Kristian Thorlund1,2,3, Eric Druyts3,4, Ping Wu3, Chakrapani Balijepalli3, Denis Keohane5, Edward Mills1,3. 1. Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 3. Redwood Outcomes, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 4. Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 5. Pfizer Inc., New York, New York.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To establish the comparative efficacy and safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors in older adults using the network meta-analysis approach. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 60 and older. MEASUREMENTS: Data on partial response (defined as at least 50% reduction in depression score from baseline) and safety (dizziness, vertigo, syncope, falls, loss of consciousness) were extracted. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed on the efficacy and safety outcomes, and relative risks (RRs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were produced. RESULTS: Fifteen randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. Citalopram, escitalopram, paroxetine, duloxetine, venlafaxine, fluoxetine, and sertraline were represented. Reporting on partial response and dizziness was sufficient to conduct a network meta-analysis. Reporting on other outcomes was sparse. For partial response, sertraline (RR=1.28), paroxetine (RR=1.48), and duloxetine (RR=1.62) were significantly better than placebo. The remaining interventions yielded RRs lower than 1.20. For dizziness, duloxetine (RR=3.18) and venlafaxine (RR=2.94) were statistically significantly worse than placebo. Compared with placebo, sertraline had the lowest RR for dizziness (1.14) and fluoxetine the second lowest (1.31). Citalopram, escitalopram, and paroxetine all had RRs between 1.4 and 1.7. CONCLUSION: There was clear evidence of the effectiveness of sertraline, paroxetine, and duloxetine. There also appears to be a hierarchy of safety associated with the different antidepressants, although there appears to be a dearth of reporting of safety outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: To establish the comparative efficacy and safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors in older adults using the network meta-analysis approach. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 60 and older. MEASUREMENTS: Data on partial response (defined as at least 50% reduction in depression score from baseline) and safety (dizziness, vertigo, syncope, falls, loss of consciousness) were extracted. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed on the efficacy and safety outcomes, and relative risks (RRs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were produced. RESULTS: Fifteen randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. Citalopram, escitalopram, paroxetine, duloxetine, venlafaxine, fluoxetine, and sertraline were represented. Reporting on partial response and dizziness was sufficient to conduct a network meta-analysis. Reporting on other outcomes was sparse. For partial response, sertraline (RR=1.28), paroxetine (RR=1.48), and duloxetine (RR=1.62) were significantly better than placebo. The remaining interventions yielded RRs lower than 1.20. For dizziness, duloxetine (RR=3.18) and venlafaxine (RR=2.94) were statistically significantly worse than placebo. Compared with placebo, sertraline had the lowest RR for dizziness (1.14) and fluoxetine the second lowest (1.31). Citalopram, escitalopram, and paroxetine all had RRs between 1.4 and 1.7. CONCLUSION: There was clear evidence of the effectiveness of sertraline, paroxetine, and duloxetine. There also appears to be a hierarchy of safety associated with the different antidepressants, although there appears to be a dearth of reporting of safety outcomes.
Authors: Glenda M MacQueen; Benicio N Frey; Zahinoor Ismail; Natalia Jaworska; Meir Steiner; Ryan J Van Lieshout; Sidney H Kennedy; Raymond W Lam; Roumen V Milev; Sagar V Parikh; Arun V Ravindran Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: John S Mulvahill; Ginger E Nicol; David Dixon; Eric J Lenze; Jordan F Karp; Charles F Reynolds; Daniel M Blumberger; Benoit H Mulsant Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Faiza Siddiqui; Marija Barbateskovic; Sophie Juul; Kiran Kumar Katakam; Klaus Munkholm; Christian Gluud; Janus Christian Jakobsen Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2021-06-09
Authors: Susan D Shenkin; Jennifer K Harrison; Tim Wilkinson; Richard M Dodds; John P A Ioannidis Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Luis Agüera-Ortiz; María Dolores Claver-Martín; María Dolores Franco-Fernández; Jorge López-Álvarez; Manuel Martín-Carrasco; María Isabel Ramos-García; Manuel Sánchez-Pérez Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 4.157