Institutionalizing health technology assessment in Egypt: Situational analysis and roadmap.

Objective: To conduct a situational analysis with the aim to inform future health technology assessment efforts (HTA) in Egypt. Introduction: The Egyptian government has set universal health coverage as a 2030 target. Several agencies have been created in the context of the ongoing healthcare reform. The Egyptian Authority for Unified Procurement, Medical Supply and the Management of Medical Technology (UPA) is one of them and was established to support strategic procurement using HTA. Methods: Description of the development of HTA in Egypt supported by a literature search as part of a scoping exercise, and a stakeholder analysis and identification of HTA capacity survey, based on previous surveys, with relevant stakeholders conducted in 2022. This was followed by a stakeholder event where results were shared and further contextualized. Results: The UPA is expected to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of health technologies and public health programs. The HTA process is being developed, focusing on the assessment of the value of new pharmaceuticals being introduced to the Egyptian market. A total of 16 participants responded on behalf of their organizations to the stakeholder analysis and identification of HTA capacity survey. More than 80% of the respondents were familiar with current efforts conducted by UPA and strongly support the implementation of HTA in Egypt. Transparency was highlighted as an important criterion. Over 90% of the respondents mentioned economic analyses as an HTA product being developed in Egypt, and medicines were the type of technology that stakeholders ranked as first in the rank of health technologies that need the output from HTA urgently. Capability building and training were highlighted as areas in which further support is required. Conclusion: This study represents the first attempt to describe the current path for HTA in Egypt. There seems to be momentum in Egypt to proceed and advance with HTA institutionalization. It would be important that next steps are built on the skills and capabilities already in place in Egypt, ensure methods and processes are in place and up to date and involve the wider system in Egypt so stakeholders can appropriately contribute and participate in the HTA process.

NICE public health guidance update.

This article covers recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance relevant to public health, with a focus on indoor air quality. It introduces the evidence behind this guideline, and the actions that need to be taken by a wide range of stakeholders to implement the guidance and help people to achieve good air quality in their homes. It also highlights the inequalities in exposure to poor quality indoor air and identifies groups that are more vulnerable to health impacts.

NICE public health guidance update.

This article covers recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance and standards relevant to public health. The article also includes an overview of key public health aspects of the updated 'stop smoking interventions and service guideline', summarizing recommendations for commissioners and managers as well as individuals in contact with people who smoke.

Cost-utility analysis of searching electronic health records and cascade testing to identify and diagnose familial hypercholesterolaemia in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The cost effectiveness of cascade testing for familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is well recognised. Less clear is the cost effectiveness of FH screening when it includes case identification strategies that incorporate routinely available data from primary and secondary care electronic health records. METHODS: Nine strategies were compared, all using cascade testing in combination with different index case approaches (primary care identification, secondary care identification, and clinical assessment using the Simon Broome (SB) or Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DLCN) criteria). A decision analytic model was informed by three systematic literature reviews and expert advice provided by a NICE Guideline Committee. RESULTS: The model found that the addition of primary care case identification by database search for patients with recorded total cholesterol >9.3 mmol/L was more cost effective than cascade testing alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of clinical assessment using the DLCN criteria was £3254 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) compared with case-finding with no genetic testing. The ICER of clinical assessment using the SB criteria was £13,365 per QALY (compared with primary care identification using the DLCN criteria), indicating that the SB criteria was preferred because it achieved additional health benefits at an acceptable cost. Secondary care identification, with either the SB or DLCN criteria, was not cost effective, alone (dominated and dominated respectively) or combined with primary care identification (£63, 514 per QALY, and £82,388 per QALY respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Searching primary care databases for people at high risk of FH followed by cascade testing is likely to be cost-effective.

Interventions for vaginismus.

BACKGROUND: Vaginismus is an involuntary contraction of the vaginal muscles which makes sexual intercourse difficult or impossible. It is one of the more common female psychosexual problems. Various therapeutic strategies for vaginismus, such as sex therapy and desensitisation, have been proposed, and uncontrolled case series appear promising. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different interventions for vaginismus. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) to August 2012. This register contains relevant randomised controlled trials from: The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). We searched reference lists and conference abstracts. We contacted experts in the field regarding unpublished material. SELECTION CRITERIA: Controlled trials comparing treatments for vaginismus with another treatment, a placebo treatment, treatment as usual or waiting list control. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors extracted data which we verified with the trial investigator where possible. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies were included, of which four with a total of 282 participants provided data. No meta-analysis was possible due to heterogeneity of comparisons within included studies as well as inadequate reporting of data. All studies were considered to be at either moderate or high risk of bias. The results of this systematic review indicate that there is no clinical or statistical difference between systematic desensitisation and any of the control interventions (either waiting list control, systematic desensitisation combined with group therapy or in vitro (with women under instruction by the therapist) desensitisation) for the treatment of vaginismus. The drop-out rates were higher in the waiting list groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A clinically relevant effect of systematic desensitisation when compared with any of the control interventions cannot be ruled out. None of the included trials compared other behaviour therapies (e.g. cognitive behaviour therapy, sex therapy) to pharmacological interventions. The findings are limited by the evidence available and as such conclusions about the efficacy of interventions for the treatment of vaginismus should be drawn cautiously.

Clofibrate in combination with phototherapy for unconjugated neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia.

BACKGROUND: There are many pathological conditions leading to an elevated unconjugated bilirubin level (hyperbilirubinaemia) in neonates. Currently the standard therapies for unconjugated hyperbilirubinaemia include phototherapy and exchange transfusion. In addition to phototherapy, clofibrate has been studied as a treatment for hyperbilirubinaemia in several countries. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of clofibrate in combination with phototherapy versus phototherapy alone in unconjugated neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia. SEARCH METHODS: Randomised controlled trials were identified by searching MEDLINE (1950 to April 2012) before being translated for use in The Cochrane Library, EMBASE 1980 to April 2012 and CINAHL databases. All searches were re-run on 2 April 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials where neonates with hyperbilirubinaemia received either clofibrate in combination with phototherapy or phototherapy alone or placebo in combination with phototherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted and analysed independently by two review authors (MG and HM). Treatment effects on the following outcomes were determined: mean change in bilirubin levels, mean duration of treatment with phototherapy, number of exchange transfusions needed, adverse effects of clofibrate, bilirubin encephalopathy and neonatal mortality. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Studies were analysed for methodological quality in a 'Risk of bias' table. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen studies (two including preterm neonates and 13 including term neonates) were included in this review. All but one of the included studies were conducted in Iran. For preterm neonates, there was a significantly lower bilirubin level in the 100 mg/kg clofibrate group compared to the control group with a mean difference of -1.37 mg/dL (95% CI -2.19 mg/dL to -0.55 mg/dL) (-23 µmol/L; 95% CI -36 µmol/L to -9 µmol/L) after 48 hours. For the term neonates, there were significantly lower bilirubin levels in the clofibrate group compared to the control group after both 24 and 48 hours of treatment with a weighted mean difference of -2.14 mg/dL (95% CI -2.53 mg/dL to -1.75 mg/dL) (-37 µmol/L; 95% CI -43 µmol/L to -30 µmol/L] and -1.82 mg/dL (95% CI -2.25 mg/dL to -1.38 mg/dL) (-31 µmol/L; 95% CI -38 µmol/L to -24 µmol/L), respectively.There was a significantly lower duration of phototherapy in the clofibrate group compared to the control group for both preterm and term neonates with a weighted mean difference of -23.82 hours (95% CI -30.46 hours to -17.18 hours) and -25.40 hours (95% CI -28.94 hours to -21.86 hours), respectively.None of the studies reported on bilirubin encephalopathy rates, neonatal mortality rates, or the levels of parental or staff satisfactions with the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient data from different countries on the use of clofibrate in combination with phototherapy for hyperbilirubinaemia to make recommendations for practice. There is a need for larger trials to determine how effective clofibrate is in reducing the need for, and duration of, phototherapy in term and preterm infants with hyperbilirubinaemia.

Sertraline versus other antidepressive agents for depression.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence clinical practice guideline on the treatment of depressive disorder recommended that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors should be the first-line option when drug therapy is indicated for a depressive episode. Preliminary evidence suggested that sertraline might be slightly superior in terms of effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of sertraline in comparison with tricyclics (TCAs), heterocyclics, other SSRIs and newer agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE (1966 to 2008), EMBASE (1974 to 2008), the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to July 2008. No language restriction was applied. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were hand-searched. Pharmaceutical companies and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials allocating patients with major depression to sertraline versus any other antidepressive agent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data. Discrepancies were resolved with another member of the team. A double-entry procedure was employed by two reviewers. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy (the number of patients who responded or remitted), acceptability (the number of patients who failed to complete the study) and tolerability (side-effects). MAIN RESULTS: A total of 59 studies, mostly of low quality, were included in the review, involving multiple treatment comparisons between sertraline and other antidepressant agents. Evidence favouring sertraline over some other antidepressants for the acute phase treatment of major depression was found, either in terms of efficacy (fluoxetine) or acceptability/tolerability (amitriptyline, imipramine, paroxetine and mirtazapine). However, some differences favouring newer antidepressants in terms of efficacy (mirtazapine) and acceptability (bupropion) were also found. In terms of individual side effects, sertraline was generally associated with a higher rate of participants experiencing diarrhoea. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis highlighted a trend in favour of sertraline over other antidepressive agents both in terms of efficacy and acceptability, using 95% confidence intervals and a conservative approach, with a random effects analysis. However, the included studies did not report on all the outcomes that were pre-specified in the protocol of this review. Outcomes of clear relevance to patients and clinicians were not reported in any of the included studies.

Fluvoxamine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression.

BACKGROUND: Fluvoxamine, one of the oldest selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), is prescribed to patients with major depression in many countries. Several studies have previously reviewed the efficacy and tolerability of fluvoxamine for the treatment of major depression. However, these reviews are now outdated. OBJECTIVES: Our objective is to evaluate the effectiveness, tolerability and side effect profile of fluvoxamine for major depression in comparison with other anti-depressive agents, including tricyclics (TCAs), heterocyclics, other SSRIs, SNRIs, other newer agents and other conventional psychotropic drugs. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register. Trial databases and ongoing trial registers in North America, Europe, Japan and Australia, were handsearched for randomised controlled trials. We checked reference lists of the articles included in the review, previous systematic reviews and major textbooks of affective disorder for published reports and citations of unpublished research. The date of last search was 31 August 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials, published in any language, that compared fluvoxamine with any other active antidepressants in the acute phase treatment of major depression. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors inspected citations and abstracts, obtained papers, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We analysed dichotomous data using odds ratios (ORs) and continuous data using the standardised mean difference (SMD). A random effects model was used to combine studies. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 54 randomised controlled trials (n = 5122) were included. No strong evidence was found to indicate that fluvoxamine was either superior or inferior to other antidepressants regarding response, remission and tolerability. However, differing side effect profiles were evident, especially with regard to gastrointestinal side effects of fluvoxamine when compared to other antidepressants. For example, fluvoxamine was generally associated with a higher incidence of vomiting/nausea (versus imipramine, OR 2.23, CI 1.59 to 3.14; versus clomipramine, OR 2.13, CI 1.06 to 4.27; versus amitriptyline, OR 2.86, CI 1.31 to 2.63). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no strong evidence that fluvoxamine was either superior or inferior to any other antidepressants in terms of efficacy and tolerability in the acute phase treatment of depression. However, differing side effect profiles were evident. Based on these findings, we conclude that clinicians should focus on practical or clinically relevant considerations, including these differences in side effect profiles.

Sertraline versus other antidepressive agents for depression.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence clinical practice guideline on the treatment of depressive disorder recommended that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors should be the first-line option when drug therapy is indicated for a depressive episode. Preliminary evidence suggested that sertraline might be slightly superior in terms of effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of sertraline in comparison with tricyclics (TCAs), heterocyclics, other SSRIs and newer agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE (1966 to 2008), EMBASE (1974 to 2008), the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to July 2008. No language restriction was applied. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were hand-searched. Pharmaceutical companies and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials allocating patients with major depression to sertraline versus any other antidepressive agent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data. Discrepancies were resolved with another member of the team. A double-entry procedure was employed by two reviewers. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy (the number of patients who responded or remitted), acceptability (the number of patients who failed to complete the study) and tolerability (side-effects). MAIN RESULTS: A total of 59 studies, mostly of low quality, were included in the review, involving multiple treatment comparisons between sertraline and other antidepressant agents. Evidence favouring sertraline over some other antidepressants for the acute phase treatment of major depression was found, either in terms of efficacy (fluoxetine) or acceptability/tolerability (amitriptyline, imipramine, paroxetine and mirtazapine). However, some differences favouring newer antidepressants in terms of efficacy (mirtazapine) and acceptability (bupropion) were also found. In terms of individual side effects, sertraline was generally associated with a higher rate of participants experiencing diarrhoea. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis highlighted a trend in favour of sertraline over other antidepressive agents both in terms of efficacy and acceptability, using 95% confidence intervals and a conservative approach, with a random effects analysis. However, the included studies did not report on all the outcomes that were pre-specified in the protocol of this review. Outcomes of clear relevance to patients and clinicians were not reported in any of the included studies.

Safety reporting and adverse-event profile of mirtazapine described in randomized controlled trials in comparison with other classes of antidepressants in the acute-phase treatment of adults with depression: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mirtazapine has a unique mechanism of antidepressant action, and thus is thought to have a different profile of adverse events from that of other antidepressants. OBJECTIVE: To present a methodologically rigorous systematic review of the adverse event profile of mirtazapine and point to possible problems with safety reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the acute-phase treatment of major depression in adults with mirtazapine in comparison with other types of antidepressant. METHODS: The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register was electronically searched using the following search terms: 'depress*', 'dysthymi*', 'adjustment disorder*', 'mood disorder*', 'affective disorder', 'affective symptoms' and 'mirtazapine'. Pharmaceutical companies and experts in this field were contacted, and the reference lists of the relevant RCTs were checked, for additional data. No language restriction was imposed. Two authors independently assessed the quality of trials for inclusion in the review. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Two authors independently extracted data on adverse events. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The adequacy of safety reporting was assessed by one author. Regarding the adequacy of safety reporting, the qualitative and quantitative parameters of safety reporting were determined. Regression analyses were conducted to assess characteristics of trials influencing safety reporting. The primary and secondary outcomes in the systematic review of the adverse events associated with mirtazapine were defined as the proportion of patients having each of 43 adverse events listed in the modified version of the WHO Adverse Reaction Terminology, and the proportion of patients experiencing at least one adverse event, respectively. Meta-analyses were conducted for these outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-five RCTs involving 4842 patients were identified as meeting our inclusion criteria. With regard to safety reporting, only two trials and no trials were rated as 'adequate' in terms of the reporting of clinical adverse events and laboratory-determined toxicity, respectively. The proportion of text in the results sections of the study reports devoted to safety reporting was a mean of 22%. No associations were observed between the adequacy of safety reporting and any characteristics of the trials; however, sample size over 100 participants in total and over 50 subjects in a study arm, double blindness and sponsorship by the company marketing mirtazapine were significantly associated with a greater number of reported adverse events in mirtazapine recipients. In terms of individual adverse events, mirtazapine was significantly less likely to cause hypertension or tachycardia (risk ratio [RR] 0.51) and tremor (RR 0.43) than tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). In comparison with selective serotonin uptake inhibitors (SSRIs), mirtazapine was significantly more likely to cause weight gain or increased appetite (RR 3.68), increased salivation (RR 3.66), somnolence (RR 1.62) and fatigue (RR 1.45), but less likely to cause flatulence (RR 0.26), sweating (RR 0.28), sexual dysfunction (RR 0.34), tremor (RR 0.37), nausea or vomiting (RR 0.40), sleep disturbance (RR 0.55) and diarrhoea (RR 0.61). In comparison with the serotonin-noradrenaline (norepinephrine) reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) venlafaxine, mirtazapine was significantly more likely to cause fatigue (RR 2.02), but less likely to cause sleep disturbance (RR 0.03), sweating (RR 0.03) and constipation (RR 0.25). Relative to trazodone, mirtazapine was significantly more likely to cause weight gain or increased appetite (RR 4.00). Approximately 70% of patients treated with mirtazapine experienced at least one adverse event, with no significant difference in comparison with other antidepressants. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirmed the paucity of adequate safety reporting in trials comparing mirtazapine with other types of antidepressant in the acute-phase treatment of depression in adults. Based on the available evidence, mirtazapine appears to have a unique adverse-event profile. Using these findings, clinicians can inform their patients, not only of the simple frequency of adverse events with mirtazapine, but also of the relative difference in the frequency of adverse events in comparison with that of other antidepressants, to aid pragmatic clinical decisions.

Milnacipran versus other antidepressive agents for depression.

BACKGROUND: Although pharmacological and psychological interventions are both effective for major depression, antidepressant drugs are frequently used as first-line treatment in primary and secondary care settings. Milnacipran, a dual serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), is one of the antidepressant drugs that clinicians use for routine depression care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of milnacipran in comparison with tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), heterocyclics, SSRIs and other newer antidepressive agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety & Neurosis review group Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) were electronically searched in August 2008. References of relevant trials and other reviews were also checked. Trial databases of the drug-approving agencies and ongoing clinical trial registers for all published and unpublished trials were hand-searched in 2007. All relevant authors were contacted for supplemental data. No language restriction was applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing milnacipran with any other active antidepressive agents (including non-conventional agents such as herbal products like hypericum) as monotherapy in the acute phase of major depression were selected. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently checked eligibility, assessed methodological quality and extracted data from the eligible trials using a standardised data extraction form. The number of participants who responded to treatment or those who achieved remission were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted, combining data from the included trials. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 16 randomised controlled trials (n=2277) were included in the meta-analysis.Despite the size of this sample, the pooled 95% confidence intervals were rather wide and there were no statistically significant differences in efficacy, acceptability and tolerability when comparing milnacipran with other antidepressive agents. However, compared with TCAs, patients taking milnacipran were associated with fewer dropouts due to adverse events (OR 0.55; 95%CI 0.35 to 0.85). There was also some weak evidence to suggest that patients taking milnacipran experienced fewer adverse events of sleepiness/ drowsiness, dry mouth or constipation compared with TCAs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is inadequate evidence to conclude whether milnacipran is superior, inferior or the same as other antidepressive agents in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability in the acute phase treatment of major depression. However, there is some evidence in favour of milnacipran over TCAs in terms of dropouts due to adverse events (acceptability) and the rates of experiencing adverse events (tolerability). Information about other clinically meaningful outcomes such as cost-effectiveness and social functioning, including the ability to return to work, is lacking. Further study is needed to answer whether milnacipran would be the better choice of antidepressant for acute major depression.

Sertraline versus other antidepressive agents for depression.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence clinical practice guideline on the treatment of depressive disorder recommended that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors should be the first-line option when drug therapy is indicated for a depressive episode. Preliminary evidence suggested that sertraline might be slightly superior in terms of effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of escitalopram in comparison with tricyclics (TCAs), heterocyclics, other SSRIs and newer agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE (1966 to 2008), EMBASE (1974 to 2008), the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to July 2008. No language restriction was applied. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were hand-searched. Pharmaceutical companies and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials allocating patients with major depression to sertraline versus any other antidepressive agent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data. Discrepancies were resolved with another member of the team. A double-entry procedure was employed by two reviewers. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy (the number of patients who responded or remitted), acceptability (the number of patients who failed to complete the study) and tolerability (side-effects). MAIN RESULTS: A total of 59 studies, mostly of low quality, were included in the review, involving multiple treatment comparisons between sertraline and other antidepressant agents. Evidence favouring sertraline over some other antidepressants for the acute phase treatment of major depression was found, either in terms of efficacy (fluoxetine) or acceptability/tolerability (amitriptyline, imipramine, paroxetine and mirtazapine). However, some differences favouring newer antidepressants in terms of efficacy (mirtazapine) and acceptability (bupropion) were also found. In terms of individual side effects, sertraline was generally associated with a higher rate of participants experiencing diarrhoea. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis highlighted a trend in favour of sertraline over other antidepressive agents both in terms of efficacy and acceptability, using 95% confidence intervals and a conservative approach, with a random effects analysis. However, the included studies did not report on all the outcomes that were pre-specified in the protocol of this review. Outcomes of clear relevance to patients and clinicians were not reported in any of the included studies.

Escitalopram versus other antidepressive agents for depression.

BACKGROUND: Although pharmacological and psychological interventions are both effective for major depression, antidepressant drugs remain the mainstay of treatment in primary and secondary care settings. During the last 20 years, antidepressant prescribing has risen dramatically in western countries, mainly because of the increasing consumption of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and newer antidepressants, which have progressively become the most commonly prescribed antidepressants. Escitalopram is the pure S-enantiomer of the racemic citalopram. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of escitalopram in comparison with tricyclics, other SSRIs, heterocyclics and newer agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases were searched up to July 2008. Trial databases of drug-approving agencies were hand-searched for published, unpublished and ongoing controlled trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials comparing escitalopram against any other antidepressant (including non-conventional agents such as hypericum) for patients with major depressive disorder (regardless of the diagnostic criteria used). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were entered by two review authors (double data entry). Responders and remitters to treatment were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. For dichotomous data, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Continuous data were analysed using standardised mean differences (with 95% CI) using the random effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen trials compared escitalopram with another SSRI and eight compared escitalopram with a newer antidepressive agent (venlafaxine, bupropion and duloxetine). Escitalopram was shown to be significantly more effective than citalopram in achieving acute response (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.87). Escitalopram was also more effective than citalopram in terms of remission (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.93). Significantly fewer patients allocated to escitalopram withdrew from trials compared with patients allocated to duloxetine, for discontinuation due to any cause (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.99). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some statistically significant differences favouring escitalopram over other antidepressive agents for the acute phase treatment of major depression were found, in terms of efficacy (citalopram and fluoxetine) and acceptability (duloxetine). There is insufficient evidence to detect a difference between escitalopram and other antidepressants in early response to treatment (after two weeks of treatment). Cost-effectiveness information is also needed in the field of antidepressant trials. Furthermore, as with most standard systematic reviews, the findings rely on evidence from direct comparisons. The potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should also be borne in mind.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Conventional meta-analyses have shown inconsistent results for efficacy of second-generation antidepressants. We therefore did a multiple-treatments meta-analysis, which accounts for both direct and indirect comparisons, to assess the effects of 12 new-generation antidepressants on major depression. METHODS: We systematically reviewed 117 randomised controlled trials (25 928 participants) from 1991 up to Nov 30, 2007, which compared any of the following antidepressants at therapeutic dose range for the acute treatment of unipolar major depression in adults: bupropion, citalopram, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients who responded to or dropped out of the allocated treatment. Analysis was done on an intention-to-treat basis. FINDINGS: Mirtazapine, escitalopram, venlafaxine, and sertraline were significantly more efficacious than duloxetine (odds ratios [OR] 1.39, 1.33, 1.30 and 1.27, respectively), fluoxetine (1.37, 1.32, 1.28, and 1.25, respectively), fluvoxamine (1.41, 1.35, 1.30, and 1.27, respectively), paroxetine (1.35, 1.30, 1.27, and 1.22, respectively), and reboxetine (2.03, 1.95, 1.89, and 1.85, respectively). Reboxetine was significantly less efficacious than all the other antidepressants tested. Escitalopram and sertraline showed the best profile of acceptability, leading to significantly fewer discontinuations than did duloxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, reboxetine, and venlafaxine. INTERPRETATION: Clinically important differences exist between commonly prescribed antidepressants for both efficacy and acceptability in favour of escitalopram and sertraline. Sertraline might be the best choice when starting treatment for moderate to severe major depression in adults because it has the most favourable balance between benefits, acceptability, and acquisition cost.

Does randomized evidence support sertraline as first-line antidepressant for adults with acute major depression? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Preliminary evidence suggested that sertraline might be slightly superior to other antidepressant medications in terms of efficacy. The aim of this study was to carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare sertraline with any other antidepressant in the acute phase treatment of major depression at 8 weeks. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE; EMBASE; the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register; and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to August 2007. No language restriction. The following search strategy was used: diagnosis = depress* or dysthymi* or adjustment disorder* or mood disorder* or affective disorder or affective symptoms, and intervention (or free text) = sertraline. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were hand-searched. Pharmaceutical companies and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data. STUDY SELECTION: Only randomized controlled trials allocating patients with major depression to sertraline versus any other antidepressant agent. DATA EXTRACTION: Three reviewers independently extracted data. A double-entry procedure was employed by 2 reviewers. To analyze data, a very conservative approach with a 99% confidence interval (CI) and a random effects model was used. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details, and outcome measures, such as the number of patients who responded to treatment and the number of patients who failed to complete the study by any cause at 8 weeks. DATA SYNTHESIS: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that sertraline is statistically significantly better than fluoxetine (relative risk [RR] = 0.85, 99% CI = 0.74 to 0.98; number needed to treat [NNT] = 12) and other SSRIs as a class (RR = 0.88, 99% CI = 0.78 to 0.99; NNT = 17) and highlighted a consistent even though not statistically significant trend in favor of sertraline over many other antidepressants both in terms of efficacy and acceptability in a homogeneous and clinically relevant time frame of 8 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review suggest that sertraline may be a candidate as the initial choice of antidepressant for people with major depression.

Psychosocial interventions for prevention of psychological disorders in law enforcement officers.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial interventions are widely used for the prevention of psychological disorders in law enforcement officers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for the prevention of psychological disorders in law enforcement officers. SEARCH STRATEGY: CCDANCTR-References was searched on 12/5/2008, electronic databases were searched, reference lists of review articles and included studies were checked, a specialist journal was handsearched, specialist books were checked and we contacted experts and trialists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi randomised controlled trials were eligible. The types of participants were people employed directly in law enforcement, including police officers and military police, regardless of gender, age and country of origin, and whether or not they had experienced some psychological trauma. All types of psychosocial intervention were eligible. The relevant outcome measures were psychological symptoms, adverse events and acceptability of interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was entered into Review Manager 4.2 for analysis, but this review was converted to RevMan 5.0 for publication. Quality assessments were performed. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of studies. Summary effects were to be calculated using RevMan but no meta-analyses were possible. For individual studies, dichotomous outcome data are presented using relative risk, and continuous outcome data are presented using the weighted mean difference. These results are given with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies were included in the review but only five reported data that could be used. Three of the ten studies were related to exercise-based psychological interventions. Seven were related to psychological interventions. No meta-analyses were possible due to diversity of participants, interventions and outcomes. Two studies compared a psychosocial intervention versus another intervention. Three studies compared a psychosocial intervention to a control group. Only one primary prevention trial reported data for the primary outcomes and, although this study found a significant difference in depression in favour of the intervention at endpoint, this difference was no longer evident at 18 months. No studies of primary prevention comparing different interventions and reporting primary outcomes of interest were identified. The methodological quality of the included studies was summarised. No study met our full quality criteria and one was regarded as low-quality. The remainder could not be rated because of incomplete data in the published reports and inadequate responses from the trialists. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence only from individual small and low quality trials with minimal data suggesting that police officers benefit from psychosocial interventions, in terms of physical symptoms and psychological symptoms such as anxiety, depression, sleep problems, cynicism, anger, PTSD, marital problems and distress. No data on adverse effects were available. Meta-analyses of the available data were not possible. Further well-designed trials of psychosocial interventions are required. Research is needed on organization-based interventions to enhance psychological health among police officers.

Efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran in the treatment of major depression in comparison with other antidepressants : a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Milnacipran, a dual serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, is one of the newer antidepressants that clinicians use for the routine care of patients with major depression. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran with other antidepressants. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran in comparison with TCAs, SSRIs and other drugs in the acute phase of treatment for major depression. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials registers, journals, conference proceedings, trial databases of the drug-approving agencies and ongoing clinical trial registers for all published and unpublished randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and adverse events of milnacipran versus any other antidepressant. The search was conducted in December 2006 and updated in May 2007. No language restrictions were applied. All relevant authors were contacted to supplement any incomplete reporting in the original papers. Randomized controlled trials comparing milnacipran with any other active antidepressants as monotherapy in the acute phase of treatment for major depression were selected. Participants were aged > or =18 years, of both sexes and with a primary diagnosis of unipolar major depression. Studies were excluded when the participants had specific psychiatric and medical co-morbidities. Two independent reviewers assessed the quality of trials for inclusion, and subsequently extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Meta-analyses were conducted for efficacy and tolerability outcomes. Sixteen randomized controlled trials (n = 2277) were included in the meta-analyses. RESULTS: No differences were found in achieving clinical improvement, remission or overall tolerability when comparing milnacipran with other antidepressants. However, compared with the TCAs, fewer patients taking milnacipran were early treatment withdrawals due to adverse events (number needed to harm (NNH) = 15; 95% CI 10, 48). Significantly more patients taking TCAs experienced adverse events compared with milnacipran (NNH = 4; 95% CI 3, 7). CONCLUSIONS: The overall effectiveness and tolerability of milnacipran versus other antidepressants does not seem to differ in the acute phase of treatment for major depression. However, there is some evidence in favour of milnacipran over TCAs in terms of premature withdrawal due to adverse events and the rates of patients experiencing adverse events. Milnacipran may benefit some patient populations who experience adverse effects from other antidepressants in the acute phase of treatment for major depression.

Mirtazapine versus other antidepressants in the acute-phase treatment of adults with major depression: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a comprehensive, systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine over other antidepressants in the acute-phase treatment of major depression. DATA SOURCES: Studies were initially identified through electronic searches of the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register up to June 2006. The following search terms were used: depress*, dysthymi*, adjustment disorder*, mood disorder*, affective disorder, affective symptoms, and mirtazapine. No language restriction was imposed. The reference lists of the included studies, previous relevant systematic reviews, and trial registers were also hand searched. Pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field were contacted for more studies. STUDY SELECTION: Twenty-five randomized controlled trials were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent assessors examined the quality of the trials and extracted data on an intention-to-treat basis. DATA SYNTHESIS: The primary outcome measure was the relative risk (RR) of response (99% CIs) at the conclusion of acute-phase treatment. In relation to the early phase of treatment (at 2 weeks), there were no statistically significant differences between mirtazapine and the tricyclics in terms of the response (RR = 0.90, 99% CI = 0.69 to 1.18, p = .30 [8 trials contributed to this outcome]) or remission (RR = 0.87, 99% CI = 0.52 to 1.47, p = .50 [8 trials]) outcomes, but mirtazapine was superior to the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in terms of both the response (RR = 1.36, 99% CI = 1.13 to 1.64, p < .0001 [12 trials]) and remission (RR = 1.68, 99% CI = 1.20 to 2.36, p < .0001 [12 trials]). In the subgroup analyses, mirtazapine significantly produced more response than paroxetine (RR = 2.02, 99% CI = 1.09 to 3.75, p = .003 [3 trials]) and venlafaxine (RR = 1.77, 99% CI = 1.08 to 2.89, p = .003 [2 trials]). At the end of acute-phase treatment (6-12 weeks, all trials), no significant differences were observed in the efficacy outcomes. No significant differences were observed between mirtazapine and the other antidepressants in terms of either the total number of dropouts due to any reason (21 trials) or the total number of dropouts due to the development of side effect (23 trials) during the trials. CONCLUSIONS: Although mirtazapine is likely to have a faster onset of action than SSRIs, no significant differences were observed at the end of 6 to 12 weeks' treatment. Clinicians should focus on other practically relevant considerations to tailor treatment to best fit the needs of individual patients.