BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is a common mental disorder affecting a person's mind, behaviour and body. It is expressed as a variety of symptoms and is associated with substantial impairment. Despite a range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options, there is still room for improvement of the pharmacological treatment of depression in terms of efficacy and tolerability. The latest available antidepressant is vortioxetine. It is assumed that vortioxetine's antidepressant action is related to a direct modulation of serotonergic receptor activity and inhibition of the serotonin transporter. The mechanism of action is not fully understood, but it is claimed to be novel. Vortioxetine was placed in the category of "Other" antidepressants and may therefore provide an alternative to existing antidepressant drugs. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and acceptability of vortioxetine compared with placebo and other antidepressant drugs in the treatment of acute depression in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane's Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register to May 2016 without applying any restrictions to date, language or publication status. We checked reference lists of relevant studies and reviews, regulatory agency reports and trial databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy, tolerability, or both of vortioxetine versus placebo or any other antidepressant agent in the treatment of acute depression in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the studies and extracted data. We extracted data on study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability. We analysed intention-to-treat (ITT) data only and used risk ratios (RR) as effect sizes for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Meta-analyses used random-effects models. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 studies (7746 participants) in this review. Seven studies were placebo controlled; eight studies compared vortioxetine to serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). We were unable to identify any study that compared vortioxetine to antidepressant drugs from other classes, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).Vortioxetine may be more effective than placebo across the three efficacy outcomes: response (Mantel-Haenszel RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.49; 14 studies, 6220 participants), remission (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.53; 14 studies, 6220 participants) and depressive symptoms measured using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Scale (MADRS) (score range: 0 to 34; higher score means worse outcome: MD -2.94, 95% CI -4.07 to -1.80; 14 studies, 5566 participants). The quality of the evidence was low for response and remission and very low for depressive symptoms. We found no evidence of a difference in total dropout rates (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.19; 14 studies, 6220 participants). More participants discontinued vortioxetine than placebo because of adverse effects (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.81; 14 studies, 6220 participants) but fewer discontinued due to inefficacy (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.90, P = 0.02; 14 studies, 6220 participants). The quality of the evidence for dropouts was moderate.The subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not reveal factors that significantly influenced the results.In comparison with other antidepressants, very low-quality evidence from eight studies showed no clinically significant difference between vortioxetine and SNRIs as a class for response (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.00; 3159 participants) or remission (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; 3155 participants). There was a small difference favouring SNRIs for depressive symptom scores on the MADRS (MD 1.52, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.53; 8 studies, 2807 participants). Very low quality evidence from eight studies (3159 participants) showed no significant differences between vortioxetine and the SNRIs as a class for total dropout rates (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.08), dropouts due to adverse events (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.08) and dropouts due to inefficacy (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.30).Against individual antidepressants, analyses suggested that vortioxetine may be less effective than duloxetine in terms of response rates (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94; 6 studies, 2392 participants) and depressive symptoms scores on the MADRS scale (MD 1.99, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.83; 6 studies; 2106 participants). Against venlafaxine, meta-analysis of two studies found no statistically significant differences (response: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.25; 767 participants; depressive symptom scores: MD 0.02, 95% CI -2.49 to 2.54; 701 participants). In terms of number of participants reporting at least one adverse effect (tolerability), vortioxetine was better than the SNRIs as a class (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.94; 8 studies, 3134 participants) and duloxetine (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; 6 studies; 2376 participants). However, the sensitivity analysis casts some doubts on this result, as only two studies used comparable dosing.We judged none of the studies to have a high risk of bias for any domain, but we rated all studies to have an unclear risk of bias of selective reporting and other biases. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The place of vortioxetine in the treatment of acute depression is unclear. Our analyses showed vortioxetine may be more effective than placebo in terms of response, remission and depressive symptoms, but the clinical relevance of these effects is uncertain. Furthermore, the quality of evidence to support these findings was generally low. In comparison to SNRIs, we found no advantage for vortioxetine. Vortioxetine was less effective than duloxetine, but fewer people reported adverse effects when treated with vortioxetine compared to duloxetine. However, these findings are uncertain and not well supported by evidence. A major limitation of the current evidence is the lack of comparisons with the SSRIs, which are usually recommended as first-line treatments for acute depression. Studies with direct comparisons to SSRIs are needed to address this gap and may be supplemented by network meta-analyses to define the role of vortioxetine in the treatment of depression.
BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is a common mental disorder affecting a person's mind, behaviour and body. It is expressed as a variety of symptoms and is associated with substantial impairment. Despite a range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options, there is still room for improvement of the pharmacological treatment of depression in terms of efficacy and tolerability. The latest available antidepressant is vortioxetine. It is assumed that vortioxetine's antidepressant action is related to a direct modulation of serotonergic receptor activity and inhibition of the serotonin transporter. The mechanism of action is not fully understood, but it is claimed to be novel. Vortioxetine was placed in the category of "Other" antidepressants and may therefore provide an alternative to existing antidepressant drugs. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and acceptability of vortioxetine compared with placebo and other antidepressant drugs in the treatment of acute depression in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane's Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register to May 2016 without applying any restrictions to date, language or publication status. We checked reference lists of relevant studies and reviews, regulatory agency reports and trial databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy, tolerability, or both of vortioxetine versus placebo or any other antidepressant agent in the treatment of acute depression in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the studies and extracted data. We extracted data on study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability. We analysed intention-to-treat (ITT) data only and used risk ratios (RR) as effect sizes for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Meta-analyses used random-effects models. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 studies (7746 participants) in this review. Seven studies were placebo controlled; eight studies compared vortioxetine to serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). We were unable to identify any study that compared vortioxetine to antidepressant drugs from other classes, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).Vortioxetine may be more effective than placebo across the three efficacy outcomes: response (Mantel-Haenszel RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.49; 14 studies, 6220 participants), remission (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.53; 14 studies, 6220 participants) and depressive symptoms measured using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Scale (MADRS) (score range: 0 to 34; higher score means worse outcome: MD -2.94, 95% CI -4.07 to -1.80; 14 studies, 5566 participants). The quality of the evidence was low for response and remission and very low for depressive symptoms. We found no evidence of a difference in total dropout rates (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.19; 14 studies, 6220 participants). More participants discontinued vortioxetine than placebo because of adverse effects (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.81; 14 studies, 6220 participants) but fewer discontinued due to inefficacy (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.90, P = 0.02; 14 studies, 6220 participants). The quality of the evidence for dropouts was moderate.The subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not reveal factors that significantly influenced the results.In comparison with other antidepressants, very low-quality evidence from eight studies showed no clinically significant difference between vortioxetine and SNRIs as a class for response (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.00; 3159 participants) or remission (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; 3155 participants). There was a small difference favouring SNRIs for depressive symptom scores on the MADRS (MD 1.52, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.53; 8 studies, 2807 participants). Very low quality evidence from eight studies (3159 participants) showed no significant differences between vortioxetine and the SNRIs as a class for total dropout rates (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.08), dropouts due to adverse events (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.08) and dropouts due to inefficacy (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.30).Against individual antidepressants, analyses suggested that vortioxetine may be less effective than duloxetine in terms of response rates (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94; 6 studies, 2392 participants) and depressive symptoms scores on the MADRS scale (MD 1.99, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.83; 6 studies; 2106 participants). Against venlafaxine, meta-analysis of two studies found no statistically significant differences (response: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.25; 767 participants; depressive symptom scores: MD 0.02, 95% CI -2.49 to 2.54; 701 participants). In terms of number of participants reporting at least one adverse effect (tolerability), vortioxetine was better than the SNRIs as a class (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.94; 8 studies, 3134 participants) and duloxetine (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; 6 studies; 2376 participants). However, the sensitivity analysis casts some doubts on this result, as only two studies used comparable dosing.We judged none of the studies to have a high risk of bias for any domain, but we rated all studies to have an unclear risk of bias of selective reporting and other biases. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The place of vortioxetine in the treatment of acute depression is unclear. Our analyses showed vortioxetine may be more effective than placebo in terms of response, remission and depressive symptoms, but the clinical relevance of these effects is uncertain. Furthermore, the quality of evidence to support these findings was generally low. In comparison to SNRIs, we found no advantage for vortioxetine. Vortioxetine was less effective than duloxetine, but fewer people reported adverse effects when treated with vortioxetine compared to duloxetine. However, these findings are uncertain and not well supported by evidence. A major limitation of the current evidence is the lack of comparisons with the SSRIs, which are usually recommended as first-line treatments for acute depression. Studies with direct comparisons to SSRIs are needed to address this gap and may be supplemented by network meta-analyses to define the role of vortioxetine in the treatment of depression.
Authors: Gerald Gartlehner; Richard A Hansen; Laura C Morgan; Kylie Thaler; Linda Lux; Megan Van Noord; Ursula Mager; Patricia Thieda; Bradley N Gaynes; Tania Wilkins; Michaela Strobelberger; Stacey Lloyd; Ursula Reichenpfader; Kathleen N Lohr Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Theo Vos; Abraham D Flaxman; Mohsen Naghavi; Rafael Lozano; Catherine Michaud; Majid Ezzati; Kenji Shibuya; Joshua A Salomon; Safa Abdalla; Victor Aboyans; Jerry Abraham; Ilana Ackerman; Rakesh Aggarwal; Stephanie Y Ahn; Mohammed K Ali; Miriam Alvarado; H Ross Anderson; Laurie M Anderson; Kathryn G Andrews; Charles Atkinson; Larry M Baddour; Adil N Bahalim; Suzanne Barker-Collo; Lope H Barrero; David H Bartels; Maria-Gloria Basáñez; Amanda Baxter; Michelle L Bell; Emelia J Benjamin; Derrick Bennett; Eduardo Bernabé; Kavi Bhalla; Bishal Bhandari; Boris Bikbov; Aref Bin Abdulhak; Gretchen Birbeck; James A Black; Hannah Blencowe; Jed D Blore; Fiona Blyth; Ian Bolliger; Audrey Bonaventure; Soufiane Boufous; Rupert Bourne; Michel Boussinesq; Tasanee Braithwaite; Carol Brayne; Lisa Bridgett; Simon Brooker; Peter Brooks; Traolach S Brugha; Claire Bryan-Hancock; Chiara Bucello; Rachelle Buchbinder; Geoffrey Buckle; Christine M Budke; Michael Burch; Peter Burney; Roy Burstein; Bianca Calabria; Benjamin Campbell; Charles E Canter; Hélène Carabin; Jonathan Carapetis; Loreto Carmona; Claudia Cella; Fiona Charlson; Honglei Chen; Andrew Tai-Ann Cheng; David Chou; Sumeet S Chugh; Luc E Coffeng; Steven D Colan; Samantha Colquhoun; K Ellicott Colson; John Condon; Myles D Connor; Leslie T Cooper; Matthew Corriere; Monica Cortinovis; Karen Courville de Vaccaro; William Couser; Benjamin C Cowie; Michael H Criqui; Marita Cross; Kaustubh C Dabhadkar; Manu Dahiya; Nabila Dahodwala; James Damsere-Derry; Goodarz Danaei; Adrian Davis; Diego De Leo; Louisa Degenhardt; Robert Dellavalle; Allyne Delossantos; Julie Denenberg; Sarah Derrett; Don C Des Jarlais; Samath D Dharmaratne; Mukesh Dherani; Cesar Diaz-Torne; Helen Dolk; E Ray Dorsey; Tim Driscoll; Herbert Duber; Beth Ebel; Karen Edmond; Alexis Elbaz; Suad Eltahir Ali; Holly Erskine; Patricia J Erwin; Patricia Espindola; Stalin E Ewoigbokhan; Farshad Farzadfar; Valery Feigin; David T Felson; Alize Ferrari; Cleusa P Ferri; Eric M Fèvre; Mariel M Finucane; Seth Flaxman; Louise Flood; Kyle Foreman; Mohammad H Forouzanfar; Francis Gerry R Fowkes; Richard Franklin; Marlene Fransen; Michael K Freeman; Belinda J Gabbe; Sherine E Gabriel; Emmanuela Gakidou; Hammad A Ganatra; Bianca Garcia; Flavio Gaspari; Richard F Gillum; Gerhard Gmel; Richard Gosselin; Rebecca Grainger; Justina Groeger; Francis Guillemin; David Gunnell; Ramyani Gupta; Juanita Haagsma; Holly Hagan; Yara A Halasa; Wayne Hall; Diana Haring; Josep Maria Haro; James E Harrison; Rasmus Havmoeller; Roderick J Hay; Hideki Higashi; Catherine Hill; Bruno Hoen; Howard Hoffman; Peter J Hotez; Damian Hoy; John J Huang; Sydney E Ibeanusi; Kathryn H Jacobsen; Spencer L James; Deborah Jarvis; Rashmi Jasrasaria; Sudha Jayaraman; Nicole Johns; Jost B Jonas; Ganesan Karthikeyan; Nicholas Kassebaum; Norito Kawakami; Andre Keren; Jon-Paul Khoo; Charles H King; Lisa Marie Knowlton; Olive Kobusingye; Adofo Koranteng; Rita Krishnamurthi; Ratilal Lalloo; Laura L Laslett; Tim Lathlean; Janet L Leasher; Yong Yi Lee; James Leigh; Stephen S Lim; Elizabeth Limb; John Kent Lin; Michael Lipnick; Steven E Lipshultz; Wei Liu; Maria Loane; Summer Lockett Ohno; Ronan Lyons; Jixiang Ma; Jacqueline Mabweijano; Michael F MacIntyre; Reza Malekzadeh; Leslie Mallinger; Sivabalan Manivannan; Wagner Marcenes; Lyn March; David J Margolis; Guy B Marks; Robin Marks; Akira Matsumori; Richard Matzopoulos; Bongani M Mayosi; John H McAnulty; Mary M McDermott; Neil McGill; John McGrath; Maria Elena Medina-Mora; Michele Meltzer; George A Mensah; Tony R Merriman; Ana-Claire Meyer; Valeria Miglioli; Matthew Miller; Ted R Miller; Philip B Mitchell; Ana Olga Mocumbi; Terrie E Moffitt; Ali A Mokdad; Lorenzo Monasta; Marcella Montico; Maziar Moradi-Lakeh; Andrew Moran; Lidia Morawska; Rintaro Mori; Michele E Murdoch; Michael K Mwaniki; Kovin Naidoo; M Nathan Nair; Luigi Naldi; K M Venkat Narayan; Paul K Nelson; Robert G Nelson; Michael C Nevitt; Charles R Newton; Sandra Nolte; Paul Norman; Rosana Norman; Martin O'Donnell; Simon O'Hanlon; Casey Olives; Saad B Omer; Katrina Ortblad; Richard Osborne; Doruk Ozgediz; Andrew Page; Bishnu Pahari; Jeyaraj Durai Pandian; Andrea Panozo Rivero; Scott B Patten; Neil Pearce; Rogelio Perez Padilla; Fernando Perez-Ruiz; Norberto Perico; Konrad Pesudovs; David Phillips; Michael R Phillips; Kelsey Pierce; Sébastien Pion; Guilherme V Polanczyk; Suzanne Polinder; C Arden Pope; Svetlana Popova; Esteban Porrini; Farshad Pourmalek; Martin Prince; Rachel L Pullan; Kapa D Ramaiah; Dharani Ranganathan; Homie Razavi; Mathilda Regan; Jürgen T Rehm; David B Rein; Guiseppe Remuzzi; Kathryn Richardson; Frederick P Rivara; Thomas Roberts; Carolyn Robinson; Felipe Rodriguez De Leòn; Luca Ronfani; Robin Room; Lisa C Rosenfeld; Lesley Rushton; Ralph L Sacco; Sukanta Saha; Uchechukwu Sampson; Lidia Sanchez-Riera; Ella Sanman; David C Schwebel; James Graham Scott; Maria Segui-Gomez; Saeid Shahraz; Donald S Shepard; Hwashin Shin; Rupak Shivakoti; David Singh; Gitanjali M Singh; Jasvinder A Singh; Jessica Singleton; David A Sleet; Karen Sliwa; Emma Smith; Jennifer L Smith; Nicolas J C Stapelberg; Andrew Steer; Timothy Steiner; Wilma A Stolk; Lars Jacob Stovner; Christopher Sudfeld; Sana Syed; Giorgio Tamburlini; Mohammad Tavakkoli; Hugh R Taylor; Jennifer A Taylor; William J Taylor; Bernadette Thomas; W Murray Thomson; George D Thurston; Imad M Tleyjeh; Marcello Tonelli; Jeffrey A Towbin; Thomas Truelsen; Miltiadis K Tsilimbaris; Clotilde Ubeda; Eduardo A Undurraga; Marieke J van der Werf; Jim van Os; Monica S Vavilala; N Venketasubramanian; Mengru Wang; Wenzhi Wang; Kerrianne Watt; David J Weatherall; Martin A Weinstock; Robert Weintraub; Marc G Weisskopf; Myrna M Weissman; Richard A White; Harvey Whiteford; Steven T Wiersma; James D Wilkinson; Hywel C Williams; Sean R M Williams; Emma Witt; Frederick Wolfe; Anthony D Woolf; Sarah Wulf; Pon-Hsiu Yeh; Anita K M Zaidi; Zhi-Jie Zheng; David Zonies; Alan D Lopez; Christopher J L Murray; Mohammad A AlMazroa; Ziad A Memish Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-12-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Christian Otte; Woo Ri Chae; Jan Nowacki; Michael Kaczmarczyk; Dominique Piber; Stefan Roepke; Stefanie Märschenz; Sandra Lischewski; Sein Schmidt; Barbara Ettrich; Hans Joergen Grabe; Ulrich Hegerl; Kim Hinkelmann; Tobias Hofmann; Deborah Janowitz; Klaus Junghanns; Kai G Kahl; Jan Philipp Klein; Tillmann H C Krueger; Gregor Leicht; David Prvulovic; Andreas Reif; Daniel Schoettle; Maria Strauss; Anna Westermair; Tim Friede; Stefan M Gold Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 2.692