Sertraline is more effective than imipramine in the treatment of non-melancholic depression: results from a multicentre, randomized study

Pharmacotherapy for the Prevention of Depression and Behavioral Side Effects in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Patients

Depression and decreased quality of life (QoL) develop in approximately 30% of nondepressed hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients early after transplantation. To potentially prevent this complication, we conducted a prospective randomized trial to assess whether prophylaxis of nondepressed HSCT patients with the antidepressant sertraline (SER) in addition to supportive psychotherapy starting at admission for transplantation decreases the risk of depression and improves QoL. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate whether there was an added benefit of SER versus placebo along with routine supportive psychotherapy on the development of depression in patients receiving HSCT. A secondary objective was to analyze the impact on patient-reported QoL and survival. The study was conducted at a single-site academic medical center. We randomized 123 nondepressed HSCT recipients (1:1) in a phase III double-blind study to receive SER starting at a dose of 50 mg/day, with possible dose escalations to 200 mg per day, or placebo beginning on admission for HSCT and continuing for 12 weeks. Supportive psychotherapy was provided for both groups. Depression (Beck Depression Inventory II [BDI-II]) and QoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplantation [FACT-BMT]) were assessed prior to HSCT and then weekly to week 12 post-HSCT. A multivariable linear mixed-effects model was used to estimate the mean change in BDI-II scores as a function of elapsed time since baseline, treatment assignment, and their interaction. The same process was used to assess treatment effects on all QoL scores from the FACT-BMT assessment. A Kaplan-Meier curve was used to estimate the probability of survival for each group following initiation of treatment. A follow-up Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the mortality rate in the 2 groups. Our results do not indicate a benefit of SER in either a diminished risk of depression or improved QoL or survival outcomes. Based on our findings, we can only recommend early evaluation of HSCT recipients for depression, with antidepressant use reserved for patients with evidence of clinical depression, unless additional randomized trials can confirm the effects of early antidepressant therapy on mood and QoL in this vulnerable group. Future research in this area would be improved by systematic monitoring of medication adherence, identification of the optimal dose of SER (or other antidepressant), and inclusion of psychotherapy outcomes when relevant, the absence of which are limitations of this study.

Odds ratios of treatment response were well approximated from continuous rating scale scores for meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To empirically evaluate the performance of methods for estimating odds ratios and their corresponding standard errors from continuous end point data for meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A database of randomized controlled trials of chronic depression treatments was used. Trials that reported both continuous and dichotomous end points for symptom improvement were considered. Odds ratios and standard errors were calculated from the dichotomous data and estimated from the continuous data using currently available methods: Hasselblad and Hedges (HH), Cox and Snell (CS), Furukawa (F), Suissa (S), and Kraemer and Kupfer (KK). Single and meta-analytically pooled observed and estimated values were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 26 trials were included. At the trial level, four of five (HH, CS, F, and S) and three of four (HH, F, and S) methods for estimating odds ratios and standard errors performed well, respectively. We found considerable differences in the performance of all methods across trials with more accurate estimates for smaller treatment effects. At the level of meta-analysis, three of four methods (CS, F, and S) performed acceptably.

CONCLUSION

Odds ratios and standard errors can be approximated from continuous end points, but we recommend sensitivity and subgroup analyses to test robustness of the findings.

Efficacy and acceptability of acute treatments for persistent depressive disorder: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to synthesize the available evidence on the relative efficacy and acceptability of specific treatments for persistent depressive disorder.

METHODS

We searched several databases up to January 2013 and included randomized controlled trials that compared acute pharmacological, psychotherapeutic, and combined interventions with each other or placebo. The outcome measures were the proportion of patients who responded to (efficacy) or dropped out from (acceptability) the allocated treatment. Data synthesis was performed with network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A network of 45 trials that tested 28 drugs included data from 5,806 and 5,348 patients concerning efficacy and acceptability, respectively. A second network of 15 trials that tested five psychotherapeutic and five combined interventions included data from 2,657 and 2,719 patients concerning efficacy and acceptability, respectively. Among sufficiently tested treatments, fluoxetine (odds ratio (OR) 2.94), paroxetine (3.79), sertraline (4.47), moclobemide (6.98), imipramine (4.53), ritanserin (2.35), amisulpride (5.63), and acetyl-l-carnitine (5.67) were significantly more effective than placebo. Pairwise comparisons showed advantages of moclobemide (2.38) and amisulpride (1.92) over fluoxetine. Sertraline (0.57) and amisulpride (0.53) showed a lower dropout rate than imipramine. Interpersonal psychotherapy with medication outperformed medication alone in chronic major depression but not in dysthymia. Evidence on cognitive behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy plus medication was partly inconclusive. Interpersonal psychotherapy was less effective than medication (0.48) and cognitive behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy (0.45). Several other treatments were tested in single studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Several evidence-based acute pharmacological, psychotherapeutic, and combined treatments for persistent depressive disorder are available with significant differences between them.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants in the acute treatment of chronic depression and dysthymia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Chronic depression represents a substantial portion of depressive disorders and is associated with severe consequences. This review examined the efficacy and acceptability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) in the treatment of chronic depression. Additionally, the comparative effectiveness of the two types of antidepressants has been examined.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, BIOSIS, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. Primary efficacy outcome was a response to treatment; primary acceptance outcome was dropping out of the study. Only randomized controlled trials were considered.

RESULTS

We identified 20 studies with 22 relevant comparisons. 19 studies focused on samples with a majority of dysthymic patients. Both SSRIs and TCAs are efficacious in terms of response rates when compared to placebo (Benefit Ratio [BR]=1.49; p<0.001 for SSRIs and BR=1.74; p<0.001 for TCAs) and no statistically significant differences between the active drugs and placebo in terms of dropout rates could be found. No differences in effectiveness were found between SSRIs and TCAs in terms of response rates (BR=1.01; p=0.91), yet, SSRIs showed statistically better acceptability in terms of dropout rates than TCAs (Odds Ratio [OR]=0.41; p=0.02).

LIMITATIONS

The methodological quality of the primary studies was evaluated as unclear in many cases and more evidence is needed to assess the efficacy of SSRIs and TCAs in patients suffering from chronic forms of depression other than dysthymia.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides evidence for the efficacy of both SSRIs and TCAs in the treatment of chronic depression and showed a better acceptability of SSRIs.

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.

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.

A comparative meta-analysis of Clinical Global Impressions change in antidepressant trials

Two scales of the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) Scale are frequently used in antidepressant trials. No research has systematically addressed how CGI change compares to change on established measures such as the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, or Beck Depression Inventory. The current meta-analysis examined 75 antidepressant trials in which the CGI was used along with at least one other popular depression measure. The CGI-Severity scale was significantly more conservative than the HAM-D in rating change in double-blind trials, but not in open trials. The Beck Depression Inventory was significantly more conservative than the CGI-Severity. The CGI-Improvement scale was significantly more liberal than the HAM-D or Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. Rater bias or scale content may explain differences between measures. Given the often substantial differences between instruments, researchers should use a variety of measures rather than relying on any single tool in assessing treatment response.

A comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of reboxetine and sertraline versus venlafaxine in major depressive disorder: a randomized, open-labeled clinical trial

The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of reboxetine and sertraline to venlafaxine XR (extended release) in major depressive disorder (MDD). The study consisted of 40 patients with MDD, aged 18-65 years. Patients were evaluated six times during a 10-week period. Treatment was started as venlafaxine XR 75 mg/day once a day (od) or reboxetine 4 mg/day twice a day (bid)+sertraline 50 mg/day od. In the second week, venlafaxine XR was increased to 150 mg/day od and reboxetine 8 mg/day bid while sertraline was kept at the same dose. The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness and Clinical Global Impressions-Global Improvement Scale were applied on each visit. Beginning from the second visit, both groups showed significant declines in each scale. There were no significant differences between treatment response rates. Remission rates defined as HDRS<or=10 were significantly higher in the venlafaxine XR group at visit 4 only. However, when remission was accepted as HDRS<or=7, no significant difference was observed. Side effect frequency was similar between the treatment groups. We may suggest that the reboxetine+sertraline combination is not superior to venlafaxine treatment.