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or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review of published and unpublished data with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

Combination of diuretics for acute heart failure: a protocol for a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with network meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

INTRODUCTION

Acute heart failure (AHF) is a critical, costly condition with high mortality rates, affecting millions annually. Despite advances in cardiovascular care, AHF treatment lacks robust evidence. AHF commonly manifests with sudden heart failure symptoms such as pulmonary congestion, and the pathophysiology involves fluid overload. Initial treatment is based on intravenous diuretics typically, but the optimal combination of drugs remains uncertain.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will systematically review randomised controlled trials enrolling patients with AHF and volume overload undergoing in-hospital diuretic treatment. We aim to investigate any diuretic intervention. Our search strategy includes the following databases: Embase, Medline, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse events, hospital readmission and kidney failure. Study results reported at the most extended follow-up will be used for all outcomes. If appropriate, we will conduct meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and network meta-analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethics approval is required for this study. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal in this field.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023463979.

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 Ecitalopram 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 Ecitalopram plus celecoxib (intervention group) or Ecitalopram 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 Ecitalopram may effectively improve symptoms of depression in patients suffering major depressive disorder without increasing the risk of drug-related side effects.

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.

Systematic review of studies using platelet serotonin content to assess bioeffect of serotonin reuptake inhibitors at the serotonin transporter

RATIONALE

Assessment of the bioeffect of serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs, including both selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs)) at the serotonin transporter (SERT) in patients and healthy controls can have important theoretical and clinical implications.

OBJECTIVES

Bioeffect at SERT has been assessed by neuroimaging of brain SERT occupancy, through in vitro measurements of platelet serotonin (5-HT) uptake, and by measuring platelet 5-HT content pre- and post-initiation of SRI administration. Studies of platelet 5-HT content were reviewed in order to (1) determine the overall apparent bioeffect of SRIs; (2) compare bioeffect across types of SRIs; (3) compare the three approaches to assessing SRI bioeffect; and (4) determine how the findings might inform clinical practice.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the published studies that measured platelet 5-HT content to assess SRI bioeffect at the platelet SERT. Studies using neuroimaging and in vitro platelet 5-HT uptake to assess SRI bioeffect were reviewed for comparison purposes.

RESULTS

Clinical doses of SRIs typically resulted in 70-90% reductions in platelet 5-HT content. The observed bioeffect at the platelet SERT appeared similar among different SSRIs and SNRIs. The bioeffect estimations based on platelet 5-HT content were consistent with those obtained using neuroimaging to assess brain SERT occupancy and those based on the in vitro measurement of platelet 5-HT uptake.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, excellent agreement was seen in the apparent SRI bioeffect (70-90% inhibition) among the platelet 5-HT content studies and across the three bioeffect approaches. Theoretical and practical clinical implications are discussed.

Is mirtazapine augmentation effective for patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder who failed to respond to sertraline monotherapy? A placebo-controlled, double-blind, clinical trial

Mirtazapine upsurges serotonergic activity by a mechanism different from reuptake inhibition. Our aim is to assess the efficacy of mirtazapine augmentation for patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) who did not respond to sertraline monotherapy. Sixty-one patients suffering from OCD who were resistant to sertraline monotherapy were randomly allocated to receive mirtazapine (mean dosage = 39.56 mg/day) or placebo plus their current anti-OCD treatment (sertraline: average dose = 251.37 mg/day and 255.10 mg/day in the mirtazapine and placebo groups, respectively; P = 0.871). The primary outcome was OCD symptom severity as measured by Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (YBOCS). Forty-five patients (22 in the mirtazapine group and 23 in the placebo group) completed the trial. Average YBOCS score decreased in the mirtazapine group from 27.14 ± 8.05 at baseline to 11.13 ± 4.27 at week 12. In the placebo group, average YBOCS score declined from 28.15 ± 3.27 at baseline to 18.94 ± 3.88 at week 12. Nine patients (40.90%) in the mirtazapine group and only one patient (4.34%) in the placebo group revealed at least a 35% decrease in YBOCS ( P < 0.000). We found that mirtazapine adds to the effect of sertraline in improving obsessive and compulsive symptoms in OCD patients.

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.