Milnacipran versus other antidepressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

Although pharmacological and psychological interventions are both effective for major depression, antidepressant drugs are frequently used as first-line treatment in primary and secondary care settings. Milnacipran, a dual serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), is one of the antidepressant drugs that clinicians use for routine depression care.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety & Neurosis review group Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) were electronically searched in August 2008. References of relevant trials and other reviews were also checked. Trial databases of the drug-approving agencies and ongoing clinical trial registers for all published and unpublished trials were hand-searched in 2007. All relevant authors were contacted for supplemental data. No language restriction was applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing milnacipran with any other active antidepressive agents (including non-conventional agents such as herbal products like hypericum) as monotherapy in the acute phase of major depression were selected.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently checked eligibility, assessed methodological quality and extracted data from the eligible trials using a standardised data extraction form. The number of participants who responded to treatment or those who achieved remission were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted, combining data from the included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 16 randomised controlled trials (n=2277) were included in the meta-analysis.Despite the size of this sample, the pooled 95% confidence intervals were rather wide and there were no statistically significant differences in efficacy, acceptability and tolerability when comparing milnacipran with other antidepressive agents. However, compared with TCAs, patients taking milnacipran were associated with fewer dropouts due to adverse events (OR 0.55; 95%CI 0.35 to 0.85). There was also some weak evidence to suggest that patients taking milnacipran experienced fewer adverse events of sleepiness/ drowsiness, dry mouth or constipation compared with TCAs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is inadequate evidence to conclude whether milnacipran is superior, inferior or the same as other antidepressive agents in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability in the acute phase treatment of major depression. However, there is some evidence in favour of milnacipran over TCAs in terms of dropouts due to adverse events (acceptability) and the rates of experiencing adverse events (tolerability). Information about other clinically meaningful outcomes such as cost-effectiveness and social functioning, including the ability to return to work, is lacking. Further study is needed to answer whether milnacipran would be the better choice of antidepressant for acute major depression.

Efficacy, tolerability and side-effect profile of fluvoxamine for major depression: meta-analysis

Fluvoxamine, one of the oldest selective serotonin reuptaking inhibitors, is commonly prescribed to patients with major depression. Several studies have reviewed the efficacy and tolerability of fluvoxamine for the treatment of major depression. However, these reviews are outdated, have not been systematic and/or suffered from several methodological weaknesses. We conducted a systematic review to synthesize the best available evidence on the efficacy of fluvoxamine for adult patients suffering from major depression in comparison with other active antidepressive agents. Relevant randomized controlled trials were identified through a comprehensive search. The primary outcome was a relative risk of response, and the secondary outcome was a relative risk of remission. Tolerability and side-effect profile were also examined. Fifty-three trials were included. There were no large differences between fluvoxamine and any other antidepressants in terms of efficacy and tolerability. There is evidence of differing side effect profiles, especially when comparing gastrointestinal side effects between fluvoxamine and tricyclics. Clinicians should focus on practically or clinically relevant differences including those in side-effect profiles.

Escitalopram versus other antidepressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

Although pharmacological and psychological interventions are both effective for major depression, antidepressant drugs remain the mainstay of treatment in primary and secondary care settings. During the last 20 years, antidepressant prescribing has risen dramatically in western countries, mainly because of the increasing consumption of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and newer antidepressants, which have progressively become the most commonly prescribed antidepressants. Escitalopram is the pure S-enantiomer of the racemic citalopram.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic databases were searched up to July 2008. Trial databases of drug-approving agencies were hand-searched for published, unpublished and ongoing controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing escitalopram against any other antidepressant (including non-conventional agents such as hypericum) for patients with major depressive disorder (regardless of the diagnostic criteria used).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were entered by two review authors (double data entry). Responders and remitters to treatment were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. For dichotomous data, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Continuous data were analysed using standardised mean differences (with 95% CI) using the random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials compared escitalopram with another SSRI and eight compared escitalopram with a newer antidepressive agent (venlafaxine, bupropion and duloxetine). Escitalopram was shown to be significantly more effective than citalopram in achieving acute response (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.87). Escitalopram was also more effective than citalopram in terms of remission (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.93). Significantly fewer patients allocated to escitalopram withdrew from trials compared with patients allocated to duloxetine, for discontinuation due to any cause (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.99).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some statistically significant differences favouring escitalopram over other antidepressive agents for the acute phase treatment of major depression were found, in terms of efficacy (citalopram and fluoxetine) and acceptability (duloxetine). There is insufficient evidence to detect a difference between escitalopram and other antidepressants in early response to treatment (after two weeks of treatment). Cost-effectiveness information is also needed in the field of antidepressant trials. Furthermore, as with most standard systematic reviews, the findings rely on evidence from direct comparisons. The potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should also be borne in mind.

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.

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.

Combined psychotherapy plus benzodiazepines for panic disorder

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of combining psychotherapy and benzodiazepines for panic disorder is unclear, despite widespread use.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy of the combination compared with either treatment alone.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised trials comparing the combination of psychotherapy and benzodiazepine with either therapy alone for panic disorder were identified. The Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group Studies and References Registers were searched. References of relevant trials and other reviews were checked. Experts in the field were contacted. Additional unpublished data were sought from authors of the original trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two authors independently checked the records retrieved by the searches to identify randomised trials comparing the combined therapy versus either of the monotherapies, among adults with panic disorder.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently checked eligibility, assessed quality and extracted data from the eligible trials using a standardised data extraction form. The primary outcome was "response" based on global judgement. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted, combining data from included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials met eligibility criteria. A 16-week behaviour therapy intervention was used in two trials, and a 12-week cognitive-behaviour therapy intervention in the third. Duration of follow-up varied, ranging from 0 to 12 months. Two trials (total 166 participants) provided data comparing combination with psychotherapy alone (both using behaviour therapy). No statistically significant differences were observed in response during the intervention (relative risk (RR) for combination 1.25, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.03, P = 0.35), at the end of the intervention (RR 0.78, 0.45 to 1.35, P = 0.37), or at the last follow-up time point, although the follow-up data suggested that the combination might be inferior to behaviour therapy alone (RR 0.62, 0.36 to 1.07, P = 0.08). One trial (77 participants) compared combination with a benzodiazepine alone. No differences were found in response during the intervention (RR 1.57, 0.83 to 2.98, P = 0.17). Although the combination appeared to be superior to the benzodiazepine alone at the end of treatment (RR 3.39, 1.03 to 11.21, P = 0.05) the finding was only borderline statistically significant, and no significant differences were observed at the 7-month follow-up (RR 2.31, 0.79 to 6.74, P = 0.12).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review established the paucity of high quality evidence investigating the efficacy of psychotherapy combined with benzodiazepines for panic disorder. Currently, there is inadequate evidence to assess the clinical effects of psychotherapy combined with benzodiazepines for patients who are diagnosed with panic disorder.

Does randomized evidence support sertraline as first-line antidepressant for adults with acute major depression? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Preliminary evidence suggested that sertraline might be slightly superior to other antidepressant medications in terms of efficacy. The aim of this study was to carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare sertraline with any other antidepressant in the acute phase treatment of major depression at 8 weeks.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE; EMBASE; the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register; and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to August 2007. No language restriction. The following search strategy was used: diagnosis = depress* or dysthymi* or adjustment disorder* or mood disorder* or affective disorder or affective symptoms, and intervention (or free text) = sertraline. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were hand-searched. Pharmaceutical companies and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.

STUDY SELECTION

Only randomized controlled trials allocating patients with major depression to sertraline versus any other antidepressant agent.

DATA EXTRACTION

Three reviewers independently extracted data. A double-entry procedure was employed by 2 reviewers. To analyze data, a very conservative approach with a 99% confidence interval (CI) and a random effects model was used. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details, and outcome measures, such as the number of patients who responded to treatment and the number of patients who failed to complete the study by any cause at 8 weeks.

DATA SYNTHESIS

This systematic review and meta-analysis found that sertraline is statistically significantly better than fluoxetine (relative risk [RR] = 0.85, 99% CI = 0.74 to 0.98; number needed to treat [NNT] = 12) and other SSRIs as a class (RR = 0.88, 99% CI = 0.78 to 0.99; NNT = 17) and highlighted a consistent even though not statistically significant trend in favor of sertraline over many other antidepressants both in terms of efficacy and acceptability in a homogeneous and clinically relevant time frame of 8 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review suggest that sertraline may be a candidate as the initial choice of antidepressant for people with major depression.

Efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran in the treatment of major depression in comparison with other antidepressants : a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Milnacipran, a dual serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, is one of the newer antidepressants that clinicians use for the routine care of patients with major depression. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran with other antidepressants.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran in comparison with TCAs, SSRIs and other drugs in the acute phase of treatment for major depression.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials registers, journals, conference proceedings, trial databases of the drug-approving agencies and ongoing clinical trial registers for all published and unpublished randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and adverse events of milnacipran versus any other antidepressant. The search was conducted in December 2006 and updated in May 2007. No language restrictions were applied. All relevant authors were contacted to supplement any incomplete reporting in the original papers. Randomized controlled trials comparing milnacipran with any other active antidepressants as monotherapy in the acute phase of treatment for major depression were selected. Participants were aged > or =18 years, of both sexes and with a primary diagnosis of unipolar major depression. Studies were excluded when the participants had specific psychiatric and medical co-morbidities. Two independent reviewers assessed the quality of trials for inclusion, and subsequently extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Meta-analyses were conducted for efficacy and tolerability outcomes. Sixteen randomized controlled trials (n = 2277) were included in the meta-analyses.

RESULTS

No differences were found in achieving clinical improvement, remission or overall tolerability when comparing milnacipran with other antidepressants. However, compared with the TCAs, fewer patients taking milnacipran were early treatment withdrawals due to adverse events (number needed to harm (NNH) = 15; 95% CI 10, 48). Significantly more patients taking TCAs experienced adverse events compared with milnacipran (NNH = 4; 95% CI 3, 7).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall effectiveness and tolerability of milnacipran versus other antidepressants does not seem to differ in the acute phase of treatment for major depression. However, there is some evidence in favour of milnacipran over TCAs in terms of premature withdrawal due to adverse events and the rates of patients experiencing adverse events. Milnacipran may benefit some patient populations who experience adverse effects from other antidepressants in the acute phase of treatment for major depression.

Mirtazapine versus other antidepressants in the acute-phase treatment of adults with major depression: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a comprehensive, systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine over other antidepressants in the acute-phase treatment of major depression.

DATA SOURCES

Studies were initially identified through electronic searches of the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register up to June 2006. The following search terms were used: depress*, dysthymi*, adjustment disorder*, mood disorder*, affective disorder, affective symptoms, and mirtazapine. No language restriction was imposed. The reference lists of the included studies, previous relevant systematic reviews, and trial registers were also hand searched. Pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field were contacted for more studies.

STUDY SELECTION

Twenty-five randomized controlled trials were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent assessors examined the quality of the trials and extracted data on an intention-to-treat basis.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The primary outcome measure was the relative risk (RR) of response (99% CIs) at the conclusion of acute-phase treatment. In relation to the early phase of treatment (at 2 weeks), there were no statistically significant differences between mirtazapine and the tricyclics in terms of the response (RR = 0.90, 99% CI = 0.69 to 1.18, p = .30 [8 trials contributed to this outcome]) or remission (RR = 0.87, 99% CI = 0.52 to 1.47, p = .50 [8 trials]) outcomes, but mirtazapine was superior to the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in terms of both the response (RR = 1.36, 99% CI = 1.13 to 1.64, p < .0001 [12 trials]) and remission (RR = 1.68, 99% CI = 1.20 to 2.36, p < .0001 [12 trials]). In the subgroup analyses, mirtazapine significantly produced more response than paroxetine (RR = 2.02, 99% CI = 1.09 to 3.75, p = .003 [3 trials]) and venlafaxine (RR = 1.77, 99% CI = 1.08 to 2.89, p = .003 [2 trials]). At the end of acute-phase treatment (6-12 weeks, all trials), no significant differences were observed in the efficacy outcomes. No significant differences were observed between mirtazapine and the other antidepressants in terms of either the total number of dropouts due to any reason (21 trials) or the total number of dropouts due to the development of side effect (23 trials) during the trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Although mirtazapine is likely to have a faster onset of action than SSRIs, no significant differences were observed at the end of 6 to 12 weeks' treatment. Clinicians should focus on other practically relevant considerations to tailor treatment to best fit the needs of individual patients.

Can pill placebo augment cognitive-behavior therapy for panic disorder?

BACKGROUND

In a number of drug and psychotherapy comparative trials, psychotherapy-placebo combination has been assumed to represent psychotherapy. Whether psychotherapy plus pill placebo is the same as psychotherapy alone is an empirical question which however has to date never been examined systematically.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT) alone against CBT plus pill placebo in the treatment of panic disorder.

RESULTS

Extensive literature search was able to identify three relevant RCTs. At the end of the acute phase treatment, patients who received CBT plus placebo had 26% (95%CI: 2 to 55%) increased chances of responding than those who received CBT alone. At follow-up the difference was no longer statistically significant (22%, 95%CI: -10% to 64%).

CONCLUSION

The act of taking a pill placebo may enhance the placebo effect already contained in the effective psychotherapeutic intervention during the acute phase treatment. Theoretically this is an argument against the recently claimed null hypothesis of placebo effect in general and clinically it may point to some further room for enhancing the psychotherapeutic approach for panic disorder.

Mental capacity in psychiatric patients: Systematic review

BACKGROUND

Mental capacity is central to legal and ethical debates on the use of compulsion in psychiatry.

AIMS

To describe the clinical epidemiology of mental incapacity in patients with psychiatric disorders, including interrater reliability of assessments, frequency in the psychiatric population and associations of mental incapacity.

METHOD

Cross-sectional studies of capacity to consent to treatment for psychiatric patients were systematically reviewed from Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo databases. Information on the reliability of assessments, frequency and associations of mental incapacity was extracted.

RESULTS

Out of 37 papers reviewed, 29 different capacity assessment tools were identified. Studies were highly heterogeneous in their measurement and definitions of capacity. Interrater reliabilities between tools were high. Studies indicate incapacity is common (median 29%) but the majority of psychiatric in-patients are capable of making treatment decisions. Psychosis, severity of symptoms, involuntary admission and treatment refusal were the strongest risk factors for incapacity.

CONCLUSIONS

Mental capacity can be reliably assessed. The majority of psychiatric in-patients have capacity, and socio-demographic variables do not have a major impact but clinical ones do.

Psychotherapy for depression among children and adolescents: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To examine the clinical benefit, the harm and the cost-effectiveness of psychotherapies in comparison with no treatment, waiting-list controls, attention-placebos, and treatment as usual in depressed youths.

METHOD

Meta-analyses were undertaken by using data from all relevant randomized-controlled trials identified by a comprehensive literature search. The primary outcome was relative risk (RR) of response.

RESULTS

We identified 27 studies containing 35 comparisons and 1,744 participants. At post-treatment, psychotherapy was significantly superior (RR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.18-1.65, P = 0.0001, number-needed to treat 4.3). There was an evidence of the existence of small study effects, including a publication bias (P < 0.001). The superiority of psychotherapy was no longer statistically significant (1.18 [0.94-1.47], P = 0.15) at 6-month follow-up. None of the studies reported adverse effects or cost-effectiveness outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Although the findings were biased by some small positive trials, psychotherapies appear to help depressed youths for the short term, but are no longer significantly favourable at 6-month follow-up.

Ethnicity and the Mental Health Act 1983

BACKGROUND

Black and minority ethnic (BME) patients are disproportionately detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. There has been no systematic exploration of differences within and between ethnic groups, nor of the explanations put forward for this excess.

AIMS

To systematically review detention and ethnicity, with meta-analyses of detention rates for BME groups, and to explore the explanations offered for ethnic differences in detention rates.

METHOD

Literature search and meta-analysis. Explanations offered were categorised, supporting literature was accessed and the strength of the evidence evaluated.

RESULTS

In all, 49 studies met inclusion criteria; of these, 19 were included in the meta-analyses. Compared with White patients, Black patients were 3.83 times, BME patients 3.35 times and Asian patients 2.06 times more likely to be detained. The most common explanations related to misdiagnosis and discrimination against BME patients, higher incidence of psychosis and differences in illness expression. Many explanations, including that of racism within mental health services, were not supported by clear evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Although BME status predicts psychiatric detention in the UK, most explanations offered for the excess detention of BME patients are largely unsupported.

WITHDRAWN: Treatment discontinuation with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs)

BACKGROUND

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are thought to have better discontinuation rates (i.e. less people dropping out) than tricyclic and heterocyclic antidepressant drugs. It is important to quantify the drop-out rates of different antidepressant drugs in order to have a better understanding of the relative tolerability of these drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative tolerability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic/heterocyclic antidepressant drugs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Registers (1997 to 1999), MEDLINE (1966 to 1999), EMBASE (1974 to 1999) We also searched specialist journals, the reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews, conference abstracts and government documents. Representatives of the pharmaceutical industry were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel group randomised controlled trials comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors with tricyclic or heterocyclic antidepressants in people with depression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and a third reviewer checked any cases of disagreement.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 136 trials. The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors showed less participants dropping out compared to the tricyclic/heterocyclic group (odds ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.30). A statistically significant difference was found in total drop-outs between the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and the old tricyclics as well as the newer tricyclics. When the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were compared to the heterocyclic antidepressants, there was a non significant difference favouring the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The poor tolerability profile of the old tricyclics was explained by differences in drop-outs for side-effects, but not for inefficacy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Whilst selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors do appear to show an advantage over tricyclic drugs in terms of total drop-outs, this advantage is relatively modest. This has implications for pharmaco-economic models, some of which may have overestimated the difference of drop-out rates between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants. These results are based on short-term randomised controlled trials, and may not generalise into clinical practice.

Family therapy for depression

BACKGROUND

People with depression often experience interpersonal problems. Family therapy for depression is a widely used intervention, but it is unclear whether this is an effective therapy for the treatment of depression.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of family therapy for depression.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following electronic databases were searched using a specific search strategy: CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References searched on 21/10/2005, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline (1966 to January 2005), EMBASE (1980 to January 2005), Psycinfo (1974 to January 2005). Reference lists of articles were also searched. Handsearches of relevant journals and bibliographies were conducted and first authors of included studies and experts in the field were contacted for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Included studies were randomised controlled and controlled clinical trials comparing family therapy with no intervention or an alternative intervention in which depression symptomatology was a main outcome measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Methodological quality was independently assessed by two review authors using the Maastricht-Amsterdam Criteria List. The qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the selected trials were independently extracted by three review authors using a standardised data extraction form. Levels of evidence were used to determine the strength of the evidence available. It was not possible to perform meta-analyses because of the heterogeneity of the selected studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Three high-quality and three low-quality studies, involving 519 people with depression, were identified. The studies were very heterogeneous in terms of interventions, participants, and measuring instruments. Despite fairly good methodological quality and positive findings of some studies, evidence for the effectiveness of family therapy for depression did not exceed level 3 (limited or conflicting evidence), except for moderate evidence (level 2), based on the non-combined findings from three studies, indicating that family therapy is more effective than no treatment or waiting list condition on decreasing depression, and on increasing family functioning.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence base is too heterogeneous and sparse to draw conclusions on the overall effectiveness of family therapy in the treatment of depression. At this point, use of psychological interventions for the treatment of depression for which there is already an evidence-base would seem to be preferable to family therapy. Further high quality trials examining the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of explicitly defined forms of family therapy are required.

Anterior cingulate volumes in schizophrenia: a systematic review and a meta-analysis of MRI studies

OBJECTIVES

Several MRI studies have investigated the anterior cingulate in schizophrenia, as this is a key region for emotional processing and higher executive performances. A systematic review of structural MRI studies and a meta-analysis were conducted to explore whether anterior cingulate volumes are abnormal in patients with schizophrenia.

METHOD

A systematic search strategy was used to identify eligible MRI studies. Thereafter, a meta-analysis was carried out by using a random effect model. Also, a meta-regression analysis was used to assess the influence of age, gender and slice thickness on effect sizes.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis was performed on seven studies. These results showed that the anterior cingulate volumes were significantly reduced in patients compared to healthy controls. Significant heterogeneity between these studies was observed. The meta-regression demonstrated that the effect size was significantly related only to slice thickness.

CONCLUSIONS

Our work confirmed the presence of abnormally reduced anterior cingulate volumes in schizophrenia. However, several methodological issues limited the interpretation of these findings. Among these were different MR acquisition parameters and the small size of the sample, which was mostly composed of chronic patients. Future MRI studies should be planned to better understand the functional expression of anterior cingulate structural abnormalities.

Combination of psychotherapy and benzodiazepines versus either therapy alone for panic disorder: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of combined psychotherapy and benzodiazepine treatment for panic disorder is still unclear despite its widespread use. The present systematic review aims to examine its efficacy compared with either monotherapy alone.

METHODS

All randomised trials comparing combined psychotherapy and benzodiazepine for panic disorder with either therapy alone were identified by comprehensive electronic search on the Cochrane Registers, by checking references of relevant studies and of other reviews, and by contacting experts in the field. Two reviewers independently checked eligibility of trials, assessed quality of trials and extracted data from eligible trials using a standardized data extraction form. Our primary outcome was "response" defined by global judgement. Authors of the original trials were contacted for further unpublished data. Meta-analyses were undertaken synthesizing data from all relevant trials.

RESULTS

Only two studies, which compared the combination with behaviour (exposure) therapy, met our eligibility criteria. Both studies had a 16-week intervention. Unpublished data were retrieved for one study. The relative risk for response for the combination was 1.25 (95%CI: 0.78 to 2.03) during acute phase treatment, 0.78 (0.45 to 1.35) at the end of treatment, and 0.62 (0.36 to 1.07) at 6-12 months follow-up. Some secondary outcomes hinted at superiority of the combination during acute phase treatment. One study was identified comparing the combination to benzodiazepine. The relative risk for response was 1.57 (0.83 to 2.98), 3.39 (1.03 to 11.21, statistically significant) and 2.31 (0.79 to 6.74) respectively. The superiority of the combination was observed on secondary outcomes at all the time points. No sub-group analyses were conducted due to the limited number of included trials.

CONCLUSION

Unlike some narrative reviews in the literature, our systematic search established the paucity of high quality evidence for or against the combined psychotherapy plus benzodiazepine therapy for panic disorder. Based on limited available published and unpublished data, however, the combined therapy is probably to be recommended over benzodiazepine alone for panic disorder with agoraphobia. The combination might be superior to behaviour therapy alone during the acute phase, but afterwards this trend may be reversed. We know little from these trials about their adverse effects.

Youth-friendly primary-care services: how are we doing and what more needs to be done?

For developmental as well as epidemiological reasons, young people need youth-friendly models of primary care. Over the past two decades, much has been written about barriers faced by young people in accessing health care. Worldwide, initiatives are emerging that attempt to remove these barriers and help reach young people with the health services they need. In this paper, we present key models of youth-friendly health provision and review the evidence for the effect of such models on young people's health. Unfortunately, little evidence is available, since many of these initiatives have not been appropriately assessed. Appropriate controlled assessments of the effect of youth-friendly health-service models on young people's health outcomes should be the focus of future research agendas. Enough is known to recommend that a priority for the future is to ensure that each country, state, and locality has a policy and support to encourage provision of innovative and well assessed youth-friendly services.

Psychological treatments versus treatment as usual for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD)

BACKGROUND

Obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) is a chronic anxiety disorder associated with significant morbidity, social impairment and lower quality of life. Psychological treatments are a frequently used approach for OCD.

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review of randomised trials of psychological treatments for obsessive compulsive disorder in comparison with treatment as usual.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We conducted an electronic search of CCDANCTR-Studies (31/10/2006), and other databases. We searched reference lists, and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published and unpublished randomised trials of psychological treatments versus treatment as usual for adults with a diagnosis of OCD DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors worked independently throughout the selection of trials and data extraction. Findings were compared and disagreements were discussed with a third review author. Full data extraction, using a standardised data extraction sheet, was performed on all studies included in the review. Results were synthesised using Review Manager software. For dichotomous data, odds ratios were calculated. For continuous data, effect sizes were obtained and the standardised mean difference, with 95% confidence intervals, was calculated. Fixed and random effects models were used to pool the data. Reasons for heterogeneity in studies were explored and sensitivity analyses were performed by excluding trials of lower quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies (11 study comparisons) were identified, all of which compared cognitive and/or behavioural treatments versus treatment as usual control groups. Seven studies (ten comparisons) had usable data for meta-analyses. These studies demonstrated that patients receiving any variant of cognitive behavioural treatment exhibited significantly fewer symptoms post-treatment than those receiving treatment as usual (SMD -1.24, 95% CI -1.61 to -0.87, I(2) test for heterogeneity 33.4%). Different types of cognitive and/or behavioural treatments showed similar differences in effect when compared with treatment as usual. The overall treatment effect appeared to be influenced by differences in baseline severity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review suggest that psychological treatments derived from cognitive behavioural models are an effective treatment for adult patients with obsessive compulsive disorder. Larger high quality randomised controlled trials involving longer follow up periods are needed, to further test cognitive behavioural treatments, and other psychological approaches, in comparison to each other and control conditions. Future trials should examine the predictors of response to each treatment, and also conduct cost-effectiveness evaluations.