Dataset Information

Efficacy of onabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of unipolar major depression: Systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression analyses of double-blind randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

OnabotulinumtoxinA is a novel therapeutic intervention whose mechanism of action is believed to modify the negative facial feedback, thus abating symptoms of depression. This putative new antidepressant agent offers minimal systemic side effects and negligible risk of pharmacological interactions. We set out to examine the evidence for the use of onabotulinumtoxinA in major depression.

Methods

A systematic search of the literature identified double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of onabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of major depression versus placebo. Data, reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), was combined in meta-analyses (PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42020183538).

Results

The search identified five RCTs (four double-blind) comparing onabotulinumtoxinA to placebo. OnabotulinumtoxinA was more effective than placebo when administered within the 20-40 IU dose range in double-blind RCTs. The analysis was free of publication bias and significantly heterogeneous. Meta-regression analyses indicated that onabotulinumtoxinA was more efficacious in women and in higher doses in female patients and less effective with polypharmacy, especially when an increasing number of antidepressants were prescribed. The effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA was higher in more recently published double-blind RCTs.

Conclusion

The meta-analysis supports the efficacy of the intervention with the results being highly heterogeneous across studies. In view of the heterogeneity of the findings and the significant moderators of benefit (sex, year of study completion and the interaction between sex and dose), more research is required to better understand the role of onabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of depression.

SUBMITTER: Arnone D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8366169 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been reported. We tested the null hypothesis that the main outcome of treatment using a non-individualised (standardised) homeopathic medicine is indistinguishable from that of placebo. An additional aim was to quantify any condition-specific effects of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.MethodsLiterature search strategy, data extraction and statistical analysis all followed the methods described in a pre-published protocol. A trial comprised 'reliable evidence' if its risk of bias was low or it was unclear in one specified domain of assessment. 'Effect size' was reported as standardised mean difference (SMD), with arithmetic transformation for dichotomous data carried out as required; a negative SMD indicated an effect favouring homeopathy.ResultsForty-eight different clinical conditions were represented in 75 eligible RCTs. Forty-nine trials were classed as 'high risk of bias' and 23 as 'uncertain risk of bias'; the remaining three, clinically heterogeneous, trials displayed sufficiently low risk of bias to be designated reliable evidence. Fifty-four trials had extractable data: pooled SMD was -0.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44, -0.21), which was attenuated to -0.16 (95% CI -0.31, -0.02) after adjustment for publication bias. The three trials with reliable evidence yielded a non-significant pooled SMD: -0.18 (95% CI -0.46, 0.09). There was no single clinical condition for which meta-analysis included reliable evidence.ConclusionsThe quality of the body of evidence is low. A meta-analysis of all extractable data leads to rejection of our null hypothesis, but analysis of a small sub-group of reliable evidence does not support that rejection. Reliable evidence is lacking in condition-specific meta-analyses, precluding relevant conclusions. Better designed and more rigorous RCTs are needed in order to develop an evidence base that can decisively provide reliable effect estimates of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.

Project description:BackgroundThere is growing interest in glutamatergic agents as a treatment for depression, especially intranasal ketamine, which has become a hot topic in recent years. We aim to assess the efficacy and safety of intranasal ketamine in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), especially treatment-resistant depression (TRD).MethodsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library until April 1, 2020 to identify double-blind, randomized controlled trials with allocation concealment evaluating intranasal ketamine in major depressive episodes. Clinical remission, response, and depressive symptoms were extracted by two independent raters. The outcome measures were Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score improved from baseline, clinical response and remission, dissociative symptoms, and common adverse events. The analyses employed a random-effects model.ResultsData were synthesized from five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) employing an intranasal esketamine and one RCT employing intranasal ketamine, representing 840 subjects in parallel arms, and 18 subjects in cross-over designs (n = 858 with MDD, n = 792 with TRD). The weighted mean difference of MADRS score was observed to decrease by 6.16 (95% CI 4.44-7.88) in 2-4 h, 9.96 (95% CI 8.97-10.95) in 24 h, and 4.09 (95% CI 2.18-6.00) in 28 day. The pooled relative risk (RR) was 3.55 (95% CI 1.5-8.38, z = 2.89, and p < 0.001) for clinical remission and 3.22 (95% CI 1.85-5.61, z = 4.14, and p < 0.001) for clinical response at 24 h, while the pooled RR was 1.7 (95% CI 1.28-2.24, z = 3.72, and p < 0.001) for clinical remission and 1.48 (95% CI 1.17-1.86, z = 3.28, and p < 0.001) for clinical response at 28 day. Intranasal ketamine was associated with the occurrence of transient dissociative symptoms and common adverse events, but no persistent psychoses or affective switches.ConclusionOur meta-analysis suggests that repeated intranasal ketamine conducted a fast-onset antidepression effect in unipolar depression, while the mild and transient adverse effects were acceptable.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO, CRD42020196856.

Project description:BackgroundCollaborative care is a complex intervention based on chronic disease management models and is effective in the management of depression. However, there is still uncertainty about which components of collaborative care are effective. We used meta-regression to identify factors in collaborative care associated with improvement in patient outcomes (depressive symptoms) and the process of care (use of anti-depressant medication).Methods and findingsSystematic review with meta-regression. The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group trials registers were searched from inception to 9th February 2012. An update was run in the CENTRAL trials database on 29th December 2013. Inclusion criteria were: randomised controlled trials of collaborative care for adults ?18 years with a primary diagnosis of depression or mixed anxiety and depressive disorder. Random effects meta-regression was used to estimate regression coefficients with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between study level covariates and depressive symptoms and relative risk (95% CI) and anti-depressant use. The association between anti-depressant use and improvement in depression was also explored. Seventy four trials were identified (85 comparisons, across 21,345 participants). Collaborative care that included psychological interventions predicted improvement in depression (? coefficient -0.11, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.01, p?=?0.03). Systematic identification of patients (relative risk 1.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.81, p?=?0.004) and the presence of a chronic physical condition (relative risk 1.32, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.65, p?=?0.02) predicted use of anti-depressant medication.ConclusionTrials of collaborative care that included psychological treatment, with or without anti-depressant medication, appeared to improve depression more than those without psychological treatment. Trials that used systematic methods to identify patients with depression and also trials that included patients with a chronic physical condition reported improved use of anti-depressant medication. However, these findings are limited by the observational nature of meta-regression, incomplete data reporting, and the use of study aggregates.

Project description:Clinical trials on low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (LF-rTMS) over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex have yielded conflicting evidence concerning its overall efficacy for treating major depression (MD). As this may have been the result of limited statistical power of individual trials, we have carried the present systematic review and meta-analysis to examine this issue. We searched the literature for English language randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled trials (RCTs) on LF-rTMS for treating MD from 1995 through July 2012 using EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SCOPUS, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and from October 2008 until July 2012 using MEDLINE. The main outcome measures were response and remission rates as well as overall dropout rates at study end. We used a random-effects model, odds ratios (ORs) and number needed to treat (NNT). Data were obtained from eight RCTs, totaling 263 subjects with MD. After an average of 12.6±3.9 rTMS sessions, 38.2% (50/131) and 15.1% (20/132) of subjects receiving active LF-rTMS and sham rTMS were classified as responders (OR=3.35; 95% CI=1.4-8.02; p=0.007). Also, 34.6% (35/101) and 9.7% (10/103) of subjects receiving active LF-rTMS and sham rTMS were classified as remitters (OR=4.76; 95% CI=2.13-10.64; p<0.0001). The associated NNT for both response and remission rates was 5. Sensitivity analyses have shown that protocols delivering >1200 magnetic pulses in total as well as those offering rTMS as a monotherapy for MD were associated with higher rates of response to treatment. No differences on mean baseline depression scores and dropout rates for active and sham rTMS groups were found. Finally, the risk of publication bias was low. In conclusion, LF-rTMS is a promising treatment for MD, as it provides clinically meaningful benefits that are comparable to those of standard antidepressants and high-frequency rTMS. Furthermore, LF-rTMS seems to be an acceptable intervention for depressed subjects.

Project description:BackgroundStatin therapy is effective for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and is widely prescribed, but there are persisting concerns that statin therapy might frequently cause muscle pain or weakness. We aimed to address these through an individual participant data meta-analysis of all recorded adverse muscle events in large, long-term, randomised, double-blind trials of statin therapy.MethodsRandomised trials of statin therapy were eligible if they aimed to recruit at least 1000 participants with a scheduled treatment duration of at least 2 years, and involved a double-blind comparison of statin versus placebo or of a more intensive versus a less intensive statin regimen. We analysed individual participant data from 19 double-blind trials of statin versus placebo (n=123 940) and four double-blind trials of a more intensive versus a less intensive statin regimen (n=30 724). Standard inverse-variance-weighted meta-analyses of the effects on muscle outcomes were conducted according to a prespecified protocol.FindingsAmong 19 placebo-controlled trials (mean age 63 years [SD 8], with 34 533 [27·9%] women, 59 610 [48·1%] participants with previous vascular disease, and 22 925 [18·5%] participants with diabetes), during a weighted average median follow-up of 4·3 years, 16 835 (27·1%) allocated statin versus 16 446 (26·6%) allocated placebo reported muscle pain or weakness (rate ratio [RR] 1·03; 95% CI 1·01-1·06). During year 1, statin therapy produced a 7% relative increase in muscle pain or weakness (1·07; 1·04-1·10), corresponding to an absolute excess rate of 11 (6-16) events per 1000 person-years, which indicates that only one in 15 ([1·07-1·00]/1·07) of these muscle-related reports by participants allocated to statin therapy were actually due to the statin. After year 1, there was no significant excess in first reports of muscle pain or weakness (0·99; 0·96-1·02). For all years combined, more intensive statin regimens (ie, 40-80 mg atorvastatin or 20-40 mg rosuvastatin once per day) yielded a higher RR than less intensive or moderate-intensity regimens (1·08 [1·04-1·13] vs 1·03 [1·00-1·05]) compared with placebo, and a small excess was present (1·05 [0·99-1·12]) for more intensive regimens after year 1. There was no clear evidence that the RR differed for different statins, or in different clinical circumstances. Statin therapy yielded a small, clinically insignificant increase in median creatine kinase values of approximately 0·02 times the upper limit of normal.InterpretationStatin therapy caused a small excess of mostly mild muscle pain. Most (>90%) of all reports of muscle symptoms by participants allocated statin therapy were not due to the statin. The small risks of muscle symptoms are much lower than the known cardiovascular benefits. There is a need to review the clinical management of muscle symptoms in patients taking a statin.FundingBritish Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.