Dataset Information

Efficacy of antidepressants and benzodiazepines in minor depression: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Depression is a common condition that has been frequently treated with psychotropics.

Aims

To review systematically the evidence of efficacy and acceptability of antidepressant and benzodiazepine treatments for patients with minor depression.

Method

A systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind randomised controlled trials comparing antidepressants or benzodiazepines v. placebo in adults with minor depression. Data were obtained from MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and pharmaceutical company websites. Risk of bias was assessed for the generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, masking, incomplete outcome data, and sponsorship bias.

Results

Six studies met inclusion criteria. Three studies compared paroxetine with placebo; fluoxetine, amitriptyline and isocarboxazid were studied in one study each. No studies compared benzodiazepines with placebo. In terms of failures to respond to treatment (6 studies, 234 patients treated with antidepressants and 234 with placebo) no significant difference between antidepressants and placebo was found (relative risk (RR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.81-1.08). In terms of acceptability, data extracted from two studies (93 patients treated with antidepressants and 93 with placebo) showed no statistically significant difference between antidepressants and placebo (RR=1.06, 95% CI 0.65-1.73). There was no statistically significant between-study heterogeneity for any of the reported analyses.

Conclusions

There is evidence showing there is unlikely to be a clinically important advantage for antidepressants over placebo in individuals with minor depression. For benzodiazepines, no evidence is available, and thus it is not possible to determine their potential therapeutic role in this condition.

SUBMITTER: Barbui C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3014462 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of antidepressants and benzodiazepines in minor depression: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Barbui Corrado C Cipriani Andrea A Patel Vikram V Ayuso-Mateos José L JL van Ommeren Mark M

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science 20110101 1

<h4>Background</h4>Depression is a common condition that has been frequently treated with psychotropics.<h4>Aims</h4>To review systematically the evidence of efficacy and acceptability of antidepressant and benzodiazepine treatments for patients with minor depression.<h4>Method</h4>A systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind randomised controlled trials comparing antidepressants or benzodiazepines v. placebo in adults with minor depression. Data were obtained from MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBA ...[more]

PMID: 21200071

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceEvery third to sixth patient with medical diseases receives antidepressants, but regulatory trials typically exclude comorbid medical diseases. Meta-analyses of antidepressants have shown small to medium effect sizes, but generalizability to clinical settings is unclear, where medical comorbidity is highly prevalent.ObjectiveTo perform an umbrella systematic review of the meta-analytic evidence and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of antidepressant use in populations with medical diseases and comorbid depression.Data sourcesPubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception until March 31, 2023, for systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for treatment or prevention of comorbid depression in any medical disease.Study selectionMeta-analyses of placebo- or active-controlled RCTs studying antidepressants for depression in individuals with medical diseases.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction and quality assessment using A Measurement Tool for the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2 and AMSTAR-Content) were performed by pairs of independent reviewers following PRISMA guidelines. When several meta-analyses studied the same medical disease, the largest meta-analysis was included. Random-effects meta-analyses pooled data on the primary outcome (efficacy), key secondary outcomes (acceptability and tolerability), and additional secondary outcomes (response and remission).Main outcomes and measuresAntidepressant efficacy presented as standardized mean differences (SMDs) and tolerability (discontinuation for adverse effects) and acceptability (all-cause discontinuation) presented as risk ratios (RRs).ResultsOf 6587 references, 176 systematic reviews were identified in 43 medical diseases. Altogether, 52 meta-analyses in 27 medical diseases were included in the evidence synthesis (mean [SD] AMSTAR-2 quality score, 9.3 [3.1], with a maximum possible of 16; mean [SD] AMSTAR-Content score, 2.4 [1.9], with a maximum possible of 9). Across medical diseases (23 meta-analyses), antidepressants improved depression vs placebo (SMD, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.30-0.54]; I2 = 76.5%), with the largest SMDs for myocardial infarction (SMD, 1.38 [95% CI, 0.82-1.93]), functional chest pain (SMD, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.08-1.67]), and coronary artery disease (SMD, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.32-1.33]) and the smallest for low back pain (SMD, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.17-0.39]) and traumatic brain injury (SMD, 0.08 [95% CI, -0.28 to 0.45]). Antidepressants showed worse acceptability (24 meta-analyses; RR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.02-1.32]) and tolerability (18 meta-analyses; RR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.13-1.64]) compared with placebo. Antidepressants led to higher rates of response (8 meta-analyses; RR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.14-1.94]) and remission (6 meta-analyses; RR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.25-1.61]) than placebo. Antidepressants more likely prevented depression than placebo (7 meta-analyses; RR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.33-0.53]).Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this umbrella systematic review of meta-analyses found that antidepressants are effective and safe in treating and preventing depression in patients with comorbid medical disease. However, few large, high-quality RCTs exist in most medical diseases.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and tolerability of tricyclic antidepressants with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in depression in primary care.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesRegister of the Cochrane Collaboration's depression, anxiety, and neurosis group. Reference lists of initial studies and other relevant review papers. Selected authors and experts.Selection of studiesStudies had to meet minimum requirements on: adequacy of sample size, adequate allocation concealment, clear description of treatment, representative source of subjects, use of diagnostic criteria or clear specification of inclusion criteria, details regarding number and reasons for withdrawal by group, and outcome measures described clearly or use of validated instruments.Main outcome measuresStandardised mean difference of final mean depression scores and relative risk of response when using the clinical global impression score. Relative risk of withdrawing from treatment at any time, and the number withdrawing due to side effects.Results11 studies (2951 participants) compared a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor with a tricyclic antidepressant. Efficacy between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclics did not differ significantly (standardised weighted mean difference, fixed effects 0.07, 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.15; z=1.59, P<0.11). Significantly more patients receiving a tricyclic withdrew from treatment (relative risk 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.90; z=3.37, P<0.0007) and withdrew specifically because of side effects (0.73, 0.60 to 0.88; z=3.24, P<0.001). Most studies included were small and supported by commercial funding. Many studies were of low methodological quality or did not present adequate data for analysis, or both, and were of short duration, typically six to eight weeks.ConclusionThe evidence on the relative efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants in primary care is sparse and of variable quality. The study setting is likely to be an important factor in assessing the efficacy and tolerability of treatment with antidepressant drugs.

Project description:BackgroundAntidepressant medicines are used to manage symptoms of low back pain. The efficacy, acceptability, and safety of antidepressant medicines for low back pain (LBP) are not clear. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of antidepressant medicines for LBP.MethodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov , the EU Clinical Trials Register, and the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform from inception to May 2020. We included published and trial registry reports of RCTs that allocated adult participants with LBP to receive an antidepressant medicine or a placebo medicine. Pairs of authors independently extracted data in duplicate. We extracted participant characteristics, study sample size, outcome values, and measures of variance for each outcome. We data using random-effects meta-analysis models and calculated estimates of effects and heterogeneity for each outcome. We formed judgments of confidence in the evidence in accordance with GRADE. We report our findings in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We prespecified all outcomes in a prospectively registered protocol. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and acceptability. We measured pain intensity at end-of-treatment on a 0-100 point scale and considered 10 points the minimal clinically important difference. We defined acceptability as the odds of stopping treatment for any reason.ResultsWe included 23 RCTs in this review. Data were available for pain in 17 trials and acceptability in 14 trials. Treatment with antidepressants decreased pain intensity by 4.33 points (95% CI - 6.15 to - 2.50) on a 0-100 scale, compared to placebo. Treatment with antidepressants increased the odds of stopping treatment for any reason (OR 1.27 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.56]), compared to placebo.ConclusionsTreatment of LBP with antidepressants is associated with small reductions in pain intensity and increased odds of stopping treatment for any reason, compared to placebo. The effect on pain is not clinically important. The effect on acceptability warrants consideration. These findings provide Level I evidence to guide clinicians in their use of antidepressants to treat LBP.Trial registrationWe prospectively registered the protocol for this systematic review on PROSPERO ( CRD42020149275 ).

Project description:Objective: To evaluated the efficacy and safety of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) combined with antidepressants in patients with poststroke depression (PSD). Methods: Seven databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials of NIBS combined with antidepressants in the treatment of PSD based on the international classification of diseases (ICD-10) criteria and exclusion criteria. The retrieval time was from the database establishment to 31 October 2021. Two researchers independently screened the identified studies through the search strategy, extracted their characteristics, and evaluated the quality of the included literature. Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used to assess risk of bias. RevMan 5.3 software was applied for meta-analysis. Results: A total of 34 randomized controlled trials were included, involving 2,711 patients with PSD. Meta-analysis showed that the total effective rate was higher in the combined therapy than the antidepressant alone [odds ratio (OR): 4.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.07 to 6.11; p < 0.00001]. The Hamilton depressive scale (HAMD) score was significantly lower in repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) (≤10 Hz) combined with antidepressant than in antidepressant alone [standard mean difference (SMD): -1.44; 95% CI: -1.86 to -1.03; p < 0.00001]. No significant difference was seen in rTMS (>10 Hz) combined with antidepressant versus antidepressant alone (SMD: -4.02; 95% CI: -10.43 to 2.39; p = 0.22). In addition, combination therapy more strongly improved the modified Barthel index (MBI) scale than antidepressants [mean difference (MD): 8.29; 95% CI: 5.23-11.35; p < 0.00001]. Adverse effects were not significantly different between two therapies (OR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.87 to 2.04; p = 0.18). Conclusion: Low-frequency rTMS (≤10 Hz) combined with antidepressants tends to be more effective than antidepressants alone in patients with PSD, and there are no significant adverse effects. In addition, combined therapy may enhance quality of life after stroke. Combination therapy with high-frequency rTMS (>10 Hz) showed no advantage in treating PSD. The transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) combined with antidepressants might be more effective than antidepressants alone, which are needed to confirm by more clinical trials since the.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of antidepressants and benzodiazepines in minor depression: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Aims

Method

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Efficacy of antidepressants and benzodiazepines in minor depression: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets