Dataset Information

Association of Antidepressant Use With Adverse Health Outcomes: A Systematic Umbrella Review.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Antidepressant use is increasing worldwide. Yet, contrasting evidence on the safety of antidepressants is available from meta-analyses, and the credibility of these findings has not been quantified.

Objective

To grade the evidence from published meta-analyses of observational studies that assessed the association between antidepressant use or exposure and adverse health outcomes.

Data sources

PubMed, Scopus, and PsycINFO were searched from database inception to April 5, 2019.

Evidence review

Only meta-analyses of observational studies with a cohort or case-control study design were eligible. Two independent reviewers recorded the data and assessed the methodological quality of the included meta-analyses. Evidence of association was ranked according to established criteria as follows: convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or not significant.

Results

Forty-five meta-analyses (17.9%) from 4471 studies identified and 252 full-text articles scrutinized were selected that described 120 associations, including data from 1012 individual effect size estimates. Seventy-four (61.7%) of the 120 associations were nominally statistically significant at P ≤ .05 using random-effects models. Fifty-two associations (43.4%) had large heterogeneity (I2 > 50%), whereas small-study effects were found for 17 associations (14.2%) and excess significance bias was found for 9 associations (7.5%). Convincing evidence emerged from both main and sensitivity analyses for the association between antidepressant use and risk of suicide attempt or completion among children and adolescents, autism spectrum disorders with antidepressant exposure before and during pregnancy, preterm birth, and low Apgar scores. None of these associations remained supported by convincing evidence after sensitivity analysis, which adjusted for confounding by indication.

Conclusions and relevance

This study's findings suggest that most putative adverse health outcomes associated with antidepressant use may not be supported by convincing evidence, and confounding by indication may alter the few associations with convincing evidence. Antidepressant use appears to be safe for the treatment of psychiatric disorders, but more studies matching for underlying disease are needed to clarify the degree of confounding by indication and other biases. No absolute contraindication to antidepressants emerged from this umbrella review.

SUBMITTER: Dragioti E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6777224 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMeta-analyses have reported conflicting data on the safety of hormonal contraception, but the quality of evidence for the associations between hormonal contraceptive use and adverse health outcomes has not been quantified in aggregate.ObjectiveTo grade the evidence from meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that assessed the associations between hormonal contraceptive use and adverse health outcomes among women.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from database inception to August 2020. Search terms included hormonal contraception, contraceptive agents, progesterone, desogestrel, norethindrone, megestrol, algestone, norprogesterones, and levonorgestrel combined with terms such as systematic review or meta-analysis.Evidence reviewThe methodological quality of each meta-analysis was graded using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews, version 2, which rated quality as critically low, low, moderate, or high. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence in meta-analyses of RCTs, with evidence graded as very low, low, moderate, or high. Evidence of associations from meta-analyses of cohort studies was ranked according to established criteria as nonsignificant, weak, suggestive, highly suggestive, or convincing.ResultsA total of 2996 records were screened; of those, 310 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 58 articles (13 meta-analyses of RCTs and 45 meta-analyses of cohort studies) were selected for evidence synthesis. Sixty associations were described in meta-analyses of RCTs, and 96 associations were described in meta-analyses of cohort studies. Among meta-analyses of RCTs, 14 of the 60 associations were nominally statistically significant (P ≤ .05); no associations between hormonal contraceptive use and adverse outcomes were supported by high-quality evidence. The association between the use of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and reductions in endometrial polyps associated with tamoxifen use (odds ratio [OR], 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.38) was graded as having high-quality evidence, and this evidence ranking was retained in the subgroup analysis. Among meta-analyses of cohort studies, 40 of the 96 associations were nominally statistically significant; however, no associations between hormonal contraceptive use and adverse outcomes were supported by convincing evidence in the primary and subgroup analyses. The risk of venous thromboembolism among those using vs not using oral contraception (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.76-3.32) was initially supported by highly suggestive evidence, but this evidence was downgraded to weak in the sensitivity analysis.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this umbrella review supported preexisting understandings of the risks and benefits associated with hormonal contraceptive use. Overall, the associations between hormonal contraceptive use and cardiovascular risk, cancer risk, and other major adverse health outcomes were not supported by high-quality evidence.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the existing meta-analytic evidence of associations between exposure to ultra-processed foods, as defined by the Nova food classification system, and adverse health outcomes.DesignSystematic umbrella review of existing meta-analyses.Data sourcesMEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as well as manual searches of reference lists from 2009 to June 2023.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesSystematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort, case-control, and/or cross sectional study designs. To evaluate the credibility of evidence, pre-specified evidence classification criteria were applied, graded as convincing ("class I"), highly suggestive ("class II"), suggestive ("class III"), weak ("class IV"), or no evidence ("class V"). The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework, categorised as "high," "moderate," "low," or "very low" quality.ResultsThe search identified 45 unique pooled analyses, including 13 dose-response associations and 32 non-dose-response associations (n=9 888 373). Overall, direct associations were found between exposure to ultra-processed foods and 32 (71%) health parameters spanning mortality, cancer, and mental, respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and metabolic health outcomes. Based on the pre-specified evidence classification criteria, convincing evidence (class I) supported direct associations between greater ultra-processed food exposure and higher risks of incident cardiovascular disease related mortality (risk ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 1.37 to 1.63; GRADE=very low) and type 2 diabetes (dose-response risk ratio 1.12, 1.11 to 1.13; moderate), as well as higher risks of prevalent anxiety outcomes (odds ratio 1.48, 1.37 to 1.59; low) and combined common mental disorder outcomes (odds ratio 1.53, 1.43 to 1.63; low). Highly suggestive (class II) evidence indicated that greater exposure to ultra-processed foods was directly associated with higher risks of incident all cause mortality (risk ratio 1.21, 1.15 to 1.27; low), heart disease related mortality (hazard ratio 1.66, 1.51 to 1.84; low), type 2 diabetes (odds ratio 1.40, 1.23 to 1.59; very low), and depressive outcomes (hazard ratio 1.22, 1.16 to 1.28; low), together with higher risks of prevalent adverse sleep related outcomes (odds ratio 1.41, 1.24 to 1.61; low), wheezing (risk ratio 1.40, 1.27 to 1.55; low), and obesity (odds ratio 1.55, 1.36 to 1.77; low). Of the remaining 34 pooled analyses, 21 were graded as suggestive or weak strength (class III-IV) and 13 were graded as no evidence (class V). Overall, using the GRADE framework, 22 pooled analyses were rated as low quality, with 19 rated as very low quality and four rated as moderate quality.ConclusionsGreater exposure to ultra-processed food was associated with a higher risk of adverse health outcomes, especially cardiometabolic, common mental disorder, and mortality outcomes. These findings provide a rationale to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of using population based and public health measures to target and reduce dietary exposure to ultra-processed foods for improved human health. They also inform and provide support for urgent mechanistic research.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42023412732.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a high prevalence of autoimmune conditions in women specially in the reproductive years; thus, the association with adverse pregnancy outcomes has been widely studied. However, few autoimmune conditions/adverse outcomes have been studied more than others, and this umbrella review aims to consolidate existing knowledge in this area with the aim to provide new knowledge and also identify gaps in this research area.MethodsMedline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to December 2023. Screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal (AMSTAR 2) were done by two independent reviewers. Data were synthesised narratively and quantitatively. Relative risks (RR)/odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals were reported.ResultsThirty-two reviews were included consisting of 709 primary studies. The review reported the association between 12 autoimmune conditions and 16 adverse pregnancy outcomes. Higher risk of miscarriage is reported in women with Sjögren's syndrome RR 8.85 (95% CI 3.10-25.26) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) OR 4.90 (3.10-7.69). Pre-eclampsia was reported higher in women with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) OR 4.19 (3.08-5.71) and SLE OR 3.20 (2.54-4.20). Women reported higher risk of diabetes during pregnancy with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) OR 2.96 (1.47-5.98). There was an increased risk of intrauterine growth restriction in women with systemic sclerosis OR 3.20 (2.21-4.53) and coeliac disease OR 1.71 (1.36-2.14). Preterm birth was associated with T1DM OR 4.36 (3.72-5.12) and SLE OR 2.79 (2.07-3.77). Low birth weight babies were reported in women with women with SLE or systemic sclerosis OR 5.95 (4.54-7.80) and OR 3.80 (2.16-6.56), respectively. There was a higher risk of stillbirth in women with T1DM OR 3.97 (3.44-4.58), IBD OR 1.57 (1.03-2.38), and coeliac disease OR 1.57 (1.17-2.10). T1DM in women was associated with 32% lower odds of small for gestational age baby OR 0.68 (0.56-0.83).ConclusionsPregnant women with autoimmune conditions are at a greater risk of developing adverse pregnancy outcomes. Further research is required to develop better preconception to postnatal care for women with autoimmune conditions.

Project description:Background: There is no study that has systematically investigated the breadth and validity of the associations of folate and multiple health outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the quantity, validity, and credibility of evidence regarding associations between folate and multiple health outcomes by using umbrella review of meta-analysis. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to May 20, 2018, to identify potential meta-analyses that examined the association of folate with any health outcome. For each included meta-analysis, we estimated the summary effect size and their 95% confidence interval using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. We used the AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) to assess methodological quality and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group classification) to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome included in the umbrella review. Results: Overall, 108 articles reporting 133 meta-analyses of observational studies and 154 meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the study. Among them, 108 unique exposure-outcome-population triplets (referred to as unique meta-analyses hereafter) of RCTs and 87 unique meta-analyses of observational studies were reanalyzed. Beneficial effects of folate were observed in the all-cause mortality rate and in a number of chronic diseases, including several birth/pregnancy outcomes, several cancers, cardiovascular disease and metabolic-related outcomes, neurological conditions, and several other diseases. However, adverse effects of folate were observed for prostate cancer, colorectal adenomatous lesions, asthma or wheezing, and wheezing as an isolated symptom and depression. Conclusions: Current evidence allows for the conclusion that folate is associated with decreased risk of all-cause mortality and a wide range of chronic diseases. However, folate may be associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer. Further research is warranted to improve the certainty of the estimates.

Project description:Background:We aimed to systematically review the evidence on adverse mental health outcomes in breast cancer survivors (?1?year) compared with women with no history of cancer. Methods:Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Social Sciences Citation Index, and through backward citation tracking. Two researchers selected the studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Results:Sixty studies were included. Of 38 studies of depression, 33 observed more depression in breast cancer survivors; this was statistically significant in 19 studies overall, including six of seven where depression was ascertained clinically, three of four studies of antidepressants, and 13 of 31 that quantified depressive symptoms. Of 21 studies of anxiety, 17 observed more anxiety in breast cancer survivors, statistically significant in 11 studies overall, including two of four with clinical/prescription-based outcomes, and in eight of 17 of anxiety symptoms. Breast cancer survivors also had statistically significantly increased symptoms/frequency of neurocognitive dysfunction (18 of 24 studies), sexual dysfunctions (5 of 6 studies), sleep disturbance (5 of 5 studies), stress-related disorders/PTSD (2 of 3 studies), suicide (2 of 2 studies), somatisation (2 of 2 studies), and bipolar and obsessive-compulsive disorders (1 of 1 study each). Studies were heterogeneous in terms of participants' characteristics, time since diagnosis, ascertainment of outcomes, and measures reported. Approximately one-half of the studies were at high risk of selection bias and confounding by socio-economic status. Conclusions:There is compelling evidence of an increased risk of anxiety, depression and suicide, and neurocognitive and sexual dysfunctions in breast cancer survivors compared with women with no prior cancer. This information can be used to support evidence-based prevention and management strategies. Further population-based and longitudinal research would help to better characterize these associations.