Impact of sedative and appetite-increasing properties on the apparent antidepressant efficacy of mirtazapine, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and amitriptyline: an item-based, patient-level meta-analysis.

Background: In an influential network meta-analysis, the tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) amitriptyline was found to be the most efficacious of 21 antidepressants, hence outranking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). The alpha/5HT///H antagonist mirtazapine was ranked as the second most effective and appeared at least as effective as the SSRIs and SNRIs that followed next. Since the most common effect parameter in depression trials-the sum score of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17-sum)-includes three items measuring sleep and two measuring appetite and weight, this outcome could be the result of amitriptyline and mirtazapine being more sedative and orexigenic.

The complex clinical response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in depression: a network perspective.

The clinical response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in depression takes weeks to be fully developed and is still not entirely understood. This study aimed to determine the direct and indirect effects of SSRIs relative to a placebo control condition on clinical symptoms of depression. We included data of 8262 adult patients with major depression participating in 28 industry-sponsored US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) registered trials on the efficacy of SSRIs.

Kidney function and prescribed dose in middle-aged and older patients starting selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

Purpose: To avoid adverse drug reactions, dose reductions are recommended when prescribing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) to patients with impaired kidney function. The extent of this practice in routine clinical care is however unknown. We aimed to evaluate the starting and maintenance SSRI doses prescribed to patients stratified by levels of kidney function in real-world practice.

Impact of chosen cutoff on response rate differences between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and placebo.

Response defined as a 50% reduction in the sum score of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17-sum) is often used to assess the efficacy of antidepressants. Critics have, however, argued that dichotomising ratings with a cutoff close to the median may lead to scores clustering on either side, the result being inflation of miniscule drug-placebo differences. Using pooled patient-level data sets from trials of three selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (citalopram, paroxetine and sertraline) (n = 7909), and from similar trials of duloxetine (n = 3478), we thus assessed the impact of different cutoffs on response rates.

Determining maximal achievable effect sizes of antidepressant therapies in placebo-controlled trials.

Objective: Antidepressants outperform placebo with an effect size of around 0.30. It has been suggested that effect sizes as high as 0.

Do side effects of antidepressants impact efficacy estimates based on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale? A pooled patient-level analysis.

The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) measures symptoms that may overlap with common antidepressant side effects (e.g., sexual dysfunction), thus making it possible that side effects of antidepressant treatment are erroneously rated as symptoms of depression, and vice versa.

Low SSRI dosing in clinical practice-a register-based longitudinal study.

Objective: Since several recent meta-analyses report a dose-response relationship for the antidepressant effect of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), we investigated how these drugs are dosed in clinical practice.

Methods: Through linkage of nation- or region-wide registers, we describe SSRI doses in 50,365 individuals residing in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden, with an incident diagnosis of depression and initiating SSRI treatment between 2007 and 2016. The primary question was to elucidate to what extent these individuals had been prescribed a daily dose that according to recent meta-analyses is required to elicit the maximum antidepressant effect, that is >20 mg citalopram, >10 mg escitalopram, >10 mg fluoxetine, >10 mg paroxetine or >50 mg sertraline.

5-HT receptor antagonism reduces defecation in rat: A potential treatment strategy for irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea.

Whereas the potential role of serotonin for the pathophysiology of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) has since long been discussed, the possibility that 5-hydroxytryptamine 6 (5-HT) receptors may serve as targets for the treatment of this condition has as yet not been explored. The aim of the current study was to assess to what extent defecation in rats is influenced by manipulation of 5-HT receptors. Reduced defecation following SB-399885 was observed in non-stressed animals assessed for 7 h after drug administration.

Item-based analysis of the effects of duloxetine in depression: a patient-level post hoc study.

Oft-cited trial-level meta-analyses casting doubt on the usefulness of antidepressants have been based on re-analyses of to what extent the active drug has outperformed placebo in reducing the sum score of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17-sum) in clinical trials. Recent studies, however, suggest patient-level analyses of individual HDRS items to be more informative when assessing the efficacy of an antidepressant. To shed further light on both symptom-reducing and symptom-aggravating effects of a serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, duloxetine, when used for major depression in adults, we hence applied this approach to re-analyse data from 13 placebo-controlled trials.

Influence of baseline severity on the effects of SSRIs in depression: an item-based, patient-level post-hoc analysis.

Background: Reports claiming that antidepressants are effective only in patients with severe depression have affected treatment guidelines but these reports usually use a disputed measure of improvement, a decrease in the sum-score of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17), and are based on group-level rather than patient-level data.

Method: In this item-based, patient-level, post-hoc analysis, we pooled data from all completed, acute-phase, placebo-controlled, industry-sponsored, HDRS-based trials of the SSRIs citalopram, paroxetine, or sertraline in adult major depression. Patient-level data were pooled and subjected to item-based post-hoc analyses to assess the effect of baseline severity of depression on the response to treatment as assessed with HDRS-17 sum score, the depressed mood item of the HDRS, a six-item HDRS subscale (HDRS-6), and the remaining 11 HDRS items not included in this subscale (non-HDRS-6).

Katakam and co-workers have not shown SSRIs to be harmful and ineffective and should stop claiming that they have.

Funded by the Danish state to provide guidance in health-related matters, the Copenhagen Trial Unit (CTU) at Rigshospitalet may cause considerable societal harm if allowing their analyses to be influenced by bias and prejudice rather than rigor and impartiality. This is why we found it worthwhile to comment on a report from the CTU in which the authors invoked analyses marred by numerous errors and methodological mistakes to claim that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are harmful and ineffective. The CTU group has now produced a response to our comment which is on par with their original contribution in terms of bias, misconceptions and mistakes.

Multiple possible inaccuracies cast doubt on a recent report suggesting selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors to be toxic and ineffective.

According to a systematic review on the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in adult depression that was recently published in BMC Psychiatry, the results of which have been widely disseminated in lay media, these drugs increase the risk for serious adverse events (SAEs) while exerting poor antidepressant efficacy. A cursory analysis, however, suggests the analysis of SAEs conducted by the authors to be marred by both methodological inaccuracies and blatant errors. After having corrected for these apparent mistakes, we conducted a sensitivity analysis in which we also accounted for a possible moderating effect of age; while this suggests SSRIs to be safe drugs in the non-elderly, they do confirm what is already known, that is, that they may enhance the risk for SAEs in the old.