Citalopram for major depressive disorder in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published placebo-controlled trials

The efficacy and safety of adding celecoxib to escitalopram for improving symptoms of major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE

There is growing evidence that adding non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to some psychopharmacological treatments may help to improve symptoms in patients suffering from major depressive disorder. The present study examined the therapeutic efficacy of adding celecoxib to escitalopram and the safety of doing so.

METHOD

In this double-blind randomized controlled trial, 60 patients with major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to either treatment with escitalopram plus celecoxib (intervention group) or escitalopram and placebo. All patients were evaluated blind to treatment group with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) before the intervention as well at 4 and 8 weeks after initiating treatment. Chi-square and paired t-test were used to examine between-group differences at those assessment times.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in depressive symptoms between intervention and placebo groups at baseline. However, at 4 and 8 weeks after the beginning of treatment, there were significant between-group differences in HDRS scores, favoring the intervention group. No between-group differences were found in treatment-related side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding celecoxib to escitalopram may improve symptoms of depression in patients with major depressive disorder without increasing the risk of drug-related side effects.

Double blind, randomised trial to compare efficacy of escitalopram versus citalopram for interferon induced depression in hepatitis C patients

Objectives

The objective of the study was to compare the two antidepressant drugs citalopram and escitalopram on the basis of efficacy in depressed patients of Hepatitis C patients receiving interferons.

Methods

In this double blind randomized trial, the hepatitis C patients visited National institute of liver and Gastro intestinal diseases (NILGID), Dow University Hospital, were screened for depression before starting treatment with interferons. The Institutional review board approval was obtained and its letter reference no.is: IRB-682/DUHS/Approval/2016/169. Patients with previous history of depression were excluded from the study. The patients who started with Interferon therapy were assessed for depression on baseline and then on each visit. Those who developed depression were randomly assigned to receive either citalopram or escitalopram. Treatment groups were assessed with depression scale each time they visit the clinic. Two antidepressants were compared for their efficacy at an interval of 4 weeks, 8weeks and then 12 weeks.

Results

In the current study 80 patients were randomized to receive either citalopram or escitalopram. The study outcome was better in patients treated with escitalopram. The mean change in depression score from baseline to the end of the study was greater in escitalopram group i.e. 10.41 as compared to citalopram group i.e. 14.17. The difference in depression score was also calculated as 4.28 and.

3.76 (p < 0.001) for both the drugs at week 8 and week 12 respectively, which was statistically significant. Difference in depression score were also calculated for gender 0.576 (p = 0.497) and age 0.950 (p = 0.265), which were found to be non-significant, statistically.

Conclusion

The results demonstrated superiority of escitalopram over citalopram, the drug is twice as potent as the racemic mixture. Additionally the drug is well tolerated and exhibited better effects. Escitalopram proved to be a safer alternative to citalopram.

Citalopram and metacognitive therapy for depressive symptoms and cognitive emotion regulation in patients with major depressive disorder: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Metacognitive therapy (MCT) is a new psychotherapy for depression. This study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of citalopram and MCT on major depressive disorders (MDDs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 36 patients with MDD were randomly assigned into three groups of citalopram (n = 12), MCT (n = 16), and control (n = 8). MCT group received ten sessions of metacognition therapy. Citalopram group received 20-40 mg citalopram, and the control group did not receive any interventions. Outcomes were measured using the Beck Depression Inventory-II, Metacognition Questionnaire-30, and Cognitive-Emotion Regulation (CER) Questionnaire. Data were analyzed with ANCOVA using SPSS version 18.

RESULTS

Depression score reduction was significant in both citalopram and metacognitive groups (P < 0.05). However, there was only a statistically significant difference between MCT and control group in CER and metacognition.

CONCLUSION

MCT and citalopram both are effective in symptom reduction in MDD. Furthermore, MCT could lead to more improvement in metacognition, depression symptoms, and CER than citalopram, when treating MDDs.

Clinical Implementation of Pharmacogenetic Decision Support Tools for Antidepressant Drug Prescribing

The accrual and analysis of genomic sequencing data have identified specific genetic variants that are associated with major depressive disorder. Moreover, substantial investigations have been devoted to identifying gene-drug interactions that affect the response to antidepressant medications by modulating their pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic properties. Despite these advances, individual responses to antidepressants, as well as the unpredictability of adverse side effects, leave clinicians with an imprecise prescribing strategy that often relies on trial and error. These limitations have spawned several combinatorial pharmacogenetic testing products that are marketed to physicians. Typically, combinatorial pharmacogenetic decision support tools use algorithms to integrate multiple genetic variants and assemble the results into an easily interpretable report to guide prescribing of antidepressants and other psychotropic medications. The authors review the evidence base for several combinatorial pharmacogenetic decision support tools whose potential utility has been evaluated in clinical settings. They find that, at present, there are insufficient data to support the widespread use of combinatorial pharmacogenetic testing in clinical practice, although there are clinical situations in which the technology may be informative, particularly in predicting side effects.

Citalopram and group psychotherapy in breast cancer patients: A randomized clinical trial

Background: Depression is a common psychiatric disorder in breast cancer patients. This study was designed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of group psychotherapy on breast cancer patients with depressive disorder who took citalopram.

Methods: This clinical trial was conducted on 40 breast cancer patients with depressive disorder. The control group received citalopram 20-40 mg/ day for 12 weeks and the intervention group participated in 8 sessions of group psychotherapy in addition to the same dose of citalopram. At the baseline and 3, 6, and 12 weeks after treatment, patients were followed- up. Treatment outcomes and quality of life were compared between the 2 groups.

Results: Overall, the depression score of Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at baseline with the mean of 11.6±1.6 was signed in the range of clinical depression and after intervention it declined to 8.8±3.6 (in the 3rd week), 7.1±3.9 (6th week), and 5.9±4.5 (12th week). Furthermore, HADS anxiety score at baseline with the mean of 12.6±2.6 was signed in the range of clinical anxiety and after intervention it declined to 9.1±3.0, 7.3±4.1, and 6.0±4.0, respectively. This improvement was significantly more in the combined therapy intervention group (p<0.001). The mean score of quality of life based on WHO QOL-BREF questionnaire increased by 1.85 fold in the case group, improved from 44.09 to 81.70, while the slight change was observed in the control group (p<0.001). During the treatment, no significant adverse drug event was observed in the 2 groups (p>0.05).

Conclusion: Group psychotherapy has a significant effect on improving depression, anxiety, and quality of life in breast cancer patients.

Review of treatment for late-life depression

Depressive disorder in those over the age of 60 has many clinical similarities to depression in younger adults, but biological changes related to ageing may necessitate a different approach to treatment. We present an evidence-based review of treatment for late-life depression, focusing on pharmacological approaches, including monotherapy, combination and augmentation strategies. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as sertraline and citalopram are well tolerated, have the advantage of a favourable side-effect profile, and are good options for first-line treatment. Second-line treatment options include combination therapy with a second antidepressant, or treatment augmentation with an antipsychotic or lithium. We also consider evidence for nonpharmacological treatment strategies, including psychological therapy and neurostimulation. Finally, we summarise evidence for treatment of depression in patients in dementia.

Industry sponsorship and research outcome

BACKGROUND

Clinical research affecting how doctors practice medicine is increasingly sponsored by companies that make drugs and medical devices. Previous systematic reviews have found that pharmaceutical-industry sponsored studies are more often favorable to the sponsor's product compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. A similar association between sponsorship and outcomes have been found for device studies, but the body of evidence is not as strong as for sponsorship of drug studies. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review and includes empirical studies on the association between sponsorship and research outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether industry sponsored drug and device studies have more favorable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship.

SEARCH METHODS

In this update we searched MEDLINE (2010 to February 2015), Embase (2010 to February 2015), the Cochrane Methodology Register (2015, Issue 2) and Web of Science (June 2015). In addition, we searched reference lists of included papers, previous systematic reviews and author files.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. We had no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors screened abstracts and identified and included relevant papers. Two assessors extracted data, and we contacted authors of included papers for additional unpublished data. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether the conclusions agreed with the study results. Two assessors assessed risk of bias of included papers. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven new papers were included in this update and in total the review contains 75 included papers. Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, RR: 1.27 (95% CI: 1.17 to 1.37) (25 papers) (moderate quality evidence), similar harms results RR: 1.37 (95% CI: 0.64 to 2.93) (four papers) (very low quality evidence) and more often favorable conclusions RR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.19 to 1.51) (29 papers) (low quality evidence) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Nineteen papers reported on sponsorship and efficacy effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in their reporting of data and the results were heterogeneous. We did not find a difference between drug and device studies in the association between sponsorship and conclusions (test for interaction, P = 0.98) (four papers). Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment, follow-up and selective outcome reporting. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.50) (13 papers), compared with non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.98) (six papers).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.

Major Depressive Disorder and Kappa Opioid Receptor Antagonists

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common psychiatric disease worldwide. The clinical use of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)/serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRIs) for this condition have been widely accepted, but they were challenged by unacceptable side-effects, potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) or slow onset/lack of efficacy. The endogenous opioid system is involved in stress and emotion regulatory processes and its role in MDD has been implicated. Although several KOR antagonists including JDTic and PF-04455242 were discontinued in early clinical trials, ALKS 5461 and CERC-501(LY-2456302) survived and entered into Phase-III and Phase-II trials, respectively. Considering the efficacy and safety of early off-label use of buprenorphine in the management of the treatment-resistant depression (TRD), it will be not surprising to predict the potential success of ALKS 5461 (a combination of buprenorphine and ALKS-33) in the near future. Moreover, CERC-501 will be expected to be available as monotherapy or adjuvant therapy with other first-line antidepressants in the treatment of TRD, if ongoing clinical trials continue to provide positive benefit-risk profiles. Emerging new researches might bring more drug candidates targeting the endogenous opioid system to clinical trials to address current challenges in MDD treatment in clinical practice.

Memantine add on to citalopram in elderly patients with depression: A double-blind placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Proper management of depression in elderly population would improve the outcome of the disease and reduce its related disability and mortality. Use of memantine with minimal side effects and drug interaction seems reasonable in the elderly but its antidepressant activity is controversial. The aim of the current research is to investigate the effects of add-on memantine during citalopram therapy in elderly patients with depression, in Isfahan.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this double-blind, placebo controlled trial study; elderly patients aged more than 60 years who were recently diagnosed with depression, were enrolled. The selected patients were randomlysplit into two groups, viz. intervention and placebo groups. The intervention was memantine (20 mg daily) or identical placebo plus citalopram for 8 weeks. The severity of depression and quality of life was evaluated using Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15), Hamilton Rating Scale for depression (HRSD) and World Health Organization Quality of Life WHOQOL-BREF respectively. The mentioned scores were evaluated at baseline, 4 weeks and 8 weeks, after initiating the trial in two studied groups and compared with each other.

RESULTS

28 and 29 patients were studied in the intervention and placebo groups, respectively. Score of GDS-15, HRSD and WHO-QOL-BREF scales at baseline, 4 weeks and 8 weeks, after initiating trial did not change significantly after use of memantine (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in mean +/- SD of GDS-15, HRSD and WHO-QOL-BREF scales among intervention and placebo groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The outcome of this clinical trial did not support the antidepressant effect of add-on memantine in elderly patients with depression receiving citalopram. It is recommended to design further studies considering the limitations of the current study mentioned herein and the effect of memantine with other anti-depressant agents.

Pioglitazone adjunctive therapy for moderate-to-severe major depressive disorder: randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial

Thiazolidinediones have shown antidepressant effect in animal studies, as well as in some uncontrolled studies evaluating human subjects with concurrent major depressive disorder (MDD) and metabolic syndrome. Although these drugs are insulin sensitizers, they also have important anti-inflammatory, neuroprotective, and anti-excitotoxic properties. Thus, we hypothesized that they would show antidepressant effect in patients with MDD even if it was not accompanied by metabolic disturbances. In this double-blind placebo-controlled study, 40 patients with MDD (DSM-IV-TR) and Hamilton depression rating scale-17 (Ham-D) score ≥ 22 were randomized to citalopram plus pioglitazone (15 mg every 12 h) (n=20) or citalopram plus placebo (n=20) for 6 weeks. Patients were evaluated using Ham-D (weeks 0, 2, 4, 6). Repeated-measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) and analysis of covariance were used for comparison of scores between the two groups. Treatment response (≥ 50% reduction in Ham-D score), remission (Ham-D score ≤ 7), and early improvement (≥ 20% reduction in Ham-D score within the first 2 weeks) were compared between the two groups using Fisher's exact test. Pioglitazone showed superiority over placebo during the course of the trial (F(1, 38)=9.483, p=0.004). Patients in the pioglitazone group had significantly lower scores at all time points than the placebo group (P<0.01). Frequency of early improvement, response (week 6), and remission was significantly higher in the pioglitazone group (95%, 95%, 45%, respectively) than in the placebo (30%, 40%, 15% respectively) group (P<0.001, <0.001, 0.04, respectively). Frequency of side effects was similar between the two groups. Pioglitazone is a safe and effective adjunctive short-term treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe MDD even in the absence of metabolic syndrome and diabetes.