The trouble with antidepressants: why the evidence overplays benefits and underplays risks-an essay by John B Warren

The risks of adverse events with venlafaxine and mirtazapine versus 'active placebo', placebo, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for two separate systematic reviews with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder causes a great burden on patients and societies. Venlafaxine and mirtazapine are commonly prescribed as second-line treatment for patients with major depressive disorder worldwide. Previous systematic reviews have concluded that venlafaxine and mirtazapine reduce depressive symptoms, but the effects seem small and may not be important to the average patient. Moreover, previous reviews have not systematically assessed the occurrence of adverse events. Therefore, we aim to investigate the risks of adverse events with venlafaxine or mirtazapine versus 'active placebo', placebo, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder in two separate systematic reviews.

METHODS

This is a protocol for two systematic reviews with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis. The assessments of the effects of venlafaxine or mirtazapine will be reported in two separate reviews. The protocol is reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols, risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 2, clinical significance will be assessed using our eight-step procedure, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We will search for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases and trial registers. Two review authors will independently screen the results from the literature searches, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We will include published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing venlafaxine or mirtazapine with 'active placebo', placebo, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The primary outcomes will be suicides or suicide attempts, serious adverse events, and non-serious adverse events. Exploratory outcomes will include depressive symptoms, quality of life, and individual adverse events. If feasible, we will assess the intervention effects using random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses.

DISCUSSION

Venlafaxine and mirtazapine are frequently used as second-line treatment of major depressive disorder worldwide. There is a need for a thorough systematic review to provide the necessary background for weighing the benefits against the harms. This review will ultimately inform best practice in the treatment of major depressive disorder.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022315395.

Neurobiological reduction: From cellular explanations of behavior to interventions

Scientific reductionism, the view that higher level functions can be explained by properties at some lower-level or levels, has been an assumption of nervous system analyses since the acceptance of the neuron doctrine in the late 19th century, and became a dominant experimental approach with the development of intracellular recording techniques in the mid-20th century. Subsequent refinements of electrophysiological approaches and the continual development of molecular and genetic techniques have promoted a focus on molecular and cellular mechanisms in experimental analyses and explanations of sensory, motor, and cognitive functions. Reductionist assumptions have also influenced our views of the etiology and treatment of psychopathologies, and have more recently led to claims that we can, or even should, pharmacologically enhance the normal brain. Reductionism remains an area of active debate in the philosophy of science. In neuroscience and psychology, the debate typically focuses on the mind-brain question and the mechanisms of cognition, and how or if they can be explained in neurobiological terms. However, these debates are affected by the complexity of the phenomena being considered and the difficulty of obtaining the necessary neurobiological detail. We can instead ask whether features identified in neurobiological analyses of simpler aspects in simpler nervous systems support current molecular and cellular approaches to explaining systems or behaviors. While my view is that they do not, this does not invite the opposing view prevalent in dichotomous thinking that molecular and cellular detail is irrelevant and we should focus on computations or representations. We instead need to consider how to address the long-standing dilemma of how a nervous system that ostensibly functions through discrete cell to cell communication can generate population effects across multiple spatial and temporal scales to generate behavior.

Estimates of the minimal important difference to evaluate the clinical significance of antidepressants in the acute treatment of moderate-to-severe depression

The efficacy of antidepressants in the acute treatment of moderate-to-severe depression remains a controversial issue. The minimal important difference (MID) is relevant to judge the clinical significance of treatment effects. In this analysis paper, we discuss estimates of the MID for common depression outcome measures.For the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 17-item Version (HDRS-17), according to both anchor-based and distribution-based approaches, MID estimates range from 3 to 8 points, and the most accurate values are likely between 3 and 5 points. For the 6-item version (HDRS-6), MID estimates range between 2 and 4 points. For both the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II), MID estimates range between 3 and 9 points, with estimates of 3-6 points likely being the most accurate. Quality of life appears to be more important to patients than core depression symptoms. We thus also evaluated the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) mental component score, a popular mental-health-related quality of life measure. Its MID estimate is likely about 5 points. By contrast, the average treatment effects of antidepressants on the HDRS-17, HDRS-6, MADRS, BDI-II and SF-36 are 2 points, 1.5 points, 3 points, 2 points and 3-5 points, respectively.In conclusion, the efficacy of antidepressants in the acute treatment of moderate-to-severe depression consistently fails to exceed the lower bound of the MID estimates for common depression outcome measures. The clinical significance of antidepressants thus remains uncertain and we call for more research on quality of life measures, which are the patients' most valued outcome domains.

Investigating the Effects of Auditory and Vibrotactile Rhythmic Sensory Stimulation on Depression: An EEG Pilot Study

Background

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a persistent psychiatric condition and one of the leading causes of global disease burden. In a previous study, we investigated the effects of a five-week intervention consisting of rhythmic gamma frequency (30-70 Hz) vibroacoustic stimulation in 20 patients formally diagnosed with MDD. In that study, the findings suggested a significant clinical improvement in depression symptoms as measured using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), with 37% of participants meeting the criteria for clinical response. The goal of the present research was to examine possible changes from baseline to posttreatment in resting-state electroencephalography (EEG) recordings using the same treatment protocol and to characterize basic changes in EEG related to treatment response.

Materials and methods

The study sample consisted of 19 individuals aged 18-70 years with a clinical diagnosis of MDD. The participants were assessed before and after a five-week treatment period, which consisted of listening to an instrumental musical track on a vibroacoustic device, delivering auditory and vibrotactile stimulus in the gamma-band range (30-70 Hz, with particular emphasis on 40 Hz). The primary outcome measure was the change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) from baseline to posttreatment and resting-state EEG.

Results

Analysis comparing MADRS score at baseline and post-intervention indicated a significant change in the severity of depression symptoms after five weeks (t = 3.9923, df = 18, p = 0.0009). The clinical response rate was 36.85%. Resting-state EEG power analysis revealed a significant increase in occipital alpha power (t = -2.149, df = 18, p = 0.04548), as well as an increase in the prefrontal gamma power of the responders (t = 2.8079, df = 13.431, p = 0.01442).

Conclusions

The results indicate that improvements in MADRS scores after rhythmic sensory stimulation (RSS) were accompanied by an increase in alpha power in the occipital region and an increase in gamma in the prefrontal region, thus suggesting treatment effects on cortical activity in depression. The results of this pilot study will help inform subsequent controlled studies evaluating whether treatment response to vibroacoustic stimulation constitutes a real and replicable reduction of depressive symptoms and to characterize the underlying mechanisms.

Newer generation antidepressants and withdrawal effects: reconsidering the role of antidepressants and helping patients to stop

In England, the prescribing of antidepressants, primarily the newer generation antidepressant classes, has steadily increased over recent years. There is ongoing debate about how the efficacy of these drugs is viewed, their place in therapy and the harms associated with stopping them. Much of the evidence of their efficacy comes from short-term placebo-controlled trials which tend not to include outcomes that are of greatest relevance to patients, such as social functioning or quality of life, but rather restrict outcomes narrowly to symptom measures. On such measures these studies do not demonstrate clinically significant differences from placebo for depression. A range of adverse effects are also recognised, often greater in naturalistic studies of long-term antidepressants users than those measured in short-term efficacy studies, including emotional numbing, sexual difficulties, fatigue and weight gain. There is increasing recognition that withdrawal symptoms from antidepressants are common and that these symptoms can be severe and long-lasting in some patients. Recent guidance on how to stop antidepressants in a tolerable way has been presented by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. We believe that increasing awareness about the difficulty that some patients have in stopping antidepressants should lead to more cautious prescribing practice, with antidepressants given to fewer patients and for shorter periods of time. This article discusses the perceived benefits and harms of antidepressant use.

Tricyclic antidepressants versus 'active placebo', placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder is a common psychiatric disorder causing great burden on patients and societies. Tricyclic antidepressants are frequently used worldwide to treat patients with major depressive disorder. It has repeatedly been shown that tricyclic antidepressants reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the effect is small and of questionable clinical importance. Moreover, the beneficial and harmful effects of all types of tricyclic antidepressants have not previously been systematically assessed. Therefore, we aim to investigate the beneficial and harmful effects of tricyclic antidepressants versus 'active placebo', placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder.

METHODS

This is a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis that will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols, bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2, our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control random errors and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases and trial registers, such as CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to 12 May 2021. Clinical study reports will be applied for from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results from the literature searches, extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing tricyclic antidepressants with 'active placebo', placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following interventions will be assessed: amineptine, amitriptyline, amoxapine, butriptyline, cianopramine, clomipramine, desipramine, demexiptiline, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, imipramine, iprindole, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, protriptyline, tianeptine, trimipramine and quinupramine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide-attempts and non-serious adverse events. If feasible, we will assess the intervention effects using random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses.

DISCUSSION

Tricyclic antidepressants are recommended by clinical guidelines and frequently used worldwide in the treatment of major depressive disorder. There is a need for a thorough systematic review to provide the necessary background for weighing the benefits against the harms. This review will ultimately inform best practice in the treatment of major depressive disorder.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021226161 .

Duloxetine versus 'active' placebo, placebo or no intervention for major depressive disorder; a protocol for a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Major depression significantly impairs quality of life, increases the risk of suicide, and poses tremendous economic burden on individuals and societies. Duloxetine, a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, is a widely prescribed antidepressant. The effects of duloxetine have, however, not been sufficiently assessed in earlier systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

METHODS/DESIGN

A systematic review will be performed including randomised clinical trials comparing duloxetine with 'active' placebo, placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. Bias domains will be assessed, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed. We will conduct meta-analyses. Trial sequential analysis will be conducted to control random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed using GRADE. To identify relevant trials, we will search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities. We will also search Chinese databases and Google Scholar. We will search all databases from their inception to the present. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. Primary outcomes will be the difference in mean depression scores on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale between the intervention and control groups and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be suicide, suicide-attempts, suicidal ideation, quality of life and non-serious adverse events.

DISCUSSION

No former systematic review has systematically assessed the beneficial and harmful effects of duloxetine taking into account both the risks of random errors and the risks of systematic errors. Our review will help clinicians weigh the benefits of prescribing duloxetine against its adverse effects and make informed decisions.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016053931.

Beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, 'active placebo', or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review of published and unpublished data with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide. Antidepressants are frequently used to treat major depressive disorder. It has been shown repeatedly that antidepressants seem to reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the clinical importance of the effect sizes seems questionable. Both beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants have not previously been sufficiently assessed. The main objective of this review will be to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, 'active placebo', or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder.

METHODS/DESIGN

A systematic review with meta-analysis will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2 (ROB2), our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control for random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases from their inception to the present. Clinical study reports will be obtained from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results of the literature searches, extract data, and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing one or more antidepressants with placebo, 'active placebo', or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following active agents will be included: agomelatine, amineptine, amitriptyline, bupropion, butriptyline, cianopramine, citalopram, clomipramine, dapoxetine, demexiptiline, desipramine, desvenlafaxine, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, iprindole, levomilnacipran, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, paroxetine, protriptyline, quinupramine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, tianeptine, trimipramine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide attempt, suicidal ideation, and non-serious adverse events.

DISCUSSION

As antidepressants are commonly used to treat major depressive disorder in adults, a systematic review evaluating their beneficial and harmful effects is urgently needed. This review will inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent and burdensome disorder.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020220279.

Approaches for discontinuation versus continuation of long-term antidepressant use for depressive and anxiety disorders in adults

BACKGROUND

Depression and anxiety are the most frequent indication for which antidepressants are prescribed. Long-term antidepressant use is driving much of the internationally observed rise in antidepressant consumption. Surveys of antidepressant users suggest that 30% to 50% of long-term antidepressant prescriptions had no evidence-based indication. Unnecessary use of antidepressants puts people at risk of adverse events. However, high-certainty evidence is lacking regarding the effectiveness and safety of approaches to discontinuing long-term antidepressants.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of approaches for discontinuation versus continuation of long-term antidepressant use for depressive and anxiety disorders in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched all databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) until January 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing approaches to discontinuation with continuation of antidepressants (or usual care) for people with depression or anxiety who are prescribed antidepressants for at least six months. Interventions included discontinuation alone (abrupt or taper), discontinuation with psychological therapy support, and discontinuation with minimal intervention. Primary outcomes were successful discontinuation rate, relapse (as defined by authors of the original study), withdrawal symptoms, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, quality of life, social and occupational functioning, and severity of illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 studies involving 4995 participants. Nearly all studies were conducted in a specialist mental healthcare service and included participants with recurrent depression (i.e. two or more episodes of depression prior to discontinuation). All included trials were at high risk of bias. The main limitation of the review is bias due to confounding withdrawal symptoms with symptoms of relapse of depression. Withdrawal symptoms (such as low mood, dizziness) may have an effect on almost every outcome including adverse events, quality of life, social functioning, and severity of illness. Abrupt discontinuation Thirteen studies reported abrupt discontinuation of antidepressant. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that abrupt discontinuation without psychological support may increase risk of relapse (hazard ratio (HR) 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.74; 1373 participants, 10 studies) and there is insufficient evidence of its effect on adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.99; 1012 participants, 7 studies; I² = 37%) compared to continuation of antidepressants, without specific assessment of withdrawal symptoms. Evidence about the effects of abrupt discontinuation on withdrawal symptoms (1 study) is very uncertain. None of these studies included successful discontinuation rate as a primary endpoint. Discontinuation by "taper" Eighteen studies examined discontinuation by "tapering" (one week or longer). Most tapering regimens lasted four weeks or less. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that "tapered" discontinuation may lead to higher risk of relapse (HR 2.97, 95% CI 2.24 to 3.93; 1546 participants, 13 studies) with no or little difference in adverse events (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.38; 1479 participants, 7 studies; I² = 0%) compared to continuation of antidepressants, without specific assessment of withdrawal symptoms. Evidence about the effects of discontinuation on withdrawal symptoms (1 study) is very uncertain. Discontinuation with psychological support Four studies reported discontinuation with psychological support. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that initiation of preventive cognitive therapy (PCT), or MBCT, combined with "tapering" may result in successful discontinuation rates of 40% to 75% in the discontinuation group (690 participants, 3 studies). Data from control groups in these studies were requested but are not yet available. Low-certainty evidence suggests that discontinuation combined with psychological intervention may result in no or little effect on relapse (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.19; 690 participants, 3 studies) compared to continuation of antidepressants. Withdrawal symptoms were not measured. Pooling data on adverse events was not possible due to insufficient information (3 studies). Discontinuation with minimal intervention Low-certainty evidence from one study suggests that a letter to the general practitioner (GP) to review antidepressant treatment may result in no or little effect on successful discontinuation rate compared to usual care (6% versus 8%; 146 participants, 1 study) or on relapse (relapse rate 26% vs 13%; 146 participants, 1 study). No data on withdrawal symptoms nor adverse events were provided. None of the studies used low-intensity psychological interventions such as online support or a changed pharmaceutical formulation that allows tapering with low doses over several months. Insufficient data were available for the majority of people taking antidepressants in the community (i.e. those with only one or no prior episode of depression), for people aged 65 years and older, and for people taking antidepressants for anxiety.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, relatively few studies have focused on approaches to discontinuation of long-term antidepressants. We cannot make any firm conclusions about effects and safety of the approaches studied to date. The true effect and safety are likely to be substantially different from the data presented due to assessment of relapse of depression that is confounded by withdrawal symptoms. All other outcomes are confounded with withdrawal symptoms. Most tapering regimens were limited to four weeks or less. In the studies with rapid tapering schemes the risk of withdrawal symptoms may be similar to studies using abrupt discontinuation which may influence the effectiveness of the interventions. Nearly all data come from people with recurrent depression.   There is an urgent need for trials that adequately address withdrawal confounding bias, and carefully distinguish relapse from withdrawal symptoms. Future studies should report key outcomes such as successful discontinuation rate and should include populations with one or no prior depression episodes in primary care, older people, and people taking antidepressants for anxiety and use tapering schemes longer than 4 weeks.

The 'patient voice': patients who experience antidepressant withdrawal symptoms are often dismissed, or misdiagnosed with relapse, or a new medical condition

BACKGROUND

Stopping antidepressants commonly causes withdrawal symptoms, which can be severe and long-lasting. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance has been recently updated to reflect this; however, for many years withdrawal (discontinuation) symptoms were characterised as 'usually mild and self-limiting over a week'. Consequently, withdrawal symptoms might have been misdiagnosed as relapse of an underlying condition, or new onset of another medical illness, but this has never been studied.

METHOD

This paper outlines the themes emerging from 158 respondents to an open invitation to describe the experience of prescribed psychotropic medication withdrawal for petitions sent to British parliaments. The accounts include polypharmacy (mostly antidepressants and benzodiazepines) but we focus on antidepressants because of the relative lack of awareness about their withdrawal effects compared with benzodiazepines. Mixed method analysis was used, including a 'lean thinking' approach to evaluate common failure points.

RESULTS

The themes identified include: a lack of information given to patients about the risk of antidepressant withdrawal; doctors failing to recognise the symptoms of withdrawal; doctors being poorly informed about the best method of tapering prescribed medications; patients being diagnosed with relapse of the underlying condition or medical illnesses other than withdrawal; patients seeking advice outside of mainstream healthcare, including from online forums; and significant effects on functioning for those experiencing withdrawal.

DISCUSSION

Several points for improvement emerge: the need for updating of guidelines to help prescribers recognise antidepressant withdrawal symptoms and to improve informed consent processes; greater availability of non-pharmacological options for managing distress; greater availability of best practice for tapering medications such as antidepressants; and the vital importance of patient feedback. Although the patients captured in this analysis might represent medication withdrawal experiences that are more severe than average, they highlight the current inadequacy of health care systems to recognise and manage prescribed drug withdrawal, and patient feedback in general.