Dataset Information

Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of Adjunctive Pharmacotherapies for Acute Bipolar Depression: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

We investigated the comparative efficacy and tolerability of augmentation strategies for bipolar depression.

Data sources

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 8 electronic databases for double-blind, randomized controlled trials of adjunctive pharmacotherapies for acute bipolar depression.

Data extraction and synthesis

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and applied the Cochrane risk of bias tool for study quality appraisal. Two reviewers independently abstracted data. We resolved all discrepancies by consensus.

Main outcomes and measures

Primary outcomes were response and completion of treatment. We estimated summary rate ratios (RRs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) relative to placebo controls using frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis.

Results

We identified 69 trials meeting eligibility criteria (8,007 participants, 42.8 years, 58.0% female). Adjunctive racemic intravenous ketamine, coenzyme Q10, pramipexole, fluoxetine, and lamotrigine were more effective than placebo. Summary RRs for response ranged between 1.51 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11 to 2.06) for fluoxetine and 12.49 (95% CI, 3.06 to 50.93) for racemic intravenous ketamine. For completion of treatment, risperidone appeared less tolerable than placebo (RR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.94), while fluoxetine seemed more tolerable than placebo (RR = 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.24). None of the investigated agents were associated with increased treatment-emergent mood switches.

Conclusions and relevance

The evidence for augmentation strategies in bipolar depression is limited to a handful of agents. Fluoxetine appeared to have the most consistent evidence base for both efficacy and tolerability. There remains a need for additional research exploring novel treatment strategies for bipolar depression, particularly head-to-head studies.

SUBMITTER: Bahji A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7958200 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhile clinical trial evidence has firmly established the efficacy of several atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) for treating bipolar depression, no randomized controlled trials (RCT's) comparing AAPs have been conducted. This Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the relative efficacy and tolerability of AAP monotherapy in adults with bipolar depression.MethodsEfficacy measures included change in Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Improvement - Bipolar Disorder (CGI-BP), response, and remission. Multiple tolerability outcomes were examined. Results from random effects models were reported as difference in change from baseline for continuous variables or odds ratios for dichotomous variables. Treatments were ranked using the surface under the curve cumulative ranking probabilities. Number needed to treat (NNT) and harm (NNH) were calculated.ResultsEighteen RCT's met inclusion criteria of the systematic literature review. On change in MADRS, lurasidone (- 4.71 [95% Crl - 6.98, - 2.41]), quetiapine (- 4.80 [- 5.93, - 3.72]), olanzapine (- 4.57 [- 5.92, - 3.20]), and cariprazine (- 2.29 [- 3.47, - 1.09]) were more efficacious than placebo. Lurasidone was associated with a significantly greater odds of response (≥50% improvement in MADRS) compared to cariprazine (1.78 [95% Crl 1.08, 2.77]), aripiprazole (2.38 [1.38, 3.85]), and ziprasidone (2.47 [1.41, 3.98]), but was similar to olanzapine (1.68 [0.99,2.65]) and quetiapine (1.25 [0.78, 1.90]). For change in CGI-BP-S-overall score, lurasidone was significantly better than cariprazine (- 0.38 [95% Crl - 0.66,-0.10]) and ziprasidone (- 0.58 [- 0.91,-0.26]), but similar to quetiapine (- 0.08 [- 0.36, 0.19])and olanzapine (- 0.04 [- 1.41, 1.46]). Lurasidone (0.34 kg [95% Crl - 0.22, 0.89]) and aripiprazole (0.20 kg [- 0.59, 1.00]) had a similar weight change compared to placebo, but olanzapine (2.88 kg [2.40, 3.36]), quetiapine (1.17 kg [0.84, 1.49]), and cariprazine (0.65 kg [0.34, 0.96]) were associated with greater weight gain. The NNT for response was the lowest for lurasidone (NNT = 5) followed by quetiapine (NNT = 6), olanzapine (NNT = 10) and cariprazine (NNT = 12).ConclusionsIn this NMA in adults with bipolar depression, which evaluated change in depressive symptoms (assessed by MADRS) across short-term trials, the largest improvement versus placebo was observed for lurasidone, olanzapine and quetiapine with cariprazine, showing a smaller treatment effect. Aripiprazole and ziprasidone were ineffective for the treatment of bipolar depression. Improvement in CGI-BP-S score for lurasidone was larger than cariprazine and ziprasidone but similar to quetiapine and olanzapine. Based on short term studies lurasidone and aripiprazole had similar weight gain compared to placebo.

Project description:ImportanceSeveral psychotherapy protocols have been evaluated as adjuncts to pharmacotherapy for patients with bipolar disorder, but little is known about their comparative effectiveness.ObjectiveTo use systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the association of using manualized psychotherapies and therapy components with reducing recurrences and stabilizing symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder.Data sourcesMajor bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PsychInfo, and Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews) and trial registries were searched from inception to June 1, 2019, for randomized clinical trials of psychotherapy for bipolar disorder.Study selectionOf 3255 abstracts, 39 randomized clinical trials were identified that compared pharmacotherapy plus manualized psychotherapy (cognitive behavioral therapy, family or conjoint therapy, interpersonal therapy, or psychoeducational therapy) with pharmacotherapy plus a control intervention (eg, supportive therapy or treatment as usual) for patients with bipolar disorder.Data extraction and synthesisBinary outcomes (recurrence and study retention) were compared across treatments using odds ratios (ORs). For depression or mania severity scores, data were pooled and compared across treatments using standardized mean differences (SMDs) (Hedges-adjusted g using weighted pooled SDs). In component network meta-analyses, the incremental effectiveness of 13 specific therapy components was examined.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was illness recurrence. Secondary outcomes were depressive and manic symptoms at 12 months and acceptability of treatment (study retention).ResultsA total of 39 randomized clinical trials with 3863 participants (2247 of 3693 [60.8%] with data on sex were female; mean [SD] age, 36.5 [8.2] years) were identified. Across 20 two-group trials that provided usable information, manualized treatments were associated with lower recurrence rates than control treatments (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.74). Psychoeducation with guided practice of illness management skills in a family or group format was associated with reducing recurrences vs the same strategies in an individual format (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94). Cognitive behavioral therapy (SMD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.64 to -0.01) and, with less certainty, family or conjoint therapy (SMD, -0.46; 95% CI, -1.01 to 0.08) and interpersonal therapy (SMD, -0.46; 95% CI, -1.07 to 0.15) were associated with stabilizing depressive symptoms compared with treatment as usual. Higher study retention was associated with family or conjoint therapy (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.82) and brief psychoeducation (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.85) compared with standard psychoeducation.Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that outpatients with bipolar disorder may benefit from skills-based psychosocial interventions combined with pharmacotherapy. Conclusions are tempered by heterogeneity in populations, treatment duration, and follow-up.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, 6-month oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy has been recommended as the preferred adjuvant treatment against high-risk stage 2 and stage 3 colon cancer patients.MethodsRecord retrieval was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meeting libraries from inception to November 2019. Regarding survival and tolerability, randomized controlled trials comparing different adjuvant systemic regimens against high-risk stage 2 and stage 3 colon cancer were eligible. Disease-free survival was primary endpoint. Network calculation was based on a random-effects model, and relative ranking of each node was numerically indicated by p score.ResultsA total of 30 trials were included, corresponding to 54,109 patients. Regarding disease-free survival, none of the analyzed regimens displayed significant superiority against common comparator 6-month capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX), while 12-month [network hazard ratio (HR) 0.81 (0.60-1.10); 0.79 (0.57-1.10)] and 3-month XELOX [0.95 (0.86-1.04); 0.93 (0.83-1.05)] were top-ranking regimens showing non-inferiority among overall and stage 3 patients. Moreover, by pairwise meta-analysis, 3-month XELOX demonstrated significant superiority against 6-month XELOX among low-risk stage 3 patients [pairwise HR 0.78 (0.63-0.97)]. Concerning adverse events, 3-month oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy was significantly better than the 6-month counterpart with respect to peripheral sensory neuropathy, thrombocytopenia and fatigue. The 12-month capecitabine monotherapy failed to display non-inferiority among other major adverse events.ConclusionsThe 3-month XELOX treatment could be an alternative option of the 6-month regimen among low-risk stage 3 patients. Among high-risk stage 3 patients, 6-month oxaliplatin-based regimens still seem more competitive. In addition, clinical application of 12-month capecitabine monotherapy should be cautious, despite its top rankings, especially among non-Asian countries.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious meta-analyses comparing the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions for depression were clouded by a limited number of within-study treatment comparisons. This study used network meta-analysis, a novel methodological approach that integrates direct and indirect evidence from randomised controlled studies, to re-examine the comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for adult depression.Methods and findingsWe conducted systematic literature searches in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase up to November 2012, and identified additional studies through earlier meta-analyses and the references of included studies. We identified 198 studies, including 15,118 adult patients with depression, and coded moderator variables. Each of the seven psychotherapeutic interventions was superior to a waitlist control condition with moderate to large effects (range d?=?-0.62 to d?=?-0.92). Relative effects of different psychotherapeutic interventions on depressive symptoms were absent to small (range d?=?0.01 to d?=?-0.30). Interpersonal therapy was significantly more effective than supportive therapy (d?=?-0.30, 95% credibility interval [CrI] [-0.54 to -0.05]). Moderator analysis showed that patient characteristics had no influence on treatment effects, but identified aspects of study quality and sample size as effect modifiers. Smaller effects were found in studies of at least moderate (?d?=?0.29 [-0.01 to 0.58]; p?=?0.063) and large size (?d?=?0.33 [0.08 to 0.61]; p?=?0.012) and those that had adequate outcome assessment (?d?=?0.38 [-0.06 to 0.87]; p?=?0.100). Stepwise restriction of analyses by sample size showed robust effects for cognitive-behavioural therapy, interpersonal therapy, and problem-solving therapy (all d>0.46) compared to waitlist. Empirical evidence from large studies was unavailable or limited for other psychotherapeutic interventions.ConclusionsOverall our results are consistent with the notion that different psychotherapeutic interventions for depression have comparable benefits. However, the robustness of the evidence varies considerably between different psychotherapeutic treatments.