Dataset Information

Augmentation strategies for treatment resistant major depression: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the efficacy and discontinuation of augmentation agents in adult patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analyses (NMA) to combine direct and indirect comparisons of augmentation agents.

Methods

We included randomized controlled trials comparing one active drug with another or with placebo following a treatment course up to 24 weeks. Nineteen agents were included: stimulants, atypical antipsychotics, thyroid hormones, antidepressants, and mood stabilizers. Data for response/remission and all-cause discontinuation rates were analyzed. We estimated effect-size by relative risk using pairwise and NMA with random-effects model.

Results

A total of 65 studies (N = 12,415) with 19 augmentation agents were included in the NMA. Our findings from the NMA for response rates, compared to placebo, were significant for: liothyronine, nortriptyline, aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, quetiapine, lithium, modafinil, olanzapine (fluoxetine), cariprazine, and lisdexamfetamine. For remission rates, compared to placebo, were significant for: thyroid hormone(T4), aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, risperidone, quetiapine, and olanzapine (fluoxetine). Compared to placebo, ziprasidone, mirtazapine, and cariprazine had statistically significant higher discontinuation rates. Overall, 24% studies were rated as having low risk of bias (RoB), 63% had moderate RoB and 13% had high RoB.

Limitations

Heterogeneity in TRD definitions, variable trial duration and methodological clinical design of older studies and small number of trials per comparisons.

Conclusions

This NMA suggests a superiority of the regulatory approved adjunctive atypical antipsychotics, thyroid hormones, dopamine compounds (modafinil and lisdexamfetamine) and lithium. Acceptability was lower with ziprasidone, mirtazapine, and cariprazine. Further research and head-to-head studies should be considered to strengthen the best available options for TRD.

SUBMITTER: Nunez NA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9328668 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionFor major depression, a one-size-fits-all treatment does not exist. Patients enter a 'trial-and-change' algorithm in which effective therapies are subsequently applied. Unfortunately, an empirically based order of treatments has not yet been determined. There is a magnitude of different treatment strategies while clinical trials only compare a small number of these. Network meta-analyses (NMA) might offer a solution, but so far have been limited in scope and did not account for possible differences in population characteristics that arise with increasing levels of treatment-resistance, potentially violating the transitivity assumption. We; therefore, present a protocol for a systematic review and NMA aiming at summarising and ranking treatments for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) while covering a broad range of therapeutic options and accounting for possible differences in population characteristics at increasing levels of treatment-resistance.Methods and analysisRandomised controlled trials will be included that compared next-step pharmacological, neuromodulation or psychological treatments for treatment-resistant depression (TRD; ie, failure to respond to ≥1 adequate antidepressant drug trial(s) in the current episode) to each other or to a control condition. Primary outcomes will be the proportion of patients who responded to (efficacy) and dropped out of (acceptability) the allocated treatment. A random effects NMA will be conducted, synthesising the evidence for each outcome and determining the differential efficacy of treatments. Heterogeneity in treatment nodes will be reduced by considering alternative geometries of the network structure and by conducting a meta-regression examining different levels of TRD. Local and global methods will be applied to evaluate consistency. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework will be used to assess risk of bias and certainty.Ethics and disseminationThis review does not require ethical approval.

Project description:BackgroundIntranasal esketamine has received regulatory approvals for the treatment of depression. Recently a large trial of repeated dose racemic ketamine also demonstrated efficacy in severe depression. However, uncertainties remain regarding comparative efficacy, dosage, and the time course of response.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Embase, Medline, Pubmed, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL up to April 13, 2023, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating ketamine for depression. Two investigators independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted the data on depression severity scores, response and remission rates, and all-cause dropouts. Multivariable mixed-effects meta-regressions incorporated drug formulation (racemic (Rac) or esketamine (Esket)) and dose (Low or High) as covariates. Treatment effects were assessed: immediately following the first dose, during further repeated dosing, and follow-up after the final dose of a treatment course. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021221157).FindingsThe systematic review identified 687 articles, of which 49 RCTs were eligible for analysis, comprising 3299 participants. Standardised mean differences (95% confidence intervals) immediately following the first/single treatment were moderate-high for all conditions (Rac-High: -0.73, -0.91 to -0.56; Esket-High: -0.48, -0.75 to -0.20; Rac-Low: -0.33, -0.54 to -0.12; Esket-Low: -0.55, -0.87 to -0.24). Ongoing effects during repeated dosing were significantly greater than the control for Rac-High (-0.61; -1.02 to -0.20) and Rac-Low (-0.55, -1.09 to -0.00), but not Esket-Low (-0.15, -0.49 to 0.19) or Esket-High (-0.22, -0.54 to 0.10). At follow-up effects remained significant for racemic ketamine (-0.65; -1.23 to -0.07) but not esketamine (-0.33; -0.96 to 0.31). All-cause dropout was similar between experiment and control conditions for both formulations combined (Odds Ratio = 1.18, 0.85-1.64). Overall heterogeneity varied from 5.7% to 87.6.InterpretationOur findings suggested that effect sizes for depression severity, as well as response and remission rates, were numerically greater for racemic ketamine than esketamine. Higher doses were more effective than low doses. Differences were evident in initial effects, ongoing treatment, and lasting effects after the final dose.FundingNone.