Publications (2)11.43 Total impact
-
Article: Fluoxetine versus other types of pharmacotherapy for depression.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Depression is common in primary care and it is associated with marked personal, social and economic morbidity, and creates significant demands on service providers in terms of workload. Treatment is predominantly pharmaceutical or psychological. Fluoxetine, the first of a group of antidepressant (AD) agents known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), has been studied in many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in comparison with tricyclic (TCA), heterocyclic and related ADs, and other SSRIs. These comparative studies provided contrasting findings. In addition, systematic reviews of RCTs have always considered the SSRIs as a group, and evidence applicable to this group of drugs might not be applicable to fluoxetine alone. The present systematic review assessed the efficacy and tolerability profile of fluoxetine in comparison with TCAs, SSRIs and newer agents. To determine the efficacy of fluoxetine, compared with other ADs, in alleviating the acute symptoms of depression, and to review its acceptability. Relevant studies were located by searching the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline (1966-2004) and Embase (1974-2004). Non-English language articles were included. Only RCTs were included. For trials which have a crossover design only results from the first randomisation period were considered. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers using a standard form. Responders to treatment were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis: drop-outs were always included in this analysis. When data on drop-outs were carried forward and included in the efficacy evaluation, they were analysed according to the primary studies; when dropouts were excluded from any assessment in the primary studies, they were considered as treatment failures. Scores from continuous outcomes were analysed including patients with a final assessment or with the last observation carried forward. Tolerability data were analysed by calculating the proportion of patients who failed to complete the study and who experienced adverse reactions out of the total number of randomised patients. The primary analyses used a fixed effects approach, and presented Peto Odds Ratio (PetoOR) and Standardised Mean Difference (SMD). On a dichotomous outcome fluoxetine was less effective than dothiepin (PetoOR: 2.09, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.05), sertraline (PetoOR: 1.40, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.76), mirtazapine (PetoOR: 1.64, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.65) and venlafaxine (Peto OR: 1.40, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.70). On a continuous outcome, fluoxetine was more effective than ABT-200 (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) random effects: - 1.85, 95% CI - 2.25 to - 1.45) and milnacipran (SMD random effects: - 0.38, 95% CI - 0.71 to - 0.06); conversely, it was less effective than venlafaxine (SMD random effect: 0.11, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.23), however these figures were of borderline statistical significance. Fluoxetine was better tolerated than TCAs considered as a group (PetoOR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.89), and was better tolerated in comparison with individual ADs, in particular than amitriptyline (PetoOR: 0.64, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.85) and imipramine (PetoOR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.99), and among newer ADs than ABT-200 (PetoOR: 0.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.41), pramipexole (PetoOR: 0.20, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.47) and reboxetine (PetoOR: 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.94). There are statistically significant differences in terms of efficacy and tolerability between fluoxetine and certain ADs, but the clinical meaning of these differences is uncertain, and no definitive implications for clinical practice can be drawn. From a clinical point of view the analysis of antidepressants' safety profile (adverse effect and suicide risk) remains of crucial importance and more reliable data about these outcomes are needed. Waiting for more robust evidence, treatment decisions should be based on considerations of clinical history, drug toxicity, patient acceptability, and cost. We need for large, pragmatic trials, enrolling heterogeneous populations of patients with depression to generate clinically relevant information on the benefits and harms of competitive pharmacological options. A meta-analysis of individual patient data from the randomised trials is clearly necessary.Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 02/2005; · 5.72 Impact Factor -
Article: Low dosage tricyclic antidepressants for depression.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Tricyclic antidepressants are still extensively prescribed worldwide. Evidence for the recommended dosage of tricyclics, however, is poor. To compare the effects and side effects of low dosage tricyclic antidepressants with placebo and with standard dosage tricyclics in acute phase treatment of depression. Electronic search of the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR), incorporating results of group searches of MEDLINE (1966-), EMBASE (1980-), CINAHL (1982-), PsycLIT (1974-), PSYNDEX (1977-) and LILACS (1982-1999) and hand searches of major psychiatric and medical journals. Reference search and SciSearch of the identified studies. Personal contact with authors of significant papers. All randomised controlled trials 1) comparing low dosage TCA (=< 100 mg/d on average at the end of trial) with placebo or 2) comparing low and standard dosages of the same TCA, in acute phase treatment of depressive disorder Two independent reviewers examined eligibility of the identified studies, and extracted data for outcomes at 1 week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6-8 weeks and later. Main outcome measures were relative risk of response in depression (random effects model), according to the original authors' definition but usually defined as 50% or greater reduction in severity of depression according to the last-observation-carried-forward intention-to-treat method, and relative risks of overall dropouts and dropouts due to side effects. Other outcome measures included worst-case-scenario intention-to-treat analysis of response as defined above (in which dropouts were considered non-responders in the active treatment group and as responders in the comparison group), and standardised weighted mean scores of continuous depression severity scales (usually calculated by last-observation-carried-forward method). 35 studies (2013 participants) compared low dosage tricyclics with placebo, and six studies (551 participants) compared low dosage tricyclics with standard dosage tricyclics. Low dosage tricyclics, mostly between 75 and 100 mg/day, were 1.65 (95% confidence interval 1.36 to 2.0) and 1.47 (1.12 to 1.94) times more likely than placebo to bring about response at 4 weeks and 6-8 weeks, respectively. Standard dosage tricyclics failed, however, to bring about more response but produced more dropouts due to side effects than low dosage tricyclics. Treatment of depression in adults with low dose tricyclics is justified. However, more rigorous studies are needed to definitively establish the relative benefits and harms of varying dosages.Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2003; · 5.72 Impact Factor
