred ninety-three older people who had undergone surgery for a fractured hip: 121 in the treatment study and 172 in the prevention study.

MEASUREMENTS

The Geriatric Depression Scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for mood, functional tests for mobility and pain measures.

RESULTS

There was a slight reduction in depressive symptoms in the active arm of the treatment study. In the prevention study, there was no significant difference in incident depression between the psychological intervention and treatment as usual. There were no differences in the functional and pain outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The results from these two randomized, controlled trials show that, after hip fracture surgery, no statistically significant benefits can be achieved from a psychiatric intervention in people who are depressed or a psychological intervention to prevent the onset of depression.

Low dosage tricyclic antidepressants for depression

BACKGROUND

Tricyclic antidepressants are still extensively prescribed worldwide. Evidence for the recommended dosage of tricyclics, however, is poor.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects and side effects of low dosage tricyclic antidepressants with placebo and with standard dosage tricyclics in acute phase treatment of depression.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic search of the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR), incorporating results of group searches of MEDLINE (1966-), EMBASE (1980-), CINAHL (1982-), PsycLIT (1974-), PSYNDEX (1977-) and LILACS (1982-1999) and hand searches of major psychiatric and medical journals. Reference search and SciSearch of the identified studies. Personal contact with authors of significant papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials 1) comparing low dosage TCA (=< 100 mg/d on average at the end of trial) with placebo or 2) comparing low and standard dosages of the same TCA, in acute phase treatment of depressive disorder

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent reviewers examined eligibility of the identified studies, and extracted data for outcomes at 1 week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6-8 weeks and later. Main outcome measures were relative risk of response in depression (random effects model), according to the original authors' definition but usually defined as 50% or greater reduction in severity of depression according to the last-observation-carried-forward intention-to-treat method, and relative risks of overall dropouts and dropouts due to side effects. Other outcome measures included worst-case-scenario intention-to-treat analysis of response as defined above (in which dropouts were considered non-responders in the active treatment group and as responders in the comparison group), and standardised weighted mean scores of continuous depression severity scales (usually calculated by last-observation-carried-forward method).

MAIN RESULTS

35 studies (2013 participants) compared low dosage tricyclics with placebo, and six studies (551 participants) compared low dosage tricyclics with standard dosage tricyclics. Low dosage tricyclics, mostly between 75 and 100 mg/day, were 1.65 (95% confidence interval 1.36 to 2.0) and 1.47 (1.12 to 1.94) times more likely than placebo to bring about response at 4 weeks and 6-8 weeks, respectively. Standard dosage tricyclics failed, however, to bring about more response but produced more dropouts due to side effects than low dosage tricyclics.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of depression in adults with low dose tricyclics is justified. However, more rigorous studies are needed to definitively establish the relative benefits and harms of varying dosages.

Antidepressant versus placebo for depressed elderly

BACKGROUND

Depression warranting intervention is found in ten percent of people over the age of 60. Older depressed people are more likely to die than non-depressed. Relatively few receive therapeutic interventions, and those that do, tend to receive low dose antidepressant therapy. Depression in older people is thought to differ in terms of aetiology, presentation, treatment and outcome than in younger people. Concomitant physical illness and increasing social, physical and neurophysiological diversity are associated with the ageing process. Consequently drug treatment of older patients is often carried out in institutions and on patients suffering from multiple physical problems.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of antidepressant medication compared with placebo in the treatment of depression in older patients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search strategy incorporated: electronic literature searches of databases held by the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group (CCDAN) (see Collaborative Review Group Search Strategy). Reference lists of related reviews and references of located studies. Contact was made with authors working in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised, placebo controlled trials using antidepressants in the treatment of the presenting episode of depression in patients described as elderly, geriatric senile or older adult.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two types of data were extracted (if available) from each study. The first type of data was dichotomous data, this consisted of recovered/not recovered. The second, continuous data,included: Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Montgomery-Asberg Rating Scale (MADRS) and other depression rating scale scores. An analysis using Peto Odds ratios for the dichotomous data and weighted mean difference for continuous data was performed using RevMan 3.1. The presence of heterogeneity of treatment effect was assessed.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen trials contributed data to the analyses comparing the efficacy of antidepressant treatment and placebo. Analyses of efficacy was based on 245 patients treated with TCAs (223 with placebo), 365 patients treated with SSRIs (372 with placebo) and 58 patients treated with MAOIs (63 with placebo). The standardised effect size for the three groups respectively were: TCAs; OR: 0.32 (0.21,0.47), SSRIs; OR; 0.51 (0.36,0.72), MAOIs: 0.17 (0.07,0.39).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

TCAs, SSRIs and MAOIs are effective in the treatment of older community patients and inpatients likely to have severe physical illness. At least six weeks of antidepressant treatment is recommended to achieve optimal therapeutic effect. There is little evidence concerning the efficacy of low dose TCA treatment. Further trials are required before low dose TCA treatment is routinely recommended.

Treatment of depression related to recurrence: 10-year follow-up in general practice

OBJECTIVES

To study outcomes related to long-term treatment of depression and differences in treatments for first episodes of depression in patients with and without recurrences.

METHODS

A historic cohort design study with 222 general practice patients who had been followed up for 10 years after being diagnosed of depression. Prescriptions for antidepressants, psychotropics and referrals over the period of 10 years following the first diagnosis of depression were studied.

RESULTS

Over the 10-year period, the length of treatment with antidepressants and the doses prescribed were low compared to what is known to be efficacious in depression. This was also true for treatment during the first episode. Patients with a recurrent type of illness were more often treated with antidepressants and other psychotropics during their first episode than patients with only one episode of depression, but they were not referred any more often.

CONCLUSION

Even though treatment was not as recommended for depression, the majority of the patients did not have recurrences. Future prospective research is needed to study causal relationships between treatment of depression and long-term outcome.

The effects of detection and treatment on the outcome of major depression in primary care: a naturalistic study in 15 cities

BACKGROUND

This study reports the responses of patients with confirmed depressive illnesses to different treatments in the WHO Mental Disorders in General Health Care study, conducted in 15 cities around the world.

AIM

To discover how depressions recognized by the doctor compare with unrecognized depressions, both in terms of the initial illnesses and their outcomes, and to compare the outcomes of those depressions treated with antidepressants with those treated with daytime sedatives.

METHOD

The design of the study was naturalistic, in that physicians were free to treat patients however they wished. Patients with confirmed depressive illnesses were assigned to four groups: treatment with an antidepressant; treatment with a daytime sedative (usually a benzodiazepine); patients recognized as having depression by the physician but were not offered drug treatment; and patients unrecognized as having depression by their physician.

RESULTS

Both groups receiving drugs had illnesses of equal severity, were demographically similar to one another, and had similar previous histories of depression. Those receiving antidepressants had significantly fewer overall symptoms and fewer suicidal thoughts than those treated with sedatives. By the end of one year, differences between the groups had disappeared: patients not given drugs had milder illnesses but did significantly better than those receiving drugs, both in terms of symptoms lost and their diagnostic status. Unrecognized depressions were less severe than recognized depressions, and had a similar course over the year.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving antidepressants were better in terms of overall symptoms and suicidal thoughts than those treated with sedatives at three months, but this advantage does not persist. Depression emerges as a chronic disorder at one-year follow-up--about 60% of those treated with drugs, and 50% of the milder depressions, still meet criteria for caseness. The study does not support the view that failure to recognize depression has serious adverse consequences, but, in view of the poor prognosis of depression, measures to improve compliance with treatment would appear to be indicated.

The efficacy, safety and tolerability of antidepressants in late life depression: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To determine the efficacy, safety and tolerability of antidepressants in depressed elderly patients.

METHODS

Search for randomized controlled double-blind studies evaluating atypical antidepressants (ATYPs), reversible inhibitors of monoamine oxidase-A, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and tricyclic antidepressants in moderate/severe depressed patients > or = 60 years for > or = four weeks. The random effects model (single-arm; comparative) was used to aggregate efficacy, safety and dropout.

RESULTS

No difference in single-arm aggregation of outcomes for four antidepressant classes. Comparative analyses showed no statistical difference between outcomes, except SSRIs had a higher response rate than ATYPs.

CONCLUSION

Elderly show no differences in antidepressant class outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity and lack of power.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

There is little advantage for antidepressant classes over another in the aged.

Congestive heart failure in elderly patients. The treatment goal is improved quality, not quantity, of life

Primary care physicians who see elderly patients are likely to see cases of congestive heart failure, since this condition is typically the result of long-standing hypertension or coronary artery disease. Recognizing the condition in elderly patients may not be easy, though, because clinical signs can be distorted by accompanying symptoms. In this article, the authors discuss pathophysiologic, diagnostic, and pharmacokinetic issues. They also describe therapy with diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and digoxin and outline special considerations in the elderly.