Article

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis.

Department of Medicine and Public Health, Section of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, University of Verona, Italy
The Lancet (Impact Factor: 39.21). 02/2009; 373(9665):746-58. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60046-5
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Conventional meta-analyses have shown inconsistent results for efficacy of second-generation antidepressants. We therefore did a multiple-treatments meta-analysis, which accounts for both direct and indirect comparisons, to assess the effects of 12 new-generation antidepressants on major depression.
We systematically reviewed 117 randomised controlled trials (25 928 participants) from 1991 up to Nov 30, 2007, which compared any of the following antidepressants at therapeutic dose range for the acute treatment of unipolar major depression in adults: bupropion, citalopram, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients who responded to or dropped out of the allocated treatment. Analysis was done on an intention-to-treat basis.
Mirtazapine, escitalopram, venlafaxine, and sertraline were significantly more efficacious than duloxetine (odds ratios [OR] 1.39, 1.33, 1.30 and 1.27, respectively), fluoxetine (1.37, 1.32, 1.28, and 1.25, respectively), fluvoxamine (1.41, 1.35, 1.30, and 1.27, respectively), paroxetine (1.35, 1.30, 1.27, and 1.22, respectively), and reboxetine (2.03, 1.95, 1.89, and 1.85, respectively). Reboxetine was significantly less efficacious than all the other antidepressants tested. Escitalopram and sertraline showed the best profile of acceptability, leading to significantly fewer discontinuations than did duloxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, reboxetine, and venlafaxine.
Clinically important differences exist between commonly prescribed antidepressants for both efficacy and acceptability in favour of escitalopram and sertraline. Sertraline might be the best choice when starting treatment for moderate to severe major depression in adults because it has the most favourable balance between benefits, acceptability, and acquisition cost.

1 Bookmark
 · 
408 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Long-term symptomatic status in persons with major depressive and bipolar disorders treated clinically is not well established, although mood disorders are leading causes of disability worldwide. AIMS: To pool data on long-term morbidity, by type and as a proportion of time-at-risk, based on published studies and previously unreported data. METHODS: We carried out systematic, computerized literature searches for information on percentage of time in specific morbid states in persons treated clinically and diagnosed with recurrent major depressive or bipolar I or II disorders, and incorporated new data from one of our centers. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 25 samples involving 2479 unipolar depressive and 3936 bipolar disorder subjects (total N=6415) treated clinically for 9.4 years. Proportions of time ill were surprisingly and similarly high across diagnoses: unipolar depressive (46.0%), bipolar I (43.7%), and bipolar II (43.2%) disorders, and morbidity was predominantly depressive: unipolar (100%), bipolar-II (81.2%), bipolar-I (69.6%). Percent-time-ill did not differ between UP and BD subjects, but declined significantly with longer exposure times. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that depressive components of all major affective disorders accounted for 86% of the 43-46% of time in affective morbidity that occurred despite availability of effective treatments. These results encourage redoubled efforts to improve treatments for depression and adherence to their long-term use
    Journal of Affective Disorders 03/2015; 3(178):71-78. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2015.02.011. · 3.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Second-generation antipsychotics have been repeatedly shown to be superior to placebo. However, the comparative efficacy among these drugs has not been systematically evaluated. In this study, we used Mixed Treatment Comparison (MTC) procedures to elucidate the comparative efficacy and tolerability of second-generation antipsychotics. Seven antipsychotics were selected based on the availability of the relevant data. Data were gathered from a series of review article published by the Cochrane Collaboration. Six outcome measures were analyzed: 1) percentage of no clinically important response as defined by the original authors, 2) PANSS total score change from baseline to endpoint, 3) percentage of akathisia, 4) percentage of antiparkinson medication use, 5) percentage of total body weight increase more than 7%, and 6) percentage of drop-out due to any reasons. All the second-generation antipsychotics included in this study showed fairly similar efficacy but widely different tolerability. In terms of efficacy, amisulpride, clozapine and olanzapine were ranked higher than aripiprazole, quetiapine and ziprasidone. Clozapine and olanzapine were superior in terms of akathisia and extrapyramidal symptom risk, but, far more prone to induce clinically important weight gain. Using MTC methodology, we could line up the second generation antipsychotics according to their hierarchical superiority in terms of efficacy and tolerability. Though the wide overlap among the confidence intervals and the inconsistency between the direct and indirect comparison results may limit the validity of these results, it may still allow the important insights into the relative merits of the available drugs.
    Psychiatry investigation 01/2015; 12(1):46-54. DOI:10.4306/pi.2015.12.1.46 · 1.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as augmentation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for SSRI-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have yielded conflicting results. Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy of this strategy for SSRI-resistant OCD. Scientific and medical databases, including international databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CCTR, Web of Science, PsycINFO), two Chinese databases (CBM-disc, CNKI), and relevant websites dated up to July 2014, were searched for RCTs on this strategy for treating OCD. Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used. Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) score, response rates and drop-out rates were evaluated. Data were obtained from nine RCTs consisting of 290 subjects. Active rTMS was an effective augmentation strategy in treating SSRI-resistant OCD with a pooled WMD of 3.89 (95% CI = [1.27, 6.50]) for reducing Y-BOCS score and a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 2.65 (95% CI = [1.36, 5.17] for response rates. No significant differences in drop-out rates were found. No publication bias was detected. The pooled examination demonstrated that this strategy seems to be efficacious and acceptable for treating SSRI-resistant OCD. As the number of RCTs included here was limited, further large-scale multi-center RCTs are required to validate our conclusions.
    International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine 01/2014; 7(12):4897-905. · 1.42 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
100 Downloads
Available from
May 15, 2014