RESUMEN
Background: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is prevalent and disabling among older adults. Standing on its tolerability profile, vortioxetine might be a promising alternative to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in such a vulnerable population. Methods: We conducted a randomised, assessor- and statistician-blinded, superiority trial including older adults with MDD. The study was conducted between 02/02/2019 and 02/22/2023 in 11 Italian Psychiatric Services. Participants were randomised to vortioxetine or one of the SSRIs, selected according to common practice. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events after six months was the primary outcome, for which we aimed to detect a 12% difference in favour of vortioxetine. The study was registered in the online repository clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03779789). Findings: The intention-to-treat population included 179 individuals randomised to vortioxetine and 178 to SSRIs. Mean age was 73.7 years (standard deviation 6.1), and 264 participants (69%) were female. Of those on vortioxetine, 78 (44%) discontinued the treatment due to adverse events at six months, compared to 59 (33%) of those on SSRIs (odds ratio 1.56; 95% confidence interval 1.01-2.39). Adjusted and per-protocol analyses confirmed point estimates in favour of SSRIs, but without a significant difference. With the exception of the unadjusted survival analysis showing SSRIs to outperform vortioxetine, secondary outcomes provided results consistent with a lack of substantial safety and tolerability differences between the two arms. Overall, no significant differences emerged in terms of response rates, depressive symptoms and quality of life, while SSRIs outperformed vortioxetine in terms of cognitive performance. Interpretation: As opposed to what was previously hypothesised, vortioxetine did not show a better tolerability profile compared to SSRIs in older adults with MDD in this study. Additionally, hypothetical advantages of vortioxetine on depression-related cognitive symptoms might be questioned. The study's statistical power and highly pragmatic design allow for generalisability to real-world practice. Funding: The study was funded by the Italian Medicines Agency within the "2016 Call for Independent Drug Research".
RESUMEN
Neurodevelopmental disorders - including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder, communication disorders, intellectual disability, motor disorders, specific learning disorders, and tic disorders - manifest themselves early in development. Valid, reliable and broadly usable biomarkers supporting a timely diagnosis of these disorders would be highly relevant from a clinical and public health standpoint. We conducted the first systematic review of studies on candidate diagnostic biomarkers for these disorders in children and adolescents. We searched Medline and Embase + Embase Classic with terms relating to biomarkers until April 6, 2022, and conducted additional targeted searches for genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and neuroimaging or neurophysiological studies carried out by international consortia. We considered a candidate biomarker as promising if it was reported in at least two independent studies providing evidence of sensitivity and specificity of at least 80%. After screening 10,625 references, we retained 780 studies (374 biochemical, 203 neuroimaging, 133 neurophysiological and 65 neuropsychological studies, and five GWAS), including a total of approximately 120,000 cases and 176,000 controls. While the majority of the studies focused simply on associations, we could not find any biomarker for which there was evidence - from two or more studies from independent research groups, with results going into the same direction - of specificity and sensitivity of at least 80%. Other important metrics to assess the validity of a candidate biomarker, such as positive predictive value and negative predictive value, were infrequently reported. Limitations of the currently available studies include mostly small sample size, heterogeneous approaches and candidate biomarker targets, undue focus on single instead of joint biomarker signatures, and incomplete accounting for potential confounding factors. Future multivariable and multi-level approaches may be best suited to find valid candidate biomarkers, which will then need to be validated in external, independent samples and then, importantly, tested in terms of feasibility and cost-effectiveness, before they can be implemented in daily clinical practice.
