Comparative Efficacy and Risk of Harms of Immediate- versus Extended-Release Second-Generation Antidepressants: A Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis
2014 (English)In: CNS Drugs, ISSN 1172-7047, Vol. 28, no 8, 699-712 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Major depressive disorder (MDD) has detrimental effects on an individuals personal life, leads to increased risk of comorbidities, and places an enormous economic burden on society. Several second-generation antidepressants are available as both immediate-release (IR) and extended-release formulations. The advantage of extended-release formulations may be the potentially improved adherence and a lower risk of adverse events. We conducted a systematic review to assess the comparative efficacy, risk of harms, and patients adherence of IR and extended-release antidepressants for the treatment of MDD. English-language abstracts were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 1980 to October 2012, as well as from reference lists of pertinent review articles and grey literature searches. We included head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 6 weeks duration that compared an IR formulation with an extended-release formulation of the same antidepressant in adult patients with MDD. We also included placebo-controlled trials to conduct a network meta-analysis. To assess harms and adherence, in addition to RCTs, we searched for observational studies with a parts per thousand yen1,000 participants and a follow-up of a parts per thousand yen12 weeks. We dually reviewed abstracts and full texts and assessed quality ratings. Lacking head-to-head evidence for many comparisons of interest, we conducted network meta-analyses using Bayesian methods. Our outcome measure of choice was response on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. We located seven head-to-head trials and 94 placebo- and active-controlled trials for network meta-analysis. Overall, our analyses indicate that IR and extended-release formulations do not differ substantially with respect to efficacy and risk of harms. The evidence is mixed with respect to differences in adherence, indicating lower adherence for IR formulations. The lack of head-to-head comparisons for many drugs compromises our conclusions. Network meta-analyses have methodological limitations that need to be taken into consideration when interpreting findings. Available evidence currently shows no clear differences between the two formulations and therefore we cannot recommend a first choice. However, if adherence or compliance with one medication is an issue, then clinicians and patients should consider the alternative medication. If adherence or costs are a problem with one formulation, consideration of the other formulation to provide an adequate treatment trial is reasonable.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Adis / Springer Verlag (Germany) , 2014. Vol. 28, no 8, 699-712 p.
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-112840DOI: 10.1007/s40263-014-0169-zISI: 000344613600002PubMedID: 24794101OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-112840DiVA: diva2:776759
Funding Agencies|AHRQ, US Department of Health and Human Services [HHSA-290-2007-10056I]2015-01-082014-12-172015-05-06