Enrico Tedeschini

Efficacy of antidepressants for late-life depression: a meta-analysis and meta-regression of placebo-controlled randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE Late-life depression is an important public health issue, given the growing proportion of the elderly relative to the general population in the developed world. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of antidepressants for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in elderly patients. DATA SOURCES PubMed/MEDLINE was searched for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants for treatment of both adult (nonelderly) MDD (patients aged < 65 years) and late-life MDD (patients aged ≥ 55 years). The search was limited to articles published between January 1, 1980, and March 3, 2010 (inclusive). The year 1980 was used as a cutoff in our search to decrease diagnostic variability, since the DSM-III was introduced in 1980. Our search cross-referenced the term placebo with each of the following antidepressants: amitriptyline, nortriptyline, imipramine, desipramine, clomipramine, trimipramine, protriptyline, dothiepin, doxepin, lofepramine, amoxapine, maprotiline, amineptine, nomifensine, bupropion, phenelzine, tranylcypromine, isocarboxazid, moclobemide, brofaromine, fluoxetine, sertraline, paroxetine, citalopram, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, zimelidine, tianeptine, trazodone, nefazodone, agomelatine, venlafaxine, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, milnacipran, reboxetine, mirtazapine, and mianserin. We also reviewed the reference lists of all studies identified through the PubMed/MEDLINE search. STUDY SELECTION Articles were selected that reported on randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants used as monotherapy for treatment of MDD and that met numerous a priori criteria pertaining to MDD diagnosis criteria, study duration, study design, drug formulation, original data, age thresholds, primary and secondary outcome measures, and exclusions of other disorders. Final inclusion of articles was determined by consensus between the authors. Seventy-four articles were found eligible for inclusion in our analysis (15 late-life MDD trials and 59 adult MDD trials). RESULTS Antidepressants were found to be efficacious for late-life MDD (age 55 and older; P < .0001), although there was evidence for heterogeneity across studies (Q22 = 67.302, P < .001). However, antidepressants were not found to be efficacious in the subset of studies using age thresholds of 65 years or older (older late-life MDD) (P = .265). Finally, when we controlled for study design characteristics, antidepressant but not placebo response rates were lower among late-life MDD patients than among adult MDD patients. CONCLUSIONS The present meta-analysis suggests that antidepressants are efficacious in late-life MDD, but significant study heterogeneity suggests that other factors may contribute to these findings. A secondary analysis raises the possibility that efficacy of these agents may be reduced in trials involving patients aged 65 years or older. Why antidepressants may be less efficacious in elderly versus younger subjects remains unclear.

Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Major Depressive Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Patient Characteristics, Placebo-Response Rates, and Treatment Outcomes Relative to Standard Antidepressants

OBJECTIVE To compare patient characteristics, placebo-response rates, and outcome differences in active treatment compared to placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and standard antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD). DATA SOURCES Eligible studies were first identified using searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, restricted to English, by cross-referencing the search term placebo with each of the antidepressants (those that had received letters of approval by the US, Canadian, or EU drug regulatory agencies for the treatment of MDD) and selected CAM agents. These searches were limited to articles published between January 1, 1980, and September 15, 2009 (inclusive). Reference lists from identified studies were also searched for studies eligible for inclusion. STUDY SELECTION We selected RCTs for MDD that included validated diagnostic assessment and baseline/outcome measures of illness severity. Assessment was limited to widely used CAM agents most frequently studied in RCTs with pill placebo: St Johns wort, omega-3 fatty acids, and S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe). DATA SYNTHESIS Of eligible publications, 173 reported results of 1 trial, and 5 included > 1 trial, representing a total of 185 RCTs. Patient variables, including illness severity, were similar across CAM and antidepressant RCTs, except for a higher proportion of women in CAM studies (P = .0003). Random-effects meta-analysis indicated that both antidepressant and CAM monotherapy resulted in superior response rates compared with placebo. Placebo-response rates were significantly lower for patients enrolled in CAM versus antidepressant RCTs (P = .002). Meta-regression analyses yielded no significant differences in the relative risk of prematurely discontinuing therapy due to any reason between active treatment and placebo for antidepressant and CAM RCTs, although discontinuation due to adverse events was higher in antidepressant RCTs compared to CAM RCTs (P = .007). CONCLUSIONS Participants in CAM trials were more likely to be female and to have a lower placebo-response rate compared to those in standard antidepressant trials for MDD. Trials of standard antidepressants and CAM therapies were composed of patients with similar depression severity.

Antidepressants for major depressive disorder and dysthymic disorder in patients with comorbid alcohol use disorders: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE Mood and alcohol use disorders are often co-occurring, each condition complicating the course and outcome of the other. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of antidepressants in patients with unipolar major depressive disorder (MDD) and/or dysthymic disorder with comorbid alcohol use disorders and to compare antidepressant and placebo response rates between depressed patients with or without comorbid alcohol use disorders. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE/PubMed publication databases were searched for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants used as monotherapy for the acute-phase treatment of MDD and/or dysthymic disorder in patients with or without alcohol use disorders. The search term placebo was cross-referenced with each of the antidepressants approved by the US, Canadian, or European Union drug regulatory agencies for the treatment of MDD and/or dysthymic disorder. STUDY SELECTION 195 articles were found eligible for inclusion in our analysis, 11 of which focused on the treatment of MDD/dysthymic disorder in patients with comorbid alcohol use disorders. The search was limited to articles published between January 1, 1980, and March 15, 2009 (inclusive). RESULTS We found that antidepressant therapy was more effective than placebo in patients with comorbid alcohol use disorders (risk ratio of response = 1.336; P = .021). However, this was not the case when selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants were examined alone (P > .05). There was no significant difference in the relative efficacy of antidepressants (versus placebo) when comparing studies in MDD/dysthymic disorder patients with or without alcohol use disorders (P = .973). Meta-regression analyses yielded no significant differences in the risk ratio of responding to antidepressants versus placebo in trials with comorbid alcohol use disorders, whether antidepressants were used alone or adjunctively to psychotherapy, whether they were used in patients actively drinking or recently sober, or whether they were used in pure MDD or in combined MDD and dysthymic disorder populations. CONCLUSIONS These results support the utility of certain antidepressants (tricyclics, nefazodone) in treating depression in patients with comorbid alcohol use disorders. More data on the use of newer antidepressants, including the SSRIs, for this select patient population are needed.

Efficacy of Antidepressants for Dysthymia: A Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trials

OBJECTIVE The authors sought to determine the efficacy of antidepressants in dysthymic disorder and to compare antidepressant and placebo response rates between major depressive disorder (MDD) and dysthymic disorder. DATA SOURCES PubMed/MEDLINE databases were searched for double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants used as monotherapy for treatment of MDD or dysthymic disorder. We defined antidepressants as those with a letter of approval by the US, Canadian, or European Union drug regulatory agencies for treatment of MDD or dysthymic disorder, which included the following: amitriptyline, nortriptyline, imipramine, desipramine, clomipramine, trimipramine, protriptyline, dothiepin, doxepin, lofepramine, amoxapine, maprotiline, amineptine, nomifensine, bupropion, phenelzine, tranylcypromine, isocarboxazid, moclobemide, brofaromine, fluoxetine, sertraline, paroxetine, citalopram, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, zimelidine, tianeptine, ritanserin, trazodone, nefazodone, agomelatine, venlafaxine, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, milnacipran, reboxetine, mirtazapine, and mianserin. Eligible studies were identified by cross-referencing the search term placebo with each of the above-mentioned agents. The search was limited to articles published between January 1, 1980, and November 20, 2009 (inclusive). To expand our database, we also reviewed the reference lists of the identified studies. STUDY SELECTION We selected randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants for either MDD or dysthymic disorder according to preset criteria relating to comorbidities, patient age, drug formulation, study duration, diagnostic criteria, choice of assessment scales, and whether or not the study reported original data. Final selection of articles was determined by consensus among the authors. RESULTS A total of 194 studies were found that were eligible for inclusion in our analysis. Of these, 177 focused on the treatment of MDD and 17 on the treatment of dysthymic disorder. We found that antidepressant therapy was significantly more effective than placebo in dysthymic disorder (risk ratio = 1.75; 95% CI, 1.49-2.04; P < .0001), while placebo response rates in dysthymic disorder trials were significantly lower compared to MDD trials (29.9% vs 37.9%, respectively; P = .042). Meta-regression suggested a statistically significant difference in the risk ratio of responding to antidepressants versus placebo when comparing studies either on dysthymic disorder or on MDD, suggesting a greater risk ratio for response in favor of antidepressant therapy versus placebo in patients with dysthymic disorder versus MDD (coefficient of -0.113; P = .007). CONCLUSIONS These results support the utility of antidepressants for dysthymic disorder. In fact, the margin of efficacy of antidepressants for dysthymic disorder was larger than for MDD. Future studies providing longer-term data on the treatment of dysthymic disorder with antidepressants are essential.

Antidepressants for major depressive disorder in patients with a co-morbid axis-III disorder: a meta-analysis of patient characteristics and placebo response rates in randomized controlled trials

The objective of this study is to assess whether the antidepressants are effective in treating major depressive disorder (MDD) in patients with a co-morbid axis-III disorder, and to compare the relative efficacy (vs. placebo) of antidepressants between these patients and those enrolled in general MDD trials. Medline/Pubmed publication databases were searched. We selected for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants for MDD, whether conducted in a general population, or in populations with an axis-III disorder. Antidepressants were more effective than placebo in patients with axis-III disorders overall [risk ratio for response (RR)=1.42, P<0.0001], as well as specifically for post-stroke (RR=1.43, P=0.04), human-immunodeficiency virus positive or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (RR=1.66, P=0.005), but not cancer patients (RR=1.26, P=0.19). There was a trend for higher placebo response rates in studies, which did (41.2%) versus those which did not (37.7%) select for axis-III disorders (P=0.06), and significantly higher antidepressant response rates in studies which did (57.4%) versus those which did not (53.5%) select for axis-III disorders (P=0.01). Antidepressants are effective for MDD in patients who present with co-morbid axis-III disorders and as effective (vs. placebo) in this population as they are in the general MDD population. Higher general response rates observed in the co-morbid MDD population are intriguing, and require replication.

Treatment of major depressive disorder and dysthymic disorder with antidepressants in patients with comorbid opiate use disorders enrolled in methadone maintenance therapy: a meta-analysis

Depression and opiate-use disorders (abuse, dependence) often co-occur, each condition complicating the course and outcome of the other. It has been recommended that clinicians prescribe antidepressant therapy for mood symptoms in patients with active substance-use disorders, but whether antidepressants are effective in this specific population is not entirely clear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of antidepressants in patients with unipolar major depressive disorder (MDD) and/or dysthymic disorder (DD) with comorbid opiate-use disorders currently in methadone maintenance treatment (MMT). Medline/PubMed publication databases were searched for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants used as monotherapy for the treatment of MDD/DD in patients with comorbid opiate-use disorders currently in MMT. The search was limited to articles published between January 1, 1980, and June 30, 2010 (inclusive). Four manuscripts were found eligible for inclusion in our analysis (n = 317 patients). We found no statistically significant difference in response rates between antidepressant and placebo therapy in trials of MDD/DD patients with comorbid opiate-use disorders currently in MMT (risk ratio for response, 1.182; 95% CI: 0.822-1.700; P = 0.366). These results show no difference in the depressive outcome of patients with comorbid opiate-use disorders on MMT whether they are on medication or placebo. Future studies examining the effectiveness of antidepressants while controlling for several variables such as psychosocial treatment and assessing the specific classes of antidepressants are needed.

Correlation of articular involvement, skin disfigurement and unemployment with depressive symptoms in patients with systemic sclerosis: a hospital sample

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a connective tissue disease associated with increased functional impairment, body image distress due to skin lesions, and psychosocial comorbidity, particularly depression. Prevalence of depressive symptoms in SSc patients ranges from 36% to 65% and it contributes to the worsening of any aspect of the disease. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence and clinical and non‐clinical correlates of depressive symptoms in a sample of outpatients with SSc.

Adjunctive pregabalin in partial responders with major depressive disorder and residual anxiety.

Background Anxiety symptoms in depression result often in treatment resistance, residual symptoms, and persistent functional impairment. Objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of adjunctive pregabalin to antidepressants for residual anxiety in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify partial responders among patients with MDD with residual anxiety. Twenty such patients (age, 58.4 ± 11.2 years; 15 women; baseline Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS], 17.1 ± 3.5) who received adjunctive pregabalin for residual anxiety were included. Antidepressants augmented were the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (n = 12), mirtazapine (n = 2), and selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (n = 6). Results Twenty patients received at least 4 weeks of pregabalin treatment after 8 weeks of antidepressant therapy. At week 1 (9 weeks after initiating treatment), pregabalin was prescribed at a mean ± SD dose of 71.2 ± 31.7 mg, and the mean maximum pregabalin dose prescribed was 156.2 ± 76.5 mg (range, 75–300 mg). At week 8, there were 13 responders (13/20 [65%]), and 7 of these 13 patients achieved remission (HDRS17 < 8). There were significant decreases in HDRS scores (13.5 ± 3.1 vs 9.1 ± 2.9, P < 0.000), and HDRS anxiety/somatization subscale scores (6.3 ± 2 to 3.6 ± 1.7, P < 0.000). Adverse effects included somnolence (n = 7), weight gain (n = 3), dizziness (n = 4), dry mouth (n = 6), edema (n = 3), blurred vision (n = 3), difficulty with concentration/attention (n = 8), headache (n = 6), and diarrhea (n = 5). Conclusions The results suggest a possible augmentation role for pregabalin when used in conjunction with conventional antidepressants for residual anxiety in MDD.

Does the frequency of follow-up assessments affect clinical trial outcome? A meta-analysis and meta-regression of placebo-controlled randomized trials.

The number and temporal distribution of follow-up assessments during a clinical trial is a critical factor which may influence the outcome as well as the overall cost of a trial. Therefore, we aimed to examine whether the overall and differential frequency of study observations during the course of a clinical trial affects the risk ratio (RR) of responding to antidepressants vs. placebo, specifically in trials for major depressive disorder (MDD). Medline/Pubmed publication databases were searched for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants for adults with MDD (1 January 1980-11 May 2010). A total of 142 manuscripts involving 256 drug-placebo comparison were pooled (n=38 860). We found that higher overall frequency (OF, frequency of assessments during the entire trial) and higher late frequency (LF, frequency of assessments after the first 3 wk of the trial), but not higher early frequency (EF, frequency of assessments during the first 3 wk of the trial), of follow-up visits predicted a significantly greater RR of responding to antidepressant vs. placebo (coefficient=0.213, p=0.014; coefficient=0.238, p=0.003; and coefficient=0.021, p=0.755, respectively, for OF, LF and EF). None of the measures of frequency examined (OF, EF, LF) significantly predicted the RR of discontinuing antidepressant vs. placebo. These findings suggest that increasing the number of follow-up visits, specifically after the third week rather than within the first 3 wk of the trial, may be an effective approach to improve the likelihood of success in placebo-controlled clinical trials for MDD.