Antidepressant Augmentation versus Switch in Treatment-Resistant Geriatric Depression.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and risks of augmenting or switching antidepressants in older adults with treatment-resistant depression have not been extensively studied. METHODS: We conducted a two-step, open-label trial involving adults 60 years of age or older with treatment-resistant depression. In step 1, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to augmentation of existing antidepressant medication with aripiprazole, augmentation with bupropion, or a switch from existing antidepressant medication to bupropion. Patients who did not benefit from or were ineligible for step 1 were randomly assigned in step 2 in a 1:1 ratio to augmentation with lithium or a switch to nortriptyline. Each step lasted approximately 10 weeks. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in psychological well-being, assessed with the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Positive Affect and General Life Satisfaction subscales (population mean, 50; higher scores indicate greater well-being). A secondary outcome was remission of depression. RESULTS: In step 1, a total of 619 patients were enrolled; 211 were assigned to aripiprazole augmentation, 206 to bupropion augmentation, and 202 to a switch to bupropion. Well-being scores improved by 4.83 points, 4.33 points, and 2.04 points, respectively. The difference between the aripiprazole-augmentation group and the switch-to-bupropion group was 2.79 points (95% CI, 0.56 to 5.02; P = 0.014, with a prespecified threshold P value of 0.017); the between-group differences were not significant for aripiprazole augmentation versus bupropion augmentation or for bupropion augmentation versus a switch to bupropion. Remission occurred in 28.9% of patients in the aripiprazole-augmentation group, 28.2% in the bupropion-augmentation group, and 19.3% in the switch-to-bupropion group. The rate of falls was highest with bupropion augmentation. In step 2, a total of 248 patients were enrolled; 127 were assigned to lithium augmentation and 121 to a switch to nortriptyline. Well-being scores improved by 3.17 points and 2.18 points, respectively (difference, 0.99; 95% CI, -1.92 to 3.91). Remission occurred in 18.9% of patients in the lithium-augmentation group and 21.5% in the switch-to-nortriptyline group; rates of falling were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In older adults with treatment-resistant depression, augmentation of existing antidepressants with aripiprazole improved well-being significantly more over 10 weeks than a switch to bupropion and was associated with a numerically higher incidence of remission. Among patients in whom augmentation or a switch to bupropion failed, changes in well-being and the occurrence of remission with lithium augmentation or a switch to nortriptyline were similar. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; OPTIMUM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02960763.).

Effectiveness of Antidepressants in Combination with Psychotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Consensus-guidelines for prescribing antidepressants recommend that clinicians should be vigilant to match antidepressants to patient's medical history but provide no specific advice on which antidepressant is best for a given medical history. AIMS OF THE STUDY: For patients with major depression who are in psychotherapy, this study provides an empirically derived guideline for prescribing antidepressant medications that fit patients' medical history. METHODS: This retrospective, observational, cohort study analyzed a large insurance database of 3,678,082 patients. Data was obtained from healthcare providers in the U.S. between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2018. These patients had 10,221,145 episodes of antidepressant treatments. This study reports the remission rates for the 14 most commonly prescribed single antidepressants (amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, doxepin, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, mirtazapine, nortriptyline, paroxetine, sertraline, trazodone, and venlafaxine) and a category named "Other" (other antidepressants/combination of antidepressants). The study used robust LASSO regressions to identify factors that affected remission rate and clinicians' selection of antidepressants. The selection bias in observational data was removed through stratification. We organized the data into 16,770 subgroups, of at least 100 cases, using the combination of the largest factors that affected remission and selection bias. This paper reports on 2,467 subgroups of patients who had received psychotherapy. RESULTS: We found large, and statistically significant, differences in remission rates within subgroups of patients. Remission rates for sertraline ranged from 4.5% to 77.86%, for fluoxetine from 2.86% to 77.78%, for venlafaxine from 5.07% to 76.44%, for bupropion from 0.5% to 64.63%, for desvenlafaxine from 1.59% to 75%, for duloxetine from 3.77% to 75%, for paroxetine from 6.48% to 68.79%, for escitalopram from 1.85% to 65%, and for citalopram from 4.67% to 76.23%. Clearly these medications are ideal for patients in some subgroups but not others. If patients are matched to the subgroups, clinicians can prescribe the medication that works best in the subgroup. Some medications (amitriptyline, doxepin, nortriptyline, and trazodone) always had remission rates below 11% and therefore were not suitable as single antidepressant therapy for any of the subgroups. DISCUSSIONS: This study provides an opportunity for clinicians to identify an optimal antidepressant for their patients, before they engage in repeated trials of antidepressants. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE: To facilitate the matching of patients to the most effective antidepressants, this study provides access to a free, non-commercial, decision aid at http://MeAgainMeds.com. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES:  Policymakers should evaluate how study findings can be made available through fragmented electronic health records at point-of-care. Alternatively, policymakers can put in place an AI system that recommends antidepressants to patients online, at home, and encourages them to bring the recommendation to their clinicians at their next visit. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH:  Future research could investigate (i) the effectiveness of our recommendations in changing clinical practice, (ii) increasing remission of depression symptoms, and (iii) reducing cost of care. These studies need to be prospective but pragmatic. It is unlikely random clinical trials can address the large number of factors that affect remission.

Clinical characteristics associated with relapse 2 years after electroconvulsive therapy for major depression.

OBJECTIVE: High relapse rates are observed after electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for major depression. Identifying patients who are at increased risk for relapse to intensify their treatment regimen post-ECT might reduce relapse rates. We aimed to determine clinical characteristics that are associated with relapse within 2 years after successful ECT. METHODS: Patients who remitted to ECT in a randomised controlled trial comparing adjuvant nortriptyline and placebo during a course of bilateral ECT were followed-up prospectively for 1 year with open-label nortriptyline (Dutch Trial Register NTR5579). Second-year follow-up data were collected retrospectively. Thirty-four patients were included in this follow-up cohort. To examine the association between clinical characteristics and the risk of relapse, unadjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated. RESULTS: At 2 years post-ECT, the overall relapse rate was 50%, and the HRs for relapse in patients with psychotic features, a higher severity of depression, and medication resistance prior to ECT were 0.33 (CI 0.12-0.89; p = 0.029), 0.88 (CI 0.80-0.98; p = 0.014), and 4.48 (CI 1.28-15.73, p = 0.019), respectively. No effect was found for age, sex or episode duration on the relapse rate. CONCLUSIONS: Depressed patients with psychotic features, with higher symptom severity and without medication resistance prior to ECT have a significantly decreased risk of relapse after successful ECT. A sustained remission rate of 50% over 2 years in patients with severe major depression who were treated with nortriptyline monotherapy after successful ECT is encouraging.

Pharmacological and electronic cigarette interventions for smoking cessation in adults: component network meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease worldwide. Stopping smoking can reduce this harm and many people would like to stop. There are a number of medicines licenced to help people quit globally, and e-cigarettes are used for this purpose in many countries. Typically treatments work by reducing cravings to smoke, thus aiding initial abstinence and preventing relapse. More information on comparative effects of these treatments is needed to inform treatment decisions and policies. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the comparative benefits, harms and tolerability of different smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and e-cigarettes, when used to help people stop smoking tobacco. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies from recent updates of Cochrane Reviews investigating our interventions of interest. We updated the searches for each review using the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group (TAG) specialised register to 29 April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and factorial RCTs, which measured smoking cessation at six months or longer, recruited adults who smoked combustible cigarettes at enrolment (excluding pregnant people) and randomised them to approved pharmacotherapies and technologies used for smoking cessation worldwide (varenicline, cytisine, nortriptyline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and e-cigarettes) versus no pharmacological intervention, placebo (control) or another approved pharmacotherapy. Studies providing co-interventions (e.g. behavioural support) were eligible if the co-intervention was provided equally to study arms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening, data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment (using the RoB 1 tool). Primary outcome measures were smoking cessation at six months or longer, and the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs). We also measured withdrawals due to treatment. We used Bayesian component network meta-analyses (cNMA) to examine intervention type, delivery mode, dose, duration, timing in relation to quit day and tapering of nicotine dose, using odds ratios (OR) and 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). We calculated an effect estimate for combination NRT using an additive model. We evaluated the influence of population and study characteristics, provision of behavioural support and control arm rates using meta-regression. We evaluated certainty using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Of our 332 eligible RCTs, 319 (835 study arms, 157,179 participants) provided sufficient data to be included in our cNMA. Of these, we judged 51 to be at low risk of bias overall, 104 at high risk and 164 at unclear risk, and 118 reported pharmaceutical or e-cigarette/tobacco industry funding. Removing studies at high risk of bias did not change our interpretation of the results. Benefits We found high-certainty evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes (OR 2.37, 95% CrI 1.73 to 3.24; 16 RCTs, 3828 participants), varenicline (OR 2.33, 95% CrI 2.02 to 2.68; 67 RCTs, 16,430 participants) and cytisine (OR 2.21, 95% CrI 1.66 to 2.97; 7 RCTs, 3848 participants) were associated with higher quit rates than control. In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional eight (95% CrI 4 to 13), eight (95% CrI 6 to 10) and seven additional quitters per 100 (95% CrI 4 to 12), respectively. These interventions appeared to be more effective than the other interventions apart from combination NRT (patch and a fast-acting form of NRT), which had a lower point estimate (calculated additive effect) but overlapping 95% CrIs (OR 1.93, 95% CrI 1.61 to 2.34). There was also high-certainty evidence that nicotine patch alone (OR 1.37, 95% CrI 1.20 to 1.56; 105 RCTs, 37,319 participants), fast-acting NRT alone (OR 1.41, 95% CrI 1.29 to 1.55; 120 RCTs, 31,756 participants) and bupropion (OR 1.43, 95% CrI 1.26 to 1.62; 71 RCTs, 14,759 participants) were more effective than control, resulting in two (95% CrI 1 to 3), three (95% CrI 2 to 3) and three (95% CrI 2 to 4) additional quitters per 100 respectively. Nortriptyline is probably associated with higher quit rates than control (OR 1.35, 95% CrI 1.02 to 1.81; 10 RCTs, 1290 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), resulting in two (CrI 0 to 5) additional quitters per 100. Non-nicotine/placebo e-cigarettes (OR 1.16, 95% CrI 0.74 to 1.80; 8 RCTs, 1094 participants; low-certainty evidence), equating to one additional quitter (95% CrI -2 to 5), had point estimates favouring the intervention over control, but CrIs encompassed the potential for no difference and harm. There was low-certainty evidence that tapering the dose of NRT prior to stopping treatment may improve effectiveness; however, 95% CrIs also incorporated the null (OR 1.14, 95% CrI 1.00 to 1.29; 111 RCTs, 33,156 participants). This might lead to an additional one quitter per 100 (95% CrI 0 to 2). Harms There were insufficient data to include nortriptyline and non-nicotine EC in the final SAE model. Overall rates of SAEs for the remaining treatments were low (average 3%). Low-certainty evidence did not show a clear difference in the number of people reporting SAEs for nicotine e-cigarettes, varenicline, cytisine or NRT when compared to no pharmacotherapy/e-cigarettes or placebo. Bupropion may slightly increase rates of SAEs, although the CrI also incorporated no difference (moderate certainty). In absolute terms bupropion may cause one more person in 100 to experience an SAE (95% CrI 0 to 2). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The most effective interventions were nicotine e-cigarettes, varenicline and cytisine (all high certainty), as well as combination NRT (additive effect, certainty not rated). There was also high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of nicotine patch, fast-acting NRT and bupropion. Less certain evidence of benefit was present for nortriptyline (moderate certainty), non-nicotine e-cigarettes and tapering of nicotine dose (both low certainty). There was moderate-certainty evidence that bupropion may slightly increase the frequency of SAEs, although there was also the possibility of no increased risk. There was no clear evidence that any other tested interventions increased SAEs. Overall, SAE data were sparse with very low numbers of SAEs, and so further evidence may change our interpretation and certainty. Future studies should report SAEs to strengthen certainty in this outcome. More head-to-head comparisons of the most effective interventions are needed, as are tests of combinations of these. Future work should unify data from behavioural and pharmacological interventions to inform approaches to combined support for smoking cessation.

A secondary analysis of PAIN-CONTRoLS: Pain's impact on sleep, fatigue, and activities of daily living.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Peripheral neuropathies commonly affect quality of life of patients due to pain, sleep disturbances, and fatigue, although trials have not adequately explored these domains of care. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of nortriptyline, duloxetine, pregabalin, and mexiletine on pain, sleep, and fatigue in patients diagnosed with cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy (CSPN). METHODS: We implemented a Bayesian adaptive design to perform a 12-wk multisite, randomized, prospective, open-label comparative effectiveness study in 402 CSPN patients. Participants received either nortriptyline (n = 134), duloxetine (n = 126), pregabalin (n = 73), or mexiletine (n = 69). At prespecified analysis timepoints, secondary outcomes, Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) surveys including Short Form (SF)-12, pain interference, fatigue, and sleep disturbance, were collected. RESULTS: Mexiletine had the highest quit rate (58%) due to gastrointestinal side effects, while nortriptyline (38%) and duloxetine (38%) had the lowest quit rates. If tolerated for the full 12 wk of the study, mexiletine had the highest probability (>90%) of positive outcomes for improvements in pain interference and fatigue. There was no significant difference among the medications for sleep disturbance or SF-12 scores. Adverse events and lack of efficacy were the two most common reasons for cessation of therapy. DISCUSSION: Physicians caring for patients with CSPN should consider mexiletine to address pain and fatigue, although nortriptyline and duloxetine are better medications to trial first since they are better tolerated. Future research should compare other commonly used medications for CSPN to determine evidence-based treatment strategies.

Influence of adjuvant nortriptyline on the efficacy of electroconvulsive therapy: A randomized controlled trial and 1-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: There is limited evidence that adding an antidepressant to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), compared with ECT monotherapy, improves outcomes. We aimed to determine whether the addition of nortriptyline to ECT enhances its efficacy and prevents post-ECT relapse. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (RCT). Patients with major depressive disorder and an indication for ECT received either nortriptyline or placebo during a bilateral ECT course. Outcome measures were mean decrease in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) score, response, remission, and time to response and remission. Patients who attained remission participated in a 1-year follow-up study with open-label nortriptyline. Outcome measures were relapse and time to relapse. RESULTS: We included 47 patients in the RCT. In the nortriptyline group, 83% showed response, 74% attained remission, and the mean decrease in HRSD score was 21.6 points. In the placebo group these figures were, respectively, 81% (p = 0.945), 73% (p = 0.928) and 20.7 points (p = 0.748). Thirty-one patients participated in the follow-up study. In patients who had received nortriptyline during the RCT, 47% relapsed at a mean of 34.2 weeks. Patients who had received placebo showed similar treatment results. In both study phases, no statistically significant differences between the nortriptyline and the placebo group were found. CONCLUSION: In our sample of severely depressed patients who were often medication resistant and suffering from psychotic depression, the addition of nortriptyline to ECT did not enhance its efficacy or prevent post-ECT relapse. Encouragingly, even in these patients ECT was highly effective and relapse rates were relatively low.

Antidepressants Trial in Parkinson's Disease (ADepT-PD): protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled trial on the effectiveness of escitalopram and nortriptyline on depressive symptoms in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Depressive symptoms are common in patients with Parkinson's disease and depression is a significant predictor of functional impairment, reduced quality of life and general well-being in Parkinson's disease. Despite the high prevalence of depression, evidence on the effectiveness and tolerability of antidepressants in this population is limited. The primary aim of this trial is to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of escitalopram and nortriptyline for the treatment of depression in Parkinson's disease. METHODS: This is a multi-centre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial in 408 people with Parkinson's disease with subsyndromal depression, major depressive disorder or persistent depressive disorder and a Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) score of 14 or above. Participants will be randomised into one of three groups, receiving either escitalopram, nortriptyline or placebo for 12 months. Trial participation is face-to-face, hybrid or remote. The primary outcome measure is the BDI-II score following 8 weeks of treatment. Secondary outcomes will be collected at baseline, 8, 26 and 52 weeks and following withdrawal, including severity of anxiety and depression scores as well as Parkinson's disease motor severity, and ratings of non-motor symptoms, cognitive function, health-related quality of life, levodopa-equivalence dose, changes in medication, overall clinical effectiveness, capability, health and social care resource use, carer health-related quality of life, adverse effects and number of dropouts. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to determine the effectiveness of escitalopram and nortriptyline for reducing depressive symptoms in Parkinson's disease over 8 weeks, to provide information on the effect of these medications on anxiety and other non-motor symptoms in PD and on impact on patients and caregivers, and to examine their effect on change in motor severity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03652870 Date of registration - 29th August 2018.

Pharmacovigilance in hospice/palliative care: Net effect of amitriptyline or nortriptyline on neuropathic pain: UTS/IMPACCT Rapid programme international consecutive cohort.

BACKGROUND: Real-world effectiveness of interventions in palliative care need to be systematically quantified to inform patient/clinical decisions. Neuropathic pain is prevalent and difficult to palliate. Tricyclic antidepressants have an established role for some neuropathic pain aetiologies, but this is less clear in palliative care. AIM: To describe the real-world use and outcomes from amitriptyline or nortriptyline for neuropathic pain in palliative care. DESIGN: An international, prospective, consecutive cohort post-marketing/phase IV/pharmacovigilance/quality improvement study of palliative care patients with neuropathic pain where the treating clinician had already made the decision to use a tricyclic antidepressant. Data were entered at set times: baseline, and days 7 and 14. Likert scales graded benefits and harms. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one sites (inpatient, outpatient, community) participated in six countries between June 2016 and March 2019. Patients had clinician-diagnosed neuropathic pain. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty patients were prescribed amitriptyline (110) or nortriptyline (40) of whom: 85% had cancer; mean age 73.2 years (SD 12.3); mean 0-4 scores for neuropathic pain at baseline were 1.8 (SD 1.0). By day 14, doses of amitriptyline were 57 mg (SD 21) and nortriptyline (48 mg (SD 21). Fifty-two (34.7%) patients had pain improvement by day 14 (amitriptyline (45/110 (43.3%); nortriptyline (7/40 (18.9%)). Thirty-nine (27.7%) had new harms; (amitriptyline 29/104 (27.9%); nortriptyline 10/37 (27.0%); dizziness (n = 23), dry mouth (n = 20), constipation (n = 14), urinary retention (n = 10)). Benefits without harms occurred (amitriptyline (26/104 (25.0%); nortriptyline (4/37 (10.8%)). CONCLUSIONS: Benefits favoured amitriptyline while harms were similar for both medications.

Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy in an Alzheimer Disease Patient: The Potential Contribution of Antidepressant Agents.

Takotsubo cardiomyopathy (TC) is an acute cardiac dysfunction, clinically similar to myocardial ischemia. The physiopathology of the syndrome seems to be related to excessive sympathetic activity that is triggered by physical or emotional stress factors. We report the case of an 83-year-old woman with advanced Alzheimer disease who had recently used nortriptyline and sertraline and was admitted with chest pain. An electrocardiogram showed ST-elevation, and markers of myocardial necrosis were slightly increased. However, coronariography did not demonstrate stenotic lesions. Transthoracic echocardiography and ventriculography identified decreased ventricular function, apical akinesia, and compensatory hyperkinesia of other segments that were compatible with TC. The patient evolved with cardiogenic shock and died. Alzheimer patients may be more susceptible to develop TC, both because of the disease itself and because of the multiple medications they are exposed to that increase catecholamine levels. In this case, antidepressant drugs were considered to be a potential factor that enhanced the susceptibility.

Pharmacological interventions for antisocial personality disorder.

BACKGROUND: Antisocial personality disorder (AsPD) is associated with rule-breaking, criminality, substance use, unemployment, relationship difficulties, and premature death. Certain types of medication (drugs) may help people with AsPD. This review updates a previous Cochrane review, published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and adverse effects of pharmacological interventions for adults with AsPD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 13 other databases and two trials registers up to 5 September 2019. We also checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in which adults (age 18 years and over) with a diagnosis of AsPD or dissocial personality disorder were allocated to a pharmacological intervention or placebo control condition. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias and created 'Summary of findings tables' and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE framework. The primary outcomes were: aggression; reconviction; global state/global functioning; social functioning; and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 studies (three new to this update), involving 416 participants with AsPD. Most studies (10/11) were conducted in North America. Seven studies were conducted exclusively in an outpatient setting, one in an inpatient setting, and one in prison; two studies used multiple settings. The average age of participants ranged from 28.6 years to 45.1 years (overall mean age 39.6 years). Participants were predominantly (90%) male. Study duration ranged from 6 to 24 weeks, with no follow-up period. Data were available from only four studies involving 274 participants with AsPD. All the available data came from unreplicated, single reports, and did not allow independent statistical analysis to be conducted. Many review findings were limited to descriptive summaries based on analyses carried out and reported by the trial investigators. No study set out to recruit participants on the basis of having AsPD; many participants presented primarily with substance abuse problems. The studies reported on four primary outcomes and six secondary outcomes. Primary outcomes were aggression (six studies) global/state functioning (three studies), social functioning (one study), and adverse events (seven studies). Secondary outcomes were leaving the study early (eight studies), substance misuse (five studies), employment status (one study), impulsivity (one study), anger (three studies), and mental state (three studies). No study reported data on the primary outcome of reconviction or the secondary outcomes of quality of life, engagement with services, satisfaction with treatment, housing/accommodation status, economic outcomes or prison/service outcomes.   Eleven different drugs were compared with placebo, but data for AsPD participants were only available for five comparisons. Three classes of drug were represented: antiepileptic; antidepressant; and dopamine agonist (anti-Parkinsonian) drugs. We considered selection bias to be unclear in 8/11 studies, attrition bias to be high in 7/11 studies, and performance bias to be low in 7/11 studies. Using GRADE, we rated the certainty of evidence for each outcome in this review as very low, meaning that we have very little confidence in the effect estimates reported. Phenytoin (antiepileptic) versus placebo One study (60 participants) reported very low-certainty evidence that phenytoin (300 mg/day), compared to placebo, may reduce the mean frequency of aggressive acts per week (phenytoin mean = 0.33, no standard deviation (SD) reported; placebo mean = 0.51, no SD reported) in male prisoners with aggression (skewed data) at endpoint (six weeks). The same study (60 participants) reported no evidence of difference between phenytoin and placebo in the number of participants reporting the adverse event of nausea during week one (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 16.76; very low-certainty evidence). The study authors also reported that no important side effects were detectable via blood cell counts or liver enzyme tests (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure reconviction, global/state functioning or social functioning. Desipramine (antidepressant) versus placebo One study (29 participants) reported no evidence of a difference between desipramine (250 to 300 mg/day) and placebo on mean social functioning scores (desipramine = 0.19; placebo = 0.21), assessed with the family-social domain of the Addiction Severity Index (scores range from zero to one, with higher values indicating worse social functioning), at endpoint (12 weeks) (very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the studies included in this comparison measured the other primary outcomes: aggression; reconviction; global/state functioning; or adverse events. Nortriptyline (antidepressant) versus placebo One study (20 participants) reported no evidence of a difference between nortriptyline (25 to 75 mg/day) and placebo on mean global state/functioning scores (nortriptyline = 0.3; placebo = 0.7), assessed with the Symptom Check List-90 (SCL-90) Global Severity Index (GSI; mean of subscale scores, ranging from zero to four, with higher scores indicating greater severity of symptoms), at endpoint (six months) in men with alcohol dependency (very low-certainty evidence). The study measured side effects but did not report data on adverse events for the AsPD subgroup. The study did not measure aggression, reconviction or social functioning. Bromocriptine (dopamine agonist) versus placebo One study (18 participants) reported no evidence of difference between bromocriptine (15 mg/day) and placebo on mean global state/functioning scores (bromocriptine = 0.4; placebo = 0.7), measured with the GSI of the SCL-90 at endpoint (six months) (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not provide data on adverse effects, but reported that 12 patients randomised to the bromocriptine group experienced severe side effects, five of whom dropped out of the study in the first two days due to nausea and severe flu-like symptoms (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure aggression, reconviction and social functioning. Amantadine (dopamine agonist) versus placebo The study in this comparison did not measure any of the primary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence summarised in this review is insufficient to draw any conclusion about the use of pharmacological interventions in the treatment of antisocial personality disorder. The evidence comes from single, unreplicated studies of mostly older medications. The studies also have methodological issues that severely limit the confidence we can draw from their results. Future studies should recruit participants on the basis of having AsPD, and use relevant outcome measures, including reconviction.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Whilst the pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco. Firstly, nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms and antidepressants may relieve these. Additionally, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the efficacy, safety and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Specialized Register, which includes reports of trials indexed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO, clinicaltrials.gov, the ICTRP, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in May 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited smokers, and compared antidepressant medications with placebo or no treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used in a different way. We excluded trials with less than six months follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length in safety analyses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months follow-up, expressed as a risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. Similarly, we presented incidence of safety and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropout due to drug, as RRs (95% CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 115 studies (33 new to this update) in this review; most recruited adult participants from the community or from smoking cessation clinics. We judged 28 of the studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk did not change clinical interpretation of the results. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased long-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.52 to 1.77; I2 = 15%; 45 studies, 17,866 participants). There was insufficient evidence to establish whether participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs compared to those taking placebo. Results were imprecise and CIs encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 21 studies, 10,625 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded one level due to imprecision). We found high-certainty evidence that use of bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to adverse events of the drug than placebo (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.56; I2 = 19%; 25 studies, 12,340 participants). Participants randomized to bupropion were also more likely to report psychiatric AEs compared with those randomized to placebo (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.37; I2 = 15%; 6 studies, 4439 participants). We also looked at the safety and efficacy of bupropion when combined with other non-antidepressant smoking cessation therapies. There was insufficient evidence to establish whether combination bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.51; I2 = 52%; 12 studies, 3487 participants), or whether combination bupropion and varenicline resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I2 = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). We judged the certainty of evidence to be low and moderate, respectively; in both cases due to imprecision, and also due to inconsistency in the former. Safety data were sparse for these comparisons, making it difficult to draw clear conclusions. A meta-analysis of six studies provided evidence that bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 6286 participants), whilst there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and NRT (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; I2 = 18%; 10 studies, 8230 participants). We also found some evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I2 = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), whilst there was insufficient evidence to determine whether bupropion or nortriptyline were more effective when compared with one another (RR 1.30 (favouring bupropion), 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants). There was no evidence that any of the other antidepressants tested (including St John's Wort, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)) had a beneficial effect on smoking cessation. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion also increases the number of adverse events, including psychiatric AEs, and there is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with placebo. However, there is no clear evidence to suggest whether people taking bupropion experience more or fewer SAEs than those taking placebo (moderate certainty). Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo. Evidence suggests that bupropion may be as successful as NRT and nortriptyline in helping people to quit smoking, but that it is less effective than varenicline. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the other antidepressants tested, such as SSRIs, aid smoking cessation, and when looking at safety and tolerance outcomes, in most cases, paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions. Due to the high-certainty evidence, further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over front-line smoking cessation aids already available. However, it is important that where studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation are carried out they measure and report safety and tolerability clearly.

Can Sertraline and Nortriptyline Protect the Neurons in Submucosal and Myenteric Plexuses of Rat's Colon Against Stress?

BACKGROUND: The colon is partly controlled by myenteric and submucosal plexuses, which respond to stress and lead to some gastrointestinal disorders. These plexuses play roles in irritable bowel syndrome. Patients suffering from this syndrome can be treated with some antidepressants, including sertraline and nortriptyline. AIMS: The primary aim of study was to compare the effect of a sertraline and a nortriptyline on the structural changes of the enteric neurons after stress exposure in both sexes. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the effects of stress on the submucosal and myenteric plexuses. METHODS: Male and female Sprague-Dawley rats were assigned to four subgroups. The first subgroup received no stress. The other three subgroups received chronic variable stress (CVS) and were given phosphate buffer, sertraline (10 mg/kg/day), or nortriptyline (10 mg/kg/day). After 45 days, the neuron number in their colon plexuses was estimated using the stereologic method. RESULTS: The number of neurons increased by 40-51% in the submucosal plexus and by 57-69% in the myenteric plexus in the CVS group compared with the control group (p < 0.002) without any sex preference. The increment was significantly higher in the myenteric plexus than in the submucosal plexus (p < 0.05). Moreover, co-treatment of stressed rats with sertraline and nortriptyline could prevent the cellular hyperplasia of the plexuses, with more effective action for sertraline (p < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Stress exposure for 45 days induced hyperplasia of the colon's enteric plexuses in both sexes. However, these drugs could prevent the changes, with a more effective action for sertraline.

Interventions to increase adherence to medications for tobacco dependence.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacological treatments for tobacco dependence, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), have been shown to be safe and effective interventions for smoking cessation. Higher levels of adherence to these medications increase the likelihood of sustained smoking cessation, but many smokers use them at a lower dose and for less time than is optimal. It is important to determine the effectiveness of interventions designed specifically to increase medication adherence. Such interventions may address motivation to use medication, such as influencing beliefs about the value of taking medications, or provide support to overcome problems with maintaining adherence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions aiming to increase adherence to medications for smoking cessation on medication adherence and smoking abstinence compared with a control group typically receiving standard care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, and clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to the 3 September 2018. We also conducted forward and backward citation searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised studies in which adults using active pharmacological treatment for smoking cessation were allocated to an intervention arm where there was a principal focus on increasing adherence to medications for tobacco dependence, or a control arm providing standard care. Dependent on setting, standard care may have comprised minimal support or varying degrees of behavioural support. Included studies used a measure that allowed assessment of the degree of medication adherence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data for included studies and assessed risk of bias. For continuous outcome measures, we calculated effect sizes as standardised mean differences (SMDs). For dichotomous outcome measures, we calculated effect sizes as risk ratios (RRs). In meta-analyses for adherence outcomes, we combined dichotomous and continuous data using the generic inverse variance method and reported pooled effect sizes as SMDs; for abstinence outcomes, we reported and pooled dichotomous outcomes. We obtained pooled effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. We conducted subgroup analyses to assess whether the primary focus of the adherence treatment ('practicalities' versus 'perceptions' versus both), the delivery approach (participant versus clinician-centred) or the medication type were associated with effectiveness. MAIN RESULTS: We identified two new studies, giving a total of 10 studies, involving 3655 participants. The medication adherence interventions studied were all provided in addition to standard behavioural support.They typically provided further information on the rationale for, and emphasised the importance of, adherence to medication or supported the development of strategies to overcome problems with maintaining adherence (or both). Seven studies targeted adherence to NRT, two to bupropion and one to varenicline. Most studies were judged to be at high or unclear risk of bias, with four of these studies judged at high risk of attrition or detection bias. Only one study was judged to be at low risk of bias.Meta-analysis of all 10 included studies (12 comparisons) provided moderate-certainty evidence that adherence interventions led to small improvements in adherence (i.e. the mean amount of medication consumed; SMD 0.10, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.18; I² = 6%; n = 3655), limited by risk of bias. Subgroup analyses for the primary outcome identified no significant subgroup effects, with effect sizes for subgroups imprecisely estimated. However, there was a very weak indication that interventions focused on the 'practicalities' of adhering to treatment (i.e. capabilities, resources, levels of support or skills) may be effective (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.38; I² = 39%; n = 1752), whereas interventions focused on treatment 'perceptions' (i.e. beliefs, cognitions, concerns and preferences; SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.24; I² = 0%; n = 839) or on both (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.16; I² = 0%; n = 1064), may not be effective. Participant-centred interventions may be effective (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.23; I² = 20%; n = 2791), whereas those that are clinician-centred may not (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.23; I² = 0%; n = 864).Five studies assessed short-term smoking abstinence (five comparisons), while an overlapping set of five studies (seven comparisons) assessed long-term smoking abstinence of six months or more. Meta-analyses resulted in low-certainty evidence that adherence interventions may slightly increase short-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.21; I² = 0%; n = 1795) and long-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.40; I² = 48%; n = 3593). In both cases, the evidence was limited by risk of bias and imprecision, with CIs encompassing minimal harm as well as moderate benefit, and a high likelihood that further evidence will change the estimate of the effect. There was no evidence that interventions to increase adherence to medication led to any adverse events. Studies did not report on factors plausibly associated with increases in adherence, such as self-efficacy, understanding of and attitudes toward treatment, and motivation and intentions to quit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people who are stopping smoking and receiving behavioural support, there is moderate-certainty evidence that enhanced behavioural support focusing on adherence to smoking cessation medications can modestly improve adherence. There is only low-certainty evidence that this may slightly improve the likelihood of cessation in the shorter or longer-term. Interventions to increase adherence can aim to address the practicalities of taking medication, change perceptions about medication, such as reasons to take it or concerns about doing so, or both. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to confirm which approach is more effective. There is no evidence on whether such interventions are effective for people who are stopping smoking without standard behavioural support.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation increase the likelihood of achieving abstinence in a quit attempt. It is plausible that providing support, or, if support is offered, offering more intensive support or support including particular components may increase abstinence further. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of adding or increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition. We also looked at studies which directly compare behavioural interventions matched for contact time, where pharmacotherapy is provided to both groups (e.g. tests of different components or approaches to behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in June 2018 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline, that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount or type of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact (defined as face-to-face or telephone). The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, a different type of personal contact, written information, or no behavioural support at all. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women and trials which did not set out to assess smoking cessation at six months or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates, if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-three studies, 36 of which were new to this update, met the inclusion criteria, representing 29,536 participants. Overall, we judged 16 studies to be at low risk of bias and 21 studies to be at high risk of bias. All other studies were judged to be at unclear risk of bias. Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of studies at high risk of bias. We pooled all studies comparing more versus less support in the main analysis. Findings demonstrated a benefit of behavioural support in addition to pharmacotherapy. When all studies of additional behavioural therapy were pooled, there was evidence of a statistically significant benefit from additional support (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.22, I² = 8%, 65 studies, n = 23,331) for abstinence at longest follow-up, and this effect was not different when we compared subgroups by type of pharmacotherapy or intensity of contact. This effect was similar in the subgroup of eight studies in which the control group received no behavioural support (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43, I² = 20%, n = 4,018). Seventeen studies compared interventions matched for contact time but that differed in terms of the behavioural components or approaches employed. Of the 15 comparisons, all had small numbers of participants and events. Only one detected a statistically significant effect, favouring a health education approach (which the authors described as standard counselling containing information and advice) over motivational interviewing approach (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.94, n = 378). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking increases quit rates. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 20%, based on a pooled estimate from 65 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of specific components that comprise behavioural support.

Preliminary Biochemical Description of Brain Oxidative Stress Status in Irritable Bowel Syndrome Contention-Stress Rat Model.

Background and objectives: Oxidative stress and inflammation have been implicated in the etiology of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), a common gastrointestinal functional disease. This study aimed to further characterize the contention-stress rat model by exploring a possible correlation between oxidative stress markers measured in brain tissues with behavioral components of the aforementioned model. Thus, it is hereby proposed a possible IBS animal model relevant to pharmacological and complementary medicine studies. Materials and Methods: Wild-type male Wistar rats (n = 5/group) were chronically exposed to 6-hour/day contention, consisting of isolating the animals in small, vital space-granting plastic devices, for seven consecutive days. Following contention exposure, temporal lobes were extracted and subjected to biochemical analyses to assess oxidative stress-status parameters. Results: Our results show increased brain oxidative stress in contention-stress rat model: decreased superoxide dismutase and glutathione peroxidase activities and increased malondialdehyde production in the IBS group, as compared to the control group. Furthermore, the biochemical ratios which are used to evaluate the effectiveness of an antioxidant system on oxidative stress could be described in this model. Conclusions: The correlations between the behavioral patterns and biochemical oxidative stress features could suggest that this may be a complex model, which can successfully mimic IBS symptomatology further providing evidence of a strong connection between the digestive system, enteric nervous system, and the central nervous system.

Vascular risk factors in older patients with depression: outcome of electroconvulsive therapy versus medication.

OBJECTIVE: Research suggests that in depression, vascular burden predicts a lower efficacy for medication (MED) and a more favourable outcome for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Therefore, we investigated the influence of the following vascular risk factors (VRF): hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, smoking, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, and cerebral vascular accident/transient ischemic attack, on remission from major depression after ECT versus MED. METHODS: The study sample consisted of 81 inpatients with a DSM-IV unipolar major depression diagnosis (mean age 72.2 years, SD = 7.6, mean Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score 32.9, SD = 6.2) participating in a randomized controlled trial comparing nortriptyline versus venlafaxine and 43 inpatients (mean age 73.7 years, SD = 7.5, mean Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score 30.6, SD = 7.1) from an randomized controlled trial comparing brief pulse versus ultrabrief pulse ECT. The presence of VRF was established from the medical records. The remission rate of patients with VRF was compared with those of patients without VRF. RESULTS: The remission rate was 58% (19/33) in the ECT group with ≥1 VRF and 32% (23/73) in the MED group with ≥1 VRF (χ2  = 6.456, p = 0.011). Comparing patients with no VRF versus ≥1 VRF, the remission rate decreased from 80 to 58% (χ2  = 1.652, p = 0.276) in ECT patients and from 38 to 32% (χ2  = 0.119, p = 0.707) in MED patients. Applying different cut-offs for the number of VRFs yielded the same trends. Logistic regression revealed no interaction between VRF and treatment condition. CONCLUSION: The superior efficacy of ECT over pharmacotherapy in major depression in older age was independent of the presence of VRF. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Is Venlafaxine More Effective than Escitalopram and Nortriptyline in the Management of Painful Symptoms in Patients with Major Depression?

BACKGROUND: Conflicting data regarding the efficacy of antidepressants of different mechanism of action on unexplained painful physical symptoms (UPPS) in depression have been published so far. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the impact of escitalopram (ESC), nortriptyline (NOR), and venlafaxine (VEN) on UPPS in patients with major depression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients, participants in the GENDEP study, with a diagnosis of depression according to the ICD-10 criteria were randomly assigned to treatment with ESC (10-30 mg, mean dose 15.2, standard deviation [SD]±9.2) or NOR (50-150 mg, mean dose 106.2, SD±8.2). Additionally, 30 patients who were treated with VEN (75-225 mg, mean dose 181.3, SD±8.8) were included. Before inclusion (day 0) and throughout the study (days 14, 28, 42, 56), the severity of pain was monitored using the visual analog scale. RESULTS: The patients treated with ESC, NOR, and VEN did not differ in the intensity of pain at days 0, 14, 28, 42, and 56. CONCLUSION: Our results do not support the hypothesis suggesting the superiority of VEN over ESC and NOR in the management of UPPS in major depression.

Antidepressants for preventing postnatal depression.

BACKGROUND: Depression is common in the postnatal period and can lead to adverse effects on the infant and wider family, in addition to the morbidity for the mother. It is not clear whether antidepressants are effective for the prevention of postnatal depression and little is known about possible adverse effects for the mother and infant, particularly during breastfeeding. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of antidepressant medication for the prevention of postnatal depression, in comparison with any other treatment, placebo or standard care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR ‒ both Studies and References), CENTRAL (Wiley), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), PsycINFO (OVID), on 13 February 2018. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 13 February 2018 to identify any additional unpublished or ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of initiation of antidepressants (alone or in combination with another treatment), compared with any other treatment, placebo or standard care for the prevention of postnatal depression among women who were either pregnant or had given birth in the previous six weeks and were not currently depressed at baseline. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We requested missing information from investigators wherever possible and sought data to allow intention-to-treat analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials including a total of 81 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. All participants in both studies had a history of postnatal depression and were not taking antidepressant medication at baseline. Both trials were conducted by the same research group. Risk of bias was low or unclear in most domains for both studies. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis due to the small number of studies.One study compared nortriptyline with placebo and did not find any evidence that nortriptyline was effective in preventing postnatal depression. In this study, 23% (6/26) of women who took nortriptyline and 24% (6/25) of women who took placebo experienced postnatal depression (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.59, very low quality evidence) in the first 17 weeks postpartum. One woman taking nortriptyline developed mania; and one side effect, constipation, was more common among women taking nortriptyline than those taking placebo.The second study compared sertraline with placebo. In this study, 7% (1/14) of women who took sertraline developed postnatal depression in the first 17 weeks postpartum compared with 50% (4/8) of women who took placebo. It is uncertain whether sertraline reduces the risk of postnatal depression (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.07, very low quality evidence). One woman taking sertraline had a hypomanic episode. Two side effects (dizziness and drowsiness) were more common among women taking sertraline than women taking placebo.Conclusions are limited by the small number of studies, small sample sizes and incomplete outcome data due to study drop-out which may have led to bias in the results. We have assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low, based on the GRADE system. No data were available on secondary outcomes of interest including child development, the mother‒infant relationship, breastfeeding, maternal daily functioning, family relationships or maternal satisfaction. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the limitations of the current evidence base, such as the low statistical power of the included studies, it is not possible to draw any clear conclusions about the effectiveness of antidepressants for the prevention of postnatal depression. It is striking that no new eligible trials have been completed in the period of over a decade since the last published version of this review. Larger trials are needed which include comparisons of antidepressant drugs with other prophylactic treatments (e.g. psychological interventions), and examine adverse effects for the fetus or infant. Future reviews in this area may benefit from broadening their focus to examine the effectiveness of antidepressants for the prevention of perinatal (i.e. antenatal or postnatal) depression, which could include studies comparing antidepressant discontinuation with continuation for the prevention of relapse of depression during pregnancy and the postnatal period.

Pharmacological interventions for the treatment of depression in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Studies report that up to 80% of individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may struggle with symptoms of depression. However, this major comorbidity in COPD is rarely managed effectively. A number of recent studies indicate that left untreated, COPD-related depression is associated with worse quality of life, worse compliance with COPD treatment plan, increased exacerbations, hospital admissions, and healthcare costs when compared to individuals with COPD without depression. Regrettably, COPD practice guidelines do not provide conclusive treatment recommendations for the use of antidepressants in patients with COPD, and base their guidelines on findings from trials in the general population. This may be problematic, as there is an elevated risk of respiratory issues associated with antidepressant treatment and COPD. Evaluating effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions specifically for patients with COPD and depression was therefore paramount. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of depression in patients with COPD. SEARCH METHODS: The last search was performed on 26 November 2018. We initially searched the following databases via the Specialised Trials Registers of the Cochrane Airways and Common Mental Disorders Groups (to June 2016): MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, AMED, and the Cochrane Library trials register (CENTRAL). Searches from June 2016 to November 2018 were performed directly on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library (Issue 11, 2018). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the ISRCTN registry, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 26 November 2018. We searched the grey literature databases to identify studies not indexed in major databases and the reference lists of studies initially identified for full-text screening. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of pharmacological interventions with no intervention, placebo or co-intervention in adults with diagnosed COPD and depression were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed articles identified by the search for eligibility. Our primary outcomes were change in depressive symptoms and adverse events. The secondary outcomes were: change in quality of life, change in dyspnoea, change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), change in exercise tolerance, change in hospital utilisation (length of stay and readmission rates), and cost-effectiveness. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the pooled mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) as appropriate. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the pooled odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% CI using a random-effects model. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE framework. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 1125 records screened for eligibility, four RCTs (N = 201 participants), and one on-going study, met the inclusion criteria. Two classes of antidepressants were investigated in two separate comparisons with placebo: a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).TCA versus placeboOnly one RCT (N = 30 participants) provided results for this comparison.Primary outcomesThe TCA (nortriptyline) reduced depressive symptoms post-treatment compared to placebo (MD -10.20, 95% CI -16.75 to -3.65; P = 0.007; very low-quality evidence), as measured by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D). Three participants withdrew from the trial due to adverse events related to the tested antidepressant (dry mouth, sedation, orthostatic hypotension).Secondary outcomesThe overall results post-treatment indicated that nortriptyline was not effective in improving the quality of life of individuals with COPD, as measured by the Sickness Impact Profile (MD -2.80, 95% CI -11.02 to 5.42; P = 0.50; very low-quality evidence).The results for the change in dyspnoea for the domains examined (e.g. dyspnoea scores for 'most day-to-day activities') post-treatment showed no improvement in the intervention group (MD 9.80, 95% CI -6.20 to 25.80; P = 0.23; very low-quality evidence).No data were reported for change in FEV1, change in exercise tolerance, change in hospital utilisation, or cost-effectiveness. The TCA study provided short-term results, with the last follow-up data collection at 12 weeks.The quality of the evidence for all the outcomes evaluated was very low due to a small sample size, imprecision, attrition, and selection and reporting bias.SSRIs versus placeboThree RCTs (N = 171 participants) provided results for this comparison.Primary outcomesThe pooled results for two studies showed no difference for the change in depressive symptoms post-intervention (SMD 0.75, 95% CI -1.14 to 2.64; 148 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.44; very low-quality evidence). High heterogeneity was observed (I² = 95%), limiting the reliability of these findings.While it was not possible to meta-analyse the total adverse events rates across the studies, it was possible to combine the results for two medication-specific adverse effects: nausea and dizziness. There were no significant post-treatment group differences for nausea (OR 2.32, 95% CI 0.66 to 8.12; 171 participants; 3 studies; P = 0.19; very low-quality evidence) or dizziness (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.06; 143 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.61; very low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesThe pooled analysis of two trials reporting data for the change in quality of life did not show improvement post-treatment in the intervention group compared to placebo (SMD 1.17, 95% CI -0.80 to 3.15; 148 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.25; very low-quality evidence).There was no difference between groups in change in FEV1 post-treatment (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.05; 148 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.60; low-quality evidence). However, two trials reported improvement in exercise tolerance in the SSRI group versus the placebo group (MD 13.88, 95% CI 11.73 to 16.03; 148 participants; 2 studies; P < 0.001; very low-quality evidence).The trials included in this comparison did not report data related to the change in dyspnoea, hospital utilisation rates, or cost-effectiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to make definitive statements about the efficacy or safety of antidepressants for treating COPD-related depression. New RCTs are needed; with better methodological quality and more accurate reporting of the methods used. Moreover, longer-term follow-up data collection is needed, including outcomes such as adverse events, hospital utilisation and cost-effectiveness.