Is evidence sufficient for evidence-based medicine?

Position statement of the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) on the value of antidepressants in the treatment of unipolar depression

This position statement will address in an evidence-based approach some of the important issues and controversies of current drug treatment of depression such as the efficacy of antidepressants, their effect on suicidality and their place in a complex psychiatric treatment strategy including psychotherapy. The efficacy of antidepressants is clinically relevant. The highest effect size was demonstrated for severe depression. Based on responder rates and based on double-blind placebo-controlled studies, the number needed to treat (NNT) is 5–7 for acute treatment and four for maintenance treatment. Monotherapy with one drug is often not sufficient and has to be followed by other antidepressants or by comedication/augmentation therapy approaches. Generally, antidepressants reduce suicidality, but under special conditions like young age or personality disorder, they can also increase suicidality. However, under the conditions of good clinical practice, the risk–benefit relationship of treatment with antidepressants can be judged as favourable also in this respect. The capacity of psychiatrists to individualise and optimise treatment decisions in terms of ‘the right drug/treatment for the right patient’ is still restricted since currently there are no sufficient powerful clinical or biological predictors which could help to achieve this goal. There is hope that in future pharmacogenetics will contribute significantly to a personalised treatment. With regard to plasma concentration, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is a useful tool to optimize plasma levels therapeutic outcome. The ideal that all steps of clinical decision-making can be based on the strict rules of evidence-based medicine is far away from reality. Clinical experience so far still has a great impact.

Current therapeutic options for Huntington's disease: good clinical practice versus evidence-based approaches?

Therapeutic decision-making in Huntington's disease (HD) is often guided by clinical experience, because of the limited empirical evidence available. The only medication for HD that has met the regulatory hurdle for approval is tetrabenazine, indicated for the treatment of chorea. However, its use has limitations, and in the setting of specific contraindications or comorbidities the treatment of choice for chorea is still the multipurpose antipsychotics. For the management of psychiatric disturbances, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and mood stabilizers are often used, although empirical evidence is lacking. Finally, no known effective treatment is available for cognitive dysfunction in HD. We discuss the limited evidence available and current expert opinion on medical treatment of the dominant motor, psychiatric, and cognitive features of HD. This follows a brief introduction on the general principles of HD management and on evidence-based medicine in relation to clinical practice.

History, background, concepts and current use of comedication and polypharmacy in psychiatry

Based on a careful literature search a review is presented of the history, background, concepts and current use of comedication and polypharmacy in psychiatry. The pros and cons of comedication and polypharmacy are presented, as well as their apparent increase in recent times. Possible reasons for the increase of comedication/polypharmacy are described. Both the potential advantages as well as the potential risks are discussed. The one sided view that all comedication/polypharmacy is nothing but problematic is questioned. Comedication/polypharmacy seems to be, among others, the current answer to the well-known limited efficacy and effectiveness of current monotherapy treatment strategies.

Burning issues in the meta-analysis of pharmaceutical trials for depression

During the last decade a number of meta-analytic studies have been published and they triggered a debate on the true clinical usefulness of antidepressants. The current article comments on problems within the randomized controlled trials design, the study samples, the psychometric scales, the methods of meta-analysis, the interpretation of the results, and the reporting of conflicts of interest. Although the meta-analyses published so far agree that medication works in severe depression, they question its efficacy in mild cases. However, several methodological issues should be clarified before conclusions are definite. Different methods give different results and similar results seem to entertain a variety of interpretations. In the future it is important to address all of these problems, and to improve methodology on the basis of clinically informed choices. Otherwise, meta-analysis risks alienation from clinical reality and thus risks becoming the 21(st) century psychoanalysis.

How close is evidence to truth in evidence-based treatment of mental disorders?

Given the importance of the term 'evidence' in evidence-based medicine (EBM), the meaning of this term is evaluated, going back to the philosophical tradition and current meaning of the terms 'evidence' and 'truth'. Based on this, current problems in the definition of evidence and in the grading of evidence in EBM are described, taking examples from the field of psychiatry and especially pharmacopsychiatry. These problems underline that the use of the term evidence in EBM is inconsistent and inconclusive. This should be fairly stated in all EBM-related publications, especially in EBM-based guidelines, to avoid severe misunderstandings in and outside the field of psychiatry. Although EBM might have increased empirically driven rational decision-making in psychiatry/medicine, the current limitations should be carefully considered.

Antidepressant drugs and the response in the placebo group: the real problem lies in our understanding of the issue

In a recent paper, Horder and colleagues (Horder et al., 2010, J Psychopharmacol 25: 1277-1288) have suggested that the mainproblem in the Kirsch analysis is methodological. We argue that the results are similar irrespective of the method used. In our opinion the data suggest that placebo and drug effects are non-additive: antidepressants act independently of depression severity, while the placebo effect is present only in milder cases. While the response in the placebo group is due to unstable 'noise' and 'artefacts', the medication effect is reliable, valid and stable.

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.

Efficacy of antidepressants: a re-analysis and re-interpretation of the Kirsch data

Recently there has been much debate on the true usefulness of antidepressant therapy especially after the publication of a meta-analysis by Kirsch et al. (PLoS Medicine 2008, 5, e45). The aim of the current paper was to recalculate and re-interpret the data of that study. Effect-size and mean-score changes were calculated for each agent separately as well as pooled effect sizes and mean changes on the basis of the data reported by Kirsch et al. The weighted mean improvement was (depending on the method of calculation) 10.04 or 10.16 points on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) in the drug groups, instead of 9.60, and thus the correct drug-placebo difference is 2.18 or 2.68 instead of 1.80. Kirsch et al. failed to report that that the change in HAMD score was 3.15 or 3.47 points for venlafaxine and 3.12 or 3.22 for paroxetine, which are above the NICE threshold. Still the figures for fluoxetine and nefazodone are low. Thus it seems that the Kirsch et al.'s meta-analysis suffered from important flaws in the calculations; reporting of the results was selective and conclusions unjustified and overemphasized. Overall the results suggest that although a large percentage of the placebo response is due to expectancy this is not true for the active drug and effects are not additive. The drug effect is always present and is unrelated to depression severity, while this is not true for placebo.