Prescription analysis and cost of antidepressant drugs in major depressive disorder outpatients at the tertiary care hospital of Pakistan: a prospective approach

Sertraline versus escitalopram in South Asians with moderate to severe major depressive disorder: (SOUTH-DEP) a double-blind, parallel, randomized controlled trial

Objective

The study design included the double-blind, parallel, randomized controlled trial. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of sertraline and escitalopram in participants with moderate to severe major depressive disorder (MDD).

Methods

The study was conducted in South Asian participants. A total of 744 participants with moderate to severe MDD were randomly assigned to receive either sertraline or escitalopram for 8 weeks. Drug dosages and titration schedules were based on the recommendations of the prescribing information for each product and according to the judgment of the clinicians involved in the study. The primary outcome measures were changes from baseline on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the clinical global impression (CGI) scale as well as the frequency of adverse events in both groups. Baseline MADRS scores in the escitalopram and sertraline groups were 28.2±0.47 (mean±SD) and 29.70±0.46 (mean±SD) respectively, and was no variability in the baseline assessments. Changes in MADRS as well as CGI scales at the end of the study were significant only for the sertraline group whereas they remained statistically nonsignificant for the escitalopram group. Results: The results of the study showed that sertraline was more efficacious than escitalopram in reducing depression rating scales such as MADRS and CGI, and that participants subjectively felt better regarding their symptoms in the sertraline group. Sertraline displays enhanced safety or tolerability than other groups of antidepressants, which frequently cause high levels of drowsiness, dizziness, blurred vision, and other undesirable effects. Adverse events were seen in both groups, but delayed ejaculation was the most frequent adverse event seen in both groups. However, a greater number of participants reported having nausea and insomnia in the sertraline group compared to the escitalopram group.

Conclusion

Our study clearly highlights that there is a statistically significant difference in efficacy between sertraline and escitalopram at the doses used in our study. Sertraline was able to significantly lower the depression rating scales like MADRS and CGI in participants with moderate to severe MDD. Participants subjectively felt better regarding their symptoms in the sertraline group. The most frequent adverse event in both groups was delayed ejaculation. From an efficacy standpoint, sertraline was more efficacious than escitalopram. The study indicates that the prevalence of depressive disorders in South Asia is comparable to the global estimate, and Bangladesh and India has higher proportions of people with depressive disorders in South Asia. Additionally, females and older adults (75-79 years) have the highest burden of depressive disorders across all countries in the region. This study's limitation included the absence of a placebo arm. An additional limitation of the current study was the lack of an evaluation of inter-rater reliability and the research sample could not have been uniform in terms of the kind of depressive disorders and bipolarity.

Prescribing behavior of antidepressants for depressive disorders: A systematic review

Objective

Guidelines for the prescription of antidepressants for Depressive Disorders (DD) have been in place for a long time. However, there is a lack of systematic information on the prescribing behavior of antidepressants in evidence-based clinical practice in psychopharmacotherapy of depressive disorders. This may suggest a lack of implementation of clinical guidelines by clinicians. Existing literature mainly focuses on specific issues or medications. To provide general information on the prescribing behavior of antidepressants for depressive disorders, a systematic review of available studies since 2013 was conducted.

Methods and materials

To ensure a structured and systematic approach for the literature search and subsequent review process, the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews were followed. Major medical and health and psychological databases were used for the literature search. These included Ebsco Host, OVID, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science. The online application "Covidence" was employed to manage the titles collected and the full articles retrieved from the initial literature search. Upon finalizing the list of selected studies, data extraction was then conducted using a build-in function of the Covidence platform with the required information pre-set on a template for data extraction. The extracted information was tabulated and summarized in a table.

Results

Forty-one studies were identified after an extensive search of the literature following the PRISMA guidelines. Of these, 37 quantitative studies providing useful information were systematically reviewed and information extracted. There was a high level of heterogeneity among these studies with different foci or characteristics. Most studies were conducted in or utilized data obtained from hospital and primary healthcare settings. SSRIs were the most commonly prescribed type of antidepressant in the past decade, particularly among younger patients. Among these studies, antidepressants were mainly prescribed by psychiatrists with some by other physicians and general practitioners. This might reflect differences in legislation regarding professional requirements for prescribers or clinical practices.

Conclusions

A few themes that would be considered important in terms of the effect of prescription behavior on depression, specifically children/adolescents, special target populations, and off-label prescription. The results highlighted the need for more studies on a community-based approach and the role of GPs in the treatment of DD.