Pharmacological treatments in panic disorder in adults: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset and reaches a peak within 10 minutes. The main symptoms involve bodily systems, such as racing heart, chest pain, sweating, shaking, dizziness, flushing, churning stomach, faintness and breathlessness. Other recognised panic attack symptoms involve fearful cognitions, such as the fear of collapse, going mad or dying, and derealisation (the sensation that the world is unreal). Panic disorder is common in the general population with a prevalence of 1% to 4%. The treatment of panic disorder includes psychological and pharmacological interventions, including antidepressants and benzodiazepines.

OBJECTIVES

To compare, via network meta-analysis, individual drugs (antidepressants and benzodiazepines) or placebo in terms of efficacy and acceptability in the acute treatment of panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. To rank individual active drugs for panic disorder (antidepressants, benzodiazepines and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To rank drug classes for panic disorder (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), mono-amine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and benzodiazepines (BDZs) and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To explore heterogeneity and inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence in a network meta-analysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, CENTRAL, CDSR, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and PsycINFO to 26 May 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people aged 18 years or older of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. We included trials that compared the effectiveness of antidepressants and benzodiazepines with each other or with a placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data and continuous data as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD): response to treatment (i.e. substantial improvement from baseline as defined by the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), total number of dropouts due to any reason (as a proxy measure of treatment acceptability: dichotomous outcome), remission (i.e. satisfactory end state as defined by global judgement of the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), panic symptom scales and global judgement (continuous outcome), frequency of panic attacks (as recorded, for example, by a panic diary; continuous outcome), agoraphobia (dichotomous outcome). We assessed the certainty of evidence using threshold analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, we included 70 trials in this review. Sample sizes ranged between 5 and 445 participants in each arm, and the total sample size per study ranged from 10 to 1168. Thirty-five studies included sample sizes of over 100 participants. There is evidence from 48 RCTs (N = 10,118) that most medications are more effective in the response outcome than placebo. In particular, diazepam, alprazolam, clonazepam, paroxetine, venlafaxine, clomipramine, fluoxetine and adinazolam showed the strongest effect, with diazepam, alprazolam and clonazepam ranking as the most effective. We found heterogeneity in most of the comparisons, but our threshold analyses suggest that this is unlikely to impact the findings of the network meta-analysis. Results from 64 RCTs (N = 12,310) suggest that most medications are associated with either a reduced or similar risk of dropouts to placebo. Alprazolam and diazepam were associated with a lower dropout rate compared to placebo and were ranked as the most tolerated of all the medications examined. Thirty-two RCTs (N = 8569) were included in the remission outcome. Most medications were more effective than placebo, namely desipramine, fluoxetine, clonazepam, diazepam, fluvoxamine, imipramine, venlafaxine and paroxetine, and their effects were clinically meaningful. Amongst these medications, desipramine and alprazolam were ranked highest. Thirty-five RCTs (N = 8826) are included in the continuous outcome reduction in panic scale scores. Brofaromine, clonazepam and reboxetine had the strongest reductions in panic symptoms compared to placebo, but results were based on either one trial or very small trials. Forty-one RCTs (N = 7853) are included in the frequency of panic attack outcome. Only clonazepam and alprazolam showed a strong reduction in the frequency of panic attacks compared to placebo, and were ranked highest. Twenty-six RCTs (N = 7044) provided data for agoraphobia. The strongest reductions in agoraphobia symptoms were found for citalopram, reboxetine, escitalopram, clomipramine and diazepam, compared to placebo. For the pooled intervention classes, we examined the two primary outcomes (response and dropout). The classes of medication were: SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs. For the response outcome, all classes of medications examined were more effective than placebo. TCAs as a class ranked as the most effective, followed by BDZs and MAOIs. SSRIs as a class ranked fifth on average, while SNRIs were ranked lowest. When we compared classes of medication with each other for the response outcome, we found no difference between classes. Comparisons between MAOIs and TCAs and between BDZs and TCAs also suggested no differences between these medications, but the results were imprecise. For the dropout outcome, BDZs were the only class associated with a lower dropout compared to placebo and were ranked first in terms of tolerability. The other classes did not show any difference in dropouts compared to placebo. In terms of ranking, TCAs are on average second to BDZs, followed by SNRIs, then by SSRIs and lastly by MAOIs. BDZs were associated with lower dropout rates compared to SSRIs, SNRIs and TCAs. The quality of the studies comparing antidepressants with placebo was moderate, while the quality of the studies comparing BDZs with placebo and antidepressants was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In terms of efficacy, SSRIs, SNRIs (venlafaxine), TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs may be effective, with little difference between classes. However, it is important to note that the reliability of these findings may be limited due to the overall low quality of the studies, with all having unclear or high risk of bias across multiple domains. Within classes, some differences emerged. For example, amongst the SSRIs paroxetine and fluoxetine seem to have stronger evidence of efficacy than sertraline. Benzodiazepines appear to have a small but significant advantage in terms of tolerability (incidence of dropouts) over other classes.

Pharmacological intervention for irritability, aggression, and self-injury in autism spectrum disorder (ASD)

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological interventions are frequently used for people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to manage behaviours of concern, including irritability, aggression, and self-injury. Some pharmacological interventions might help treat some behaviours of concern, but can also have adverse effects (AEs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and AEs of pharmacological interventions for managing the behaviours of irritability, aggression, and self-injury in ASD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 11 other databases and two trials registers up to June 2022. We also searched reference lists of relevant studies, and contacted study authors, experts and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of participants of any age with a clinical diagnosis of ASD, that compared any pharmacological intervention to an alternative drug, standard care, placebo, or wait-list control.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were behaviours of concern in ASD, (irritability, aggression and self-injury); and AEs. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, and tolerability and acceptability. Two review authors independently assessed each study for risk of bias, and used GRADE to judge the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 131 studies involving 7014 participants in this review. We identified 26 studies as awaiting classification and 25 as ongoing. Most studies involved children (53 studies involved only children under 13 years), children and adolescents (37 studies), adolescents only (2 studies) children and adults (16 studies), or adults only (23 studies). All included studies compared a pharmacological intervention to a placebo or to another pharmacological intervention. Atypical antipsychotics versus placebo At short-term follow-up (up to 6 months), atypical antipsychotics probably reduce irritability compared to placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.25 to -0.55, 12 studies, 973 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), which may indicate a large effect. However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in aggression between groups (SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.01; 1 study, 77 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Atypical antipsychotics may also reduce self-injury (SMD -1.43, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.61; 1 study, 30 participants; low-certainty evidence), possibly indicating a large effect. There may be higher rates of neurological AEs (dizziness, fatigue, sedation, somnolence, and tremor) in the intervention group (low-certainty evidence), but there was no clear evidence of an effect on other neurological AEs. Increased appetite may be higher in the intervention group (low-certainty evidence), but we found no clear evidence of an effect on other metabolic AEs. There was no clear evidence of differences between groups in musculoskeletal or psychological AEs. Neurohormones versus placebo At short-term follow-up, neurohormones may have minimal to no clear effect on irritability when compared to placebo (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.00; 8 studies; 466 participants; very low-certainty evidence), although the evidence is very uncertain. No data were reported for aggression or self -injury. Neurohormones may reduce the risk of headaches slightly in the intervention group, although the evidence is very uncertain. There was no clear evidence of an effect of neurohormones on any other neurological AEs, nor on any psychological, metabolic, or musculoskeletal AEs (low- and very low-certainty evidence). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-related medications versus placebo At short-term follow-up, ADHD-related medications may reduce irritability slightly (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.01; 10 studies, 400 participants; low-certainty evidence), which may indicate a small effect. However, there was no clear evidence that ADHD-related medications have an effect on self-injury (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -1.63 to 0.39; 1 study, 16 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for aggression. Rates of neurological AEs (drowsiness, emotional AEs, fatigue, headache, insomnia, and irritability), metabolic AEs (decreased appetite) and psychological AEs (depression) may be higher in the intervention group, although the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups for any other metabolic, neurological, or psychological AEs (very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for musculoskeletal AEs. Antidepressants versus placebo At short-term follow-up, there was no clear evidence that antidepressants have an effect on irritability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.18; 3 studies, 267 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data for aggression or self-injury were reported or could be included in the analysis. Rates of metabolic AEs (decreased energy) may be higher in participants receiving antidepressants (very low-certainty evidence), although no other metabolic AEs showed clear evidence of a difference. Rates of neurological AEs (decreased attention) and psychological AEs (impulsive behaviour and stereotypy) may also be higher in the intervention group (very low-certainty evidence) although the evidence is very uncertain. There was no clear evidence of any difference in the other metabolic, neurological, or psychological AEs (very low-certainty evidence), nor between groups in musculoskeletal AEs (very low-certainty evidence). Risk of bias We rated most of the studies across the four comparisons at unclear overall risk of bias due to having multiple domains rated as unclear, very few rated as low across all domains, and most having at least one domain rated as high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that atypical antipsychotics probably reduce irritability, ADHD-related medications may reduce irritability slightly, and neurohormones may have little to no effect on irritability in the short term in people with ASD. There was some evidence that atypical antipsychotics may reduce self-injury in the short term, although the evidence is uncertain. There was no clear evidence that antidepressants had an effect on irritability. There was also little to no difference in aggression between atypical antipsychotics and placebo, or self-injury between ADHD-related medications and placebo. However, there was some evidence that atypical antipsychotics may result in a large reduction in self-injury, although the evidence is uncertain. No data were reported (or could be used) for self-injury or aggression for neurohormones versus placebo. Studies reported a wide range of potential AEs. Atypical antipsychotics and ADHD-related medications in particular were associated with an increased risk of metabolic and neurological AEs, although the evidence is uncertain for atypical antipsychotics and very uncertain for ADHD-related medications. The other drug classes had minimal or no associated AEs.

Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is common in adults, and often has a detrimental impact upon physical ability, well-being, and quality of life. Previous reviews have shown that certain antidepressants may be effective in reducing pain with some benefit in improving patients' global impression of change for certain chronic pain conditions. However, there has not been a network meta-analysis (NMA) examining all antidepressants across all chronic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of antidepressants for adults with chronic pain (except headache).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, AMED and PsycINFO databases, and clinical trials registries, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants for chronic pain conditions in January 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that examined antidepressants for chronic pain against any comparator. If the comparator was placebo, another medication, another antidepressant, or the same antidepressant at different doses, then we required the study to be double-blind. We included RCTs with active comparators that were unable to be double-blinded (e.g. psychotherapy) but rated them as high risk of bias. We excluded RCTs where the follow-up was less than two weeks and those with fewer than 10 participants in each arm.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors separately screened, data extracted, and judged risk of bias. We synthesised the data using Bayesian NMA and pairwise meta-analyses for each outcome and ranked the antidepressants in terms of their effectiveness using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). We primarily used Confidence in Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) and Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) to assess the certainty of the evidence. Where it was not possible to use CINeMA and ROB-MEN due to the complexity of the networks, we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcomes were substantial (50%) pain relief, pain intensity, mood, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were moderate pain relief (30%), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), serious adverse events, and withdrawal.

MAIN RESULTS

This review and NMA included 176 studies with a total of 28,664 participants. The majority of studies were placebo-controlled (83), and parallel-armed (141). The most common pain conditions examined were fibromyalgia (59 studies); neuropathic pain (49 studies) and musculoskeletal pain (40 studies). The average length of RCTs was 10 weeks. Seven studies provided no useable data and were omitted from the NMA. The majority of studies measured short-term outcomes only and excluded people with low mood and other mental health conditions. Across efficacy outcomes, duloxetine was consistently the highest-ranked antidepressant with moderate- to high-certainty evidence. In duloxetine studies, standard dose was equally efficacious as high dose for the majority of outcomes. Milnacipran was often ranked as the next most efficacious antidepressant, although the certainty of evidence was lower than that of duloxetine. There was insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions for the efficacy and safety of any other antidepressant for chronic pain.  Primary efficacy outcomes Duloxetine standard dose (60 mg) showed a small to moderate effect for substantial pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.17; 16 studies, 4490 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and continuous pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.24; 18 studies, 4959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For pain intensity, milnacipran standard dose (100 mg) also showed a small effect (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.06; 4 studies, 1866 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mirtazapine (30 mg) had a moderate effect on mood (SMD -0.5, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.22; 1 study, 406 participants; low-certainty evidence), while duloxetine showed a small effect (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.1; 26 studies, 7952 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); however it is important to note that most studies excluded participants with mental health conditions, and so average anxiety and depression scores tended to be in the 'normal' or 'subclinical' ranges at baseline already. Secondary efficacy outcomes Across all secondary efficacy outcomes (moderate pain relief, physical function, sleep, quality of life, and PGIC), duloxetine and milnacipran were the highest-ranked antidepressants with moderate-certainty evidence, although effects were small. For both duloxetine and milnacipran, standard doses were as efficacious as high doses. Safety There was very low-certainty evidence for all safety outcomes (adverse events, serious adverse events, and withdrawal) across all antidepressants. We cannot draw any reliable conclusions from the NMAs for these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review and NMAs show that despite studies investigating 25 different antidepressants, the only antidepressant we are certain about for the treatment of chronic pain is duloxetine. Duloxetine was moderately efficacious across all outcomes at standard dose. There is also promising evidence for milnacipran, although further high-quality research is needed to be confident in these conclusions. Evidence for all other antidepressants was low certainty. As RCTs excluded people with low mood, we were unable to establish the effects of antidepressants for people with chronic pain and depression. There is currently no reliable evidence for the long-term efficacy of any antidepressant, and no reliable evidence for the safety of antidepressants for chronic pain at any time point.

Antidepressants for treating depression in adults with end-stage kidney disease treated with dialysis

BACKGROUND

Depression affects approximately one-quarter of people treated with dialysis and is considered an important research uncertainty by patients and health professionals. Treatment for depression in dialysis patients may have different benefits and harms compared to the general population due to different clearances of antidepressant medication and the severity of somatic symptoms associated with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Guidelines suggest treatment of depression in dialysis patients with pharmacological therapy, preferably a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. This is an update of a review first published in 2005.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefit and harms of antidepressants for treating depression in adults with ESKD treated with dialysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 20 January 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antidepressant treatment with placebo or no treatment, or compared to another antidepressant medication or psychological intervention in adults with ESKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 15 mL/min/1.73 m(2)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were abstracted by two authors independently onto a standard form and subsequently entered into Review Manager. Risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies in 170 participants compared antidepressant therapy (fluoxetine, sertraline, citalopram or escitalopram) versus placebo or psychological training for 8 to 12 weeks. In generally very low or ungradeable evidence, compared to placebo, antidepressant therapy had no evidence of benefit on quality of life, had uncertain effects on increasing the risk of hypotension (3 studies, 144 participants: RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.92), headache (2 studies 56 participants: RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.57), and sexual dysfunction (2 studies, 101 participants: RR 3.83, 95% CI 0.63 to 23.34), and increased nausea (3 studies, 114 participants: RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.26 to 5.68). There were few or no data for hospitalisation, suicide or all-cause mortality resulting in inconclusive evidence. Antidepressant therapy may reduce depression scores during treatment compared to placebo (1 study, 43 participants: MD -7.50, 95% CI -11.94 to -3.06). Antidepressant therapy was not statistically different from group psychological therapy for effects on depression scores or withdrawal from treatment and a range of other outcomes were not measured.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the high prevalence of depression in dialysis patients and the relative priority that patients place on effective treatments, evidence for antidepressant medication in the dialysis setting is sparse and data are generally inconclusive. The relative benefits and harms of antidepressant therapy in dialysis patients are poorly known and large randomised studies of antidepressants versus placebo are required.

Omega-3 fatty acids for depression in adults

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is highly debilitating, difficult to treat, has a high rate of recurrence, and negatively impacts the individual and society as a whole. One emerging potential treatment for MDD is n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3PUFAs), also known as omega-3 oils, naturally found in fatty fish, some other seafood, and some nuts and seeds. Various lines of evidence suggest a role for n-3PUFAs in MDD, but the evidence is far from conclusive. Reviews and meta-analyses clearly demonstrate heterogeneity between studies. Investigations of heterogeneity suggest differential effects of n-3PUFAs, depending on severity of depressive symptoms, where no effects of n-3PUFAs are found in studies of individuals with mild depressive symptomology, but possible benefit may be suggested in studies of individuals with more severe depressive symptomology.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (also known as omega-3 fatty acids) versus a comparator (e.g. placebo, anti-depressant treatment, standard care, no treatment, wait-list control) for major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults. 

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Registers (CCDANCTR) and International Trial Registries over all years to May 2015. We searched the database CINAHL over all years of records to September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies in the review if they: were a randomised controlled trial; provided n-3PUFAs as an intervention; used a comparator; measured depressive symptomology as an outcome; and were conducted in adults with MDD. Primary outcomes were depressive symptomology (continuous data collected using a validated rating scale) and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptomology (dichotomous data on remission and response), quality of life, and failure to complete studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 26 relevant studies: 25 studies involving a total of 1438 participants investigated the impact of n-3PUFA supplementation compared to placebo, and one study involving 40 participants investigated the impact of n-3PUFA supplementation compared to antidepressant treatment.For the placebo comparison, n-3PUFA supplementation results in a small to modest benefit for depressive symptomology, compared to placebo: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.32 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12 to -0.52; 25 studies, 1373 participants, very low quality evidence), but this effect is unlikely to be clinically meaningful (an SMD of 0.32 represents a difference between groups in scores on the HDRS (17-item) of approximately 2.2 points (95% CI 0.8 to 3.6)). The confidence intervals include both a possible clinically important effect and a possible negligible effect, and there is considerable heterogeneity between the studies. Although the numbers of individuals experiencing adverse events were similar in intervention and placebo groups (odds ratio (OR) 1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.62; 19 studies, 1207 participants; very low-quality evidence), the confidence intervals include a significant increase in adverse events with n-3PUFAs as well as a small possible decrease. Rates of remission and response, quality of life, and rates of failure to complete studies were also similar between groups, but confidence intervals are again wide.The evidence on which these results are based is very limited. All studies contributing to our analyses were of direct relevance to our research question, but we rated the quality of the evidence for all outcomes as low to very low. The number of studies and number of participants contributing to all analyses were low, and the majority of studies were small and judged to be at high risk of bias on several measures. Our analyses were also likely to be highly influenced by three large trials. Although we judge these trials to be at low risk of bias, they contribute 26.9% to 82% of data. Our effect size estimates are also imprecise. Funnel plot asymmetry and sensitivity analyses (using fixed-effect models, and only studies judged to be at low risk of selection bias, performance bias or attrition bias) also suggest a likely bias towards a positive finding for n-3PUFAs. There was substantial heterogeneity in analyses of our primary outcome of depressive symptomology. This heterogeneity was not explained by the presence or absence of comorbidities or by the presence or absence of adjunctive therapy.Only one study was available for the antidepressant comparison, involving 40 participants. This study found no differences between treatment with n-3PUFAs and treatment with antidepressants in depressive symptomology (mean difference (MD) -0.70 (95% CI -5.88 to 4.48)), rates of response to treatment or failure to complete. Adverse events were not reported in a manner suitable for analysis, and rates of depression remission and quality of life were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present, we do not have sufficient high quality evidence to determine the effects of n-3PUFAs as a treatment for MDD. Our primary analyses suggest a small-to-modest, non-clinically beneficial effect of n-3PUFAs on depressive symptomology compared to placebo; however the estimate is imprecise, and we judged the quality of the evidence on which this result is based to be low/very low. Sensitivity analyses, funnel plot inspection and comparison of our results with those of large well-conducted trials also suggest that this effect estimate is likely to be biased towards a positive finding for n-3PUFAs, and that the true effect is likely to be smaller. Our data, however, also suggest similar rates of adverse events and numbers failing to complete trials in n-3PUFA and placebo groups, but again our estimates are very imprecise. The one study that directly compares n-3PUFAs and antidepressants in our review finds comparable benefit. More evidence, and more complete evidence, are required, particularly regarding both the potential positive and negative effects of n-3PUFAs for MDD.

Interventions for post-stroke fatigue

BACKGROUND

Post-stroke fatigue (PSF) is a common and distressing problem after stroke. The best ways to prevent or treat PSF are uncertain. Several different interventions can be argued to have a rational basis.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether, among people with stroke, any intervention reduces the proportion of people with fatigue, fatigue severity, or both; and to determine the effect of intervention on health-related quality of life, disability, dependency and death, and whether such intervention is cost effective.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched May 2014), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to May 2014), EMBASE (1980 to May 2014), CINAHL (1982 to May 2014), AMED (1985 to May 2014), PsycINFO (1967 to May 2014), Digital Dissertations (1861 to May 2014), British Nursing Index (1985 to May 2014), PEDro (searched May 2014) and PsycBITE (searched May 2014). We also searched four ongoing trials registries, scanned reference lists, performed citation tracking of included trials and contacted experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently scrutinised all titles and abstracts and excluded obviously irrelevant studies. We obtained the full texts for potentially relevant studies and three review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an intervention with a control, or compared different interventions for PSF.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included trial. The primary outcomes were severity of fatigue, or proportion of people with fatigue after treatment. We performed separate analyses for trials investigating efficacy in treating PSF, trials investigating efficacy in preventing PSF and trials not primarily investigating efficacy in PSF but which reported fatigue as an outcome. We pooled results from trials that had a control arm. For trials that compared different potentially active interventions without a control arm, we performed analyses for individual trials without pooling.We calculated standardised mean difference (SMD) as the effect size for continuous outcomes and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. We pooled the results using a random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. We performed separate subgroup analyses for pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. We also performed sensitivity analyses to assess the influence of methodological quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved 12,490 citations, obtained full texts for 58 studies and included 12 trials (three from the 2008 search and nine from the 2014 search) with 703 participants. Eight trials primarily investigated the efficacy in treating PSF, of which six trials with seven comparisons provided data suitable for meta-analysis (five pharmacological interventions: fluoxetine, enerion, (-)-OSU6162, citicoline and a combination of Chinese herbs; and two non-pharmacological interventions: a fatigue education programme and a mindfulness-based stress reduction programme). The fatigue severity was lower in the intervention groups than in the control groups (244 participants, pooled SMD -1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.93 to -0.21), with significant heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 87%, degrees of freedom (df) = 6, P value < 0.00001). The beneficial effect was not seen in trials that had used adequate allocation concealment (two trials, 89 participants, SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.04) or trials that had used adequate blinding of outcome assessors (four trials, 198 participants, SMD -1.10, 95% CI -2.31 to 0.11).No trial primarily investigated the efficacy in preventing PSF.Four trials (248 participants) did not primarily investigate the efficacy on fatigue but other symptoms after stroke. None of these interventions showed any benefit on reducing PSF, which included tirilazad mesylate, continuous positive airway pressure for sleep apnoea, antidepressants and a self management programme for recovery from chronic diseases.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence on the efficacy of any intervention to treat or prevent fatigue after stroke. Trials to date have been small and heterogeneous, and some have had a high risk of bias. Some of the interventions described were feasible in people with stroke, but their efficacy should be investigated in RCTs with a more robust study design and adequate sample sizes.

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have been shown to have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anti-cancer treatment, suicide risk and likely even the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants in this population group are few and often report conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to April week 3, 2014), EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2014 week 17) and PsycINFO Ovid (1987 to April week 4, 2014). We additionally handsearched the trial databases of the most relevant national, international and pharmaceutical company trial registers and drug-approving agencies for published, unpublished and ongoing controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs allocating adults (18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis) comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a form specifically designed for the aims of this review. The two authors compared the data extracted and then entered data into RevMan 5 with a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, outcome measures for each time point of interest, cost analysis and sponsorship by a drug company. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved a total of nine studies (861 participants), with seven studies contributing to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Four of these compared antidepressants and placebo, two compared two antidepressants and one-three armed study compared two antidepressants and a placebo arm. For the acute phase treatment response (6 to 12 weeks), we found very low quality evidence for the effect of antidepressants as a class on symptoms of depression compared with placebo when measured as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to 0.11, five RCTs, 266 participants) or as a proportion of people who had depression (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.08, five RCTs, 417 participants). No trials reported data on the follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons we only retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants, providing very low quality evidence for the difference between these two classes (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18, three RCTs, 237 participants). No clear evidence of an effect of antidepressants versus either placebo or other antidepressants emerged from the analyses of the secondary efficacy outcomes (dichotomous outcome, response at 6 to 12 weeks, very low quality evidence). We found very low quality evidence for the effect of antidepressants as a class in terms of dropouts due to any cause compared with placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.53, six RCTs, 455 participants), as well as between SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.30, three RCTs, 237 participants). We downgraded the quality of the evidence because the included studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, available studies were very few and of low quality. This review found very low quality evidence for the effects of these drugs compared with placebo. On the basis of these results clear implications for practice cannot be made. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which agent should be prescribed may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of individuals with major depression, also taking into account that data on medically ill patients suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. Large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer with depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder, are urgently needed to better inform clinical practice.

Antidepressants for people with epilepsy and depression

BACKGROUND

Depressive disorders are the most common psychiatric comorbidity in patients with epilepsy, affecting around one-third, with a significant negative impact on quality of life. There is concern that patients may not be receiving appropriate treatment for their depression because of uncertainty regarding which antidepressant or class works best and the perceived risk of exacerbating seizures. This review aims to address these issues and inform clinical practice and future research.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to review and synthesise evidence from randomised controlled trials of antidepressants and prospective non-randomised studies of antidepressants used for treating depression in patients with epilepsy. The primary objectives were to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in treating depressive symptoms and the effect on seizure recurrence.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a search of the following databases: the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE (Ovid), SCOPUS, PsycINFO, www.clinicaltrials.gov and conference proceedings, including studies published up to 31 May 2014. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised cohort controlled and uncontrolled studies investigating children or adults with epilepsy treated with an antidepressant for depressive symptoms. The intervention group consisted of patients receiving an antidepressant drug in addition to an existing antiepileptic drug regimen. The control group(s) consisted of patients receiving a placebo, comparative antidepressant, psychotherapy or no treatment in addition to an existing antiepileptic drug regimen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on trial design factors, patient demographics and outcomes for each study. The primary outcomes were changes in depression scores (proportion with a greater than 50% improvement or mean difference) and change in seizure frequency (mean difference or proportion with a seizure recurrence or episode of status epilepticus, or both). Secondary outcomes included the number of patients withdrawing from the study and reasons for withdrawal, as well as any adverse events. Two authors undertook data extraction separately for each included study. We then cross-checked the data extraction. We assessed risk of bias using a version of the extended Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias in both randomised and non-randomised studies. We presented binary outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We presented continuous outcomes as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs, and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. If possible we intended to use meta-regression techniques to investigate possible sources of heterogeneity however this was not possible due to lack of data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in the review eight studies (three RCTs and five prospective cohort studies) including 471 patients with epilepsy treated with an antidepressant. The RCTs were all single-centre studies comparing an antidepressant versus active control, placebo or no treatment. The five non-randomised prospective cohort studies reported on outcomes mainly in patients with partial epilepsy treated for depression with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). We rated all the RCTs and one prospective cohort study as having unclear risk of bias. We rated the four other prospective cohort studies as having high risk of bias. We were unable to perform any meta-analysis for the proportion with a greater than 50% improvement in depression scores because the studies reported on different treatment comparisons. The results are presented descriptively and show a varied responder rate of between 24% and 97%, depending on the antidepressant given. For the mean difference in depression score we were able to perform a limited meta-analysis of two prospective cohort studies of citalopram, including a total of 88 patients. This gave low quality evidence for the effect estimate of 1.17 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.38) in depression scores. Seizure frequency data were not reported in any RCTs and we were unable to perform any meta-analysis for prospective cohort studies due to the different treatment comparisons. The results are presented descriptively and show that treatment in three studies with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor did not significantly increase seizure frequency. Patients given an antidepressant were more likely to withdraw due to adverse events than inefficacy. Reported adverse events for SSRIs included nausea, dizziness, sedation, gastrointestinal disturbance and sexual dysfunction. Across three comparisons we rated the evidence as moderate quality due to the small sizes of the contributing studies and only one study each contributing to the comparisons. We rated the evidence for the final comparison as low quality as there was concern over the study methods in the two contributing studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Existing evidence on the effectiveness of antidepressants in treating depressive symptoms associated with epilepsy is very limited. Only one small RCT demonstrated a statistically significant effect of venlafaxine on depressive symptoms. We have no high quality evidence to inform the choice of antidepressant drug or class of drug in treating depression in people with epilepsy. This review provides low quality evidence of safety in terms of seizure exacerbation with SSRIs, but there are no available comparative data on antidepressant classes and safety in relation to seizures. There are currently no comparative data on antidepressants and psychotherapy in treating depression in epilepsy, although psychotherapy could be considered in patients unwilling to take antidepressants or where there are unacceptable side effects. Further comparative clinical trials of antidepressants and psychotherapy in large cohorts of patients with epilepsy and depression are required to better inform treatment policy in the future.

Pharmacological treatment of depression in patients with a primary brain tumour

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3, 2010.Patients with a primary brain tumour often experience depression, for which drug treatment may be prescribed. However, these patients are also at high risk of epileptic seizures, cognitive impairment and fatigue, all of which are potential side effects of antidepressants. The benefit, or harm, of pharmacological treatment of depression in brain tumour patients is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatment of depression in patients with a primary brain tumour.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search to include the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 10), MEDLINE to October 2012, EMBASE to October 2012 and PsycINFO to October 2012. We searched the British Nursing Index, LILACS, PSYNDEX, the NHS National Research Register, the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination's Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) and Web of Knowledge (covering Science Scisearch, Social Sciences Citation Index and Biological Abstracts) for the original review (to July 2009). In the original review we also handsearched Neuro-oncology, the Journal of Neuro-oncology, the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry and the Journal of Clinical Oncology (July 1999 to June 2009) and wrote to all the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing antidepressants for use in the UK.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, cohort studies and case-control studies of any pharmacological treatment of depression in patients with a histologically diagnosed primary brain tumour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

No studies met the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no eligible studies evaluating the benefits of any pharmacological treatment of depression in brain tumour patients.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No high-quality studies have examined the value of pharmacological treatment of depression in patients with a primary brain tumour. RCTs and detailed prospective studies are required to inform the effective pharmacological treatment of this common and important complication of brain tumours. Since the last version of this review none of the new relevant studies have provided additional information to change these conclusions.

Alprazolam for depression

BACKGROUND

The 'off-label' effect of alprazolam on depression has not been systematically evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the antidepressant effect, including tolerability and acceptability, of alprazolam as monotherapy for major depression, when compared to placebo and conventional antidepressants in outpatients and patients in primary care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group Register, which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years to February 2012); EMBASE (1970 to February 2012); MEDLINE (1950 to February 2012) and PsycINFO (1960 to February 2012). Two review authors identified relevant trials by assessing the abstracts of all possible studies. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of alprazolam versus placebo or conventional antidepressants for depression in adults, excluding studies with inpatients only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors performed the data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment independently with disagreements resolved through discussion with a third review author. Primary outcomes included the mean difference (MD) in reduction of depression on a continuous measure of depression symptoms, and the risk ratio (RR) of the clinical response based on a dichotomous measure, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 21 alprazolam studies (22 reports) with a total of 2693 participants. Seven studies used a placebo (n = 771) and 20 used cyclic antidepressants (n = 1765). The typical duration of the studies was four to six weeks. We considered six studies to have a high risk of bias.When alprazolam was compared with placebo for reduction in symptoms all estimates indicated a positive effect for alprazolam. Pooled estimates of efficacy data showed a moderately large continuous mean difference (MD) at the end of trial (-5.34, 95% CI -7.48 to -3.20; I(2) = 68%). The risk difference (RD) for the dichotomous measure of clinical response (50% improvement) was 0.32 in favour of alprazolam (95% CI 0.22 to 0.42; I(2) = 0%), with a number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) of 3 (95% CI 2 to 5). The RD of all-cause withdrawals did not differ between alprazolam and placebo.When depression severity was measured as a continuum the effect of alprazolam did not differ statistically or clinically from the effects of any of the conventional antidepressants combined (MD 0.25, 95% CI -0.93 to 1.43; I(2) = 55%). However, for dichotomised depression severity, alprazolam had less effect than antidepressants (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; I(2) = 37%; RD -0.11, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.01; I(2) = 58%; NNTB 9, 95% CI 4 to 100). The RD of all-cause withdrawals was -0.04 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.00; I(2) = 35%), in favour of alprazolam.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Alprazolam appears to reduce depressive symptoms more effectively than placebo and as effectively as tricyclic antidepressants. However, the studies included in the review were heterogeneous, of poor quality and only addressed short-term effects, thus limiting our confidence in the findings. Whilst the rate of all-cause withdrawals did not appear to differ between alprazolam and placebo, and withdrawals were less frequent in the alprazolam group than in any of the conventional antidepressants combined group, these findings should be interpreted with caution, given the dependency properties of benzodiazepines.

Combined psychotherapy plus antidepressants for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia

BACKGROUND

Panic disorder can be treated with pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy or in combination, but the relative merits of combined therapy have not been well established.

OBJECTIVES

To review evidence concerning short- and long-term advantages and disadvantages of combined psychotherapy plus antidepressant treatment for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, in comparison with either therapy alone.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Registers (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) were searched on 11/10/2005, together with a complementary search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MEDLINE, using the keywords antidepressant and panic. A reference search, SciSearch and personal contact with experts were carried out.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two independent review authors identified randomised controlled trials comparing the combined therapy against either of the monotherapies among adult patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors extracted data using predefined data formats, including study quality indicators. The primary outcome was relative risk (RR) of "response" i.e. substantial overall improvement from baseline as defined by the original investigators. Secondary outcomes included standardised weighted mean differences in global severity, panic attack frequency, phobic avoidance, general anxiety, depression and social functioning and relative risks of overall dropouts and dropouts due to side effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 23 randomised comparisons (representing 21 trials, 1709 patients), 21 of which involved behaviour or cognitive-behaviour therapies. In the acute phase treatment, the combined therapy was superior to antidepressant pharmacotherapy (RR 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.52) or psychotherapy (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31). The combined therapy produced more dropouts due to side effects than psychotherapy (number needed to harm (NNH) around 26). After the acute phase treatment, as long as the drug was continued, the superiority of the combination over either monotherapy appeared to persist. After termination of the acute phase and continuation treatment, the combined therapy was more effective than pharmacotherapy alone (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.11) and was as effective as psychotherapy (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.16).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Either combined therapy or psychotherapy alone may be chosen as first line treatment for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, depending on patient preference.