Search

Objective: Our analysis aimed at comparing the placebo effect sizes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of two widely prescribed antidepressants, namely duloxetine and venlafaxine, and at analysing a potential influence of the investigated drugs on the placebo response., Method: We conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled, double-blind RCTs, which examined the efficacy of duloxetine and venlafaxine in the acute treatment of major depressive disorder., Results: We included 71 studies (29 duloxetine trials and 43 venlafaxine trials; one study provided data for the duloxetine and the venlafaxine data set). The placebo effect sizes, defined as pre-postscore change divided by baseline standard deviation, differed significantly between venlafaxine and duloxetine studies (-2.51 vs. -2.09; test for subgroup differences P = 0.028; high heterogeneity). The analysis of effect modifiers and the metaregression analyses confirmed the drug, next to baseline depression severity and publication status, as the most influential independent predictor., Conclusion: Our analyses show a significant difference in the placebo response between venlafaxine and duloxetine trials and suggest that the investigated drug has an influence on the placebo response that is not related to baseline severity, changes over the years or other variables we included., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Major depressive disorder is a common mental disorder affecting a person's mind, behaviour and body. It is expressed as a variety of symptoms and is associated with substantial impairment. Despite a range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options, there is still room for improvement of the pharmacological treatment of depression in terms of efficacy and tolerability. The latest available antidepressant is vortioxetine. It is assumed that vortioxetine's antidepressant action is related to a direct modulation of serotonergic receptor activity and inhibition of the serotonin transporter. The mechanism of action is not fully understood, but it is claimed to be novel. Vortioxetine was placed in the category of "Other" antidepressants and may therefore provide an alternative to existing antidepressant drugs., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and acceptability of vortioxetine compared with placebo and other antidepressant drugs in the treatment of acute depression in adults., Search Methods: We searched Cochrane's Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register to May 2016 without applying any restrictions to date, language or publication status. We checked reference lists of relevant studies and reviews, regulatory agency reports and trial databases., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy, tolerability, or both of vortioxetine versus placebo or any other antidepressant agent in the treatment of acute depression in adults., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected the studies and extracted data. We extracted data on study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability. We analysed intention-to-treat (ITT) data only and used risk ratios (RR) as effect sizes for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Meta-analyses used random-effects models., Main Results: We included 15 studies (7746 participants) in this review. Seven studies were placebo controlled; eight studies compared vortioxetine to serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). We were unable to identify any study that compared vortioxetine to antidepressant drugs from other classes, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).Vortioxetine may be more effective than placebo across the three efficacy outcomes: response (Mantel-Haenszel RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.49; 14 studies, 6220 participants), remission (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.53; 14 studies, 6220 participants) and depressive symptoms measured using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Scale (MADRS) (score range: 0 to 34; higher score means worse outcome: MD -2.94, 95% CI -4.07 to -1.80; 14 studies, 5566 participants). The quality of the evidence was low for response and remission and very low for depressive symptoms. We found no evidence of a difference in total dropout rates (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.19; 14 studies, 6220 participants). More participants discontinued vortioxetine than placebo because of adverse effects (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.81; 14 studies, 6220 participants) but fewer discontinued due to inefficacy (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.90, P = 0.02; 14 studies, 6220 participants). The quality of the evidence for dropouts was moderate.The subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not reveal factors that significantly influenced the results.In comparison with other antidepressants, very low-quality evidence from eight studies showed no clinically significant difference between vortioxetine and SNRIs as a class for response (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.00; 3159 participants) or remission (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; 3155 participants). There was a small difference favouring SNRIs for depressive symptom scores on the MADRS (MD 1.52, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.53; 8 studies, 2807 participants). Very low quality evidence from eight studies (3159 participants) showed no significant differences between vortioxetine and the SNRIs as a class for total dropout rates (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.08), dropouts due to adverse events (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.08) and dropouts due to inefficacy (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.30).Against individual antidepressants, analyses suggested that vortioxetine may be less effective than duloxetine in terms of response rates (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94; 6 studies, 2392 participants) and depressive symptoms scores on the MADRS scale (MD 1.99, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.83; 6 studies; 2106 participants). Against venlafaxine, meta-analysis of two studies found no statistically significant differences (response: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.25; 767 participants; depressive symptom scores: MD 0.02, 95% CI -2.49 to 2.54; 701 participants). In terms of number of participants reporting at least one adverse effect (tolerability), vortioxetine was better than the SNRIs as a class (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.94; 8 studies, 3134 participants) and duloxetine (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; 6 studies; 2376 participants). However, the sensitivity analysis casts some doubts on this result, as only two studies used comparable dosing.We judged none of the studies to have a high risk of bias for any domain, but we rated all studies to have an unclear risk of bias of selective reporting and other biases., Authors' Conclusions: The place of vortioxetine in the treatment of acute depression is unclear. Our analyses showed vortioxetine may be more effective than placebo in terms of response, remission and depressive symptoms, but the clinical relevance of these effects is uncertain. Furthermore, the quality of evidence to support these findings was generally low. In comparison to SNRIs, we found no advantage for vortioxetine. Vortioxetine was less effective than duloxetine, but fewer people reported adverse effects when treated with vortioxetine compared to duloxetine. However, these findings are uncertain and not well supported by evidence. A major limitation of the current evidence is the lack of comparisons with the SSRIs, which are usually recommended as first-line treatments for acute depression. Studies with direct comparisons to SSRIs are needed to address this gap and may be supplemented by network meta-analyses to define the role of vortioxetine in the treatment of depression.

Background: Major depressive disorder (MDD), or depression, is a syndrome characterised by a number of behavioural, cognitive and emotional features. It is most commonly associated with a sad or depressed mood, a reduced capacity to feel pleasure, feelings of hopelessness, loss of energy, altered sleep patterns, weight fluctuations, difficulty in concentrating and suicidal ideation. There is a need for more effective and better tolerated antidepressants to combat this condition. Agomelatine was recently added to the list of available antidepressant drugs; it is a novel antidepressant that works on melatonergic (MT1 and MT2), 5-HT 2B and 5-HT2C receptors. Because the mechanism of action is claimed to be novel, it may provide a useful, alternative pharmacological strategy to existing antidepressant drugs., Objectives: The objective of this review was 1) to determine the efficacy of agomelatine in alleviating acute symptoms of major depressive disorder in comparison with other antidepressants, 2) to review the acceptability of agomelatine in comparison with other antidepressant drugs, and, 3) to investigate the adverse effects of agomelatine, including the general prevalence of side effects in adults., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Collaboration's Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) to 31 July 2013. The CCDANCTR includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: CENTRAL (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) (all years), EMBASE (1974 onwards), MEDLINE (1950 onwards) and PsycINFO (1967 onwards). We checked reference lists of relevant studies together with reviews and regulatory agency reports. No restrictions on date, language or publication status were applied to the search. Servier Laboratories (developers of agomelatine) and other experts in the field were contacted for supplemental data., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials allocating adult participants with major depression to agomelatine versus any other antidepressive agent., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data and a double-entry procedure was employed. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability., Main Results: A total of 13 studies (4495 participants) were included in this review. Agomelatine was compared to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), namely paroxetine, fluoxetine, sertraline, escitalopram, and to the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), venlafaxine. Participants were followed up for six to 12 weeks. Agomelatine did not show any advantage or disadvantage over the other antidepressants for our primary outcome, response to treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.08, P value 0.75 compared to SSRIs, and RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.16, P value 0.16 compared to venlafaxine). Also, agomelatine showed no advantage or disadvantage over other antidepressants for remission (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.01, P value 0.07 compared to SSRIs, and RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.24, P value 0.73 compared to venlafaxine). Overall, agomelatine appeared to be better tolerated than venlafaxine in terms of lower rates of drop outs (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67, P value 0.0005), and showed the same level of tolerability as SSRIs (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09, P value 0.44). Agomelatine induced a lower rate of dizziness than venlafaxine (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.64, P value 0.007).With regard to the quality of the body of evidence, there was a moderate risk of bias for all outcomes, due to the number of included unpublished studies. There was some heterogeneity, particularly between published and unpublished studies. The included studies were conducted in inpatient and outpatient settings, thus limiting the generalisability of the results to primary care settings. With regard to precision, the efficacy outcomes were precise, but the tolerability outcomes were mostly imprecise. Publication bias was variable and depended on the outcome of the trial. Our review included unpublished studies, and we think that this reduced the impact of publication bias. The overall methodological quality of the studies was not very good. Almost all of the studies were sponsored by the pharmaceutical company that manufactures agomelatine (Servier), and some of these were unpublished. Attempts to contact the pharmaceutical company Servier for additional information on all unpublished studies were unsuccessful., Authors' Conclusions: Agomelatine did not seem to provide a significant advantage in efficacy over other antidepressive agents for the acute-phase treatment of major depression. Agomelatine was better tolerated than paroxetine and venlafaxine in terms of overall side effects, and fewer participants treated with agomelatine dropped out of the trials due to side effects compared to sertraline and venlafaxine, but data were limited because the number of included studies was small. We found evidence that compared agomelatine with only a small number of other active antidepressive agents, and there were only a few trials for each comparison, which limits the generalisability of the results. Moreover, the overall methodological quality of the studies was low, and, therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn concerning the efficacy and tolerability of agomelatine.

Background: Agomelatine is a novel antidepressant drug with narrative, non-systematic reviews making claims of efficacy., Aims: The present study systematically reviewed published and unpublished evidence of the acute and long-term efficacy and acceptability of agomelatine compared with placebo in the treatment of major depression., Method: Randomised controlled trials comparing agomelatine with placebo in the treatment of unipolar major depression were systematically reviewed. Primary outcomes were (a) Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) score at the end of treatment (short-term studies) and (b) number of relapses (long-term studies)., Results: Meta-analyses included 10 acute-phase and 3 relapse prevention studies. Seven of the included studies were unpublished. Acute treatment with agomelatine was associated with a statistically significant superiority over placebo of -1.51 HRSD points (99% CI -2.29 to -0.73, nine studies). Data extracted from three relapse prevention studies failed to show significant effects of agomelatine over placebo (relative risk 0.78, 99% CI 0.41-1.48). Secondary efficacy analyses showed a significant advantage of agomelatine over placebo in terms of response (with no effect for remission). None of the negative trials were published and conflicting results between published and unpublished studies were observed., Conclusions: We found evidence suggesting that a clinically important difference between agomelatine and placebo in patients with unipolar major depression is unlikely. There was evidence of substantial publication bias.

Objective: To determine the short-term antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine and venlafaxine vs. each other, placebo, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and tri- and tetracyclic antidepressants (TCAs) in adults with major depression., Method: Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials identified through bibliographical databases and other sources, including unpublished manufacturer reports., Results: Fifty-four studies including venlafaxine arms (n = 12,816), 14 including duloxetine arms (n = 4,528), and two direct comparisons (n = 836) were analysed. Twenty-three studies were previously unpublished. In the meta-analysis, both duloxetine and venlafaxine showed superior efficacy (higher remission and response rates) and inferior tolerability (higher discontinuation rates due to adverse events) to placebo. Venlafaxine had superior efficacy in response rates but inferior tolerability to SSRIs (OR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.07-1.35 and 1.38, 95% CI 1.15-1.66, respectively), and no differences in efficacy and tolerability to TCAs. Duloxetine did not show any advantages over other antidepressants and was less well tolerated than SSRIs and venlafaxine (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.10-2.13 and OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.16-2.78, respectively)., Conclusion: Rather than being a first-line option, venlafaxine appears to be a valid alternative in patients who do not tolerate or respond to SSRIs or TCAs. Duloxetine does not seem to be indicated as a first-line treatment., (© 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S.)

Rationale: A number of reviews have claimed that the selective serotonin and noradrenalin re-uptake inhibitor venlafaxine is more effective than selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in achieving remission and symptom reduction in major depression., Objectives: The aim of this study was to systematically review studies on the efficacy of venlafaxine vs SSRI and to evaluate the influence of methodological issues on the effect sizes., Materials and Methods: Following a systematic literature search, we pooled data on depression scores, response, remission and dropout rates. We also performed sub-group analyses., Results: Seventeen studies were included. We found no significant superiority in remission rates (risk ratio [RR] = 1.07, 95% confidence intervals [95%CI] = 0.99 to 1.15, numbers needed to treat [NNT] = 34) and a small superiority in response rates (RR = 1.06, 95%CI = 1.01 to 1.12, NNT = 27) over SSRIs. There was a small advantage to venlafaxine in change scores (effect size = -0.09, 95%CI = -0.16 to -0.02, p = 0.013), which did not reach significance when post-treatment scores were used (effect size = -0.06, 95%CI = -0.13 to 0.00). Discontinuation rates due to adverse events were 45% higher in the venlafaxine group. The main reasons for the differences between this analysis and previous reviews were the exclusion of studies with methodological limitations, avoiding to pool selectively reported study results and exclusion of studies available as abstracts only., Conclusions: Our analysis does not support a clinically significant superiority of venlafaxine over SSRIs. Differences between our study and previous reviews were not accounted for by technical aspects of data synthesis, but rather by study selection and choice of outcome parameters.