Article

Comparative benefits and harms of second-generation antidepressants for treating major depressive disorder: an updated meta-analysis.

Danube University, Krems, Austria.
Annals of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 16.1). 12/2011; 155(11):772-85. DOI: 10.1059/0003-4819-155-11-201112060-00009
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Second-generation antidepressants dominate the management of major depressive disorder (MDD), but evidence on the comparative benefits and harms of these agents is contradictory.
To compare the benefits and harms of second-generation antidepressants for treating MDD in adults.
English-language studies from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 1980 to August 2011 and reference lists of pertinent review articles and gray literature.
2 independent reviewers identified randomized trials of at least 6 weeks' duration to evaluate efficacy and observational studies with at least 1000 participants to assess harm.
Reviewers abstracted data about study design and conduct, participants, and interventions and outcomes and rated study quality. A senior reviewer checked and confirmed extracted data and quality ratings.
Meta-analyses and mixed-treatment comparisons of response to treatment and weighted mean differences were conducted on specific scales to rate depression. On the basis of 234 studies, no clinically relevant differences in efficacy or effectiveness were detected for the treatment of acute, continuation, and maintenance phases of MDD. No differences in efficacy were seen in patients with accompanying symptoms or in subgroups based on age, sex, ethnicity, or comorbid conditions. Individual drugs differed in onset of action, adverse events, and some measures of health-related quality of life.
Most trials were conducted in highly selected populations. Publication bias might affect the estimates of some comparisons. Mixed-treatment comparisons cannot conclusively exclude differences in efficacy. Evidence within subgroups was limited.
Current evidence does not warrant recommending a particular second-generation antidepressant on the basis of differences in efficacy. Differences in onset of action and adverse events may be considered when choosing a medication.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

2 Followers
 · 
128 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We apply three separate panel data estimation methods to examine the diffusion of technologies at the state-level. These methods include the Hausman-Taylor random effects model, the fixed effects vector decomposition (FEVD), and generalized estimating equations (GEE). We discuss the assumptions required of each and assess the stability of our policy results across the three models for a longitudinal study of the diffusion of newer psychotropic technologies. We find a reasonable level of consistency among marginal effects for time varying independent variables between our three estimation methods but some discrepancy in the estimated measure of precision in our empirical application. We find a number of policy conclusions are quite stable across estimation methods and may be of interest to state-level mental health policy decision makers.
    Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 06/2014; 14(1-2):34-53. DOI:10.1007/s10742-014-0116-y
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Approved doses of antidepressants in Japan are usually lower than those in the USA and European Union, but to date meta-analyses comparing antidepressants have all used the higher doses approved in the USA and European Union and often have used indirect comparisons. The purpose of this study was to conduct an integrated database analysis of patient level data to compare the effects of duloxetine with those of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) at the doses approved in Japan. Pooled data were analyzed from four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies that compared duloxetine at the dose range approved in Japan (40-60 mg/day) with other SSRIs (paroxetine 20 mg/day or escitalopram 10 mg/day) and placebo in patients with major depressive disorder. In total, 1,694 patients were included in the analysis (duloxetine, n=688; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, n=690; placebo, n=316). The primary outcome measure was the mean change from baseline at week 8 in 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD17) total and subscale scores. Duloxetine and both selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were superior to placebo in HAMD17 total score at week 8 in both the all-randomized group and the more severe subgroup (HAMD17 total scores ≥19). Duloxetine was superior to SSRIs in improving the HAMD17 Retardation subscale score (least squares mean difference [95% confidence interval]): all-randomized group, -0.33 [-0.60, -0.07], P=0.015; severe subgroup, -0.45 [-0.83, -0.07], P=0.020). Within the dose range approved in Japan for patients with major depressive disorder, duloxetine and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors demonstrated comparable overall efficacy, with a possible advantage for duloxetine in improving loss of energy and interest. To the best of our knowledge, this analysis is unique not only in evaluating dosages specific to Japan, but also in using individual patient data and the same endpoint across studies to allow for strictly direct head-to-head data comparisons as opposed to pooling direct and indirect comparisons.
    Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 01/2015; 11:115-23. DOI:10.2147/NDT.S72642 · 2.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Major depressive disorder (MDD) presents with a variety of symptoms and responds to a wide range of treatment interventions. Diagnostic criteria collapse multiple syndromes with distinct etiologies into the same disorder. MDD is typically understood as a malfunction of neurotransmission or brain circuitry regulating mood, pleasure and reward, or executive function. However, research from an evolutionary perspective suggests that the “normal” functioning of adaptations may also generate symptoms meeting diagnostic criteria. Functioning adaptations may be an underappreciated etiological pathway to MDD. Many adaptive functions for depressive symptoms have been suggested: biasing cognition to avoid losses, conserving energy, disengaging from unobtainable goals, signaling submission, soliciting resources, and promoting analytical thinking. We review the potential role of these adaptive functions and how they can lead to specific clusters of depressive symptoms. Understanding MDD from such a perspective reduces the heterogeneity of cases and may help to select the best intervention for each patient. We discuss the implications of different adaptive and maladaptive etiological pathways for the use of antidepressants and various modes of psychotherapy. In particular, instances of MDD caused by functioning adaptations may benefit most from treatments that support the adaptive function, or that target the precipitating causal stressor. We conclude that an evolutionary approach to the study of MDD may be one of the more promising approaches to reduce its heterogeneity and to better match patients and treatment.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 09/2014; 172. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2014.09.032 · 3.71 Impact Factor