A comparison of effects of fluoxetine and nortriptyline on the symptoms of major depressive disorder

The effect of paroxetine on heart rate variability in patients with major depressive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The impacts of antidepressant pharmacotherapies on cardiovascular risk are unclear. We completed a systematic review with meta-analysis to assess the effect of paroxetine on heart rate variability (HRV) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

The searches were accomplished via EMBASE, MEDLINE/PubMed (using the National Library of Medicine), Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. We included non-blind, single, or double-blind randomized control trials in patients older than 18 diagnosed with MDD. Paroxetine needs to be enforced as a chronic therapeutic medication. We included individual studies that investigated resting HRV.

RESULTS

We documented 402 studies, only following screening and eligibility phases; only six were included (five studies in the meta-analysis). No significant change was noticed for the SDNN index: subtotal = 8.23 [CI: -2.17, 18.63], p = 0.12, I2 = 54 % (very low quality of evidence). A significant change was distinguished for the LF index: subtotal = 0.74 [CI: 0.33, 1.15], p = 0.0004, I2 = 0 % (low quality of evidence). A significant alteration was perceived for the HF index: subtotal = 0.33 [CI: 0.06, 0.6], p = 0.02, I2 = 0 % (low quality of evidence).

CONCLUSION

Meta-analysis demonstrated that paroxetine could advance HRV in MDD patients. Nevertheless, our supposition is founded only on statistical analysis and the very low quality of evidence breakdown reinforces the necessity for further studies to confirm or reject this theory.

Role of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors in the Treatment of Hypochondriasis: A Systematic Review

Hypochondriasis is a condition characterized by an unrealistic fear of having a serious medical illness resulting in health anxiety. Currently, no evidence-based pharmacological treatment options are available for the treatment of hypochondriasis. Since selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the first-line treatment option for anxiety disorders, they may be useful for relieving hypochondriasis symptoms. Moreover, off-label use of SSRIs in these cases is highly prevalent in clinical practice. Thus, in this study, we aimed to review the available literature to assess the role of SSRIs in the treatment of hypochondriacal symptoms. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from the date of inception to December 2022. We included only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of SSRIs in the treatment of hypochondriacal symptoms. Non-RCTs, observation studies, and animal studies were excluded. The Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess the quality of included studies. Out of 2264 articles, six RCTs met our inclusion criteria. Studies have been conducted using different SSRIs in the treatment of primary hypochondriasis and hypochondriacal symptoms associated with other psychiatric disorders. All the studies have found that the use of SSRIs has some beneficial role in improving hypochondriacal symptoms. This suggests that SSRIs may be one of the promising pharmacological interventions in the treatment of hypochondriasis.

Comparing the Effects of Sertraline with Duloxetine for Depression Severity and Symptoms: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Selecting the most effective treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) is a challenge for clinicians. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of sertraline with duloxetine on major depression signs and symptoms.

METHODS

The trial was a 6-week, randomized, controlled, double-blind study. Sixty-three patients with diagnosis of MDD according to DSM-IV-TR criteria were randomly assigned to receive either duloxetine (31 patients) or sertraline (32 patients). The mean dosage of duloxetine was 55 mg/day (range 40-60 mg/day) and the mean dosage of sertraline was 146 mg/day (range 50-200 mg/day). Subjects were assessed at baseline, and at the end of week 6. Depression severity and symptoms were assessed by 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).

RESULTS

Of 63 patients who were randomized to treatment, 54 patients including 28 in the sertraline group and 26 in the duloxetine group completed the trial. The HAM-D total score for both groups was significantly reduced at the end of the trial period without significant difference from each other (p = 0.463). Of the symptoms studied, psychomotor retardation, general somatic symptoms and sexual problems improved more in the duloxetine group. On the other hand, agitation, anxiety symptoms and hypochondriasis ameliorated better in the sertraline group. There was no difference between the two groups regarding the other symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that the antidepressant mechanism of action has influence on its effects on different signs and symptoms. Clinician awareness of an antidepressant's special effects can help in selecting appropriate medicine.

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.