Intravenous mirtazapine is safe and effective in the treatment of depressed inpatients

The why, when, where, how, and so what of so-called rapidly acting antidepressants

Developing antidepressants that are not only more effective but are rapidly acting is the Holy Grail for psychiatry. We review multiple issues that arise in determining rapid responses in antidepressant trials. The current status of purportedly rapid acting agents is first reviewed. Then, a number of key questions/issues are addressed: Is there a unifying definition for rapid response across studies? Should rapid response criteria be based on required measurable effects on overall improvement? On specific symptoms such as psychomotor retardation, depressed mood, or anhedonia? In associated symptoms such as anxiety or insomnia? When should onset be considered rapid-by Day 3? Day7? Day 14? If there is a rapid response, for how long should the effects be maintained? Is maintenance of effect dependent on continuing the medication? Is rapid response associated with specific mechanisms of action? Do the mechanisms of action suggest possible risk for drug abuse? How important is rapid response really in an often chronic or recurrent depressive disorder? In which types of patients could rapid response be particularly important? What are the study design issues that need to be considered for assessing rapid response, including: selection of specific types of depressed patients, multiple doses of drug studied, designation of primary and secondary outcome measures, specific time points at which to determine efficacy, requirements for demonstrating durability, etc. A framework for approaching this complex area is developed for both researchers and clinicians.

A pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial to assess the safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine and carbamazepine in people with Alzheimer's disease and agitated behaviours: the HTA-SYMBAD trial

Background

Agitation is common and impacts negatively on people with dementia and carers. Non-drug patient-centred care is first-line treatment, but we need other treatment when this fails. Current evidence is sparse on safer and effective alternatives to antipsychotics.

Objectives

To assess clinical and cost-effectiveness and safety of mirtazapine and carbamazepine in treating agitation in dementia.

Design

Pragmatic, phase III, multicentre, double-blind, superiority, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness of mirtazapine over 12 weeks (carbamazepine arm discontinued).

Setting

Twenty-six UK secondary care centres.

Participants

Eligibility: probable or possible Alzheimer's disease, agitation unresponsive to non-drug treatment, Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score ≥ 45.

Interventions

Mirtazapine (target 45 mg), carbamazepine (target 300 mg) and placebo.

Outcome measures

Primary: Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score 12 weeks post randomisation. Main economic outcome evaluation: incremental cost per six-point difference in Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score at 12 weeks, from health and social care system perspective. Data from participants and informants at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks. Long-term follow-up Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory data collected by telephone from informants at 6 and 12 months.

Randomisation and blinding

Participants allocated 1 : 1 : 1 ratio (to discontinuation of the carbamazepine arm, 1 : 1 thereafter) to receive placebo or carbamazepine or mirtazapine, with treatment as usual. Random allocation was block stratified by centre and residence type with random block lengths of three or six (after discontinuation of carbamazepine, two or four). Double-blind, with drug and placebo identically encapsulated. Referring clinicians, participants, trial management team and research workers who did assessments were masked to group allocation.

Results

Two hundred and forty-four participants recruited and randomised (102 mirtazapine, 102 placebo, 40 carbamazepine). The carbamazepine arm was discontinued due to slow overall recruitment; carbamazepine/placebo analyses are therefore statistically underpowered and not detailed in the abstract. Mean difference placebo-mirtazapine (-1.74, 95% confidence interval -7.17 to 3.69; p = 0.53). Harms: The number of controls with adverse events (65/102, 64%) was similar to the mirtazapine group (67/102, 66%). However, there were more deaths in the mirtazapine group (n = 7) by week 16 than in the control group (n = 1). Post hoc analysis suggests this was of marginal statistical significance (p = 0.065); this difference did not persist at 6- and 12-month assessments. At 12 weeks, the costs of unpaid care by the dyadic carer were significantly higher in the mirtazapine than placebo group [difference: £1120 (95% confidence interval £56 to £2184)]. In the cost-effectiveness analyses, mean raw and adjusted outcome scores and costs of the complete cases samples showed no differences between groups.

Limitations

Our study has four important potential limitations: (1) we dropped the proposed carbamazepine group; (2) the trial was not powered to investigate a mortality difference between the groups; (3) recruitment beyond February 2020, was constrained by the COVID-19 pandemic; and (4) generalisability is limited by recruitment of participants from old-age psychiatry services and care homes.

Conclusions

The data suggest mirtazapine is not clinically or cost-effective (compared to placebo) for agitation in dementia. There is little reason to recommend mirtazapine for people with dementia with agitation.

Future work

Effective and cost-effective management strategies for agitation in dementia are needed where non-pharmacological approaches are unsuccessful.

Study registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN17411897/NCT03031184.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-effectiveness analyses for mirtazapine and sertraline in dementia: randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Depression is a common and costly comorbidity in dementia. There are very few data on the cost-effectiveness of antidepressants for depression in dementia and their effects on carer outcomes.

AIMS

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sertraline and mirtazapine compared with placebo for depression in dementia.

METHOD

A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial with a parallel cost-effectiveness analysis (trial registration: ISRCTN88882979 and EudraCT 2006-000105-38). The primary cost-effectiveness analysis compared differences in treatment costs for patients receiving sertraline, mirtazapine or placebo with differences in effectiveness measured by the primary outcome, total Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) score, over two time periods: 0-13 weeks and 0-39 weeks. The secondary evaluation was a cost-utility analysis using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) computed from the Euro-Qual (EQ-5D) and societal weights over those same periods.

RESULTS

There were 339 participants randomised and 326 with costs data (111 placebo, 107 sertraline, 108 mirtazapine). For the primary outcome, decrease in depression, mirtazapine and sertraline were not cost-effective compared with placebo. However, examining secondary outcomes, the time spent by unpaid carers caring for participants in the mirtazapine group was almost half that for patients receiving placebo (6.74 v. 12.27 hours per week) or sertraline (6.74 v. 12.32 hours per week). Informal care costs over 39 weeks were £1510 and £1522 less for the mirtazapine group compared with placebo and sertraline respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of reducing depression, mirtazapine and sertraline were not cost-effective for treating depression in dementia. However, mirtazapine does appear likely to have been cost-effective if costing includes the impact on unpaid carers and with quality of life included in the outcome. Unpaid (family) carer costs were lower with mirtazapine than sertraline or placebo. This may have been mediated via the putative ability of mirtazapine to ameliorate sleep disturbances and anxiety. Given the priority and the potential value of supporting family carers of people with dementia, further research is warranted to investigate the potential of mirtazapine to help with behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia and in supporting carers.