Dataset Information

Efficacy of new generation antidepressants: differences seem illusory.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Recently, Cipriani and colleagues examined the relative efficacy of 12 new-generation antidepressants on major depression using network meta-analytic methods. They found that some of these medications outperformed others in patient response to treatment. However, several methodological criticisms have been raised about network meta-analysis and Cipriani's analysis in particular which creates the concern that the stated superiority of some antidepressants relative to others may be unwarranted.

Materials and methods

A Monte Carlo simulation was conducted which involved replicating Cipriani's network meta-analysis under the null hypothesis (i.e., no true differences between antidepressants). The following simulation strategy was implemented: (1) 1000 simulations were generated under the null hypothesis (i.e., under the assumption that there were no differences among the 12 antidepressants), (2) each of the 1000 simulations were network meta-analyzed, and (3) the total number of false positive results from the network meta-analyses were calculated.

Findings

Greater than 7 times out of 10, the network meta-analysis resulted in one or more comparisons that indicated the superiority of at least one antidepressant when no such true differences among them existed.

Interpretation

Based on our simulation study, the results indicated that under identical conditions to those of the 117 RCTs with 236 treatment arms contained in Cipriani et al.'s meta-analysis, one or more false claims about the relative efficacy of antidepressants will be made over 70% of the time. As others have shown as well, there is little evidence in these trials that any antidepressant is more effective than another. The tendency of network meta-analyses to generate false positive results should be considered when conducting multiple comparison analyses.

SUBMITTER: Del Re AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3670872 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of new generation antidepressants: differences seem illusory.

Del Re A C AC Spielmans Glen I GI Flückiger Christoph C Wampold Bruce E BE

PloS one 20130603 6

<h4>Background</h4>Recently, Cipriani and colleagues examined the relative efficacy of 12 new-generation antidepressants on major depression using network meta-analytic methods. They found that some of these medications outperformed others in patient response to treatment. However, several methodological criticisms have been raised about network meta-analysis and Cipriani's analysis in particular which creates the concern that the stated superiority of some antidepressants relative to others may ...[more]

PMID: 23755107

Similar Datasets

Project description:After more than half a century of modern psychopharmacology, with billions of dollars spent on antidepressants annually world-wide, we lack good evidence to guide our everyday decisions in conducting antidepressant treatment of patients with major depression. First we did not know which antidepressant to use as first line treatment. Second we do not know which dosage we should be aiming at with that antidepressant. Because more than half of the patients with major depression starting treatment do not remit after adequate trial with the first agent, they will need a second line treatment. Dose escalation, augmentation and switching are the three often recommended second line strategies but we do not know which is better than the others. Moreover, we do not know when to start considering this second line treatment.The recently published multiple-treatments meta-analysis of 12 new generation antidepressants has provided some partial answers to the first question. Starting with these findings, this proposed trial aims to establish the optimum 1st line and 2nd line antidepressant treatment strategy among adult patients with a non-psychotic unipolar major depressive episode.SUN(^_^)D, the Strategic Use of New generation antidepressants for Depression, is an assessor-blinded, parallel-group, multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Step I is a cluster-randomised trial comparing titration up to the minimum vs maximum of the recommended dose range among patients starting with sertraline. The primary outcome is the change in the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 scores administered by a blinded rater via telephone at week 1 through 3. Step II is an individually randomised trial comparing staying on sertraline, augmentation of sertraline with mirtazapine, and switching to mirtazapine among patients who have not remitted on the first line treatment by week 3. The primary outcome is the change in the PHQ-9 scores at week 4 through 9. Step III represents a continuation phase to Steps I and II and aims to establish longer-term effectiveness and acceptability of the above-examined treatment strategies up to week 25. The trial is supported by the Grant-in-Aid by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan.SUN(^_^)D promises to be a pragmatic large trial to answer important clinical questions that every clinician treating patients with major depression faces in his/her daily practices concerning its first- and second-line treatments.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01109693.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Although previous conventional meta-analyses and network meta-analyses have provided some important findings about pharmacological treatments for children and adolescents with depressive disorders in the past decades, several questions still remain unsolved by the aggregate data from those meta-analyses. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) enables exploration of the impacts of individual characteristics on treatment effects, allowing matching of treatments to specific subgroups of patients. We will perform an IPD-MA to assess the efficacy and tolerability of new-generation antidepressants for major depressive disorder in children and adolescents. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will systematically search for all double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that have compared any new-generation antidepressant with placebo for the acute treatment of major depressive disorder in children and adolescents, in the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, LILACS and ProQuest Dissertations. We will contact all corresponding authors of included RCTs and ask for their cooperation in this project by providing individual participant data from the original trials. The primary outcomes will include efficacy, measured as the mean change of depression symptoms by Children's Depression Rating Scale Revised (CDRS-R), and tolerability, measured as the proportion of patients who withdrew from the trials early due to adverse effects. The secondary outcomes will include response rates, remission rates, deterioration rate, all-cause discontinuation, suicidal-related outcomes and global functioning outcome. Using the raw de-identified study data, we will use mixed-effects logistic and linear regression models to perform the IPD-MAs. The risk of bias of included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We will also detect the publication bias and effects of non-participation of eligible studies. DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval is not required given that informed consent has already been obtained from the patients by the trial investigators before the included trials were conducted. This study may have considerable implications for practice and help improve patient care. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42016051657.

Project description:BACKGROUND:It has been claimed that efficacy estimates based on the Hamilton Depression Rating-Scale (HDRS) underestimate antidepressants true treatment effects due to the instrument's poor psychometric properties. The aim of this study is to compare efficacy estimates based on the HDRS with the gold standard procedure, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating-Scale (MADRS). METHODS AND FINDINGS:We conducted a meta-analysis based on the comprehensive dataset of acute antidepressant trials provided by Cipriani et al. We included all placebo-controlled trials that reported continuous outcomes based on either the HDRS 17-item version or the MADRS. We computed standardised mean difference effect size estimates and raw score drug-placebo differences to evaluate thresholds for clinician-rated minimal improvements (clinical significance). We selected 109 trials (n = 32,399) that assessed the HDRS-17 and 28 trials (n = 11,705) that assessed the MADRS. The summary estimate (effect size) for the HDRS-17 was 0.27 (0.23 to 0.30) compared to 0.30 (0.22 to 0.38) for the MADRS. The effect size difference between HDRS-17 and MADRS was thus only 0.03 and not statistically significant according to both subgroup analysis (p = 0.47) and meta-regression (p = 0.44). Drug-placebo raw score difference was 2.07 (1.76 to 2.37) points on the HDRS-17 (threshold for minimal improvement: 7 points according to clinician-rating and 4 points according to patient-rating) and 2.99 (2.24 to 3.74) points on the MADRS (threshold for minimal improvement: 8 points according to clinician-rating and 5 points according to patient-rating). CONCLUSIONS:Overall there was no meaningful difference between the HDRS-17 and the MADRS. These findings suggest that previous meta-analyses that were mostly based on the HDRS did not underestimate the drugs' true treatment effect as assessed with MADRS, the preferred outcome rating scale. Moreover, the drug-placebo differences in raw scores suggest that treatment effects are indeed marginally small and with questionable importance for the average patient.

Project description:It is often challenging to present the available evidence in a timely and comprehensible manner. We aimed to visualize the evolution of evidence about antidepressants for depression by conducting cumulative network meta-analyses (NMAs) and to examine whether it could have helped the selection of optimal drugs. We built a Shiny web application that performs and presents cumulative NMAs based on R netmeta. We used a comprehensive dataset of double-blind randomized controlled trials of 21 antidepressants in the acute treatment of major depression. The primary outcomes were efficacy (treatment response) and acceptability (all-cause discontinuation), and treatment effects were summarized via odds ratios. We evaluated the confidence in evidence using the CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) framework for a series of consecutive NMAs. Users can change several conditions for the analysis, such as the period of synthesis, among the others. We present the league tables and two-dimensional plots that combine efficacy, acceptability and level of confidence in the evidence together, for NMAs conducted in 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2016. They reveal that through the past four decades, newly approved drugs often showed initially exaggerated results, which tended to diminish and stabilize after approximately a decade. Over the years, the drugs with relative superiority changed dramatically; but as the evidence network grew larger and better connected, the overall confidence improved. The Shiny app visualizes how evidence evolved over years, emphasizing the need for a careful interpretation of relative effects between drugs, especially for the potentially amplified performance of newly approved drugs. HIGHLIGHTS: Network meta-analysis is considered to be a proper way of demonstrating the available evidence, since it allows comparisons between multiple interventions, and has been proved to be statistically powerful. It is challenging to present the voluminous results of NMA in an efficient and comprehendible manner. Evidence evolution based on the relatively new method NMA has not been investigated yet. The results of NMA should not only include the effects but also the confidence in the evidence, which can help interpret the findings appropriately. Effective use of rapidly developing statistical analysis and presentation tools such as Shiny package in R, may facilitate and simplify the visualization of NMA output. We should stay conservative towards new drugs, as their performance was often shown to be exaggerated initially, and it took time to become stable.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of new generation antidepressants: differences seem illusory.

Background

Materials and methods

Findings

Interpretation

Publications

Efficacy of new generation antidepressants: differences seem illusory.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure