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.

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.

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.

The pharmacokinetics of long-acting antipsychotic medications.

The depot antipsychotics are synthesized by esterification of the active drug to a long chain fatty acid and the resultant compound is then dissolved in a vegetable oil, with the exception of some molecules of new generation characterized by microcrystalline technologies. The absorption rate constant is slower than the elimination rate constant and therefore, the depot antipsychotics exhibit 'flip-flop' kinetics where the time to steady-state is a function of the absorption rate, and the concentration at steady-state is a function of the elimination rate. The pharmacokinetics of depot antipsychotic medications are such that an intramuscular injection given at intervals from 1 to 4 weeks will produce adequate plasma concentrations that are sufficient to prevent relapse over the dosage interval. Such medication is useful in patients who do not reliably take their oral medication. The pharmacokinetics and clinical actions of various depot formulations of antipsychotic drugs have been extensively studied. The clinical pharmacokinetics of the depot antipsychotics for which plasma level studies are available (i.e. fluphenazine enanthate and decanoate, haloperidol decanoate, bromperidol decanoate, clopenthixol decanoate, flupenthixol decanoate, perphenazine onanthat, pipotiazine undecylenate, pipotiazine palmitate, fluspirilene, long-acting injectable risperidone, olanzapine pamoate, paliperidone palmitate, long-acting iloperidone, long-acting injectable aripiprazole) are reviewed. The proper study of these agents has been handicapped until recently by the necessity of accurately measuring subnanomolar concentrations in plasma. Their kinetic properties, the relationship of plasma concentrations to clinical effects, and conversion from oral to injectable therapy are discussed.

[Urban insecurity and fear of crime in people suffering from mental disorders: a study in 24 Mental Health Centers in Italy]. / Insicurezza percepita e paura del crimine in persone affette da disturbi mentali: uno studio in 24 Centri di Salute Mentale.

AIMS: To assess in a sample of people with mental disorders: 1) fear of crime and perceived insecurity; 2) the association between fear of crime and insecurity; 3) the incidence of crimes. METHODS: Twenty-four Italian mental health centres have been invited to participate in the study from the network of the Early Career Psychiatrists' Committee of the Italian Psychiatric Association. In each participating centre, the first 20 patients consecutively accessing the mental health centre between February and April 2011 have been recruited. All patients have been assessed using validated assessment tools. RESULTS: The final sample consists of 426 patients. They are mostly female (70.1%), with a mean age of 45 years (± 13.5), and with a good level of education. Fifty-two percent of patients have a diagnosis of mood disorders, and 37.8% on anxiety spectrum disorders. About half of the sample declares that the most prominent feeling toward life is uncertainty. Almost all patients report to have at least one big fear, with the most frequently report being: 1) loss or death of a loved one (41.2%); 2) financial constraint (28.4%); 3) physical or mental health problems (26.5%). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Our results show the presence of a common sense of uncertainty among patients, probably as a result of the historical moment we are facing. It is reasonable that this attitude toward life can have a detrimental impact on patients' psychological and physical wellbeing, contributing to high levels of distress. Further studies are needed in order to clarify the possible relationship between fears, uncertainty and mental disorders.