Milnacipran versus other antidepressive agents for depression

Pharmacological treatment of depression in patients with brain tumors

Patients with brain tumors suffer from intense psychosocial distress. Although the prevalence of depressive symptoms in patients with brain tumors is high, the pharmacological antidepressant treatment of those patients is not well defined and results from clinical trials are largely missing. In this review, we describe the current standard of evidence and clinical guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of depression in brain tumor patients. We present specific side effects and interactions that should guide treatment decisions. Furthermore, we provide evidence for the diagnosis, screening and risk factors for depression in brain tumor patients and we elaborate on potential antineoplastic effects of antidepressant drugs and ongoing clinical trials. Antidepressant drugs should not be withheld from patients with brain tumors. Future clinical trials should explore the effectiveness and side effects of antidepressants in this specific patient population.

Herb-anticancer drug interactions in real life based on VigiBase, the WHO global database

Cancer patients could combine herbal treatments with their chemotherapy. We consulted VigiBase, a WHO database of individual case safety reports (ICSRs) which archives reports of suspected Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) when herbal products are used in conjunction with anti-cancer treatment. We focused on the possible interactions between antineoplastic (L01 ATC class) or hormone antagonists (L02B ATC class) with 10 commonly used herbs (pineapple, green tea, cannabis, black cohosh, turmeric, echinacea, St John’s wort, milk thistle and ginger) to compare ADRs described in ICSRs with the literature. A total of 1057 ICSRs were extracted from the database but only 134 were complete enough (or did not concern too many therapeutic lines) to keep them for analysis. Finally, 51 rationalizable ICSRs could be explained, which led us to propose a pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic interaction mechanism. Reports concerned more frequently women and half of the rationalizable ICSRs involved Viscum album and Silybum marianum. 5% of the ADRs described could have been avoided if clinicians had had access to the published information. It is also important to note that in 8% of the cases, the ADRs observed were life threatening. Phytovigilance should thus be considered more by health care professionals to best treat cancer patients and for better integrative care.

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.

Milnacipran treatment and potential biomarkers in depressed patients following an initial SSRI treatment failure: a prospective, open-label, 24-week study

BACKGROUND

We assessed the effect of switching patients with major depressive disorder to milnacipran following an initial selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment failure, and explored potential biomarkers in their blood.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, open-label, 24-week trial. Depression was assessed with the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Patients showing a ≥50% reduction in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline to final visit were considered responders. Regarding adverse effects (AEs), moderate-to-severe AEs were specifically identified as effects that required any medical treatment or that induced treatment withdrawals. We also measured blood levels of various molecules including inflammatory cytokines.

RESULTS

Of the 30 participants who enrolled, 17 completed this study. The responder rate was 30% (n=10). Baseline serum levels of interleukin-6 (Z=-2.155; P=0.031) and interleukin-8 (Z=-2.616; P=0.009) were significantly higher when moderate-to-severe AEs were present (n=13 patients with moderate-to-severe AEs). Serum levels of macrophage inflammatory protein-1β showed a significant continuous decrease from the baseline level (Friedman's test: χ (2)=23.9, df=4, P<0.001) only in non-responders.

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrate that serum levels of interleukin-6, interleukin-8, and macrophage inflammatory protein-1β as potential blood biomarkers could be utilized to identify the responsiveness of patients to serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor like milnacipran, or to identify those patients who may experience AEs strong enough to warrant discontinuation of treatment.

Impact of inclusion of industry trial results registries as an information source for systematic reviews

Background

Clinical trial results registries may contain relevant unpublished information. Our main aim was to investigate the potential impact of the inclusion of reports from industry results registries on systematic reviews (SRs).

Methods

We identified a sample of 150 eligible SRs in PubMed via backward selection. Eligible SRs investigated randomized controlled trials of drugs and included at least 2 bibliographic databases (original search date: 11/2009). We checked whether results registries of manufacturers and/or industry associations had also been searched. If not, we searched these registries for additional trials not considered in the SRs, as well as for additional data on trials already considered. We reanalysed the primary outcome and harm outcomes reported in the SRs and determined whether results had changed. A “change” was defined as either a new relevant result or a change in the statistical significance of an existing result. We performed a search update in 8/2013 and identified a sample of 20 eligible SRs to determine whether mandatory results registration from 9/2008 onwards in the public trial and results registry ClinicalTrials.gov had led to its inclusion as a standard information source in SRs, and whether the inclusion rate of industry results registries had changed.

Results

133 of the 150 SRs (89%) in the original analysis did not search industry results registries. For 23 (17%) of these SRs we found 25 additional trials and additional data on 31 trials already included in the SRs. This additional information was found for more than twice as many SRs of drugs approved from 2000 as approved beforehand. The inclusion of the additional trials and data yielded changes in existing results or the addition of new results for 6 of the 23 SRs. Of the 20 SRs retrieved in the search update, 8 considered ClinicalTrials.gov or a meta-registry linking to ClinicalTrials.gov, and 1 considered an industry results registry.

Conclusion

The inclusion of industry and public results registries as an information source in SRs is still insufficient and may result in publication and outcome reporting bias. In addition to an essential search in ClinicalTrials.gov, authors of SRs should consider searching industry results registries.

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.

Fibromyalgia comorbid with anxiety disorders and depression: combined medical and psychological treatment

Fibromyalgia is associated with high level of pain and suffering. Lack of diagnosis leads to onerous indirect economic costs. Recent data indicate that fibromyalgia; anxiety disorders, and depression tend to occur as comorbid conditions. They also share some common neurochemical dysfunctions and central nervous system alterations such as hypofunctional serotonergic system and altered reactivity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. Conversely, functional neuroimaging findings point to different patterns of altered pain processing mechanisms between fibromyalgia and depression. There is no cure for fibromyalgia, and treatment response effect size is usually small to moderate. Treatment should be based on drugs that also target the comorbid psychiatric condition. Combined pharmacotherapy and cognitive-behavior therapy should ideally be offered to all patients. Lifestyle changes, such as physical exercise should be encouraged. The message to patients should be that all forms of pain are true medical conditions and deserve proper care.

Chronic effects of antidepressants on serotonin release in rat raphe slice cultures: high potency of milnacipran in the augmentation of serotonin release

Most clinically-used antidepressants acutely increase monoamine levels in synaptic clefts, while their therapeutic effects often require several weeks of administration. Slow neuroadaptive changes in serotonergic neurons are considered to underlie this delayed onset of beneficial actions. Recently, we reported that sustained exposure of rat organotypic raphe slice cultures containing abundant serotonergic neurons to selective serotonin (5-HT) reuptake inhibitors (citalopram, fluoxetine and paroxetine) caused the augmentation of exocytotic serotonin release. However, the ability of other classes of antidepressants to evoke a similar outcome has not been clarified. In this study, we investigated the sustained actions of two tricyclic antidepressants (imipramine and desipramine), one tetracyclic antidepressant (mianserin), three 5-HT and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (milnacipran, duloxetine and venlafaxine) and one noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant (mirtazapine) on serotonin release in the slice cultures. For seven of nine antidepressants, sustained exposure to the agents at concentrations of 0.1-100 μ m augmented the level of increase in extracellular serotonin. The rank order of their potency was as follows: milnacipran>duloxetine>citalopram>venlafaxine>imipramine>fluoxetine>desipramine. Neither mirtazapine nor mianserin caused any augmentation. The highest augmentation by sustained exposure to milnacipran was partially attenuated by an α 1-adrenoceptor antagonist, benoxathian, while the duloxetine-, venlafaxine- and citalopram-mediated increases were not affected. These results suggest that inhibition of the 5-HT transporter is required for the enhancement of serotonin release. Furthermore, the potent augmentation by milnacipran is apparently due to the accompanied activation of the α 1-adrenoceptor.

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.

Multidisciplinary approach to fibromyalgia: what is the teaching?

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a rheumatic disease that is characterised by chronic musculoskeletal pain, stiffness, fatigue, sleep and mood disorder. FM patients demonstrate dysregulation of pain neurotransmitter function and experience a neurohormone-mediated association with sleep irregularities. There are currently no instrumental tests or specific diagnostic markers for FM, and many of the existing indicators are only significant for research purposes. Anti-depressants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), opioids, sedatives, muscle relaxants and antiepileptics have all been used to treat FM with varying results. It has been shown that interdisciplinary treatment programmes lead to greater improvements in subjective pain and function than monotherapies. Physical exercise and multimodal cognitive behavioural therapy are the most widely accepted and beneficial forms of non-pharmacological therapy.

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.

Second-generation antidepressants for seasonal affective disorder

BACKGROUND

Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent depressive episodes that is often treated with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs), light therapy or psychotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of SGAs for the treatment of SAD in adults in comparison with placebo, light therapy, other SGAs or psychotherapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neuorosis Review Group's specialised register (CCDANCTR) on the 26 August 2011. The CCDANCTR contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials from The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). In addition, we searched pharmaceutical industry trials registers via the Internet to identify unpublished trial data. Furthermore, we searched OVID MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-process, EMBASE and PsycINFO to 27July 2011 for publications on adverse effects (including non-randomised studies).

SELECTION CRITERIA

For efficacy we included randomised trials of SGAs compared with other SGAs, placebo, light therapy or psychotherapy in adult participants with SAD. For adverse effects we also included non-randomised studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. Data abstraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted by one reviewer and checked for accuracy and completeness by a second. We pooled data for meta-analysis where the participant groups were similar and the studies assessed the same treatments with the same comparator and had similar definitions of outcome measures over a similar duration of treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

For efficacy we included three randomised trials of between five and eight weeks duration with a total of 204 participants. For adverse effects we included two randomised trials and three observational (non-randomised) studies of five to eight weeks duration with a total of 225 participants. Overall, the randomised trials had low-to-moderate risk of bias, and the observational studies had a high risk of bias (due to small size and high attrition). The participants in the studies all met DSM (Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders) criteria for SAD. The average age was approximately 40 years and 70% of the participants were female.Results from one trial with 68 participants showed that fluoxetine was not significantly more effective than placebo in achieving clinical response (risk ratio (RR) 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.83). The number of adverse effects were similar between the two groups.We located two trials that contained a total of 136 participants for the comparison fluoxetine versus light therapy. Our meta-analysis of the results of the two trials showed fluoxetine and light therapy to be approximately equal in treating seasonal depression: RR of response 0.98 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.24), RR of remission 0.81 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.71). The number of adverse effects was similar in both groups.Two of the three randomised trials and three non-randomised studies contained adverse effect data on 225 participants who received fluoxetine, escitalopram, duloxetine, reboxetine, light therapy or placebo. We were only able to obtain crude rates of adverse effects, so any interpretation of this needs to be undertaken with caution. Between 22% and 100% of participants who received a SGA suffered an adverse effect and between 15% and 27% of participants withdrew from the studies because of adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for the effectiveness of SGAs is limited to one small trial of fluoxetine compared with placebo, which shows a non-significant effect in favour of fluoxetine, and two small trials comparing fluoxetine against light therapy, which suggest equivalence between the two interventions. The lack of available evidence precludes the ability to draw any overall conclusions on the use of SGAs for SAD. Further larger RCTs are required to expand and strengthen the evidence base on this topic, and should also include comparisons with psychotherapy and other SGAs.Data on adverse events were sparse, and a comparative analysis was not possible. Therefore the data we obtained on adverse effects is not robust and our confidence in the data is limited. Overall, up to 27% of participants treated with SGAs for SAD withdrew from the studies early due to adverse effects. The overall quality of evidence in this review is very low.

General and comparative efficacy and effectiveness of antidepressants in the acute treatment of depressive disorders: a report by the WPA section of pharmacopsychiatry

Current gold standard approaches to the treatment of depression include pharmacotherapeutic and psychotherapeutic interventions with social support. Due to current controversies concerning the efficacy of antidepressants in randomized controlled trials, the generalizability of study findings to wider clinical practice and the increasing importance of socioeconomic considerations, it seems timely to address the uncertainty of concerned patients and relatives, and their treating psychiatrists and general practitioners. We therefore discuss both the efficacy and clinical effectiveness of antidepressants in the treatment of depressive disorders. We explain and clarify useful measures for assessing clinically meaningful antidepressant treatment effects and the types of studies that are useful for addressing uncertainties. This includes considerations of methodological issues in randomized controlled studies, meta-analyses, and effectiveness studies. Furthermore, we summarize the differential efficacy and effectiveness of antidepressants with distinct pharmacodynamic properties, and differences between studies using antidepressants and/or psychotherapy. We also address the differential effectiveness of antidepressant drugs with differing modes of action and in varying subtypes of depressive disorder. After highlighting the clinical usefulness of treatment algorithms and the divergent biological, psychological, and clinical efforts to predict the effectiveness of antidepressant treatments, we conclude that the spectrum of different antidepressant treatments has broadened over the last few decades. The efficacy and clinical effectiveness of antidepressants is statistically significant, clinically relevant, and proven repeatedly. Further optimization of treatment can be helped by clearly structured treatment algorithms and the implementation of psychotherapeutic interventions. Modern individualized antidepressant treatment is in most cases a well-tolerated and efficacious approach to minimize the negative impact of otherwise potentially devastating and life-threatening outcomes in depressive disorders.

Rational treatment of fibromyalgia for a solo practitioner

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a challenging condition, but the management of patients with FM is becoming facilitated by new medications that act in what are thought to be some of most important pathophysiological features in this syndrome. However, it is of pivotal importance that an interdisciplinary approach is used to improve pain, fatigue, sleep and other domains to improve quality of life. Here, we present elements of management that the solo practitioner can tackle, focussing in the formally approved drugs for FM and other drugs commonly used in this condition. Further, the elements of an ideal multidisciplinary team are presented, and on how to incorporate their recommendations for the treatment of FM.

Milnacipran: a selective serotonin and norepinephrine dual reuptake inhibitor for the management of fibromyalgia

Milnacipran, a serotonin and norepinephrfrine reuptake inhibitor with preferential inhibition of norepinephrine reuptake over serotonin, is approved in the United States for the management of fibromyalgia. Owing to its effects on norepinephrine and serotonin, as well as its lack of activity at other receptor systems, it was hypothesized that milnacipran would provide improvements in pain and other fibromyalgia symptoms without some of the unpleasant side effects associated with other medications historically used for treating fibromyalgia. The clinical safety and efficacy of milnacipran 100 and 200 mg/day in individuals with fibromyalgia has been investigated in four large, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies and three long-term extension studies. The clinical studies used composite responder analyses to identify the proportion of individual patients reporting simultaneous and clinically significant improvements in pain, global status, and physical function, in addition to assessing improvement in various symptom domains such as fatigue and dyscognition. In the clinical studies, patients receiving milnacipran reported significant improvements in pain and other symptoms for up to 15 months of treatment. Most adverse events were mild to moderate in severity and were related to the intrinsic pharmacologic properties of the drug. Long-term exposure to milnacipran did not result in any new safety concerns. As with other serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, increases in heart rate and blood pressure have been observed in some patients with milnacipran treatment.

Role and rationale for the use of milnacipran in the management of fibromyalgia

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a complex syndrome characterized by chronic widespread musculoskeletal pain which is often accompanied by multiple other symptoms, including fatigue, sleep disturbances, decreased physical functioning, and dyscognition. Due to these multiple symptoms, as well as high rates of comorbidity with other related disorders, patients with FM often report a reduced quality of life. Although the pathophysiology of FM is not completely understood, patients with FM experience pain differently from the general population, most likely due to dysfunctional pain processing in the central nervous system leading to both hyperalgesia and allodynia. In many patients with FM, this aberrant pain processing, or central sensitization, appears to involve decreased pain inhibition within the spinal tract, which is mediated by descending pathways that utilize serotonin, norepinephrine, and other neurotransmitters. The reduced serotonin and norepinephrine levels observed in patients with FM suggest that medications which increase the levels of these neurotransmitters, such as serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), may have clinically beneficial effects in FM and other chronic pain conditions. Milnacipran is an SNRI that has been approved for the management of FM. In clinical trials, treatment with milnacipran for up to 1 year has been found to improve the pain and other symptoms of FM. Because FM is characterized by multiple symptoms that all contribute to the decreased quality of life and ability to function, the milnacipran pivotal trials implemented responder analyses. These utilized a single composite endpoint to identify the proportion of patients who reported simultaneous and clinically significant improvements in pain, global disease status, and physical function. Other domains assessed during the milnacipran trials include fatigue, multidimensional functioning, mood, sleep quality, and patient-reported dyscognition. This review article provides information intended to help clinicians make informed decisions about the use of milnacipran in the clinical management of patients with FM. It draws primarily on results from 2 of the pivotal clinical trials that formed the basis of approval of milnacipran in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration.

Sertraline versus other antidepressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Milnacipran for the management of fibromyalgia syndrome

Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a widespread pain condition associated with fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, sleep disturbance, depression, anxiety, and stiffness. Milnacipran is one of three medications currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States for the management of adult FMS patients. This review is the second in a three-part series reviewing each of the approved FMS drugs and serves as a primer on the use of milnacipran in FMS treatment including information on pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability. Milnacipran is a mixed serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor thought to improve FMS symptoms by increasing neurotransmitter levels in descending central nervous system inhibitory pathways. Milnacipran has proven efficacy in managing global FMS symptoms and pain as well as improving symptoms of fatigue and cognitive dysfunction without affecting sleep. Due to its antidepressant activity, milnacipran can also be beneficial to FMS patients with coexisting depression. However, side effects can limit milnacipran tolerability in FMS patients due to its association with headache, nausea, tachycardia, hyper- and hypotension, and increased risk for bleeding and suicidality in at-risk patients. Tolerability can be maximized by starting at low dose and slowly up-titrating if needed. As with all medications used in FMS management, milnacipran works best when used as part of an individualized treatment regimen that includes resistance and aerobic exercise, patient education and behavioral therapies.

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.