Search

This document is an update alert on the topic of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatments for adult patients with major depressive disorder. The update includes the findings of two newly published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that address specific questions related to the treatment of major depressive disorder. The studies did not warrant a change in conclusions from the previous systematic review, as one study had a small sample size and the results of the other study were consistent with the previous review. The update also includes information on a newly identified RCT that compared different therapy combinations with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) alone. The combination therapies showed better outcomes in terms of remission and response rates compared to monotherapy. Overall, the update provides additional evidence but does not change the previous conclusions. [Extracted from the article]

Primary care patients and clinicians may prefer alternative options to second-generation antidepressants for major depression. This systematic review and network meta-analysis summarizes studies on the effectiveness of pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and alternative interventions for initial and second-line treatment of major depression. Background: Primary care patients and clinicians may prefer alternative options to second-generation antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD). Purpose: To compare the benefits and harms of nonpharmacologic treatments with second-generation antidepressants as first-step interventions for acute MDD, and to compare second-step treatment strategies for patients who did not achieve remission after an initial attempt with antidepressants. Data Sources: English-language studies from several electronic databases from 1 January 1990 to 8 August 2022, trial registries, gray literature databases, and reference lists to identify unpublished research. Study Selection: 2 investigators independently selected randomized trials of at least 6 weeks' duration. Data Extraction: Reviewers abstracted data about study design and conduct, participants, interventions, and outcomes. They dually rated the risk of bias of studies and the certainty of evidence for outcomes of interest. Data Synthesis: 65 randomized trials met the inclusion criteria; eligible data from nonrandomized studies were not found. Meta-analyses and network meta-analyses indicated similar benefits of most nonpharmacologic treatments and antidepressants as first-step treatments. Antidepressants had higher risks for discontinuation because of adverse events than most other treatments. For second-step therapies, different switching and augmentation strategies provided similar symptomatic relief. The certainty of evidence for most comparisons is low; findings should be interpreted cautiously. Limitations: Many studies had methodological limitations or dosing inequalities; publication bias might have affected some comparisons. In some cases, conclusions could not be drawn because of insufficient evidence. Conclusion: Although benefits seem to be similar among first- and second-step MDD treatments, the certainty of evidence is low for most comparisons. Clinicians and patients should focus on options with the most reliable evidence and take adverse event profiles and patient preferences into consideration. Primary Funding Source: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42020204703) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Major depressive disorder is the most prevalent, disabling form of depression and has a large economic effect. This rapid review summarizes the evidence on cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions as first- and second-step treatments in patients with major depression. Background: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is the most prevalent, disabling form of depression, with a high economic effect. Purpose: To assess evidence on cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions as first- and second-step treatments in patients with MDD. Data Sources: Multiple electronic databases limited to English language were searched (1 January 2015 to 29 November 2022). Study Selection: Two investigators independently screened the literature. Seven economic modeling studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Data Extraction: Data abstraction by a single investigator was confirmed by a second; 2 investigators independently rated risk of bias. One investigator determined certainty of evidence, and another checked for plausibility. Data Synthesis: Seven modeling studies met the eligibility criteria. In a U.S. setting over a 5-year time horizon, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was cost-effective compared with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs) as a first-step treatment from the societal and health care sector perspectives. However, the certainty of evidence is low, and the findings should be interpreted cautiously. For second-step treatment, only switch strategies between SGAs were assessed. The evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusions. Limitations: Methodologically heterogeneous studies, which compared only CBT and some SGAs, were included. No evidence on other psychotherapies or complementary and alternative treatments as first-step treatment or augmentation strategies as second-step treatment was available. Conclusion: Although CBT may be cost-effective compared with SGAs as a first-step treatment at a 5-year time horizon from the societal and health care sector perspectives, the certainty of evidence is low, and the findings need to be interpreted cautiously. For other comparisons, the evidence was entirely missing or insufficient to draw conclusions. Primary Funding Source: American College of Physicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION What are the benefits and harms of second generation antidepressants and cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs) in the initial treatment of a current episode of major depressive disorder in adults? METHODS This was a systematic review including qualitative assessment and meta-analyses using random and fixed effects models. Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched from January1990 through January 2015. The 11 randomized controlled trials included compared a second generation antidepressant CBT. Ten trials compared antidepressant monotherapy with CBT alone; three compared antidepressant monotherapy with antidepressant plus CBT. SUMMARY ANSWER AND LIMITATIONS Meta-analyses found no statistically significant difference in effectiveness between second generation antidepressants and CBT for response (risk ratio 0.91, 0.77 to 1.07), remission (0.98, 0.73 to 1.32), or change in 17 item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score (weighted mean difference, -0.38, -2.87 to 2.10). Similarly, no significant differences were found in rates of overall study discontinuation (risk ratio 0.90, 0.49 to 1.65) or discontinuation attributable to lack of efficacy (0.40, 0.05 to 2.91). Although more patients treated with a second generation antidepressant than receiving CBT withdrew from studies because of adverse events, the difference was not statistically significant (risk ratio 3.29, 0.42 to 25.72). No conclusions could be drawn about other outcomes because of lack of evidence. Results should be interpreted cautiously given the low strength of evidence for most outcomes. The scope of this review was limited to trials that enrolled adult patients with major depressive disorder and compared a second generation antidepressant with CBT, and many of the included trials had methodological shortcomings that may limit confidence in some of the findings. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS Second generation antidepressants and CBT have evidence bases of benefits and harms in major depressive disorder. Available evidence suggests no difference in treatment effects of second generation antidepressants and CBT, either alone or in combination, although small numbers may preclude detection of small but clinically meaningful differences. FUNDING, COMPETING INTERESTS, DATA SHARING This project was funded under contract from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality by the RTI-UNC Evidence-based Practice Center. Detailed methods and additional information are available in the full report, available at http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Major depressive disorder (MDD) has detrimental effects on an individual's personal life, leads to increased risk of comorbidities, and places an enormous economic burden on society. Several 'second-generation' antidepressants are available as both immediate-release (IR) and extended-release formulations. The advantage of extended-release formulations may be the potentially improved adherence and a lower risk of adverse events. Objective: We conducted a systematic review to assess the comparative efficacy, risk of harms, and patients' adherence of IR and extended-release antidepressants for the treatment of MDD. Data Source: English-language abstracts were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 1980 to October 2012, as well as from reference lists of pertinent review articles and grey literature searches. Eligibility Criteria: We included head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 6 weeks' duration that compared an IR formulation with an extended-release formulation of the same antidepressant in adult patients with MDD. We also included placebo-controlled trials to conduct a network meta-analysis. To assess harms and adherence, in addition to RCTs, we searched for observational studies with ≥1,000 participants and a follow-up of ≥12 weeks. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods: We dually reviewed abstracts and full texts and assessed quality ratings. Lacking head-to-head evidence for many comparisons of interest, we conducted network meta-analyses using Bayesian methods. Our outcome measure of choice was response on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Results: We located seven head-to-head trials and 94 placebo- and active-controlled trials for network meta-analysis. Overall, our analyses indicate that IR and extended-release formulations do not differ substantially with respect to efficacy and risk of harms. The evidence is mixed with respect to differences in adherence, indicating lower adherence for IR formulations. Limitations: The lack of head-to-head comparisons for many drugs compromises our conclusions. Network meta-analyses have methodological limitations that need to be taken into consideration when interpreting findings. Conclusion: Available evidence currently shows no clear differences between the two formulations and therefore we cannot recommend a first choice. However, if adherence or compliance with one medication is an issue, then clinicians and patients should consider the alternative medication. If adherence or costs are a problem with one formulation, consideration of the other formulation to provide an adequate treatment trial is reasonable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) often suffer from accompanying symptoms that influence the choice of pharmacotherapy with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs). We conducted a systematic review to determine the comparative effectiveness of citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, sertraline, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, venlafaxine, bupropion, mirtazapine, nefazodone, and trazodone, for accompanying anxiety, insomnia, and pain in patients with MDD. Methods We conducted searches in multiple databases including MEDLINE®, Embase, the Cochrane Library, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and PsycINFO, from 1980 through August 2011 and reviewed reference lists of pertinent articles. We dually reviewed abstracts, full-text articles, and abstracted data. We included randomized, head-to-head trials of SGAs of at least 6 weeks' duration. We grouped SGAs into three classes for the analysis: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and others. We graded the strength of the evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group (GRADE) approach. Results We located 19 head-to-head trials in total: 11 on anxiety, six on insomnia, and four on pain. For the majority of comparisons, the strength of the evidence was moderate or low: evidence is weakened by inconsistency and imprecision. For treating anxiety, insomnia, and pain moderate evidence suggests that the SSRIs do not differ. Conclusions Evidence guiding the selection of an SGA based on accompanying symptoms of depression is limited. Very few trials were designed and adequately powered to answer questions about accompanying symptoms; analyses were generally of subgroups in larger MDD trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the study by A. Cipriani and colleagues which rated second-generation antidepressants sertraline and escitalopram as having the most favorable balance between benefit and harm in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) published in "The Lancet." The authors are said to formulate their results using a statistical technique called multiple treatment meta-analysis. It cites the authors' use of attrition rates in their study, which is said to be an inadequate measure of treatment tolerability.

Background: Second-generation antidepressants dominate the medical management of major depressive disorder (MDD). Levomilnacipran, vilazodone and vortioxetine are the latest therapeutic options approved for the treatment of MDD. This systematic review aims to compare the benefits and harms of vilazodone, levomilnacipran, and vortioxetine with one another and other second-generation antidepressants.Methods: We searched electronic databases up to September 2017 and reviewed reference lists and pharmaceutical dossiers to detect published and unpublished studies. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full text articles, and rated the risk of bias of included studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled observational studies including adult outpatients with MDD were eligible for inclusion. We conducted network meta-analyses on response to treatment using frequentist multivariate meta-analyses models. Placebo- and active-controlled trials were eligible for network meta-analyses.Results: Twenty-four studies met our inclusion criteria. Direct comparisons were limited to vilazodone versus citalopram, and vortioxetine versus duloxetine, paroxetine, or venlafaxine XR (extended release). Results of head-to-head trials and network meta-analyses, overall, indicated similar efficacy among levomilnacipran, vilazodone, or vortioxetine and other second-generation antidepressants. Although rates of overall adverse events and discontinuation due to adverse events were similar, RCTs reported several differences in specific adverse events. For most outcomes the strength of evidence was low.Limitations: Limitations are the focus of literature searches on studies published in English, possible reporting biases, and general methodological limitations of network meta-analyses.Conclusions: Overall, the available evidence does not indicate greater benefits or fewer harms of levomilnacipran, vilazodone, and vortioxetine compared with other second-generation antidepressants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]