Fluvoxamine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression

A systematic review and meta-analysis, investigating dose and time of fluvoxamine treatment efficacy for COVID-19 clinical deterioration, death, and Long-COVID complications

There have been 774,075,242 cases of COVID-19 and 7,012,986 deaths worldwide as of January 2024. In the early stages of the pandemic, there was an urgent need to reduce the severity of the disease and prevent the need for hospitalization to avoid stress on healthcare systems worldwide. The repurposing of drugs to prevent clinical deterioration of COVID-19 patients was trialed in many studies using many different drugs. Fluvoxamine (an SSRI and sigma-1 receptor agonist) was initially identified to potentially provide beneficial effects in COVID-19-infected patients, preventing clinical deterioration and the need for hospitalization. Fourteen clinical studies have been carried out to date, with seven of those being randomized placebo-controlled studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis covers the literature from the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 in late 2019 until January 2024. Search terms related to fluvoxamine, such as its trade names and chemical names, along with words related to COVID-19, such as SARS-CoV-2 and coronavirus, were used in literature databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and the ClinicalTrials.gov database from NIH, to identify the trials used in the subsequent analysis. Clinical deterioration and death data were extracted from these studies where available and used in the meta-analysis. A total of 7153 patients were studied across 14 studies (both open-label and double-blind placebo-controlled). 681 out of 3553 (19.17%) in the standard care group and 255 out of 3600 (7.08%) in the fluvoxamine-treated group experienced clinical deterioration. The estimated average log odds ratio was 1.087 (95% CI 0.200 to 1.973), which differed significantly from zero (z = 2.402, p = 0.016). The seven placebo-controlled studies resulted in a log odds ratio of 0.359 (95% CI 0.1111 to 0.5294), which differed significantly from zero (z = 3.103, p = 0.002). The results of this study identified fluvoxamine as effective in preventing clinical deterioration, and subgrouping analysis suggests that earlier treatment with a dose of 200 mg or above provides the best outcomes. We hope the outcomes of this study can help design future studies into respiratory viral infections and potentially improve clinical outcomes.

Differential effectiveness between Ketamine and Esketamine: the predictive role of dissociative features. A treatment-resistant depression case

More than 10 years ago, the discovery of the antidepressant effects of Ketamine opened the opportunity to develop a novel class of antidepressants. Ketamine induces dissociative symptoms as a major side effect. This rapid-acting antidepressant is available as an endovenous racemic compound and as an intranasal S-enantiomer: Esketamine; which is four-fold more potent for the NMDA receptor. Here we present the critical case of a patient who took both molecules experiencing remission just with endovenous Ketamine, whose impact in terms of dissociative symptoms was greater. In this short report, we discuss the differences between the two drugs and the possibility of dissociative features to predict their efficacy.

Fluvoxamine inhibits Th1 and Th17 polarization and function by repressing glycolysis to attenuate autoimmune progression in type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Fluvoxamine is one of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) that are regarded as the first-line drugs to manage mental disorders. It has been also recognized with the potential to treat inflammatory diseases and viral infection. However, the effect of fluvoxamine on autoimmune diseases, particularly type 1 diabetes (T1D) and the related cellular and molecular mechanisms, are yet to be addressed.

METHOD

Herein in this report, we treated NOD mice with fluvoxamine for 2 weeks starting from 10-week of age to dissect the impact of fluvoxamine on the prevention of type 1 diabetes. We compared the differences of immune cells between 12-week-old control and fluvoxamine-treated mice by flow cytometry analysis. To study the mechanism involved, we extensively examined the characteristics of CD4+ T cells with fluvoxamine stimulation using RNA-seq analysis, real-time PCR, Western blot, and seahorse assay. Furthermore, we investigated the relevance of our data to human autoimmune diabetes.

RESULT

Fluvoxamine not only delayed T1D onset, but also decreased T1D incidence. Moreover, fluvoxamine-treated NOD mice showed significantly attenuated insulitis coupled with well-preserved β cell function, and decreased Th1 and Th17 cells in the peripheral blood, pancreatic lymph nodes (PLNs), and spleen. Mechanistic studies revealed that fluvoxamine downregulated glycolytic process by inhibiting phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)-AKT signaling, by which it restrained effector T (Teff) cell differentiation and production of proinflammatory cytokines.

CONCLUSION

Collectively, our study supports that fluvoxamine could be a viable therapeutic drug against autoimmunity in T1D setting.

Effect of fluvoxamine on plasma interleukin-6 in patients with major depressive disorder: a prospective follow-up study

Introduction

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is associated with low-grade inflammation, and anti-inflammatory treatment can help improve depressive symptoms. A recent study found that fluvoxamine (FLV) can reduce Interleukin-6 (IL-6) production via sigma-1 receptor in inflammation models. However, the anti- IL-6 effect of FLV in treating patients with MDD and whether it can contribute to antidepressant effects remain unclear.

Methods

A total of 65 patients with MDD and 34 healthy controls were recruited at baseline, and 50 patients completed the FLV treatment for 2 months. We assessed depression and anhedonia and collected plasma IL-6 levels at baseline, 1 month, and 2 months after baseline. This study evaluated the changes in clinical measures and IL-6 during treatment and analyzed their association. Further subgroup analyses were conducted in patients with MDD with high, medium, or low IL-6.

Results

Depression and anhedonia were significantly improved in patients with MDD, while the IL-6 did not significantly change after the FLV treatment. However, IL-6 significantly declined after the FLV treatment among patients with MDD with higher baseline IL-6. No significant associations were found between the changes in depressive symptoms and IL-6.

Conclusion

Our study provided preliminary evidence suggesting that the anti-IL-6 effect of FLV might not play a vital role in its antidepressant treatment, at least in patients with MDD with low inflammation. However, for patients with MDD with higher IL-6, FLV can help reduce IL-6 significantly in the antidepressant treatment, which may help guide the individual treatment of MDD with higher IL-6 levels.

Clinical trial registration

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04160377, identifier NCT04160377.

Gastrointestinal side effects associated with antidepressant treatments in patients with major depressive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Gastrointestinal side effects (SEs) are frequently observed in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) while taking antidepressants and may lead to treatment discontinuation. The aim of this meta-analysis is to provide quantitative measures on short-term rates of gastrointestinal SEs in MDD patients treated with second-generation antidepressants. An electronic search of the literature was conducted by using MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science - Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Library databases. Eligible studies had to focus on the use of at least one of 15 antidepressants commonly used in MDD (i.e., agomelatine, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, mirtazapine, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine) and report data on treatment-emergent gastrointestinal SEs (i.e. nausea/vomiting, diarrhoea, constipation, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, anorexia, increased appetite and dry mouth) within 12 weeks of treatment. Overall, 304 studies were included in the meta-analyses. All the considered antidepressants showed higher rates of gastrointestinal SEs than placebo. Escitalopram and sertraline were shown to be the least tolerated antidepressants on the gastrointestinal tract, being associated with all the considered SEs with the exception of constipation and increased appetite, while mirtazapine was shown to be the antidepressant with fewer side effects on the gut, being only associated with increased appetite. In conclusion, commonly used antidepressants showed different profiles of gastrointestinal SEs, possibly related to their mechanisms of action. The specific tolerability profile of each compound should be considered by clinicians when prescribing antidepressants in order to improve adherence to treatment and increase positive outcomes in patients with MDD.

Sigmar1's Molecular, Cellular, and Biological Functions in Regulating Cellular Pathophysiology

The Sigma 1 receptor (Sigmar1) is a ubiquitously expressed multifunctional inter-organelle signaling chaperone protein playing a diverse role in cellular survival. Recessive mutation in Sigmar1 have been identified as a causative gene for neuronal and neuromuscular disorder. Since the discovery over 40 years ago, Sigmar1 has been shown to contribute to numerous cellular functions, including ion channel regulation, protein quality control, endoplasmic reticulum-mitochondrial communication, lipid metabolism, mitochondrial function, autophagy activation, and involved in cellular survival. Alterations in Sigmar1’s subcellular localization, expression, and signaling has been implicated in the progression of a wide range of diseases, such as neurodegenerative diseases, ischemic brain injury, cardiovascular diseases, diabetic retinopathy, cancer, and drug addiction. The goal of this review is to summarize the current knowledge of Sigmar1 biology focusing the recent discoveries on Sigmar1’s molecular, cellular, pathophysiological, and biological functions.

New generation antidepressants for depression in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorders have a significant impact on children and adolescents, including on educational and vocational outcomes, interpersonal relationships, and physical and mental health and well-being. There is an association between major depressive disorder and suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide. Antidepressant medication is used in moderate to severe depression; there is now a range of newer generations of these medications.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate, via network meta-analysis (NMA), the comparative effectiveness and safety of different newer generation antidepressants in children and adolescents with a diagnosed major depressive disorder (MDD) in terms of depression, functioning, suicide-related outcomes and other adverse outcomes. The impact of age, treatment duration, baseline severity, and pharmaceutical industry funding was investigated on clinician-rated depression (CDRS-R) and suicide-related outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, the Cochrane Library (Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)), together with Ovid Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO till March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of six to 18 year olds of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed major depressive disorder were included. Trials that compared the effectiveness of newer generation antidepressants with each other or with a placebo were included. Newer generation antidepressants included: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs); norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine disinhibitors (NDDIs); and tetracyclic antidepressants (TeCAs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data as Odds Ratios (ORs), and continuous data as Mean Difference (MD) for the following outcomes: depression symptom severity (clinician rated), response or remission of depression symptoms, depression symptom severity (self-rated), functioning, suicide related outcomes and overall adverse outcomes. Random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted in a frequentist framework using multivariate meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA). We used "informative statements" to standardise the interpretation and description of the results.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six studies were included. There were no data for the two primary outcomes (depressive disorder established via clinical diagnostic interview and suicide), therefore, the results comprise only secondary outcomes. Most antidepressants may be associated with a "small and unimportant" reduction in depression symptoms on the CDRS-R scale (range 17 to 113) compared with placebo (high certainty evidence: paroxetine: MD -1.43, 95% CI -3.90, 1.04; vilazodone: MD -0.84, 95% CI -3.03, 1.35; desvenlafaxine MD -0.07, 95% CI -3.51, 3.36; moderate certainty evidence: sertraline: MD -3.51, 95% CI -6.99, -0.04; fluoxetine: MD -2.84, 95% CI -4.12, -1.56; escitalopram: MD -2.62, 95% CI -5.29, 0.04; low certainty evidence: duloxetine: MD -2.70, 95% CI -5.03, -0.37; vortioxetine: MD 0.60, 95% CI -2.52, 3.72; very low certainty evidence for comparisons between other antidepressants and placebo). There were "small and unimportant" differences between most antidepressants in reduction of depression symptoms (high- or moderate-certainty evidence). Results were similar across other outcomes of benefit. In most studies risk of self-harm or suicide was an exclusion criterion for the study. Proportions of suicide-related outcomes were low for most included studies and 95% confidence intervals were wide for all comparisons. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of mirtazapine (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.03, 8.04), duloxetine (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.72, 1.82), vilazodone (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.68, 1.48), desvenlafaxine (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59, 1.52), citalopram (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.76, 3.87) or vortioxetine (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.29, 8.60) on suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo. There is low certainty evidence that escitalopram may "at least slightly" reduce odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.43, 1.84). There is low certainty evidence that fluoxetine (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87, 1.86), paroxetine (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.85, 3.86), sertraline (OR 3.03, 95% CI 0.60, 15.22), and venlafaxine (OR 13.84, 95% CI 1.79, 106.90) may "at least slightly" increase odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo. There is moderate certainty evidence that venlafaxine probably results in an "at least slightly" increased odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with desvenlafaxine (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56) and escitalopram (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56). There was very low certainty evidence regarding other comparisons between antidepressants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, methodological shortcomings of the randomised trials make it difficult to interpret the findings with regard to the efficacy and safety of newer antidepressant medications. Findings suggest that most newer antidepressants may reduce depression symptoms in a small and unimportant way compared with placebo. Furthermore, there are likely to be small and unimportant differences in the reduction of depression symptoms between the majority of antidepressants. However, our findings reflect the average effects of the antidepressants, and given depression is a heterogeneous condition, some individuals may experience a greater response. Guideline developers and others making recommendations might therefore consider whether a recommendation for the use of newer generation antidepressants is warranted for some individuals in some circumstances. Our findings suggest sertraline, escitalopram, duloxetine, as well as fluoxetine (which is currently the only treatment recommended for first-line prescribing) could be considered as a first option. Children and adolescents considered at risk of suicide were frequently excluded from trials, so that we cannot be confident about the effects of these medications for these individuals. If an antidepressant is being considered for an individual, this should be done in consultation with the child/adolescent and their family/caregivers and it remains critical to ensure close monitoring of treatment effects and suicide-related outcomes (combined suicidal ideation and suicide attempt) in those treated with newer generation antidepressants, given findings that some of these medications may be associated with greater odds of these events. Consideration of psychotherapy, particularly cognitive behavioural therapy, as per guideline recommendations, remains important.

Inbuilt novel bioretardant feature of biopolymer isolated from cucumis sativa for designing drug loaded bionanosuspension

Objectives: The current research work has potential for delivery of fluvoxamine moiety in bio-nanosuspension mode for the effective treatment of depression. Depression is a mood disorder characterized by persistently low mood and a feeling of sadness and loss of interest. Methods: The fluvoxamine loaded bio-nanosuspension was prepared using novel bio-retardant isolated from fruit pulp of Cucumis sativa by a novel method with different ratios (1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:4, 1:5) and the same ratios with standard polymer eudragit L-100. The bio-nanosuspensions were evaluated for pH stability studies, percentage entrapment efficacy, in vitro drug release, particle size, polydispersity index, zeta potential, and stability studies. Results: The bio-nanosuspension was subjected to the best formulation based on comparison of above mentioned evaluation parameters, and the Fc1 (1:1) formulation was found to be the best formulation. Cucumis sativa provided excellent stability for the formulation, and the resulting particle size was found to be 194 nm. The bio-nanosuspension had a Polydispersity Index (PDI) of 0.13 with zeta potential of -17.9 mV. Conclusion: The fluvoxamine loaded bio-nanosuspension using Cucumis sativa was found to be nontoxic and compatible with drug delivery systems for treatment of depression. This was the first report in which Cucumis sativa as a bioretardant demonstrated greater retardability over the standard polymer eudragit-100.

Cardiac Dysfunction in the Sigma 1 Receptor Knockout Mouse Associated With Impaired Mitochondrial Dynamics and Bioenergetics

Background The Sigma 1 receptor (Sigmar1) functions as an interorganelle signaling molecule and elicits cytoprotective functions. The presence of Sigmar1 in the heart was first reported on the basis of a ligand-binding assay, and all studies to date have been limited to pharmacological approaches using less-selective ligands for Sigmar1. However, the physiological function of cardiac Sigmar1 remains unknown. We investigated the physiological function of Sigmar1 in regulating cardiac hemodynamics using the Sigmar1 knockout mouse (Sigmar1-/-). Methods and Results Sigmar1-/- hearts at 3 to 4 months of age showed significantly increased contractility as assessed by left ventricular catheterization with stimulation by increasing doses of a β1-adrenoceptor agonist. Noninvasive echocardiographic measurements were also used to measure cardiac function over time, and the data showed the development of cardiac contractile dysfunction in Sigmar1 -/- hearts as the animals aged. Histochemistry demonstrated significant cardiac fibrosis, collagen deposition, and increased periostin in the Sigmar1 -/- hearts compared with wild-type hearts. Ultrastructural analysis of Sigmar1-/- cardiomyocytes revealed an irregularly shaped, highly fused mitochondrial network with abnormal cristae. Mitochondrial size was larger in Sigmar1-/- hearts, resulting in decreased numbers of mitochondria per microscopic field. In addition, Sigmar1-/- hearts showed altered expression of mitochondrial dynamics regulatory proteins. Real-time oxygen consumption rates in isolated mitochondria showed reduced respiratory function in Sigmar1-/- hearts compared with wild-type hearts. Conclusions We demonstrate a potential function of Sigmar1 in regulating normal mitochondrial organization and size in the heart. Sigmar1 loss of function led to mitochondrial dysfunction, abnormal mitochondrial architecture, and adverse cardiac remodeling, culminating in cardiac contractile dysfunction.

Early Life Stress, Depression And Parkinson's Disease: A New Approach

This review aims to shed light on the relationship that involves exposure to early life stress, depression and Parkinson's disease (PD). A systematic literature search was conducted in Pubmed, MEDLINE, EBSCOHost and Google Scholar and relevant data were submitted to a meta-analysis . Early life stress may contribute to the development of depression and patients with depression are at risk of developing PD later in life. Depression is a common non-motor symptom preceding motor symptoms in PD. Stimulation of regions contiguous to the substantia nigra as well as dopamine (DA) agonists have been shown to be able to attenuate depression. Therefore, since PD causes depletion of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra, depression, rather than being just a simple mood disorder, may be part of the pathophysiological process that leads to PD. It is plausible that the mesocortical and mesolimbic dopaminergic pathways that mediate mood, emotion, and/or cognitive function may also play a key role in depression associated with PD. Here, we propose that a medication designed to address a deficiency in serotonin is more likely to influence motor symptoms of PD associated with depression. This review highlights the effects of an antidepressant, Fluvoxamine maleate, in an animal model that combines depressive-like symptoms and Parkinsonism.

Trends in the dispensation of antidepressant drugs over the past decade (2000-2010) in Andalusia, Spain

PURPOSE

To study antidepressant drug dispensation in the Spanish region of Andalusia and in the Almeria Health Area (AHA) over the past decade, analyzing the variability, trends, and influential factors.

METHODS

We conducted an observational ecological study of antidepressant drug dispensation between 2000 and 2010 in Andalusia. Dispensation was measured as Defined Daily Dose (DDD) per 1,000 inhabitants per day. A multilevel analysis (STATA 11.1) was performed to determine the variability among the basic health zones (BHZs) (2004-2010) and influential factors.

RESULTS

Between 2000 and 2010, the total dispensation of antidepressant drugs increased by more than 100 % in Andalusia and in the AHA. This increase was primarily caused by the greater dispensation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (ATC-N06AB) and other antidepressants (ATC-N06AX). Multilevel analysis revealed a wide variability in the levels and trends of antidepressant dispensation among BHZs. Urbanicity and the percentage of immigrants in the BHZ were negatively associated with their dispensation, which was positively influenced by a higher proportion of women and over 65-year-olds in the population.

CONCLUSIONS

The elevated dispensation of several groups of antidepressant drugs in this study population indicates the need for health policies to rationalize their use. Further research is required into the differences in antidepressant dispensations between immigrant and native populations and the implications for public health policies.

Appraisal of the methodological quality and summary of the findings of systematic reviews on the relationship between SSRIs and suicidality

BACKGROUND

Several systematic reviews have been published about the relationship of the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and risk of suicidal ideation or behavior but there has been no formal assessment of the quality of these reports.

AIM

Assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews about the relationship of SSRI use and suicidal ideation and behavior; and provide overall conclusions based on this assessment.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of RCTs that compared SSRIs to placebo and used suicidal ideation or behavior as a key outcome variable were identified by searching Pubmed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, EBSCO, PsycINFO, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, WANFANG DATA, and the Chinese Biological Medical Literature Database. The methodological quality of included reviews was independently assessed by two expert raters using the 11-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scale.

RESULTS

Twelve systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified. The inter-rater reliability of the overall AMSTAR quality score was excellent (ICC=0.86) but the inter-rater reliability of 5 of the 11 AMSTAR items was poor (Kappa <0.60). Based on the AMSTAR total score, there was one high-quality review, eight moderate-quality reviews, and three low-quality reviews. The high-quality review and three of the moderate-quality reviews reported a significantly increased risk of suicidal ideation or behavior in the SSRI group compared to the placebo group. Three of the four reviews limited to children and adolescents found a significantly increased risk of suicidal ideation or behavior with SSRI use which was most evident in teenagers taking paroxetine and in teenagers with depressive disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that adolescents may experience an increase in suicidal ideation and behavior with SSRI use, particularly those who have a depressive disorder and those treated with paroxetine. However, there are few high-quality reviews on this issue, so some doubt about the evidence remains. The AMSTAR scale may be useful in the ongoing efforts to improve the quality of systematic reviews, but further work is needed on tightening the operational criteria for some of the items in the scale.

Paroxetine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

Paroxetine is the most potent inhibitor of the reuptake of serotonin of all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and has been studied in many randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, these comparative studies provided contrasting findings and systematic reviews of RCTs have always considered the SSRIs as a group, and evidence applicable to this group of drugs might not be applicable to paroxetine alone. The present systematic review assessed the efficacy and tolerability profile of paroxetine in comparison with tricyclics (TCAs), SSRIs and newer or non-conventional agents.

OBJECTIVES

1. To determine the efficacy of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents in alleviating the acute symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder.2. To review acceptability of treatment with paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.3. To investigate the adverse effects of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialized Register (CCDANCTR, to 30 September 2012), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were handsearched. Pharmaceutical companies marketing paroxetine and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials allocating participants with major depression to paroxetine versus any other antidepressants (ADs), both conventional (such as TCAs, SSRIs) and newer or non-conventional (such as hypericum). For trials which had a cross-over design, only results from the first randomisation period were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a standard form. Data were then entered in RevMan 5.2 with a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, settings and efficacy, acceptability and tolerability measures.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 115 randomised controlled trials (26,134 participants) were included. In 54 studies paroxetine was compared with older ADs, in 21 studies with another SSRI, and in 40 studies with a newer or non-conventional antidepressant other than SSRIs. For the primary outcome (patients who responded to treatment), paroxetine was more effective than reboxetine at increasing patients who responded early to treatment (Odds Ratio (OR): 0.66, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.87, number needed to treat to provide benefit (NNTb) = 16, 95% CI 10 to 50, at one to four weeks, 3 RCTs, 1375 participants, moderate quality of evidence), and less effective than mirtazapine (OR: 2.39, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.02, NNTb = 8, 95% CI 5 to 14, at one to four weeks, 3 RCTs, 726 participants, moderate quality of evidence). Paroxetine was less effective than citalopram in improving response to treatment (OR: 1.54, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.28, NNTb = 9, 95% CI 5 to 102, at six to 12 weeks, 1 RCT, 406 participants, moderate quality of evidence). We found no clear evidence that paroxetine was more or less effective compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at acute (six to 12 weeks), early (one to four weeks), or longer term follow-up (four to six months). Paroxetine was associated with a lower rate of adverse events than amitriptyline, imipramine and older ADs as a class, but was less well tolerated than agomelatine and hypericum. Included studies were generally at unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting of allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessment, and incomplete reporting of outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some possibly clinically meaningful differences between paroxetine and other ADs exist, but no definitive conclusions can be drawn from these findings. In terms of response, there was a moderate quality of evidence that citalopram was better than paroxetine in the acute phase (six to 12 weeks), although only one study contributed data. In terms of early response to treatment (one to four weeks) there was moderate quality of evidence that mirtazapine was better than paroxetine and that paroxetine was better than reboxetine. However there was no clear evidence that paroxetine was better or worse compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at any time point. Even if some differences were identified, the findings from this review are better thought as hypothesis forming rather than hypothesis testing and it would be reassuring to see the conclusions replicated in future trials. Finally, most of included studies were at unclear or high risk of bias, and were sponsored by the drug industry. The potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should be borne in mind.

Efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in depression in adults: a systematic review

CONTEXT

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of vitamin D (Vit D) in depression provided inconsistent results.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to summarize the evidence of RCTs to assess the efficacy of oral Vit D supplementation in depression compared to placebo.

DATA SOURCES

We searched electronic databases, two conference proceedings, and gray literature by contacting authors of included studies.

STUDY SELECTION

We selected parallel RCTs investigating the effect of oral Vit D supplementation compared with placebo on depression in adults at risk of depression, with depression symptoms or a primary diagnosis of depression.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently extracted data from relevant literature.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Classical and Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool relative risk, odds ratio, and standardized mean difference. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were identified with 1203 participants (72% females) including 71 depressed patients; five of the studies involved adults at risk of depression, and one trial used depressed patients. Results of the classical meta-analysis showed no significant effect of Vit D supplementation on postintervention depression scores (standardized mean difference = -0.14, 95% confidence interval = -0.41 to 0.13, P = .32; odds ratio = 0.93, 95% confidence interval = 0.54 to 1.59, P = .79). The quality of evidence was low. No significant differences were demonstrated in subgroup or sensitivity analyses. Similar results were found when Bayesian meta-analyses were applied.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of Vit D supplementation in depression symptoms, and more RCTs using depressed patients are warranted.

Involvement of 5-HT₃ and 5-HT₄ receptors in the regulation of circadian clock gene expression in mouse small intestine

Several lines of evidence suggest that 5-HT receptors play a critical role in the expression of clock genes in the suprachiasmatic nucleus, the main circadian oscillator in hamsters. The contributions of 5-HT-receptor subtypes in the intestine, where they are expressed at high concentrations, are however not yet clarified. The 5-HT synthesis inhibitor, p-chlorophenylalanine, attenuated the daily rhythm of Per1 and Per2 gene expression in the intestine. Injection of 5-HT and agonists of the 5-HT3 and 5-HT4 receptors increased Per1/Per2 expression and decreased Bmal1 expression in a dose-dependent manner. Although treatment with antagonists of 5-HT3 and 5-HT4 alone did not affect clock gene expression, co-injection of these antagonists with 5-HT blocked the 5-HT-induced changes in clock gene expression. Increased tissue levels of 5-HT due to treatment with the antidepressants clomipramine and fluvoxamine did not affect clock gene expression. The present results suggest that the 5-HT system in the small intestine may play a critical role in regulating circadian rhythms through 5-HT3/5-HT4-receptor activation.

Valproic acid, valproate and divalproex in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder is a recurrent illness that is amongst the top 30 causes of disability worldwide and is associated with significant healthcare costs. In the past, emphasis was placed solely on the treatment of acute episodes of bipolar disorder; recently, the importance of episode prevention and of minimisation of iatrogenicity has been recognised. For many years, lithium was the only mood stabiliser in common use, and it remains an agent of first choice in the preventative treatment of bipolar disorder. However, an estimated 20% to 40% of patients may not respond adequately to lithium. Valproate is an anticonvulsant drug that has been shown to be effective in acute mania and is frequently used in maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. When the acceptability of long-term treatment is considered, together with efficacy, the adverse event profile of a medication is also important. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001 and last updated in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

1. To determine the efficacy of valproate continuation and maintenance treatment:a) in preventing or attenuating manic, depressive and mixed episodes of bipolar disorder;b) in preventing or attenuating episodes of bipolar disorder in patients with rapid cycling disorder; and; c) in improving patients' general health and social functioning, as measured by global clinical impression, employment and marital stability.2. To review the acceptability to patients of long-term valproate treatment, as measured by numbers of dropouts and reasons for dropping out, by compliance and by reference to patients' expressed views regarding treatment.3. To investigate the adverse effects of valproate treatment (including general prevalence of side effects) and overall mortality rates.

SEARCH METHODS

Search of the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group Register (CCDANCTR) (to January 2013), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE, (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). No language restrictions were applied. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were handsearched. Pharmaceutical companies marketing valproate and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials allocating participants with bipolar disorder to long-term treatment with valproate or any other mood stabiliser, or antipsychotic drugs, or placebo. Maintenance treatment was defined as treatment instituted specifically or mainly to prevent further episodes of illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data. A double-entry procedure was employed by two review authors. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability. For dichotomous data, risk ratios were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For statistically significant results, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) and the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH). For continuous data, mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) were calculated along with 95% CIs. MDs were used when the same scale was used to measure an outcome; SMDs were employed when different scales were used to measure the same outcome. The primary analysis used a fixed-effect model. Binary outcomes were calculated on a strict intention-to-treat (ITT) basis; dropouts were included in this analysis. When data were missing and the method of "last observation carried forward" (LOCF) had been used to do an ITT analysis, then the LOCF data were used.

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised controlled trials (overall 876 participants) lasting 6 to 24 months were included. Two studies (overall 312 participants) compared valproate with placebo, four studies (overall 618 participants) valproate with lithium, one study (overall 23 participants) valproate with olanzapine and one study (overall 220 participants) valproate with the combination of valproate plus lithium. In terms of study quality, most studies reported the methods used to generate random sequence; however, only one study reported enough details on allocation concealment. Four of six included studies described their design as "double blind", but only two trials reported full details about blinding. Valproate was more effective than placebo in preventing study withdrawal due to any mood episode (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.93; NNTB 8), but no difference in efficacy was found between valproate and lithium (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20). Valproate was associated with fewer participants dropping out of treatment for any cause when compared with placebo or lithium (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95 and RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98, respectively). However, combination therapy with lithium plus valproate was more likely to prevent relapse than was monotherapy with valproate (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.96). Significant differences in adverse event frequencies were found, and lithium was associated with more frequent diarrhoea, polyuria, increased thirst and enuresis, whereas valproate was associated with increased sedation and infection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence supports the efficacy of valproate in the long-term treatment of bipolar disorder. Clinicians and patients should consider acceptability and tolerability profile when choosing between lithium and valproate-their combination or other agents-as long-term treatment for bipolar disorder.

Fluoxetine versus other types of pharmacotherapy for depression

BACKGROUND

Depression is common in primary care and is associated with marked personal, social and economic morbidity, thus creating significant demands on service providers. The antidepressant fluoxetine has been studied in many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in comparison with other conventional and unconventional antidepressants. However, these studies have produced conflicting findings.Other systematic reviews have considered selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRIs) as a group which limits the applicability of the indings for fluoxetine alone. Therefore, this review intends to provide specific and clinically useful information regarding the effects of fluoxetine for depression compared with tricyclics (TCAs), SSRIs, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), monoamineoxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and newer agents, and other conventional and unconventional agents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of fluoxetine in comparison with all other antidepressive agents for depression in adult individuals with unipolar major depressive disorder.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR)to 11May 2012. This register includes relevant RCTs from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (all years),MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). No language restriction was applied. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were handsearched. The pharmaceutical company marketing fluoxetine and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs comparing fluoxetine with any other AD (including non-conventional agents such as hypericum) for patients with unipolar major depressive disorder (regardless of the diagnostic criteria used) were included. For trials that had a cross-over design only results from the first randomisation period were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted by two review authors using a standard form. Responders to treatment were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis: dropouts were always included in this analysis. When data on dropouts were carried forward and included in the efficacy evaluation, they were analysed according to the primary studies; when dropouts were excluded from any assessment in the primary studies, they were considered as treatment failures. Scores from continuous outcomes were analysed by including patients with a final assessment or with the last observation carried forward. Tolerability data were analysed by calculating the proportion of patients who failed to complete the study due to any causes and due to side effects or inefficacy. For dichotomous data, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random-effects model. Continuous data were analysed using standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 171 studies were included in the analysis (24,868 participants). The included studies were undertaken between 1984 and 2012. Studies had homogenous characteristics in terms of design, intervention and outcome measures. The assessment of quality with the risk of bias tool revealed that the great majority of them failed to report methodological details, like the method of random sequence generation, the allocation concealment and blinding. Moreover, most of the included studies were sponsored by drug companies, so the potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should be considered in interpreting the results. Fluoxetine was as effective as the TCAs when considered as a group both on a dichotomous outcome (reduction of at least 50% on the Hamilton Depression Scale) (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.22, 24 RCTs, 2124 participants) and a continuous outcome (mean scores at the end of the trial or change score on depression measures) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.14, 50 RCTs, 3393 participants). On a dichotomousoutcome, fluoxetine was less effective than dothiepin or dosulepin (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.20; number needed to treat (NNT) =6, 95% CI 3 to 50, 2 RCTs, 144 participants), sertraline (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.74; NNT = 13, 95% CI 7 to 58, 6 RCTs, 1188 participants), mirtazapine (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.04; NNT = 12, 95% CI 6 to 134, 4 RCTs, 600 participants) and venlafaxine(OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.51; NNT = 11, 95% CI 8 to 16, 12 RCTs, 3387 participants). On a continuous outcome, fluoxetine was more effective than ABT-200 (SMD -1.85, 95% CI -2.25 to -1.45, 1 RCT, 141 participants) and milnacipran (SMD -0.36, 95% CI-0.63 to -0.08, 2 RCTs, 213 participants); conversely, it was less effective than venlafaxine (SMD 0.10, 95% CI 0 to 0.19, 13 RCTs,3097 participants). Fluoxetine was better tolerated than TCAs considered as a group (total dropout OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.96;NNT = 20, 95% CI 13 to 48, 49 RCTs, 4194 participants) and was better tolerated in comparison with individual ADs, in particular amitriptyline (total dropout OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.85; NNT = 13, 95% CI 8 to 39, 18 RCTs, 1089 participants), and among the newer ADs ABT-200 (total dropout OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.39; NNT = 3, 95% CI 2 to 5, 1 RCT, 144 participants), pramipexole(total dropout OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42, NNT = 3, 95% CI 2 to 5, 1 RCT, 105 participants), and reboxetine (total dropout OR0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82, NNT = 9, 95% CI 6 to 24, 4 RCTs, 764 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The present study detected differences in terms of efficacy and tolerability between fluoxetine and certain ADs, but the clinical meaning of these differences is uncertain.Moreover, the assessment of quality with the risk of bias tool showed that the great majority of included studies failed to report details on methodological procedures. Of consequence, no definitive implications can be drawn from the studies' results. The better efficacy profile of sertraline and venlafaxine (and possibly other ADs) over fluoxetine may be clinically meaningful,as already suggested by other systematic reviews. In addition to efficacy data, treatment decisions should also be based on considerations of drug toxicity, patient acceptability and cost.

Newer generation antidepressants for depressive disorders in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Depressive disorders are common in young people and are associated with significant negative impacts. Newer generation antidepressants, particularly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), are often used, however evidence of their effectiveness in children and adolescents is not clear. Furthermore, there have been warnings against their use in this population due to concerns about increased risk of suicidal ideation and behaviour.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and adverse outcomes, including definitive suicidal behaviour and suicidal ideation, of newer generation antidepressants compared with placebo in the treatment of depressive disorders in children and adolescents.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update of the review, we searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) to October 2011. The CCDANCTR includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: CENTRAL (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) (all years), EMBASE (1974 -), MEDLINE (1950 -) and PsycINFO (1967 -). We searched clinical trial registries and pharmaceutical company websites. We checked reference lists of included trials and other reviews, and sent letters to key researchers and the pharmaceutical companies of included trials from January to August 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over trials and cluster trials comparing a newer generation antidepressant with a placebo in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years old and diagnosed with a depressive disorder were eligible for inclusion. In this update, we amended the selection criteria to include newer generation antidepressants rather than SSRIs only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or three review authors selected the trials, assessed their quality, and extracted trial and outcome data. We used a random-effects meta-analysis. We used risk ratio (RR) to summarise dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) to summarise continuous measures.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen trials of a range of newer antidepressants compared with placebo, containing 3335 participants, were included. The trials excluded young people at high risk of suicide and many co-morbid conditions and the participants are likely to be less unwell than those seen in clinical practice. We judged none of these trials to be at low risk of bias, with limited information about many aspects of risk of bias, high drop out rates and issues regarding measurement instruments and the clinical usefulness of outcomes, which were often variously defined across trials. Overall, there was evidence that those treated with an antidepressant had lower depression severity scores and higher rates of response/remission than those on placebo. However, the size of these effects was small with a reduction in depression symptoms of 3.51 on a scale from 17 to 113 (14 trials; N = 2490; MD -3.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.55 to -2.47). Remission rates increased from 380 per 1000 to 448 per 1000 for those treated with an antidepressant. There was evidence of an increased risk (58%) of suicide-related outcome for those on antidepressants compared with a placebo (17 trials; N = 3229; RR 1.58; 95% CI 1.02 to 2.45). This equates to an increased risk in a group with a median baseline risk from 25 in 1000 to 40 in 1000. Where rates of adverse events were reported, this was higher for those prescribed an antidepressant. There was no evidence that the magnitude of intervention effects (compared with placebo) were modified by individual drug class.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Caution is required in interpreting the results given the methodological limitations of the included trials in terms of internal and external validity. Further, the size and clinical meaningfulness of statistically significant results are uncertain. However, given the risks of untreated depression in terms of completed suicide and impacts on functioning, if a decision to use medication is agreed, then fluoxetine might be the medication of first choice given guideline recommendations. Clinicians need to keep in mind that there is evidence of an increased risk of suicide-related outcomes in those treated with antidepressant medications.

Duloxetine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

Although pharmacological and psychological interventions are both effective for major depression, in primary and secondary care settings antidepressant drugs remain the mainstay of treatment. Amongst antidepressants many different agents are available. Duloxetine hydrochloride is a dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin and norepinephrine and has been licensed by the Food and Drug Administration in the US for major depressive disorder (MDD), generalised anxiety disorder, diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia and chronic musculoskeletal pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of duloxetine in comparison with all other antidepressant agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression.

SEARCH METHODS

MEDLINE (1966 to 2012), EMBASE (1974 to 2012), the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2012. No language restriction was applied. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were hand-searched. Pharmaceutical company marketing duloxetine and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and a double-entry procedure was employed. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 16 randomised controlled trials (overall 5735 participants) were included in this systematic review. Of these, three trials were unpublished. We found 11 studies (overall 3304 participants) comparing duloxetine with one selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) (six studies versus paroxetine, three studies versus escitalopram and two versus fluoxetine), four studies (overall 1978 participants) comparing duloxetine with a newer antidepressants (three with venlafaxine and one with desvenlafaxine, respectively) and one study (overall 453 participants) comparing duloxetine with an antipsychotic drug which is also used as an antidepressive agent, quetiapine. No studies were found comparing duloxetine with tricyclic antidepressants. The pooled confidence intervals were rather wide and there were no statistically significant differences in efficacy when comparing duloxetine with other antidepressants. However, when compared with escitalopram or venlafaxine, there was a higher rate of drop out due to any cause in the patients randomised to duloxetine (odds ratio (OR) 1.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 2.62 and OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.15, respectively). There was also some weak evidence suggesting that patients taking duloxetine experienced more adverse events than paroxetine (OR 1.24; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.55).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Duloxetine did not seem to provide a significant advantage in efficacy over other antidepressive agents for the acute-phase treatment of major depression. No differences in terms of efficacy were found, even though duloxetine was worse than some SSRIs (most of all, escitalopram) and newer antidepressants (like venlafaxine) in terms of acceptability and tolerability. Unfortunately, we only found evidence comparing duloxetine with a handful of other active antidepressive agents and only a few trials per comparison were found (in some cases we retrieved just one trial). This limited the power of the review to detect moderate, but clinically meaningful differences between the drugs. As many statistical tests have been used in the review, the findings from this review are better thought of as hypothesis forming rather than hypothesis testing and it would be very comforting to see the conclusions replicated in future trials. Most of included studies were sponsored by the drug industry manufacturing duloxetine. As for all other new investigational compounds, the potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should be borne in mind. In the present review no trials reported economic outcomes. Given that several SSRIs and the great majority of antidepressants are now available as generic formulation (only escitalopram, desvenlafaxine and duloxetine are still on patent), more comprehensive economic estimates of antidepressant treatment effect should be considered to better inform healthcare policy.

Citalopram versus other anti-depressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

Recent US and UK clinical practice guidelines recommend that second-generation antidepressants should be considered amongst the best first-line options when drug therapy is indicated for a depressive episode. Systematic reviews have already highlighted some differences in efficacy between second-generation antidepressants. Citalopram, one of the first selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) introduced in the market, is one of these antidepressant drugs that clinicians use for routine depression care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of citalopram in comparison with tricyclics, heterocyclics, other SSRIs and other conventional and non-conventional antidepressants in the acute-phase treatment of major depression.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to February 2012. No language restriction was applied. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts in this field for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials allocating patients with major depression to citalopram versus any other antidepressants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy (the number of patients who responded or remitted), patient acceptability (the number of patients who failed to complete the study) and tolerability (side-effects).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-seven trials compared citalopram with other antidepressants (such as tricyclics, heterocyclics, SSRIs and other antidepressants, either conventional ones, such as mirtazapine, venlafaxine and reboxetine, or non-conventional, like hypericum). Citalopram was shown to be significantly less effective than escitalopram in achieving acute response (odds ratio (OR) 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 2.02), but more effective than paroxetine (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.96) and reboxetine (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91). Significantly fewer patients allocated to citalopram withdrew from trials due to adverse events compared with patients allocated to tricyclics (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.78) and fewer patients allocated to citalopram reported at least one side effect than reboxetine or venlafaxine (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.97 and OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.88, respectively).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some statistically significant differences between citalopram and other antidepressants for the acute phase treatment of major depression were found in terms of efficacy, tolerability and acceptability. Citalopram was more efficacious than paroxetine and reboxetine and more acceptable than tricyclics, reboxetine and venlafaxine, however, it seemed to be less efficacious than escitalopram. As with most systematic reviews in psychopharmacology, the potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias and publication bias should be borne in mind when interpreting review findings. Economic analyses were not reported in the included studies, however, cost effectiveness information is needed in the field of antidepressant trials.

Mirtazapine versus other antidepressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

Mirtazapine has a unique mechanism of antidepressive action and is one of the commonly used antidepressants in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present review was to assess the evidence on the efficacy and acceptability of mirtazapine compared with other antidepressive agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis review group's specialised register (CCDANCTR), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years to April 2011), EMBASE, (1980 to July 2011) MEDLINE (1950 to July 2011) and PsycINFO (1974 to July 2011). Reference lists of the reports of relevant studies were checked and experts in the field contacted. The review was not limited to English-language articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) allocating participants with major depression to mirtazapine versus any other antidepressive agent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome was response to treatment. The secondary outcomes included dropouts and individual adverse events.Meta-analyses were conducted using the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 29 RCTs (n = 4974), mostly following up the participants for six weeks in outpatient clinics and inadequately reporting the risk of bias, were included. In comparison with tricyclic antidepressants (10 trials, n = 1553) there was no robust evidence to detect a difference between mirtazapine and tricyclics in terms of response at two weeks (odds ratio (OR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.13) or at the end of acute-phase treatment (at 6 to 12 weeks) (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.10). In comparison with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (12 trials, n = 2626) mirtazapine was significantly more effective at two weeks (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.88) and at the end of acute-phase treatment (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.39). Mirtazapine was significantly more effective than a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (venlafaxine only, two trials, n = 415) at two weeks (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.45 to 3.59) and at the end of acute-phase treatment (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.25).In terms of dropouts, there was no robust evidence to detect a difference between mirtazapine and other antidepressants. Mirtazapine was more likely to cause weight gain or increased appetite and somnolence than SSRIs but less likely to cause nausea or vomiting and sexual dysfunction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some statistically significant and possibly clinically meaningful differences between mirtazapine and other antidepressive agents were found for the acute-phase treatment of major depression. Mirtazapine is likely to have a faster onset of action than SSRIs during the acute-phase treatment. Dropouts occur similarly in participants treated with mirtazapine and those treated with other antidepressants, although the adverse event profile of mirtazapine is unique.

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.

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.

Venlafaxine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To determine the efficacy of venlafaxine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents in alleviating the acute symptoms of major depressive disorder.To review acceptability of treatment with venlafaxine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.To investigate the adverse effects of venlafaxine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.

Paroxetine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To determine the efficacy of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents in alleviating the acute symptoms of major depressive disorder.To review acceptability of treatment with paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.To investigate the adverse effects of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.