Abstract Background Several studies have described real-world prescription patterns of first-line antidepressants for depression but little is known about their fate in terms of duration, intensity ...and changes. Methods An inception cohort of new onset non-psychotic depression initiating antidepressant treatment with a new generation antidpressive agent was identified in a large health insurance claims database in Japan between 2009 and 2010. The duration and intensity of first-line antidepressants, the timing and kind of second-line antidepressants and the total duration of antidepressant treatment were examined. Results We identified 1592 patients. The starting dose and the maximum dose attained with the first-line agent appeared to be largely in line with the guideline recommendations although the latter tended toward the minimum of the recommended range. The continuity of the first-line antidepressant was far below the guideline recommendations, with 28% never returning after the initial prescription and 55% dropping out within 3 months. Of all the first-line antidepressants, 14% were subsequently augmented by another psychotropic agent while 17% were switched to another antidepressant after a median of 3 or 2 months, respectively. The choice of the second-line agents varied extremely widely. The total duration of antidepressant therapy was as short as a median of 4 months, with 68% stopping treatment by 6 months. Limitations The diagnosis of non-psychotic unipolar depression in the claims database analyses remains approximate. Conclusions The current guidelines are grossly out of touch with the clinical realities. On the one hand, guidelines need to reflect the real-world practices; on the other hand clinicians should limit their treatment options and allow evidence-based comparative effectiveness research among them so that patients shall no longer be given less effective and more effective treatments without being able to distinguish among them.
Major depression is one of the most debilitating diseases in terms of quality of life. Less than half of patients suffering from depression can achieve remission after adequate antidepressant ...treatment. Another promising treatment option is cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT). However, the need for experienced therapists and substantive dedicated time prevent CBT from being widely disseminated. In the present study, we aim to examine the effectiveness of switching antidepressants and starting a smartphone-based CBT program at the same time, in comparison to switching antidepressants only, among patients still suffering from depression after adequate antidepressant treatment.
A multi-center randomized trial is currently being conducted since September 2014. The smartphone-based CBT program, named the "Kokoro-App," for major depression has been developed and its feasibility has been confirmed in a previous open study. The program consists of an introduction, 6 sessions and an epilogue, and is expected to be completed within 9 weeks by patients. In the present trial, 164 patients with DSM-5 major depressive disorder and still suffering from depressive symptoms after adequate antidepressant treatment for more than 4 weeks will be allocated to the Kokoro-App plus switching antidepressant group or the switching antidepressant alone group. The participants allocated to the latter group will receive full components of the Kokoro-App after 9 weeks. The primary outcome is the change in the total score on the Patient Health Questionnaire through the 9 weeks of the program, as assessed at week 0, 1, 5 and 9 via telephone by blinded raters. The secondary outcomes include the change in the total score of the Beck Depression Inventory-II, change in side effects as assessed by the Frequency, Intensity and Burden of Side Effects Rating, and treatment satisfaction.
An effective and reachable intervention may not only lead to healthier mental status among depressed patients, but also to reduced social burden from this illness. This paper outlines the background and methods of a trial that evaluates the possible additive value of a smartphone-based CBT program for treatment-resistant depression.
UMIN-CTR: UMIN000013693 (registered on 1 June 2014).
Cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) for panic disorder may consist of different combinations of several therapeutic components such as relaxation, breathing retraining, cognitive restructuring, ...interoceptive exposure and/or in vivo exposure. It is therefore important both theoretically and clinically to examine whether specific components of CBT or their combinations are superior to others in the treatment of panic disorder. Component network meta-analysis (NMA) is an extension of standard NMA that can be used to disentangle the treatment effects of different components included in composite interventions. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central, with supplementary searches of reference lists and clinical trial registries, for all randomized controlled trials comparing different CBT-based psychological therapies for panic disorder with each other or with control interventions. We applied component NMA to disentangle the treatment effects of different components included in these interventions. After reviewing 2526 references, we included 72 studies with 4064 participants. Interoceptive exposure and face-to-face setting were associated with better treatment efficacy and acceptability. Muscle relaxation and virtual-reality exposure were associated with significantly lower efficacy. Components such as breathing retraining and in vivo exposure appeared to improve treatment acceptability while having small effects on efficacy. The comparison of the most v. the least efficacious combination, both of which may be provided as ‘evidence-based CBT,’ yielded an odds ratio for the remission of 7.69 (95% credible interval: 1.75 to 33.33). Effective CBT packages for panic disorder would include face-to-face and interoceptive exposure components, while excluding muscle relaxation and virtual-reality exposure.
A significant clinical issue encountered after a successful acute major depressive disorder (MDD) treatment is the relapse of depressive symptoms. Although continuing maintenance therapy with ...antidepressants is generally recommended, there is no established protocol on whether or not it is necessary to prescribe the antidepressant used to achieve remission. In this meta-analysis, the risk of relapse and treatment failure when either continuing with the same drug used to achieved remission or switching to a placebo was assessed in several clinically significant subgroups. The pooled odds ratio (OR) (±95% confidence intervals (CI)) was calculated using a random effects model. Across 40 studies (n = 8890), the relapse rate was significantly lower in the antidepressant group than the placebo group by about 20% (OR = 0.38, CI: 0.33-0.43, p < 0.00001; 20.9% vs 39.7%). The difference in the relapse rate between the antidepressant and placebo groups was greater for tricyclics (25.3%; OR = 0.30, CI: 0.17-0.50, p < 0.00001), SSRIs (21.8%; OR = 0.33, CI: 0.28-0.38, p < 0.00001), and other newer agents (16.0%; OR = 0.44, CI: 0.36-0.54, p < 0.00001) in that order, while the effect size of acceptability was greater for SSRIs than for other antidepressants. A flexible dose schedule (OR = 0.30, CI: 0.23-0.48, p < 0.00001) had a greater effect size than a fixed dose (OR = 0.41, CI: 0.36-0.48, p < 0.00001) in comparison to placebo. Even in studies assigned after continuous treatment for more than 6 months after remission, the continued use of antidepressants had a lower relapse rate than the use of a placebo (OR = 0.40, CI: 0.29-0.55, p < 0.00001; 20.2% vs 37.2%). The difference in relapse rate was similar from a maintenance period of 6 months (OR = 0.41, CI: 0.35-0.48, p < 0.00001; 19.6% vs 37.6%) to over 1 year (OR = 0.35, CI: 0.29-0.41, p < 0.00001; 19.9% vs 39.8%). The all-cause dropout of antidepressant and placebo groups was 43% and 58%, respectively, (OR = 0.47, CI: 0.40-0.55, p < 0.00001). The tolerability rate was ~4% for both groups. The rate of relapse (OR = 0.32, CI: 0.18-0.64, p = 0.0010, 41.0% vs 66.7%) and all-cause dropout among adolescents was higher than in adults. To prevent relapse and treatment failure, maintenance therapy, and careful attention for at least 6 months after remission is recommended. SSRIs are well-balanced agents, and flexible dose adjustments are more effective for relapse prevention.
Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide in adults. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments are available; however, ...because of inadequate resources, antidepressants are used more frequently than psychological interventions. Prescription of these agents should be informed by the best available evidence. Therefore, we aimed to update and expand our previous work to compare and rank antidepressants for the acute treatment of adults with unipolar major depressive disorder.
We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS database, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, PsycINFO, the websites of regulatory agencies, and international registers for published and unpublished, double-blind, randomised controlled trials from their inception to Jan 8, 2016. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 21 antidepressants used for the acute treatment of adults (≥18 years old and of both sexes) with major depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. We excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials that were incomplete or included 20% or more of participants with bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, or treatment-resistant depression; or patients with a serious concomitant medical illness. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy. In network meta-analysis, we used group-level data. We assessed the studies' risk of bias in accordance to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (response rate) and acceptability (treatment discontinuations due to any cause). We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012002291.
We identified 28 552 citations and of these included 522 trials comprising 116 477 participants. In terms of efficacy, all antidepressants were more effective than placebo, with ORs ranging between 2·13 (95% credible interval CrI 1·89–2·41) for amitriptyline and 1·37 (1·16–1·63) for reboxetine. For acceptability, only agomelatine (OR 0·84, 95% CrI 0·72–0·97) and fluoxetine (0·88, 0·80–0·96) were associated with fewer dropouts than placebo, whereas clomipramine was worse than placebo (1·30, 1·01–1·68). When all trials were considered, differences in ORs between antidepressants ranged from 1·15 to 1·55 for efficacy and from 0·64 to 0·83 for acceptability, with wide CrIs on most of the comparative analyses. In head-to-head studies, agomelatine, amitriptyline, escitalopram, mirtazapine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine were more effective than other antidepressants (range of ORs 1·19–1·96), whereas fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, and trazodone were the least efficacious drugs (0·51–0·84). For acceptability, agomelatine, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, and vortioxetine were more tolerable than other antidepressants (range of ORs 0·43–0·77), whereas amitriptyline, clomipramine, duloxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, trazodone, and venlafaxine had the highest dropout rates (1·30–2·32). 46 (9%) of 522 trials were rated as high risk of bias, 380 (73%) trials as moderate, and 96 (18%) as low; and the certainty of evidence was moderate to very low.
All antidepressants were more efficacious than placebo in adults with major depressive disorder. Smaller differences between active drugs were found when placebo-controlled trials were included in the analysis, whereas there was more variability in efficacy and acceptability in head-to-head trials. These results should serve evidence-based practice and inform patients, physicians, guideline developers, and policy makers on the relative merits of the different antidepressants.
National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
Anxiety frequently coexists with depression and adding benzodiazepines to antidepressant treatment is common practice to treat people with major depression. However, more evidence is needed to ...determine whether this combined treatment is more effective and not any more harmful than antidepressants alone. It has been suggested that benzodiazepines may lose their efficacy with long-term administration and their chronic use carries risks of dependence.This is the 2019 updated version of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001, and previously updated in 2005. This update follows a new protocol to conform with the most recent Cochrane methodology guidelines, with the inclusion of 'Summary of findings' tables and GRADE evaluations for quality of evidence.
To assess the effects of combining antidepressants with benzodiazepines compared with antidepressants alone for major depression in adults.
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO to May 2019. We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify any additional unpublished or ongoing studies.
All randomised controlled trials that compared combined antidepressant plus benzodiazepine treatment with antidepressants alone for adults with major depression. We excluded studies administering psychosocial therapies targeted at depression and anxiety disorders concurrently. Antidepressants had to be prescribed, on average, at or above the minimum effective dose as presented by Hansen 2009 or according to the North American or European regulations. The combination therapy had to last at least four weeks.
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies, according to the criteria of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We entered data into Review Manager 5. We used intention-to-treat data. We combined continuous outcome variables of depressive and anxiety severity using standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For dichotomous efficacy outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Regarding the primary outcome of acceptability, only overall dropout rates were available for all studies.
We identified 10 studies published between 1978 to 2002 involving 731 participants. Six studies used tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), two studies used selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), one study used another heterocyclic antidepressant and one study used TCA or heterocyclic antidepressant.Combined therapy of benzodiazepines plus antidepressants was more effective than antidepressants alone for depressive severity in the early phase (four weeks) (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.03; 10 studies, 598 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but there was no difference between treatments in the acute phase (five to 12 weeks) (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.03; 7 studies, 347 participants; low-quality evidence) or in the continuous phase (more than 12 weeks) (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.76 to 0.35; 1 study, 50 participants; low-quality evidence). For acceptability of treatment, there was no difference in the dropouts due to any reason between combined therapy and antidepressants alone (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.07; 10 studies, 731 participants; moderate-quality evidence).For response in depression, combined therapy was more effective than antidepressants alone in the early phase (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.58; 10 studies, 731 participants), but there was no evidence of a difference in the acute phase (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.35; 7 studies, 383 participants) or in the continuous phase (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.29; 1 study, 52 participants). For remission in depression, combined therapy was more effective than antidepressants alone in the early phase (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.90, 10 studies, 731 participants), but there was no evidence of a difference in the acute phase (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.63; 7 studies, 383 participants) or in the continuous phase (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.16; 1 study, 52 participants). There was no evidence of a difference between combined therapy and antidepressants alone for anxiety severity in the early phase (SMD -0.76, 95% CI -1.67 to 0.14; 3 studies, 129 participants) or in the acute phase (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.10; 3 studies, 129 participants). No studies measured severity of insomnia. In terms of adverse effects, the dropout rates due to adverse events were lower for combined therapy than for antidepressants alone (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.90; 10 studies, 731 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, participants in the combined therapy group reported at least one adverse effect more often than participants who received antidepressants alone (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23; 7 studies, 510 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Most domains of risk of bias in the majority of the included studies were unclear. Random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding and selective outcome reporting were problematic due to insufficient details reported in most of the included studies and lack of availability of the study protocols. The greatest limitation in the quality of evidence was issues with attrition.
Combined antidepressant plus benzodiazepine therapy was more effective than antidepressants alone in improving depression severity, response in depression and remission in depression in the early phase. However, these effects were not maintained in the acute or the continuous phase. Combined therapy resulted in fewer dropouts due to adverse events than antidepressants alone, but combined therapy was associated with a greater proportion of participants reporting at least one adverse effect.The moderate quality evidence of benefits of adding a benzodiazepine to an antidepressant in the early phase must be balanced judiciously against possible harms and consideration given to other alternative treatment strategies when antidepressant monotherapy may be considered inadequate. We need long-term, pragmatic randomised controlled trials to compare combination therapy against the monotherapy of antidepressant in major depression.
SUN(^_^)D, the Strategic Use of New generation antidepressants for Depression, is an assessor-blinded, parallel-group, multicenter pragmatic mega-trial to examine the optimum treatment strategy for ...the first- and second-line treatments for unipolar major depressive episodes. The trial has three steps and two randomizations. Step I randomization compares the minimum and the maximum dosing strategy for the first-line antidepressant. Step II randomization compares the continuation, augmentation or switching strategy for the second-line antidepressant treatment. Step III is a naturalistic continuation phase. The original protocol was published in 2011, and we hereby report its updated protocol including the statistical analysis plan.
We implemented two important changes to the original protocol. One is about the required sample size, reflecting the smaller number of dropouts than had been expected. Another is in the organization of the primary and secondary outcomes in order to make the report of the main trial results as pertinent and interpretable as possible for clinical practices. Due to the complexity of the trial, we plan to report the main results in two separate reports, and this updated protocol and the statistical analysis plan have laid out respective primary and secondary outcomes and their analyses. We will convene the blind interpretation committee before the randomization code is broken.
This paper presents the updated protocol and the detailed statistical analysis plan for the SUN(^_^)D trial in order to avoid reporting bias and data-driven results.
ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01109693 (registered on 21 April 2010).
To examine empirically whether the mean difference (MD) or the standardised mean difference (SMD) is more generalizable and statistically powerful in meta-analyses of continuous outcomes when the ...same unit is used.
From all the Cochrane Database (March 2013), we identified systematic reviews that combined 3 or more randomised controlled trials (RCT) using the same continuous outcome. Generalizability was assessed using the I-squared (I2) and the percentage agreement. The percentage agreement was calculated by comparing the MD or SMD of each RCT with the corresponding MD or SMD from the meta-analysis of all the other RCTs. The statistical power was estimated using Z-scores. Meta-analyses were conducted using both random-effects and fixed-effect models.
1068 meta-analyses were included. The I2 index was significantly smaller for the SMD than for the MD (P < 0.0001, sign test). For continuous outcomes, the current Cochrane reviews pooled some extremely heterogeneous results. When all these or less heterogeneous subsets of the reviews were examined, the SMD always showed a greater percentage agreement than the MD. When the I2 index was less than 30%, the percentage agreement was 55.3% for MD and 59.8% for SMD in the random-effects model and 53.0% and 59.8%, respectively, in the fixed effect model (both P < 0.0001, sign test). Although the Z-scores were larger for MD than for SMD, there were no differences in the percentage of statistical significance between MD and SMD in either model.
The SMD was more generalizable than the MD. The MD had a greater statistical power than the SMD but did not result in material differences.
PDF
