Dataset Information

Comparative benefits and harms of second generation antidepressants and cognitive behavioral therapies in initial treatment of major depressive disorder: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Study question

What are the benefits and harms of second generation antidepressants and cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs) in the initial treatment of a current episode of major depressive disorder in adults?

Methods

This was a systematic review including qualitative assessment and meta-analyses using random and fixed effects models. Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched from January 1990 through January 2015. The 11 randomized controlled trials included compared a second generation antidepressant CBT. Ten trials compared antidepressant monotherapy with CBT alone; three compared antidepressant monotherapy with antidepressant plus CBT.

Summary answer and limitations

Meta-analyses found no statistically significant difference in effectiveness between second generation antidepressants and CBT for response (risk ratio 0.91, 0.77 to 1.07), remission (0.98, 0.73 to 1.32), or change in 17 item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score (weighted mean difference, -0.38, -2.87 to 2.10). Similarly, no significant differences were found in rates of overall study discontinuation (risk ratio 0.90, 0.49 to 1.65) or discontinuation attributable to lack of efficacy (0.40, 0.05 to 2.91). Although more patients treated with a second generation antidepressant than receiving CBT withdrew from studies because of adverse events, the difference was not statistically significant (risk ratio 3.29, 0.42 to 25.72). No conclusions could be drawn about other outcomes because of lack of evidence. Results should be interpreted cautiously given the low strength of evidence for most outcomes. The scope of this review was limited to trials that enrolled adult patients with major depressive disorder and compared a second generation antidepressant with CBT, and many of the included trials had methodological shortcomings that may limit confidence in some of the findings.

What this study adds

Second generation antidepressants and CBT have evidence bases of benefits and harms in major depressive disorder. Available evidence suggests no difference in treatment effects of second generation antidepressants and CBT, either alone or in combination, although small numbers may preclude detection of small but clinically meaningful differences. Funding, competing interests, data sharing This project was funded under contract from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality by the RTI-UNC Evidence-based Practice Center. Detailed methods and additional information are available in the full report, available at http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/.

SUBMITTER: Amick HR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4673103 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Most guidelines for major depressive disorder recommend initial treatment with either a second-generation antidepressant (SGA) or cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Although most trials suggest that these treatments have similar efficacy, their health economic implications are uncertain.Objective: To quantify the cost-effectiveness of CBT versus SGA for initial treatment of depression.Design: Decision analytic model.Data sources: Relative effectiveness data from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials; additional clinical and economic data from other publications.Target population: Adults with newly diagnosed major depressive disorder in the United States.Time horizon: 1 to 5 years.Perspectives: Health care sector and societal.Intervention: Initial treatment with either an SGA or group and individual CBT.Outcome measures: Costs in 2014 U.S. dollars, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.Results of base-case analysis: In model projections, CBT produced higher QALYs (3 days more at 1 year and 20 days more at 5 years) with higher costs at 1 year (health care sector, $900; societal, $1500) but lower costs at 5 years (health care sector, -$1800; societal, -$2500).Results of sensitivity analysis: In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, SGA had a 64% to 77% likelihood of having an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $100 000 or less per QALY at 1 year; CBT had a 73% to 77% likelihood at 5 years. Uncertainty in the relative risk for relapse of depression contributed the most to overall uncertainty in the optimal treatment.Limitation: Long-term trials comparing CBT and SGA are lacking.Conclusion: Neither SGAs nor CBT provides consistently superior cost-effectiveness relative to the other. Given many patients' preference for psychotherapy over pharmacotherapy, increasing patient access to CBT may be warranted.Primary funding source: Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institute of Mental Health.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine, using research on duloxetine for major depressive disorder as an example, if there are inconsistencies between protocols, clinical study reports, and main publicly available sources (journal articles and trial registries), and within clinical study reports themselves, with respect to benefits and major harms.DesignData on primary efficacy analysis and major harms extracted from each data source and compared.SettingNine randomised placebo controlled trials of duloxetine (total 2878 patients) submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for marketing approval for major depressive disorder.Data sourcesClinical study reports, including protocols as appendices (total 13,729 pages), were obtained from the EMA in May 2011. Journal articles were identified through relevant literature databases and contacting the manufacturer, Eli Lilly. Clinicaltrials.gov and the manufacturer's online clinical trial registry were searched for trial results.ResultsClinical study reports fully described the primary efficacy analysis and major harms (deaths (including suicides), suicide attempts, serious adverse events, and discontinuations because of adverse events). There were minor inconsistencies in the population in the primary efficacy analysis between the protocol and clinical study report and within the clinical study report for one trial. Furthermore, we found contradictory information within the reports for seven serious adverse events and eight adverse events that led to discontinuation but with no apparent bias. In each trial, a median of 406 (range 177-645) and 166 (100-241) treatment emergent adverse events (adverse events that emerged or worsened after study drug was started) in the randomised phase were not reported in journal articles and Lilly trial registry reports, respectively. We also found publication bias in relation to beneficial effects.ConclusionClinical study reports contained extensive data on major harms that were unavailable in journal articles and in trial registry reports. There were inconsistencies between protocols and clinical study reports and within clinical study reports. Clinical study reports should be used as the data source for systematic reviews of drugs, but they should first be checked against protocols and within themselves for accuracy and consistency.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent prophylactic vaccines against human papillomavirus (HPV) target two oncogenic types (16 and 18) that contribute to 70% of cervical cancer cases worldwide. Our objective was to quantify the range of additional benefits conferred by second-generation HPV prophylactic vaccines that are expected to expand protection to five additional oncogenic types (31, 33, 45, 52 and 58).MethodsA microsimulation model of HPV and cervical cancer calibrated to epidemiological data from two countries (Kenya and Uganda) was used to estimate reductions in lifetime risk of cervical cancer from the second-generation HPV vaccines. We explored the independent and joint impact of uncertain factors (i.e., distribution of HPV types, co-infection with multiple HPV types, and unidentifiable HPV types in cancer) and vaccine properties (i.e., cross-protection against non-targeted HPV types), compared against currently-available vaccines.ResultsAssuming complete uptake of the second-generation vaccine, reductions in lifetime cancer risk were 86.3% in Kenya and 91.8% in Uganda, representing an absolute increase in cervical cancer reduction of 26.1% in Kenya and 17.9% in Uganda, compared with complete uptake of current vaccines. The range of added benefits was 19.6% to 29.1% in Kenya and 14.0% to 19.5% in Uganda, depending on assumptions of cancers attributable to multiple HPV infections and unidentifiable HPV types. These effects were blunted in both countries when assuming vaccine cross-protection with both the current and second-generation vaccines.ConclusionSecond-generation HPV vaccines that protect against additional oncogenic HPV types have the potential to improve cervical cancer prevention. Co-infection with multiple HPV infections and unidentifiable HPV types can influence vaccine effectiveness, but the magnitude of effect may be moderated by vaccine cross-protective effects. These benefits must be weighed against the cost of the vaccines in future analyses.

Project description:Children and adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD) appear to be more responsive to placebo than adults in randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of second and newer generation antidepressants (SNG-AD). Previous meta-analyses obtained conflicting results regarding modifiers. We aimed to conduct a meta-analytical evaluation of placebo response rates based on both clinician-rating and self-rating scales. Based on the most recent and comprehensive study on adult data, we tested whether the placebo response rates in children and adolescents with MDD also increase with study duration and number of study sites. We searched systematically for published RCTs of SNG-AD in children and/or adolescents (last update: September 2017) in public domain electronic databases and additionally for documented studies in clinical trial databases. The log-transformed odds of placebo response were meta-analytically analyzed. The primary and secondary outcomes were placebo response rates at the end of treatment based on clinician-rating and self-rating scales, respectively. To examine the impact of study duration and number of study sites on placebo response rates, we performed simple meta-regression analyses. We selected other potential modifiers of placebo response based on significance in at least one previous pediatric meta-analysis and on theoretical considerations to perform explorative analyses. We applied sensitivity analyses with placebo response rates closest to week 8 to compare our data with those reported for adults. We identified 24 placebo-controlled trials (2229 patients in the placebo arms). The clinician-rated placebo response rates ranged from 22 to 62% with a pooled response rate of 45% (95% CI 41-50%). The number of study sites was a significant modifier in the simple meta-regression analysis [odds ratio (OR) 1.01, 95% CI 1.01-1.02, p = 0.0003, k = 24) with more study sites linked to a higher placebo response. Study duration was not significantly associated with the placebo response rate. The explorative simple analyses revealed that publication year may be an additional modifier. However, in the explorative multivariable analysis including the number of study sites and the publication year only the number of study sites reached a p value ≤ 0.05. The self-rated placebo response rates ranged from 1 to 68% with a pooled response rate of 26% (95% CI 10-54%) (k = 6; n = 396). This meta-analysis confirms a high pooled placebo response rate in children and adolescents based on clinician ratings, which exceeds that observed in the most recent meta-analysis of placebo effects in adults (36%; 95% CI 35-37%) published in 2016. However, and similar to findings in adults, the pooled response rates based on self-ratings were substantially lower. In accordance with previous meta-analyses, we corroborated the number of study sites as significant modifier. In comparison to the recent adult meta-analysis, the substantially lower number of pediatric studies entails a reduced power to detect modifiers. Future studies should provide more precise and homogenous information to support discovery of potential modifiers and consider no-treatment-if ethically permissible-to allow differentiation between placebo and spontaneous remission rates. If these differ, practicing clinicians should facilitate placebo effects as an addition to the verum effect to maximize benefits. Further research is required to explain the discrepant response rates between clinician and self-ratings.