Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants for major depressive disorder in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis.
Lancet. 2016 Aug 27; 388(10047):881-90.Lct

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder is one of the most common mental disorders in children and adolescents. However, whether to use pharmacological interventions in this population and which drug should be preferred are still matters of controversy. Consequently, we aimed to compare and rank antidepressants and placebo for major depressive disorder in young people.

METHODS

We did a network meta-analysis to identify both direct and indirect evidence from relevant trials. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LiLACS, regulatory agencies' websites, and international registers for published and unpublished, double-blind randomised controlled trials up to May 31, 2015, for the acute treatment of major depressive disorder in children and adolescents. We included trials of amitriptyline, citalopram, clomipramine, desipramine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, imipramine, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine. Trials recruiting participants with treatment-resistant depression, treatment duration of less than 4 weeks, or an overall sample size of less than ten patients were excluded. We extracted the relevant information from the published reports with a predefined data extraction sheet, and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcomes were efficacy (change in depressive symptoms) and tolerability (discontinuations due to adverse events). We did pair-wise meta-analyses using the random-effects model and then did a random-effects network meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework. We assessed the quality of evidence contributing to each network estimate using the GRADE framework. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015016023.

FINDINGS

We deemed 34 trials eligible, including 5260 participants and 14 antidepressant treatments. The quality of evidence was rated as very low in most comparisons. For efficacy, only fluoxetine was statistically significantly more effective than placebo (standardised mean difference -0·51, 95% credible interval [CrI] -0·99 to -0·03). In terms of tolerability, fluoxetine was also better than duloxetine (odds ratio [OR] 0·31, 95% CrI 0·13 to 0·95) and imipramine (0·23, 0·04 to 0·78). Patients given imipramine, venlafaxine, and duloxetine had more discontinuations due to adverse events than did those given placebo (5·49, 1·96 to 20·86; 3·19, 1·01 to 18·70; and 2·80, 1·20 to 9·42, respectively). In terms of heterogeneity, the global I(2) values were 33·21% for efficacy and 0% for tolerability.

INTERPRETATION

When considering the risk-benefit profile of antidepressants in the acute treatment of major depressive disorder, these drugs do not seem to offer a clear advantage for children and adolescents. Fluoxetine is probably the best option to consider when a pharmacological treatment is indicated.

FUNDING

National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program).

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: andrea.cipriani@psych.ox.ac.uk.Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China; Institute of Neuroscience and the Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.Department of Diagnostic, Clinical and Public Health Medicine, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.Orygen, The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China; Institute of Neuroscience and the Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.Doctor Evidence, Santa Monica, CA, USA.Division of Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK; Department of Paediatrics, and Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China; Institute of Neuroscience and the Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.Discipline of Psychiatry, Sydney Medical School, Concord West, NSW, Australia.Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.Department of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China; Institute of Neuroscience and the Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière, Institut des Systèmes Intelligents et Robotiques, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France.Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Campbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China; Institute of Neuroscience and the Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.Department of Psychology, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, USA.Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China; Institute of Neuroscience and the Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China; Institute of Neuroscience and the Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China; Institute of Neuroscience and the Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China; South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. Electronic address: xiepeng973@126.com.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

27289172

Citation

Cipriani, Andrea, et al. "Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of Antidepressants for Major Depressive Disorder in Children and Adolescents: a Network Meta-analysis." Lancet (London, England), vol. 388, no. 10047, 2016, pp. 881-90.
Cipriani A, Zhou X, Del Giovane C, et al. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants for major depressive disorder in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2016;388(10047):881-90.
Cipriani, A., Zhou, X., Del Giovane, C., Hetrick, S. E., Qin, B., Whittington, C., Coghill, D., Zhang, Y., Hazell, P., Leucht, S., Cuijpers, P., Pu, J., Cohen, D., Ravindran, A. V., Liu, Y., Michael, K. D., Yang, L., Liu, L., & Xie, P. (2016). Comparative efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants for major depressive disorder in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis. Lancet (London, England), 388(10047), 881-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30385-3
Cipriani A, et al. Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of Antidepressants for Major Depressive Disorder in Children and Adolescents: a Network Meta-analysis. Lancet. 2016 Aug 27;388(10047):881-90. PubMed PMID: 27289172.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparative efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants for major depressive disorder in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis. AU - Cipriani,Andrea, AU - Zhou,Xinyu, AU - Del Giovane,Cinzia, AU - Hetrick,Sarah E, AU - Qin,Bin, AU - Whittington,Craig, AU - Coghill,David, AU - Zhang,Yuqing, AU - Hazell,Philip, AU - Leucht,Stefan, AU - Cuijpers,Pim, AU - Pu,Juncai, AU - Cohen,David, AU - Ravindran,Arun V, AU - Liu,Yiyun, AU - Michael,Kurt D, AU - Yang,Lining, AU - Liu,Lanxiang, AU - Xie,Peng, Y1 - 2016/06/08/ PY - 2016/6/13/entrez PY - 2016/6/13/pubmed PY - 2016/9/20/medline SP - 881 EP - 90 JF - Lancet (London, England) JO - Lancet VL - 388 IS - 10047 N2 - BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is one of the most common mental disorders in children and adolescents. However, whether to use pharmacological interventions in this population and which drug should be preferred are still matters of controversy. Consequently, we aimed to compare and rank antidepressants and placebo for major depressive disorder in young people. METHODS: We did a network meta-analysis to identify both direct and indirect evidence from relevant trials. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LiLACS, regulatory agencies' websites, and international registers for published and unpublished, double-blind randomised controlled trials up to May 31, 2015, for the acute treatment of major depressive disorder in children and adolescents. We included trials of amitriptyline, citalopram, clomipramine, desipramine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, imipramine, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine. Trials recruiting participants with treatment-resistant depression, treatment duration of less than 4 weeks, or an overall sample size of less than ten patients were excluded. We extracted the relevant information from the published reports with a predefined data extraction sheet, and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcomes were efficacy (change in depressive symptoms) and tolerability (discontinuations due to adverse events). We did pair-wise meta-analyses using the random-effects model and then did a random-effects network meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework. We assessed the quality of evidence contributing to each network estimate using the GRADE framework. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015016023. FINDINGS: We deemed 34 trials eligible, including 5260 participants and 14 antidepressant treatments. The quality of evidence was rated as very low in most comparisons. For efficacy, only fluoxetine was statistically significantly more effective than placebo (standardised mean difference -0·51, 95% credible interval [CrI] -0·99 to -0·03). In terms of tolerability, fluoxetine was also better than duloxetine (odds ratio [OR] 0·31, 95% CrI 0·13 to 0·95) and imipramine (0·23, 0·04 to 0·78). Patients given imipramine, venlafaxine, and duloxetine had more discontinuations due to adverse events than did those given placebo (5·49, 1·96 to 20·86; 3·19, 1·01 to 18·70; and 2·80, 1·20 to 9·42, respectively). In terms of heterogeneity, the global I(2) values were 33·21% for efficacy and 0% for tolerability. INTERPRETATION: When considering the risk-benefit profile of antidepressants in the acute treatment of major depressive disorder, these drugs do not seem to offer a clear advantage for children and adolescents. Fluoxetine is probably the best option to consider when a pharmacological treatment is indicated. FUNDING: National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program). SN - 1474-547X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/27289172/Comparative_efficacy_and_tolerability_of_antidepressants_for_major_depressive_disorder_in_children_and_adolescents:_a_network_meta_analysis_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140-6736(16)30385-3 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -