Comparative efficacy and acceptability of first-generation and second-generation antidepressants in the acute treatment of major depression: Protocol for a network meta-analysis

BMJ Open

Volumn 6, Issue 7, 2016, Pages

  Furukawa, Toshi A ^a   Salanti, Georgia ^b,c   Atkinson, Lauren Z ^d   Leucht, Stefan ^e   Ruhe, Henricus G ^f,g   Turner, Erick H ^h,i   Chaimani, Anna ^c   Ogawa, Yusuke ^a   Takeshima, Nozomi ^a   Hayasaka, Yu ^a   Imai, Hissei ^a   Shinohara, Kiyomi ^a   Suganuma, Aya ^a   Watanabe, Norio ^a   Stockton, Sarah ^d   Geddes, John R ^d,j   Cipriani, Andrea ^d,j  

^a KYOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF IOANNINA   (Greece)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^e TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^f UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^g UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^h PORTLAND VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

ⁱ OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^j WARNEFORD HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGOMELATINE; AMFEBUTAMONE; AMITRIPTYLINE; ANTIDEPRESSANT AGENT; CITALOPRAM; CLOMIPRAMINE; DESVENLAFAXINE; DULOXETINE; ESCITALOPRAM; FLUOXETINE; FLUVOXAMINE; MILNACIPRAN; MIRTAZAPINE; NEFAZODONE; PAROXETINE; REBOXETINE; SERTRALINE; TRAZODONE; VENLAFAXINE; VILAZODONE; VORTIOXETINE;

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DRUG EFFICACY; HUMAN; MAJOR DEPRESSION; META ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SELECTION BIAS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT RESPONSE; BAYES THEOREM; COMPARATIVE STUDY; NETWORK META-ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ANTIDEPRESSIVE AGENTS; ANTIDEPRESSIVE AGENTS, SECOND-GENERATION; BAYES THEOREM; DEPRESSIVE DISORDER, MAJOR; HUMANS; NETWORK META-ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84978505054     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010919     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, et al. The epidemiology of major depressive disorder: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS- R). JAMA 2003; 289: 3095-105
2. Greenberg PE, Kessler RC, Birnbaum HG, et al. The economic burden of depression in the United States: how did it change between 1990 and 2000?. J Clin Psychiatry 2003; 64: 1465-75
3. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, 2011. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2011/a95053-eng.pdf. 26240823
4. Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Salanti G, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple treatment meta-Analysis. Lancet 2009; 373: 746-58
5. Gartlehner G, Hansen RA, Morgan LC, et al. Comparative benefits and harms of second-generation antidepressants for treating major depressive disorder: an updated meta-Analysis. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 772-85
6. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 2005; 331: 897-900
7. Salanti G, Marinho V, Higgins JP. A case study of multiple-Treatments meta-Analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 857-64
8. Cipriani A, Higgins JP, Geddes JR, et al. Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-Analysis. Ann Intern Med 2013; 159: 130-7
9. Elliott WJ, Meyer PM. Incident diabetes in clinical trials of antihypertensive drugs: a network meta-Analysis. Lancet 2007; 369: 201-7
10. Cipriani A, Barbui C, Salanti G, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antimanic drugs in acute mania: a multiple-Treatments meta-Analysis. Lancet 2011; 378: 1306-15
11. Leucht S, Cipriani A, Spineli L, et al. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 15 antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: a multiple-Treatments meta-Analysis. Lancet 2013; 382: 951-62
12. Miura T, Noma H, Furukawa TA, et al. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological treatments in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder: a systematic review and network meta-Analysis. Lancet Psychiatry 2014; 1: 351-9
13. Cooper PJ, Murray L. Postnatal depression. BMJ 1998; 316: 1884-6
14. Linde K, Kriston L, Rücker G, et al. Efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological treatments for depressive disorders in primary care: systematic review and network meta-Analysis. Ann Fam Med 2015; 13: 69-79
15. Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, et al. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 252-60
16. da Costa BR, Nüesch E, Rutjes AW, et al. Combining follow-up and change data is valid in meta-Analyses of continuous outcomes: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 847-55
17. Furukawa TA, Akechi T, Azuma H, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for interpretation of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2007; 27: 531-4
18. Bandelow B, Baldwin DS, Dolberg OT, et al. What is the threshold for symptomatic response and remission for major depressive disorder, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder?. J Clin Psychiatry 2006; 67: 1428-34
19. Wu TX, Li YP, Liu GJ, et al. Investigation of authenticity of ?claimed? randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quality assessment of RCT reports published in China. Dublin, Ireland: Presented at XIV Cochrane Colloquium, 2006
20. Furukawa TA, Cipriani A, Barbui C, et al. Imputing response rates from means and standard deviations in meta-Analysis. Int Clin Psychopharm 2005; 20: 49-52
21. Furukawa TA, Barbui C, Cipriani A, et al. Imputing missing standard deviations in meta-Analyses can provide accurate results. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 7-10
22. Little RJ, D?Agostino R, Cohen ML, et al. The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 1355-60
23. Spineli LM, Pandis N, Salanti G. Reporting and handling missing outcome data in mental health: a systematic review of Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-Analyses. Res Synth Methods 2015; 6: 175-87
24. Rutherford BR, Sneed JR, Roose SP. Does differential drop-out explain the influence of study design on antidepressant response?. A meta-Analysis. J Affect Disord 2012; 140: 57-65
25. Mavridis D, Chaimani A, Efthimiou O, et al. Addressing missing outcome data in meta-Analysis. Evid Based Ment Health 2014; 17: 85-9
26. Spineli LM, Higgins JP, Cipriani A, et al. Evaluating the impact of imputations for missing participant outcome data in a network meta-Analysis. Clin Trials 2013; 10: 378-88
27. Caddy C, Amit BH, McCloud TL, et al. Ketamine and other glutamate receptor modulators for depression in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 9: CD011612
28. Chaimani A, Higgins JP, Mavridis D, et al. Graphical tools for network meta-Analysis in STATA. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e76654
29. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org
30. Furukawa TA, Miura T, Chaimani A, et al. Using the contribution matrix to evaluate complex study limitations in a network meta-Analysis: a case study of bipolar maintenance pharmacotherapy review. BMC Res Notes 2016; 9: 218
31. Turner RM, Jackson D, Wei Y, et al. Predictive distributions for between-study heterogeneity and simple methods for their application in Bayesian meta-Analysis. Stat Med 2015; 34: 984-98
32. Rhodes KM, Turner RM, Higgins JP. Predictive distributions were developed for the extent of heterogeneity in meta-Analyses of continuous outcome data. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68: 52-60
33. Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-Treatment comparison, network, or multiple-Treatments meta-Analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods 2012; 3: 80-97
34. Taylor DM, Cornelius V, Smith L, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of drug treatments for bipolar depression: a multipletreatments meta-Analysis. Acta Psych Scand 2014; 130: 452-69
35. Wijkstra J, Lijmer J, Burger H, et al. Pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 7: CD004044
36. Barbui C, Cipriani A, Patel V, et al. Efficacy of antidepressants and benzodiazepines in minor depression: systematic review and meta-Analysis. Br J Psychiatry 2011; 198: 11-16
37. Fournier JC, DeRubeis RJ, Hollon SD, et al. Antidepressant drug effects and depression severity: a patient-level meta-Analysis. JAMA 2010; 303: 47-53
38. Gibbons RD, Hur K, Brown CH, et al. Benefits from antidepressants: synthesis of 6-week patient-level outcomes from double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials of fluoxetine and venlafaxine. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2012; 69: 572-9
39. Khan A, Kolts RL, Thase ME, et al. Research design feature and patient characteristics associated with the outcome of antidepressant clinical trials. Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161: 2045-9
40. Rutherford BR, Sneed JR, Roose SP. Does study design influence outcome?. The effects of placebo control and treatment duration in antidepressant trials. Psychother Psychosom 2009; 78: 172-81
41. Sinyor M, Levitt AJ, Cheung AH, et al. Does inclusion of a placebo arm influence response to active antidepressant treatment in randomized controlled trials?. Results from pooled and meta-Analyses. J Clin Psychiatry 2010; 71: 270-9
42. Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-Treatment meta-Analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 163-71
43. Salanti G, Del Giovane C, Chaimani A, et al. Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2014; 9: e99682
44. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, et al. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-Analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 683-91
45. Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, et al. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-Analysis. Stat Med 2010; 29: 932-44
46. Higgins JP, Jackson D, Barrett JK, et al. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-Analysis: concepts and models for multi-Arm studies. Res Synth Methods 2012; 3: 98-110
47. Jackson D, Barrett JK, Rice S, et al. A design-by-Treatment interaction model for network meta-Analysis with random inconsistency effects. Stat Med 2014; 33: 3639-54
48. Veroniki AA, Mavridis D, Higgins JP, et al. Characteristics of a loop of evidence that affect detection and estimation of inconsistency: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14: 106
49. Veroniki AA, Vasiliadis HS, Higgins JP, et al. Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions. Int J Epidemiol 2013; 42: 332-45
50. Greenberg RP, Bornstein RF, Greenberg MD, et al. A meta-Analysis of antidepressant outcome under "blinder? conditions. J Consult Clin Psychol 1992; 60: 664-9; discussion 670-7
51. Papakostas GI, Fava M. Does the probability of receiving placebo influence clinical trial outcome?. A meta-regression of double-blind, randomized clinical trials in MDD. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2009; 19: 34-40
52. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, et al. Contour-enhanced meta-Analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 991-6
53. Chaimani A, Salanti G. Using network meta-Analysis to evaluate the existence of small-study effects in a network of interventions. Res Synth Methods 2012; 3: 161-76
54. Mavridis D, Welton NJ, Sutton A, et al. A selection model for accounting for publication bias in a full network meta-Analysis. Stat Med 2014; 33: 5399-412
55. Lunn D, Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, et al. The BUGS project: evolution, critique and future directions. Stat Med 2009; 28: 3049-67
56. White IR, Barrett JK, Jackson D, et al. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-Analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta-regression. Res Synth Methods 2012; 3: 111-25
57. Schwarzer G. Network meta-Analysis. In: Schwarzer G, Carpenter JR, Rücker G, eds. Meta-Analysis with R. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2015: 187-216