Dataset Information

Meta-analyses of comparative efficacy of antidepressant medications on peripheral BDNF concentration in patients with depression.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) is one of the most important regulatory proteins in the pathophysiology of major depressive disorder (MDD). Increasing numbers of studies have reported the relationship between serum/plasma BDNF and antidepressants (ADs). However, the potential effects of several classes of antidepressants on BDNF concentrations are not well known. Hence, our meta-analyses aims to review the effects of differential antidepressant drugs on peripheral BDNF levels in MDD and make some recommendations for future research.

Methods

Electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and PsycINFO were searched from 1980 to June 2016. The change in BDNF levels were compared between baseline and post-antidepressants treatment by use of the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results

We identified 20 eligible trials of antidepressants treatments for BDNF in MDD. The overall effect size for all drug classes showed that BDNF levels were elevated following a course of antidepressants use. For between-study heterogeneity by stratification analyses, we detect that length of treatment and blood samples are significant effect modifiers for BDNF levels during antidepressants treatment. While both SSRIs and SNRIs could increase the BDNF levels after a period of antidepressant medication treatment, sertraline was superior to other three drugs (venlafaxine, paroxetine or escitalopram) in the early increase of BDNF concentrations with SMD 0.53(95% CI = 0.13-0.93; P = 0.009).

Conclusions

There is some evidence that treatment of antidepressants appears to be effective in the increase of peripheral BDNF levels. More robust evidence indicates that different types of antidepressants appear to induce differential effects on the BDNF levels. Since sertraline makes a particular effect on BDNF concentration within a short amount of time, there is potential value in exploring its relationship with BDNF and its pharmacological mechanism concerning peripheral blood BDNF. Further confirmatory trials are required for both observations.

SUBMITTER: Zhou C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5328267 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Meta-analyses of comparative efficacy of antidepressant medications on peripheral BDNF concentration in patients with depression.

Zhou Chanjuan C Zhong Jiaju J Zou Bin B Fang Liang L Chen Jianjun J Deng Xiao X Zhang Lin L Zhao Xiang X Qu Zehui Z Lei Yang Y Lei Ting T

PloS one 20170227 2

<h4>Background</h4>Brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) is one of the most important regulatory proteins in the pathophysiology of major depressive disorder (MDD). Increasing numbers of studies have reported the relationship between serum/plasma BDNF and antidepressants (ADs). However, the potential effects of several classes of antidepressants on BDNF concentrations are not well known. Hence, our meta-analyses aims to review the effects of differential antidepressant drugs on peripheral BDN ...[more]

PMID: 28241064

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to create a rank order of the comparative efficacy and acceptability (risk of all-cause discontinuation) of antidepressant treatment in poststroke depression (PSD) by integrating direct and indirect evidence.DesignMultiple-treatments meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.ParticipantsPatients with depression following stroke.Interventions10 antidepressants and placebo in the acute treatment of PSD.Outcome measuresThe primary outcomes were the overall efficacy, defined as the mean change of the total depression score. The secondary outcome was the acceptability, defined as risk of all-cause discontinuation. These estimates as standardised mean differences or ORs with 95% CIs.ResultsWe identified 12 suitable trials, with data from 707 participants. All drugs were significantly more effective than placebo apart from sertraline, nefiracetam and fluoxetine. Most of the comparisons for acceptability revealed no significant differences except that paroxetine had significantly lower all-cause discontinuation than doxepin, citalopram and fluoxetine. Standardised mean differences compared with placebo for efficacy varied from -6.54 for the best drug (reboxetine) to 0.51 for the worst drug (nefiracetam). ORs compared with placebo for acceptability ranged from 0.09 for the best drug (paroxetine) to 3.42 for the worst drug (citalopram). For the efficacy rank, reboxetine, paroxetine, doxepin and duloxetine were among the most efficacious treatments, the cumulative probabilities of which were 100%, 85.7%, 83.2%, 62.4%, respectively. With respect to the acceptability rank, paroxetine, placebo, sertraline and nortriptyline were among the most acceptable treatments, the cumulative probabilities of which were 92.4%, 63.5%, 57.3%, 56.3%.ConclusionAfter weighing the efficacy and acceptability, we conclude that paroxetine might be the best choice when starting acute treatment for PSD, and fluoxetine might be the worst choice.Trial registration numberThis systematic review has been registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Review Protocols (PROSPERO) public database (CRD42017054741; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).

Project description:BackgroundThe issue of unblinded outcome-assessors and patients has repeatedly been stressed as a flaw in allegedly double-blind antidepressant trials. Unblinding bias can for example result from a drug's marked side effects. If such unblinding bias is present for a given drug, then it might be expected that the placebos of that drug are rated significantly less effective than that of other antidepressants.MethodsTo test this hypothesis, the present exploratory analysis conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing the efficacy of 19 different placebos in placebo-controlled trials provided in the dataset by Cipriani et al. (Lancet 2018; 391: 1357-66). Primary outcome was efficacy (continuous) estimated on the standardized mean difference (SMD) scale and defined as the pre-post change on the Hamilton Depression scale (HAMD-17), on which information was available in N = 258 trials.ResultsComparative placebo ranking suggested mirtazapine-placebo (SMD -2.0 [- 5.0-1.0 95% CrI]) to be the most, and amitriptyline- (SMD 1.2 [- 1.6-3.9 95% CrI]) and trazodone- (SMD 2.1 [- 0.9-5.2 95% CrI]) placebos to be the least effective placebos. Other placebos suggested to be more effective than amitriptyline- and trazodone-placebos (based on 95% CrIs excluding zero) were citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine placebos. These NMA results were corroborated by the observation that the relative efficacy between drug and placebo was considerably larger for amitriptyline and trazodone than for instance mirtazapine, duloxetine, and venlafaxine, supported by a small and insignificant correlation between drug-efficacy and placebo-efficacy (r = - 0.202, p = 0.408).DiscussionThe present exploratory NMA indicates that distinguishable side effects of older drugs may unblind outcome-assessors thus resulting in overestimation of the average drug-placebo difference and underrating bias in placebo-arms, particularly for the older antidepressant drugs amitriptyline and trazodone. If confirmed in prospective studies, these findings suggest that efficacy rankings for antidepressants are susceptible to bias and should be considered unreliable or misleading. The analysis is limited by the focus on the single-comparison placebos (76%, i.e., placebos assessed in two-arm trials), since double-comparison placebos (25%, i.e., placebos assessed in three-arm trials) are hard to interpret and therefore not included in the present interpretation. Another limitation is the problem of multiplicity, which was only approximately accounted for in the Bayesian NMA by modelling treatment effects as exchangeable.

Project description:Late-life depression frequently co-occurs with cognitive impairment. To inform clinical management of these conditions, we examined the hypotheses that, relative to cognitively normal elders meeting DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder, those with cognitive impairment would require greater intensity of pharmacotherapy to reach criteria for antidepressant response and would take longer to respond.Using data from the MTLD-3 study, we conducted a series of secondary analyses examining the implications of cognitive impairment for short-term, open-trial pharmacotherapy of late-life depression (major depressive disorder in individuals 65 years and older). The treatment algorithm consisted of 3 steps: initial treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), a switch to a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) if the patient did not respond, and addition of an atypical antipsychotic if the patient did not respond to the SNRI. The first subject entered the protocol in April 2004, and the last subject exited in September 2009. We examined data for participants who completed the acute phase of MTLD-3 as responders and received a cognitive diagnosis (N = 153) based on National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) Uniform Data Set criteria. We divided participants into 3 groups on the basis of NACC cognitive diagnosis: no cognitive disorder (n = 74), mild cognitive impairment (n = 60), and dementia (n = 19). For each group, we calculated the proportion of participants requiring first- (SSRI), second- (SNRI), or third-step (add-on atypical antipsychotic) treatment to meet criteria for response (17-Item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score ? 10 for 3 consecutive weeks). We compared time to response across groups and correlates of nonresponse.The 3 groups did not differ in intensity of pharmacotherapy (P = .68) or time to response (P = .84). Nonresponse was more strongly correlated with longer major depressive episode duration (P = .0015), presence of recurrent depression (P = .002), and younger current age (P = .047), rather than cognitive status (P = .61).Cognitive status does not appear to impact short-term pharmacotherapy response variability in individuals whose depression responds to treatment with open-trial antidepressants delivered in a supportive, university-based medication clinic.

Project description:Depression is more common in neurodegenerative diseases such as Huntington's disease than the general population. Antidepressant efficacy is well-established for depression within the general population: a recent meta-analysis showed serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants and mirtazapine outperformed other antidepressants. Despite the severe morbidity, antidepressant choice in Huntington's disease is based on Class IV evidence. We used complementary approaches to determine treatment choice for depression in Huntington's disease: propensity score analyses of antidepressant treatment outcome using the ENROLL-HD data set, and a dissection of the cognitive mechanisms underlying depression in Huntington's disease using a cognitive battery based on the Research Domain Criteria for Depression. Study 1 included ENROLL-HD 5486 gene-positive adult patients started on an antidepressant medication for depression. Our outcome measures were depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale or Problem Behaviours Assessment 'Depressed Mood' item) at first follow-up (primary outcome) and all follow-ups (secondary outcome). The intervention was antidepressant class. We used Svyglm&Twang in R to perform propensity scoring, using known variables (disease progression, medical comorbidity, psychiatric morbidity, sedatives, number of antidepressants, demographics and antidepressant contraindications) to determine the probability of receiving different antidepressants (propensity score) and then included the propensity score in a model of treatment efficacy. Study 2 recruited 51 gene-positive adult patients and 26 controls from the South Wales Huntington's Disease Management Service. Participants completed a motor assessment, in addition to measures of depression and apathy, followed by tasks measuring consummatory anhedonia, motivational anhedonia, learning from reward and punishment and reaction to negative outcome. We used generalised linear models to determine the association between task performance and depression scores. Study 1 showed selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors outperformed serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors on the primary outcome (P = 0.048), whilst both selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (P = 0.00069) and bupropion (P = 0.0045) were superior to serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors on the secondary outcome. Study 2 demonstrated an association between depression score and effort for reward that was not explained by apathy. No other mechanisms were associated with depression score. We found that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and bupropion outperform serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors at alleviating depression in Huntington's disease. Moreover, motivational anhedonia appears the most significant mechanism underlying depression in Huntington's disease. Bupropion is improves motivational anhedonia and has a synergistic effect with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. This work provides the first large-scale, objective evidence to determine treatment choice for depression in Huntington's disease, and provides a model for determining antidepressant efficacy in other neurodegenerative diseases.

Dataset Information

Meta-analyses of comparative efficacy of antidepressant medications on peripheral BDNF concentration in patients with depression.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Meta-analyses of comparative efficacy of antidepressant medications on peripheral BDNF concentration in patients with depression.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets