Are we going to increase the use of antidepressants up to that of benzodiazepines?

Antidepressants use in Italy: an ecological study of national and regional trends and associated factors

The present study aimed to (1) provide an update on trends in AD consumption both at the national and regional unit of analysis for the period 2000-2020 in Italy and (2) analyze sociodemographic and healthcare system-related factors associated with AD prescribing at the regional-population level between 2000 and 2019. Data were extracted from reports of the Italian Medicines Agency and databases of the Italian National Institute of Statistics. Linear regression and mixed models were applied to analyze trends in AD use (DDD/1000/day) and ecological factors associated with AD prescribing. Between 2000 and 2010 AD prescription rates constantly increased. Thereafter they stabilized until 2017 when a positive trend began again. There was a positive ecological association between AD prescribing and rates of hospital discharge due to affective disorders, antibiotics prescribing, public non-drug healthcare spending per capita, and Northern regions compared to Southern regions. AD consumption increased massively during the 2000s, flattened during the 2010s but thereafter increased again until 2020. The ecological correlation between healthcare provision/spending and AD consumption suggests that health-economic factors may play an important role.

Executive (dys)function after traumatic brain injury: special considerations for behavioral pharmacology

Executive function is an umbrella term that includes cognitive processes such as decision-making, impulse control, attention, behavioral flexibility, and working memory. Each of these processes depends largely upon monoaminergic (dopaminergic, serotonergic, and noradrenergic) neurotransmission in the frontal cortex, striatum, and hippocampus, among other brain areas. Traumatic brain injury (TBI) induces disruptions in monoaminergic signaling along several steps in the neurotransmission process - synthesis, distribution, and breakdown - and in turn, produces long-lasting deficits in several executive function domains. Understanding how TBI alters monoamingeric neurotransmission and executive function will advance basic knowledge of the underlying principles that govern executive function and potentially further treatment of cognitive deficits following such injury. In this review, we examine the influence of TBI on the following measures of executive function - impulsivity, behavioral flexibility, and working memory. We also describe monoaminergic-systems changes following TBI. Given that TBI patients experience alterations in monoaminergic signaling following injury, they may represent a unique population with regard to pharmacotherapy. We conclude this review by discussing some considerations for pharmacotherapy in the field of TBI.

Duloxetine plasma level and antidepressant response

BACKGROUND

Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is associated with a high rate of inadequate treatment response, which is mainly due to the large inter-individual genetic variability in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic targets of antidepressant drugs. Little is still known about the exact association between plasma level of first-line antidepressants and clinical response. This is particularly true for duloxetine, a dual serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor recommended as first-line treatment for MDD. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between serum concentration of duloxetine (SCD) and antidepressant response (AR).

METHODS

66 MDD patients treated with duloxetine 60 mg/day monotherapy were recruited in an outpatient setting and followed for three months. Hamilton Depression Rating Scale - 21 (HAMD-21) was administrated at baseline, at month 1, and at month 3 to assess AR. SCD was measured at steady state. Linear regression analysis and nonlinear least-squares regression were used to estimate association between SCD and AR.

RESULTS

SCD showed a high inter-individual variability in our sample, despite the duloxetine fixed oral dosage. We found a strong association between SCD and AR following a bell-shaped function at month 1 and at month 3. Nonetheless, within the recommended SCD range of 30-120 ng/mL a more linear correlation between SCD and AR was observed.

DISCUSSION

Our results suggest that for duloxetine the association between SCD and AR likely follows a bell-shaped quadratic function with poor AR at subtherapeutic SCD and progressive decrease of AR at higher SCD. The maximum antidepressant efficacy seems to require SCD values next to the highest recommended SCD (30-120 ng/mL), probably because of the optimal saturation of both serotonin and norepinephrine transporters. Thus, taking into account the observed high interindividual variability of SCD, our findings suggest that for MDD patients treated with duloxetine, SCD could be a useful tool to guide the treatment by optimizing the oral dosage in order to increase the AR rate.

Effect of pre-gestational stress and prenatal venlafaxine administration on cardiovascular system of rat offspring

A number of pregnant women all over the world suffer from depression and are treated during gestation with antidepressants, mostly with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. Exposure to prenatal stress is also a great risk factor for a developing fetus and could be responsible for altered fetal development or various neurobehavioral disturbances of a child. Administration of selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor venlafaxine is associated with various cardiovascular adverse effects, such as tachycardia, increased blood pressure, arrhythmias and hypertensive crisis. The aim of this study was to focus on the effect of pre-gestational chronic mild unpredictable stress and/or administration of antidepressant venlafaxine (10 mg/kg/day, p. o.) on specific parameters, determining the function of the cardiovascular system of male and female rat offspring. Blood pressure and standard ECG were recorded in the offspring. Exposure to pre-gestational stress did not cause significant changes in the systolic, diastolic blood pressure and pulse frequency either in males or in females, compared to the unexposed control animals. Pre-gestational stress caused the shortening of QT interval and prolongation of QRS complex duration in males. On the other hand, in females, the effects of pre-gestational stress were potentiated by the administration of venlafaxine and resulted in elevated systolic and diastolic blood pressure, prolonged QT interval and shortened QRS complex duration, compared to the control. In conclusion, the female rat offspring are more sensitive to exposure to pre-gestational, to chronic mild unpredictable stress and venlafaxine.

Analysis of changes in trends in the consumption rates of benzodiazepines and benzodiazepine-related drugs

Background

To analyse trends in the rates of consumption of benzodiazepine (BZD) anxiolytics, BZD hypnotics and non-BZD hypnotics and the association with contextual factors.

Methods

Descriptive time series study. Units of analysis were monthly dose per inhabitant per day (DID) and dose per medical card per day(DCD) of benzodiazepine(BZD anxiolytics(BZD-A), BZD hypnotics(BZD-H) and non-BZD hypnotics(Non-BZD-H) between January 2006-December 2015. We analysed 6 primary healthcare districts(PHD) and used defined daily doses (DDDs) to calculate the monthly DIDs(overall and by ATC group). Trends and monthly percentage change (MPC) were analysed through joinpoint regression.

Results

The annual DID increased by 26% overall, the trend was different across ATC groups. Consumption in BZD-A and BZD-H increased (27.1%,61.9%), consumption in Non-BZD-H decreased by 35%. There was high variability in DCD across the PHD, with an overall increase of 10.2%(5.7%-22.9%). By ATC, DCD increased by 10.4% in BZD-A(4.2%-22.2%) and by 44.2% in BZD-H(33.2%-76.5%). The overall DCD in the Non-BZD-H decreased by 42.1%(19.7%-50.8%). We found an initial upward trend in consumption of BZD-A until April/2008(monthly percentage change -MPC- +0.5%), followed by a slightly slower increase (+0.1%). No changes in trend were detected in BZD-H. In Non-BZD-H, we observed an upward trend until February/2013(+0.1%), followed by a sharp decrease until August/2013(-6.3%), and finally a slight decrease(-0.3%).

Conclusions

BZD consumption has increased in the last decade, with variability across areas. The changes in trends do not coincide with the financial crisis, introduction of prescriptions by active ingredient, electronic prescriptions or copayment. The only decrease in the Non-BZD-H may be linked to an intervention.

Antidepressants for irritable bowel syndrome-A systematic review

BACKGROUND

According to the multifactorial etiology of Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), psychological factors play an important role. It is possible that antidepressant therapy may be more effective for patients with IBS. The aim of this study was a systematic review of the best available antidepressant therapies for IBS.

METHODS

The databases Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register for randomized controlled trials were searched for studies published before September 2016. Meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, uncontrolled trials, cohort studies, and open-label studies were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 513 articles, 29 fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 6 meta-analyses, 18 randomized controlled trials, and 5 studies without randomization. In these studies, the efficacy of tricyclics, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, were analyzed in IBS. Different interventions were used, though in most studies their effect on global symptom relief in IBS as a primary outcome was investigated. Generally, patients' tolerance of the therapies was good. Only severe adverse events were observed as a result of the nature of the drug.

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, antidepressants improved IBS symptoms. In comparison with placebo, tricyclic therapy for IBS was more effective than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Antidepressants might be an alternative therapy for patients suffering from IBS, especially diarrhea-predominant IBS.

Geographic variation in psychotropic drug utilisation among older people in New Zealand

AIM

To examine psychotropic drug utilisation in older people in New Zealand by age, sex, health board domicile and deprivation status.

METHODS

A repeated cross-sectional analysis of population-based drug utilisation data stratified by age, sex, ethnicity, health board and deprivation status was conducted from 2005 to 2013.

RESULTS

Psychotropic utilisation increased between 2005 and 2013 (ranging from 7.0 to 74.0%) across all the health boards. In people aged 85 years and above, the hypnotic and sedative prevalence ratio compared to the 65- to 69-year age group was 1.45 (95% CI 1.44, 1.46). Between 2005 and 2013, the antidepressants prevalence ratio increased (1.27 (95% CI 1.22, 1.33)) relative to anxiolytics.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall psychotropic drug utilisation increased over time. Despite safety concerns, hypnotic and sedative utilisation increased in the oldest vulnerable group. Shifts from anxiolytics to antidepressants in some health boards were consistent with guidelines for extended indications of antidepressant drug use.

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.

[Evolution of the use of antidepressants, anxiolytics and hypnotics in Valencia. Period 2000-2010]

Objetivo

Conocer la evolución de la utilización de antidepresivos (AD), ansiolíticos(A) e hipnóticos (H) en la Comunidad Valenciana (CV) entre los años 2000 y2010, su importe y el coste por dosis diaria definida (DDD).

Diseño

Estudio observacional retrospectivo.

Emplazamiento

Recetas dispensadas cargo del sistema público de salud de la CV durante los años 2000 a 2010.

Mediciones

Consumo de los principios activos pertenecientes a los grupos terapéuticos N05B (A), N05C (H) y N06A (AD) obtenidos a partir de la base de datos de farmacia de la Agencia Valenciana de Salud medido en dosis habitante día.

Resultados

Durante el período estudiado, el consumo de AD aumentó el 81,2% y el de A e H el 11,7%. Los inhibidores selectivos de la recaptación de serotonina fueron los AD más prescritos y los inhibidores de la recaptación de serotonina y noradrenalina los de mayor crecimiento (386,8%). Escitalopram aumentó el 1.013%. Lorazepam, alprazolam y diacepam, suman el 80,4% de los ansiolíticos prescritos, y lormetazepam y zolpidem el 88,7% de los hipnóticos. El importe de los AD aumentó el 78,2% y el de los A e H el 14,5%; el coste por DDD de ambos grupo descendió el 29%.

Conclusiones

La utilización de AD en la CV ha experimentado un gran incremento entre 2000-2010, mientras que el de A e H ha sido moderado, aunque su consumo todavía está por encima del de AD. A pesar de la reducción en el coste de la DDD en ambos grupos, el importe global de la factura en antidepresivos en la CV sigue en aumento.

Availability of mental health service providers and suicide rates in Slovenia: a nationwide ecological study

AIM

To investigate the influence of socioeconomic factors, mental health service availability, and prevalence of mental disorders on regional differences in the suicide rate in Slovenia.

METHODS

The effects of different socioeconomic factors, mental health service availability, and mental disorders factors on suicide rates from 2000-2009 were analyzed using a general linear mixed model (GLMM). Pearson correlations were used to explore the direction and magnitude of associations.

RESULTS

Among socioeconomic factors, unemployment rate ranked as the most powerful predictor of suicide and an increase of one unit in the unemployment rate increased regional suicide rate by 2.21 (β=2.21, 95% confidence intervals [CI]=1.87-2.54, P<0.001). On the other hand, higher marriage/divorce ratio was negatively related to the suicide rate and an increase of one unit in marriage/divorce ratio reduced regional suicide rate by 1.16 (β=-1.16, 95% CI=-2.20 to -0.13, P<0.031). The most influential mental health service availability parameter was higher psychiatrist availability (4 psychiatrists and more working at outpatient clinics per 100 000 inhabitants), which was negatively correlated with the suicide rate and reduced regional suicide rate by 2.95 (β=-2.95, 95% CI=-4.60 to -1.31, P=0.002). Another negatively correlated factor was the antidepressant/anxiolytic ratio higher than 0.5, which reduced the regional suicide rate by 2.32 (β=-2.32, 95% CI=-3.75 to -0.89, P=0.003). Among mental health disorders, only the prevalence of alcohol use disorders was significantly related to the regional suicide rates and an increase of one unit in the prevalence of alcohol use disorders per 1000 inhabitants increased the regional suicide rate by 0.02 (β=0.02, 95% CI=0.01- 0.03, P=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Besides unemployment, which was a very strong predictor of suicide rates, unequal availability of mental health services and quality of depressive disorder treatment may contribute to variations in suicide rates in different regions.

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.

Antidepressant Utilization and Suicide in Europe: An Ecological Multi-National Study

BACKGROUND

Research concerning the association between use of antidepressants and incidence of suicide has yielded inconsistent results and is the subject of considerable controversy. The first aim is to describe trends in the use of antidepressants and rates of suicide in Europe, adjusted for gross domestic product, alcohol consumption, unemployment, and divorce. The second aim is to explore if any observed reduction in the rate of suicide in different European countries preceded the trend for increased use of antidepressants.

METHODS

Data were obtained for 29 European countries between 1980 and 2009. Pearson correlations were used to explore the direction and magnitude of associations. Generalized linear mixed models and Poisson regression distribution were used to clarify the effects of antidepressants on suicide rates, while an autoregressive adjusted model was used to test the interaction between antidepressant utilization and suicide over two time periods: 1980-1994 and 1995-2009.

FINDINGS

An inverse correlation was observed in all countries between recorded Standardised Death Rate (SDR) for suicide and antidepressant Defined Daily Dosage (DDD), with the exception of Portugal. Variability was marked in the association between suicide and alcohol, unemployment and divorce, with countries depicting either a positive or a negative correlation with the SDR for suicide. Every unit increase in DDD of an antidepressant per 1000 people per day, adjusted for these confounding factors, reduces the SDR by 0.088. The correlation between DDD and suicide related SDR was negative in both time periods considered, albeit more pronounced between 1980 and 1994.

CONCLUSIONS

Suicide rates have tended to decrease more in European countries where there has been a greater increase in the use of antidepressants. These findings underline the importance of the appropriate use of antidepressants as part of routine care for people diagnosed with depression, therefore reducing the risk of suicide.

Evidence of prescription of antidepressants for non-psychiatric conditions in primary care: an analysis of guidelines and systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Antidepressants (ADs) are commonly prescribed in primary care and are mostly indicated for depression. According to the literature, they are now more frequently prescribed for health conditions other than psychiatric ones. Due to their many indications in a wide range of medical fields, assessing the appropriateness of AD prescription seems to be a challenge for GPs. The aim of this study was to review evidence from guidelines for antidepressant prescription for non-psychiatric conditions in Primary Care (PC) settings.

METHODS

Data were retrieved from French, English and US guideline databases. Guidelines or reviews were eligible if keywords regarding 44 non-psychiatric conditions related to GPs' prescription of ADs were encountered. After excluding psychiatric and non-primary care conditions, the guidelines were checked for keywords related to AD use. The latest updated version of the guidelines was kept. Recent data was searched in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and in PubMed for updated reviews and randomized control trials (RCTs).

RESULTS

Seventy-eight documents were retrieved and were used to assess the level of evidence of a potential benefit to prescribing an AD. For 15 conditions, there was a consensus that prescribing an AD was beneficial. For 5 others, ADs were seen as potentially beneficial. No proof of benefit was found for 15 conditions and proof of no benefit was found for the last 9. There were higher levels of evidence for pain conditions, (neuropathic pain, diabetic painful neuropathy, central neuropathic pain, migraine, tension-type headaches, and fibromyalgia) incontinence and irritable bowel syndrome. There were difficulties in summarizing the data, due to a lack of information on the level of evidence, and due to variations in efficacy between and among the various classes of ADs.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescription of ADs was found to be beneficial for many non-psychiatric health conditions regularly encountered in PC settings. On the whole, the guidelines were heterogeneous, seemingly due to a lack of trials assessing the role of ADs in treatment strategies.

Do Benzodiazepines Still Deserve a Major Role in The Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders? A Critical Reappraisal

Discovered in the late 1950s by Leo Sternbach, the first benzodiazepine (BZD) chlordiazepoxide was followed by several congeners, which rapidly constituted one of the largest and most widely prescribed classes of psychotropic compounds. After 50 years, BZDs are still routinely utilized not only in psychiatry but, more generally, in the whole of medicine. Despite their high therapeutic index which makes BZDs safer than other compounds like barbiturates, as well as their rapidity of onset, psychiatrists and family physicians are well aware about the controversy that surrounds the wide use – often not adequately based on scientific evidence – of BZDs in many psychiatric disorders. In this overview of international treatment guidelines, systematic reviews and randomized clinical trials, the aim was to provide a critical appraisal of the current use and role of BZDs in psychiatric disorders and their disadvantages, with specific emphasis on anxiety and affective disorders, sleep disorders, alcohol withdrawal, violent and aggressive behaviours in psychoses, and neuroleptic-induced disorders. In addition, specific emphasis has been given to the extent of usage of BZDs and its appropriateness through the assessment of available international surveys. Finally, the entire spectrum of BZD-related adverse effects including psychomotor effects, use in the elderly, paradoxical reactions, tolerance and rebound, teratologic risk, dependence, withdrawal and abuse issues was examined in detail.

Depression — A Social Pathology of Action

This article argues that the epidemic of depression is to be understood alongside the normative conditions of self-realisation associated with the emergence of the new spirit of capitalism. In the new spirit of capitalism, active realisation of the authentic self is an institutionalised demand, which is expected to be converted into praxis. This is interesting in relation to the phenomenon of depression, as it means that contemporary depression may be understood, not as a clinical and subjective condition, but as a mode of action. What is applauded in today's society is precisely what depressive individuals lack – namely the ability to realise themselves in accordance with contemporary normative values. Thus, within present-day society, depression and the institutionalised/capitalist demands for self-realisation have become each other's antitheses.

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.

Potential impact of benzodiazepine use on the rate of hip fractures in five large European countries and the United States

Benzodiazepine use increases the risk of falls and has been associated with an increased risk of hip fractures. Our aim was to estimate the possible population impact of the use of benzodiazepines on the rate of hip fracture in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We conducted a literature review to estimate the pooled relative risk (RR) for hip fractures and use of benzodiazepines. Prevalence rates of benzodiazepine use in 2009 were calculated for each country using the IMS MIDAS database and three public databases in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway. Both the RR and prevalence rates were used for calculation of population attributable risks (PARs) of hip fractures associated with benzodiazepine use. The literature review showed an increased risk of hip fractures in benzodiazepine users (RR = 1.4, 95 % CI 1.2-1.6). Rate of benzodiazepine use showed considerable differences between countries, ranging from 4.7 % to 22.3 % of population ever in a 1-year period. These are reflected in results for the PARs; estimated attributions of benzodiazepines to the rate of hip fractures were 1.8 %, 95 % CI 1.1-2.6 (Germany); 2.0 %, 95 % CI 1.2-2.8 (United Kingdom); 5.2 %, 95 % CI 3.2-7.3 (Italy); 7.4 %, 95 % CI 4.5-10.0 (France); 8.0 %, 95 % CI 4.9-11.0 (United States); and 8.2 %, 95 % CI 5.1-12.0 (Spain). PAR estimates suggest that the potential attribution of benzodiazepine use on the population rate of hip fractures in the five specified European countries and the United States varies between 1.8 % and 8.2 %. During the next phase of the IMI-PROTECT study, a comparison with individual patient data will show whether this approach is valid.

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.

Benzodiazepines revisited--will we ever learn?

AIMS

To re-examine various aspects of the benzodiazepines (BZDs), widely prescribed for 50 years, mainly to treat anxiety and insomnia. It is a descriptive review based on the Okey Lecture delivered at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, in November 2010.

METHODS

A search of the literature was carried out in the Medline, Embase and Cochrane Collaboration databases, using the codeword 'benzodiazepine(s)', alone and in conjunction with various terms such as 'dependence', 'abuse', etc. Further hand-searches were made based on the reference lists of key papers. As 60,000 references were found, this review is not exhaustive. It concentrates on the adverse effects, dependence and abuse.

RESULTS

Almost from their introduction the BZDs have been controversial, with polarized opinions, advocates pointing out their efficacy, tolerability and patient acceptability, opponents deprecating their adverse effects, dependence and abuse liability. More recently, the advent of alternative and usually safer medications has opened up the debate. The review noted a series of adverse effects that continued to cause concern, such as cognitive and psychomotor impairment. In addition, dependence and abuse remain as serious problems. Despite warnings and guidelines, usage of these drugs remains at a high level. The limitations in their use both as choice of therapy and with respect to conservative dosage and duration of use are highlighted. The distinction between low-dose 'iatrogenic' dependence and high-dose abuse/misuse is emphasized.

CONCLUSIONS

The practical problems with the benzodiazepines have persisted for 50 years, but have been ignored by many practitioners and almost all official bodies. The risk-benefit ratio of the benzodiazepines remains positive in most patients in the short term (2-4 weeks) but is unestablished beyond that time, due mainly to the difficulty in preventing short-term use from extending indefinitely with the risk of dependence. Other research issues include the possibility of long-term brain changes and evaluating the role of the benzodiazepine antagonist, flumazenil, in aiding withdrawal.

Sales of antidepressants, suicides and hospital admissions for depression in Veneto Region, Italy, from 2000 to 2005: an ecological study

BACKGROUND

Increased prescription of antidepressants has been consistently associated with a decrease in suicide rates in several countries. The aim of this study is to explore antidepressant consumption, suicide rates and admission for depression in the Veneto Region, Italy, in order to see whether the same pattern could be detected.

METHODS

Data from the Italian Ministry of Health (admissions for depression), the Pharmacy Service of a Local Health Unit (antidepressant prescribing) and from the Epidemiological System of the Veneto region (suicide rates) were collected from 2000 to 2005 for the Veneto region.

RESULTS

Suicide rates did not show any marked increase but were stable in males and females. Antidepressant prescribing increased exponentially over the period examined, whilst admissions for depression markedly decreased. The trend for an exponential increase in antidepressant prescribing in the Veneto region is shared with other countries and locales.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible that the increase in antidepressant prescribing might be associated with earlier treatment of depression, thus decreasing the likelihood of aggravation of depression.

Antidepressant prescribing and suicides in emilia-romagna region (Italy) from 1999 to 2008: an ecological study

Anti-depressant (AD) prescribing rose in several countries worldwide over the last 20 years. Some concerns have been raised over the fact that AD use, mainly Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI) may increase the risk of suicide. AD consumption and suicide rates data in Emilia-Romagna region, Italy have been extracted from regional government databases on AD prescribing and suicide rates, from 1999 to 2008. A statistical model using ordinary least squares linear regression was employed. The overall suicide rates decreased during the period under examination, in spite of the observed exponential increase in use of ADs. Despite the doubling in prescribing of SSRI and newer ADs in recent years, there continues to be no negative impact on suicide rates in Emilia Romagna.

Strategic use of new generation antidepressants for depression: SUN(^_^)D study protocol

Background

After more than half a century of modern psychopharmacology, with billions of dollars spent on antidepressants annually world-wide, we lack good evidence to guide our everyday decisions in conducting antidepressant treatment of patients with major depression. First we did not know which antidepressant to use as first line treatment. Second we do not know which dosage we should be aiming at with that antidepressant. Because more than half of the patients with major depression starting treatment do not remit after adequate trial with the first agent, they will need a second line treatment. Dose escalation, augmentation and switching are the three often recommended second line strategies but we do not know which is better than the others. Moreover, we do not know when to start considering this second line treatment.

The recently published multiple-treatments meta-analysis of 12 new generation antidepressants has provided some partial answers to the first question. Starting with these findings, this proposed trial aims to establish the optimum 1st line and 2nd line antidepressant treatment strategy among adult patients with a non-psychotic unipolar major depressive episode.

Methods

SUN(^_^)D, the Strategic Use of New generation antidepressants for Depression, is an assessor-blinded, parallel-group, multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Step I is a cluster-randomised trial comparing titration up to the minimum vs maximum of the recommended dose range among patients starting with sertraline. The primary outcome is the change in the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 scores administered by a blinded rater via telephone at week 1 through 3. Step II is an individually randomised trial comparing staying on sertraline, augmentation of sertraline with mirtazapine, and switching to mirtazapine among patients who have not remitted on the first line treatment by week 3. The primary outcome is the change in the PHQ-9 scores at week 4 through 9. Step III represents a continuation phase to Steps I and II and aims to establish longer-term effectiveness and acceptability of the above-examined treatment strategies up to week 25. The trial is supported by the Grant-in-Aid by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan.

Discussion

SUN(^_^)D promises to be a pragmatic large trial to answer important clinical questions that every clinician treating patients with major depression faces in his/her daily practices concerning its first- and second-line treatments.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01109693

Usage of benzodiazepines: A review

Abstract Purpose. The use of benzodiazepines remains a source of controversy. Some prescribers believe that they are beneficial and espouse their use; others regard their risk:benefit ratio as too adverse for any but occasional use. This review considers these viewpoints based on the appropriate literature. Survey. The recent English-language literature relating to this topic was surveyed. The publications proved too heterogeneous for a formal meta-analysis, so a descriptive review is provided. Overview. Surveys of benzodiazepine use provide data mainly from the UK, Europe and North America. Prescribing patterns varied widely but long-term usage is common and sometimes the norm. Conclusions. Long-term prescription of benzodiazepines still takes place despite general warnings from the medical and other professions and drug regulatory bodies that long-term use is unjustified both from the lack of a systemic database establishing such efficacy and a large literature documenting the risks of long-term usage, such as dependence. The young and the old are particularly at risk. Continued monitoring is essential, but the regulatory authorities may need to take a more active role in curbing such undesirable practice.

Sertraline versus other antidepressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Fluvoxamine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Milnacipran versus other antidepressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Escitalopram versus other antidepressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Sertraline versus other antidepressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Lack of significant toxicity after mirtazapine overdose: A five-year review of cases admitted to a regional toxicology unit

INTRODUCTION

Mirtazapine is a comparatively new antidepressant that selectively blocks central alpha2-adrenergic autoreceptors and postsynaptic 5-HT2 and 5-HT3 receptors, causing reduced neuronal norepinephrine and serotonin reuptake. The prevalence of mirtazapine prescribing has steadily risen; however, comparatively little information is available regarding the clinical features associated with mirtazapine overdose.

AIMS

To characterize the toxic features that result from mirtazapine overdose.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective case analysis of patients admitted to the Toxicology Unit of the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh between January 2000 and December 2004 after stated mirtazapine overdose. Casenotes were examined for clinical, laboratory, and electrocardiographic safety data.

RESULTS

There were 117 mirtazapine cases where the median (interquartile range) stated dose ingested was 450 mg (240-785 mg). Conscious level was reduced in 27.2% of patients and there was a higher incidence of tachycardia (30.4%) than predicted from normal reference range values (p < 0.001). There was no evidence of any other significant clinical, laboratory, or electrocardiographic abnormality.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe toxic features could be attributed to other co-ingested drugs or alcohol. The adverse clinical effects attributable to mirtazapine overdose appeared mild and predictable. Mirtazapine overdose appears to be associated with fewer features of severe toxicity than previously reported for other antidepressants.

International study on antidepressant prescription pattern at 20 teaching hospitals and major psychiatric institutions in East Asia: Analysis of 1898 cases from China, Japan, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan

The purpose of the present study was to review the prescription patterns of antidepressants in different countries in East Asia. The survey was conducted in China, Japan, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan from October 2003 to March 2004 using the unified research protocol and questionnaire. Twenty teaching hospitals and major psychiatric hospitals participated and a total of 1898 patients receiving antidepressants were analyzed. The survey provided a number of interesting characteristics on the prescription patterns of antidepressant in East Asia. Out of 56 antidepressants listed in the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification (ATC) index by the World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Center for Drug Statistics Methodology (Oslo), only 26 antidepressants were prescribed in participating countries in East Asia. On average 38.4% of prescriptions of antidepressants were for patients with diagnoses other than depressive disorders. The availability and commonly prescribed antidepressants varied greatly by country. The selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRI) and other newer antidepressants were prescribed in approximately 77.0% of all cases. At the time of the survey, only two SSRI medications were available in Japan. However, five types of SSRI were available and were often prescribed in Korea.

Chronic use of diazepam in primary healthcare centers: user profile and usage pattern

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Chronic use of benzodiazepines is frequent in general practice. The aim of this study was to describe the usage pattern and profile of chronic users of diazepam who had been consuming this drug for a minimum of thirty-six months continuously.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This was a descriptive study (survey and clinical assessment) at five primary healthcare centers in Campinas, Brazil.

METHODS

Psychotropic drug control books revealed 48 eligible patients. Among these, 41 were assessed by means of the Schedule for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HAD) and a questionnaire on usage pattern.

RESULTS

Most patients were women (85.4%). The patients' mean age was 57.6 years, and they were from the social strata C (39%), D (54%) and E (7%). The mean length of diazepam consumption was 10 years. The patients presented a lack of prescription compliance and had made frustrated attempts to stop using the drug. 55.5% said their doctor had never given any guidance on the effects of the drug. According to SCAN, 25 patients (61%) suffered from depressive disorders; only 12 cases of benzodiazepine dependence were detected by this instrument.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to improve the detection and treatment of mental disorders, as well as to prevent inappropriate prescription and use of benzodiazepines. Diazepam dependence has distinctive characteristics that make it undetected by SCAN.

Cardiovascular toxicity due to venlafaxine poisoning in adults: a review of 235 consecutive cases

AIMS

Venlafaxine may increase the risk of arrhythmia in certain patients. We sought to characterize the cardiovascular effects of venlafaxine overdose in adults.

METHODS

A retrospective casenote review of patients admitted to the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh between January 2000 and June 2006. Haemodynamic and electrocardiographic data were examined in the whole group and a subset that ingested venlafaxine alone.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-five patients (65 men) with median (interquartile range) age 34 years (27-43 years) had ingested venlafaxine 1500 mg (919-2800 mg). Tachycardia (40.0%), high blood pressure (28.4%) and mydriasis (36.6%) were common. Corrected QT >450 ms occurred in seven men (11.1%) and 17 women (10.5%) and transient arrhythmia in three patients. There was a positive correlation between stated quantity of venlafaxine ingested and heart rate [rho = 0.195, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.054, 0.328] and QTc (rho = 0.314, 95% CI 0.089, 0.509).

CONCLUSIONS

Venlafaxine overdose is associated with sympathomimetic cardiovascular effects and prolonged QTc, irrespective of coingested drugs. These mechanisms might pose an increased risk of arrhythmia and require further exploration.

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.

VENLAFAXINE INGESTION IS ASSOCIATED WITH RHABDOMYOLYSIS IN ADULTS: A CASE SERIES

Rhabdomyolysis has been reported after venlafaxine ingestion. We wished to characterize the prevalence of this adverse effect in a realistic clinical setting. Therefore, a retrospective casenote review was performed, including 235 patients admitted to the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh due to venlafaxine overdose between January 2000 and June 2006. Seizures occurred in 8.9% of the study population. Patients who suffered seizures had ingested larger quantities of venlafaxine than those who did not develop seizures; median (interquartile range) 2800 mg (2006-4350 mg) versus 1500 mg (900-2700 mg, p = 0.001). Raised CK values were more prevalent in those with seizures than those without seizures (61.1% versus 25.7% respectively, p = 0.004). Nonetheless, a positive correlation was found between the quantity of venlafaxine ingested and CK across the whole group (rho = 0.201, 95% confidence interval 0.045-0.347), and in patients who had not developed seizures (rho = 0.174, 95% confidence interval 0.009-0.331). Venlafaxine overdose is associated with a high prevalence of acute muscle injury, both in patients who develop seizures and in those who do not. The clinical significance of this association merits further consideration.

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.

Newer antidepressant drug use in East Asian psychiatric treatment settings: REAP (Research on East Asia Psychotropic Prescriptions) Study

AIMS

Antidepressant use in East Asia is poorly documented. We compared patients given newer and older antidepressants to test the hypothesis, suggested in the literature, that use of newer antidepressants is associated with treatment settings rather than specific diagnostic categories.

METHODS

We compared rates of use of older (pre1990) vs. newer antidepressants among 1898 patients identified as antidepressant treated at 21 centres in five East Asian countries (China, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan) in 2003. Demographics, treatment setting and clinical factors associated with preferential use of newer drugs were tested in univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Newer antidepressants were included in the treatment regimens of 67.5% (N = 1282/1898) of study subjects. Prescription for newer antidepressants was significantly associated with younger age (z = -4.55, d.f. = 1888, P < 0.001), hospitalization [odds ratio (OR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07, 1.64, P < 0.01] and treatment within psychiatric hospitals (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.27, 2.00, P < 0.001). On multivariate analyses, treatment with newer antidepressants was independently associated with younger age (P < 0.001), country (P < 0.001) and treatment within private hospitals (P < 0.001), but not with sex or diagnosis of affective or anxiety disorders (all P > 0.1).

CONCLUSION

Demographic factors and treatment settings appear to influence antidepressant choice more than clinical factors such as diagnosis.

Overuse of antidepressant drugs for the treatment of depression

The problem of under-diagnosis and under-treatment of depression has been identified as a major public health issue and measures have been taken to increase the recognition of depression and its treatment with antidepressants. The possibility of harm from the overuse of antidepressants has attracted far less attention. This review sets out evidence to show that inappropriate use of antidepressants (i.e. outside clinical indications, in excessive doses and for prolonged periods) constitutes a concerning public health problem. Antidepressant prescribing increased by between 4- and 10-fold in various age groups and countries in the last decade of the 20th century. The population of severely depressed patients (in whom antidepressants are accepted to be an effective treatment) who are not receiving antidepressants is probably much smaller than the population receiving these drugs inappropriately. We sound a note of caution for depression awareness campaigns. These apparently well-reasoned responses to the perceived under-recognition of depression can exacerbate over-prescribing. Unless prescribing patterns change, any benefits from increasing access to antidepressants for those with severe depression will be accompanied by significant harms due to inappropriate prescribing in conditions, such as mild depression, where antidepressants are not indicated.

Epidemiological impact of antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs on the general population

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To analyse the prevalence of and sex and age distribution associated with antidepressant and antipsychotic drug exposure in the general population and to highlight recent epidemiological findings concerning specific adverse outcomes associated with drug exposure.

RECENT FINDINGS

Epidemiological studies indicate high rates of second-generation antidepressant and antipsychotic drug use in the general population. The use is more prevalent among women than among men, and in older rather than in younger age groups. A new pattern of adverse outcomes has been described in individuals exposed to newer agents, including a possible risk of suicidal acts in adults receiving second-generation antidepressants, the risk of cerebrovascular events in older individuals receiving second-generation antipsychotics and the risk of metabolic disturbances in individuals exposed to specific second-generation antipsychotics.

SUMMARY

The assessment of, and attention to, the development of specific adverse reactions in individuals exposed to second-generation psychotropic drugs may improve treatment outcomes.

Psychotropic drug epidemiology: the road travelled, the road ahead

Psychotropic drug epidemiology is a discipline developed to study the use and the effects of drugs in large numbers of individuals. It describes how drugs are prescribed and utilized, investigates reasons underlying prescriptions, and monitors outcomes and variables which may affect these outcomes. In this article the main purposes, study designs and limitations of current pharmacoepidemiological approaches are reviewed with the aim of assessing whether this discipline can constitute a permanent link between the experimental world of clinical trials and the real world of everyday prescribing. We support the notion that evidence generated in clinical practice, by means of pharmacoepidemiological studies, should increasingly be used to develop and suggest innovative research hypotheses to be subsequently tested in pragmatic experimental studies.

Drug treatment modalities in psychiatric inpatient practice: a 20-year comparison

OBJECTIVES

The present study investigated whether the increased number of psychotropic agents available in Italy in the last 20 years increased the proportion of inpatients being treated with individual medication classes and the proportion receiving combined treatments with agents of the same class or of different classes.

METHODS

This study was conducted in South-Verona, Italy. From the local Psychiatric Case Register (PCR) all patients consecutively admitted to the inpatient unit during the years 1981/1982, 1991/92 and 2001/02 were extracted. Drug use at discharge was derived from clinical records, while service use data were extracted from the PCR.

RESULTS

During the six years surveyed 160 patients were admitted in 1981/82, 139 in 1991/92 and 228 in 2001/02. An increasing proportion of subjects receiving antipsychotic, antidepressant and benzodiazepine treatment at discharge was observed. In addition, we found an increasing proportion of patients receiving two or more psychotropic drugs at discharge, which accounted for almost 80% of cases in 2001/02. The number of psychotropic agents prescribed at hospital discharge was positively correlated with the total consumption of psychotropic drugs. A relevant proportion of patients were also dispensed agents for medical conditions, yielding an average number of 3.2 prescriptions in 2001/02. The Lavik score, a summary index of service use, indicated that subjects admitted in 1981/82 were moderate users of psychiatric services, while those admitted in 1991/92 and in 2001/02 were high users of psychiatric services.

CONCLUSION

This study documented emerging trends toward polypharmacotherapy and higher total doses. Additional pharmacoepidemiological research is needed to clarify both the beneficial and, potentially, adverse effects associated with these trends in psychiatric pharmacotherapy.