Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressant treatment in poststroke depression: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The 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.

Design

Multiple-treatments meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Participants

Patients with depression following stroke.

Interventions

10 antidepressants and placebo in the acute treatment of PSD.

Outcome measures

The 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.

Results

We 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%.

Conclusion

After 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 number

This systematic review has been registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Review Protocols (PROSPERO) public database (CRD42017054741; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).

SUBMITTER: Sun Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5629745 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressant treatment in poststroke depression: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis.

Sun Yefei Y Liang Yifan Y Jiao Yang Y Lin Jueying J Qu Huiling H Xu Junjie J Zhao Chuansheng C

BMJ open 20170803 8

<h4>Objective</h4>The 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.<h4>Design</h4>Multiple-treatments meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.<h4>Participants</h4>Patients with depression following stroke.<h4>Interventions</h4>10 antidepressants and placebo in the acute treatment of PSD.<h4>Outcome measures</ ...[more]

PMID: 28775189

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBrain 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.MethodsElectronic 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.ResultsWe 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).ConclusionsThere 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.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Major depression is a leading cause of disability and has been associated with adverse effects in older persons. While many pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions have been shown to be effective to address major depression in older persons, there has not been a meta-analysis that consolidates all the available interventions and compare the relative benefits of these available interventions. In this study, we aim to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and acceptability of all the known pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for major depression in older persons. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will search Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and references of other review articles for articles related to the keywords of 'randomised trial', 'major depression', 'older persons' and 'treatments'. Two reviewers will independently select the eligible articles. For each included article, the two reviewers will independently extract the data and assess the risk of bias using the Cochrane revised tool for risk of bias. Bayesian network meta-analyses will be conducted to pool the depression scores (based on standardised mean difference) and the all-cause discontinuation across all included studies. The ranking probabilities for all interventions will be estimated and the hierarchy of each intervention will be summarised as surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Meta-regression and sub-group analyses will also be performed to evaluate the effect of study-level covariates. The quality of the evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The results will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. They will provide the consolidated evidence to inform clinicians on the best choice of intervention to address major depression in older persons. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017075756.

Project description:ImportancePosttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent mental disorder, with a high risk of chronicity, comorbidity, and functional impairment; PTSD is complicated to treat, and the debate on the best treatment approach is ongoing.ObjectiveTo examine comparative outcomes and acceptability of psychotherapeutic and pharmacological treatments and their combinations in adults with PTSD.Data sourcesEmbase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and PSYNDEX were searched for studies published from January 1, 1980, to February 28, 2018. Reference lists of included studies and of previously published guidelines and systematic reviews were also searched.Study selectionOf 11 417 records identified, 12 published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comprising 922 participants, contributing 23 direct comparisons between psychotherapeutic and pharmacological treatments or their combinations were included.Data extraction and synthesisStandardized mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios were aggregated using random-effects network and pairwise meta-analyses. Risk of bias and indirectness was rated for each study, and network confidence was rated using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the comparative benefit between 2 treatment approaches to PTSD symptom improvement, and secondary outcome was the comparative acceptability of the treatment approaches, as indicated by patient dropout rates before treatment termination.ResultsNo treatment approach was found to be superior at the end of treatment (for all, 95% CI included 0). At the last follow-up, psychotherapeutic treatments showed greater benefit than pharmacological treatments in both network (SMD, -0.83; 95% CI, -1.59 to -0.07) and pairwise (SMD, -0.63; 95% CI, -1.18 to -0.09, 3 RCTs) meta-analyses. No difference was found between combined treatments and psychotherapeutic treatments at long-term follow-up, and combined treatments were associated with better outcomes than pharmacological treatments in the network meta-analysis (SMD, -0.96; 95% CI, -1.87 to -0.04), but not in the pairwise meta-analysis, which included 2 RCTs (SMD, -1.02; 95% CI, -2.77 to 0.72). No evidence was found for differential acceptability of the 3 treatment approaches.Conclusions and relevanceThese results suggest superiority of psychotherapeutic treatments over pharmacological treatments; network, but not pairwise, meta-analyses suggest superiority of combined treatments over pharmacological treatments in improving PTSD symptom severity in the long term. The scarcity of reported long-term findings hampers definite conclusions and demonstrates the need for robust evidence from large-scaled comparative trials providing long-term follow-up data.

Project description:BackgroundDepressive symptoms play an essential role in cognition decline, while the benefit and acceptability of treatments for depressive symptoms in cognitive impairment are still unknown.ObjectiveTo comprehensively evaluate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of treatments for depressive symptoms in cognitive impairment based on the quantitative Bayesian network meta-analysis method (NMA).MethodWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from inception until August 2022 to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating treatments for depressive symptoms in cognitive impairment. Efficacy was evaluated by the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), and the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) for depression; the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) and the Cohen-Mansfeld Agitation Inventory (CMAI) for behavior; and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for cognition. Safety was evaluated by total adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, diarrhea, headache, and nausea.ResultsIn this study, 13,043 participants from 107 RCTs were included, involving 28 treatments and the discontinuation of antidepressants. On CSDD, aerobic exercise (MD -4.51, 95%CrI -8.60 to -0.37), aripiprazole (MD -1.85, 95%CrI -3.66 to -0.02), behavioral training (MD -1.14, 95%CrI -2.04 to -0.34), electrical current stimulation (MD -3.30, 95%CrI -5.94 to -0.73), massage (MD -12.67, 95%CrI -14.71 to -10.59), music therapy (MD -2.63, 95%CrI -4.72 to -0.58), and reminiscence therapy (MD -2.34, 95%CrI -3.51 to -1.25) significantly outperformed the placebo. On MMSE, cognitive stimulation therapy (MD 1.42, 95%CrI 0.49 to 2.39), electrical current stimulation (MD 4.08, 95%CrI 1.07 to 7.11), and reminiscence therapy (MD 1.31, 95%CrI 0.04 to 2.91) significantly outperformed the placebo. Additionally, no treatments showed a significantly higher risk than the placebo.ConclusionOur NMAs indicated that non-pharmacological interventions were more efficacious and safe than pharmacological treatments for reducing depressive symptoms as well as improving cognitive impairment. Electrical current stimulation, aerobic exercise, and reminiscence therapy could be first recommended considering their beneficial performance on both depression and cognition. Hence, non-pharmacological treatments deserve more attention and extensive application and should at least be considered as an alternative or assistance in clinical settings.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021239621, identifier: CRD42021239621.

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:BackgroundAlthough previous meta-analyses have examined effects of antidepressants, psychotherapy, and alternative therapies for depression, the efficacy of these treatments alone and in combination has not been systematically compared. We hypothesized that the differences between approved depression treatments and controls would be small.Methods and findingsThe authors first reviewed data from Food and Drug Administration Summary Basis of Approval reports of 62 pivotal antidepressant trials consisting of data from 13,802 depressed patients. This was followed by a systematic review of data from 115 published trials evaluating efficacy of psychotherapies and alternative therapies for depression. The published depression trials consisted of 10,310 depressed patients. We assessed the percentage symptom reduction experienced by the patients based on treatment assignment. Overall, antidepressants led to greater symptom reduction compared to placebo among both unpublished FDA data and published trials (F = 38.5, df = 239, p<0.001). In the published trials we noted that the magnitude of symptom reduction with active depression treatments compared to controls was significantly larger when raters evaluating treatment effects were un-blinded compared to the trials with blinded raters (F = 2.17, df = 313, p<0.05). In the blinded trials, the combination of antidepressants and psychotherapy provided a slight advantage over antidepressants (p = 0.027) and psychotherapy (p = 0.022) alone. The magnitude of symptom reduction was greater with psychotherapies compared to placebo (p = 0.019), treatment-as-usual (p = 0.012) and waiting-list (p<0.001). Differences were not seen with psychotherapy compared to antidepressants, alternative therapies or active intervention controls.ConclusionsIn conclusion, the combination of psychotherapy and antidepressants for depression may provide a slight advantage whereas antidepressants alone and psychotherapy alone are not significantly different from alternative therapies or active intervention controls. These data suggest that type of treatment offered is less important than getting depressed patients involved in an active therapeutic program. Future research should consider whether certain patient profiles might justify a specific treatment modality.

Project description:ObjectiveChaihu Jia Longgu Muli decoction (CLMD) is widely used in the treatment of poststroke depression (PSD) in China. Some evidences show that it has advantages, but there lacks reliable evidence. This study aims to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of CLMD in the treatment of PSD.MethodsAll randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CLMD in the treatment of PSD were searched from the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System (CBM), from their inception to May 2021. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 software.ResultsA total of 13 RCTs involving 1665 patients were finally included in this study, among which 5 RCTs were oral CLMD alone versus antidepressants, and 8 RCTs were oral CLMD with antidepressants versus antidepressants. Meta-analysis results showed that oral administration of CLMD could improve Hamilton's Depression Scale (HAMD) and the Modified Edinburgh-Scandinavian Stroke Scale (MESSS) scores, improve the Barthel index, and have a low rate of adverse reactions, but there was no significant difference in the total effective rate (p=0.21 > 0.05) and the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (p=0.47 > 0.05) between the antidepressants group and the oral administration of the CLMD group. Oral CLMD combined with antidepressants could improve the total effective rate, HAMD, and MESSS score, but there was no significant difference in Barthel index (p=0.06 > 0.05) and the adverse reaction rate (p=0.14 > 0.05) between the two groups.ConclusionCurrent evidence suggests that oral CLMD alone or with antidepressants is more effective and safer in the treatment of PSD than oral antidepressants. Due to the limitation of the quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to confirm the above conclusion.

Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressant treatment in poststroke depression: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis.

Objective

Design

Participants

Interventions

Outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration number

Publications

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressant treatment in poststroke depression: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets