Multiple possible inaccuracies cast doubt on a recent report suggesting selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors to be toxic and ineffective

Antidepressant use and interpersonal violence perpetration: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There are conflicting perspectives as to whether antidepressant medication increases, decreases or has no effect on violence perpetration, impulsivity and aggressive behaviour. This is an important question given the widespread use of antidepressant medication and the significant medical, social, legal and health consequences of violence. We aim to: (1) systematically identify observational studies and randomised controlled trials that quantify the relationship between antidepressant use and interpersonal violence; (2) assess the quality of studies that quantify the relationship between antidepressant use and interpersonal violence and (3) estimate the pooled prevalence and measure of effect for the relationship between antidepressant use and interpersonal violence.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed and the Cochrane Library for relevant peer-reviewed literature. Our primary outcome is the perpetration of violent acts directed at others. Our secondary outcome is physical, interpersonal aggression measured through validated surveys. We will include randomised controlled trials, cohort studies and case-control studies that examine the association between the use of antidepressants and violence perpetration and/or physical aggression. No restrictions will be placed on the population. We will use the Methodological Standard for Epidemiological Research scale to assess the quality of included studies. We will provide an overview of the included studies and assess heterogeneity and publication bias. If there are sufficient studies, we will conduct meta-analyses to examine the possible association between antidepressants and violence, and undertake meta-regression to examine the effect of antidepressant class, length of follow-up, age of participants and population subgroups on the association between antidepressants and violence.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethics approval is required. Our findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal article and conference presentations.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION DETAILS

CRD42020175474.

Good news regarding SSRI safety in Danish meta-analysis

In two previous letters on an selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) meta-analysis conducted by the Copenhagen Trial Unit at Copenhagen University Hospital, we have commented on a large number of errors, almost all of which have tilted the results in an anti-drug direction, that unfortunately mar this publication. While the authors have acknowledged many of these mishaps, and may now be expected to submit an extensive errata list to the journal where their paper was once published, we regretfully note that also their latest contribution to this exchange is surprisingly inaccurate. However, its many shortcomings notwithstanding, their meta-analysis does add to the current literature by confirming that SSRIs do not seem to enhance the risk for suicide or death, and also that these drugs seem to enhance the risk of side effects categorised as serious only in the elderly.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are still harmful and ineffective. Responses to the comments by Hieronymus et al

In this response, we address point by point the additional issues raised by Hieronymus et al. in their second round of critique of our systematic review on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for major depression. We repulse that we are biased or mistaken in any major ways. We acknowledge that we missed a few small, mostly unpublished trials, and we made a few minor errors in our systematic review. However, these omissions and errors neither have any impact on our overall results nor on our conclusions. The critique by Hieronymus et al. seems to raise questions about their understanding of the systematic review process, and, on several occasions, they wrongly claimed that we made errors. Our analyses should be impartial and free from any biases or prejudices as we do not have any obligation to support the interests of sponsors or other groups.

Katakam and co-workers have not shown SSRIs to be harmful and ineffective and should stop claiming that they have

Funded by the Danish state to provide guidance in health-related matters, the Copenhagen Trial Unit (CTU) at Rigshospitalet may cause considerable societal harm if allowing their analyses to be influenced by bias and prejudice rather than rigor and impartiality. This is why we found it worthwhile to comment on a report from the CTU in which the authors invoked analyses marred by numerous errors and methodological mistakes to claim that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are harmful and ineffective. The CTU group has now produced a response to our comment which is on par with their original contribution in terms of bias, misconceptions and mistakes. Our conclusion is that the reputation of the CTU would be best served by the authors asking for retraction of their SSRI paper.

Great boast, small roast on effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: response to a critique of our systematic review

Our systematic review in BMC Psychiatry concluded that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) compared with placebo significantly increase the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) in patients with major depression and the potential beneficial effects of SSRIs seem to be outweighed by the harms. Hieronymus et al. accused us of methodological inaccuracies and blatant errors. In their post-hoc analysis of our data, they reported that SSRIs only increase the risk of SAEs in elderly and seems safe for non-elderly patients. They also found our review misleading because our efficacy analyses were based on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; we included suboptimal SSRI doses; and we missed some 'pivotal trials'. We do not agree with Hieronymus et al. regarding several of the 'errors' they claim that we have made. However, we acknowledge that they have identified minor errors and that we missed some trials. After rectifying the errors and inclusion of the missed trials by us and Hieronymus et al., we re-analysed the data. The updated analyses are even more robust and confirm our earlier conclusions. SSRIs significantly increase the risk of an SAE both in non-elderly (p=0.045) and elderly (p=0.01) patients [overall odds ratio 1.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 1.73; p=0.002; I2=0%]. Moreover, SSRIs did not change noticeably the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the internationally accepted scale (mean difference -2.02 points; 95% CI -2.38 to -1.66; p<0.00001). We found no differential effect of dose (p=0.20).

Adrenal activity and metabolic risk during randomized escitalopram or placebo treatment in PCOS

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is associated with insulin resistance, adrenal hyperactivity and decreased mental health. We aimed to investigate the changes in adrenal activity, metabolic status and mental health in PCOS during treatment with escitalopram or placebo.

METHODS

Forty-two overweight premenopausal women with PCOS and no clinical depression were randomized to 12-week SSRI (20 mg escitalopram/day, n = 21) or placebo (n = 21). Patients underwent clinical examination, fasting blood samples, adrenocorticotroph hormone (ACTH) test, 3-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and filled in questionnaires regarding mental health and health-related quality of life (HRQoL): WHO Well-Being Index (WHO-5), Major Depression Inventory (MDI), Short Form 36 (SF-36) and PCOS questionnaire.

RESULTS

Included women were aged 31 (6) years (mean (s.d.)) and had body mass index (BMI) 35.8 (6.5) kg/m² and waist 102 (12) cm. Escitalopram was associated with increased waist (median (quartiles) change 1 (0; 3) cm), P = 0.005 vs change during placebo and increased cortisol levels (cortisol 0, cortisol 60, peak cortisol and area under the curve for cortisol during ACTH test), all P  < 0.05 vs changes during placebo. Escitalopram had no significant effect on measures of insulin sensitivity, insulin secretion, fasting lipids, mental health or HRQoL.

CONCLUSION

Waist circumference and cortisol levels increased during treatment with escitalopram in women with PCOS and no clinical depression, whereas metabolic risk markers, mental health and HRQol were unchanged.