scholarly journals A meta-analysis of the efficacy of vortioxetine in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and high levels of anxiety symptoms

2016 ◽  
Vol 206 ◽  
pp. 140-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
David S. Baldwin ◽  
Ioana Florea ◽  
Paula L. Jacobsen ◽  
Wei Zhong ◽  
George G. Nomikos
Keyword(s):  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Anxiety Symptoms ◽  
Major Depressive

scholarly journals Beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review of published and unpublished data with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
Marija Barbateskovic ◽  
Caroline Kamp Jørgensen ◽  
Michael Pascal Hengartner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Harmful Effects

Abstract Background Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide. Antidepressants are frequently used to treat major depressive disorder. It has been shown repeatedly that antidepressants seem to reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the clinical importance of the effect sizes seems questionable. Both beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants have not previously been sufficiently assessed. The main objective of this review will be to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. Methods/design A systematic review with meta-analysis will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2 (ROB2), our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control for random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases from their inception to the present. Clinical study reports will be obtained from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results of the literature searches, extract data, and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing one or more antidepressants with placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following active agents will be included: agomelatine, amineptine, amitriptyline, bupropion, butriptyline, cianopramine, citalopram, clomipramine, dapoxetine, demexiptiline, desipramine, desvenlafaxine, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, iprindole, levomilnacipran, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, paroxetine, protriptyline, quinupramine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, tianeptine, trimipramine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide attempt, suicidal ideation, and non-serious adverse events. Discussion As antidepressants are commonly used to treat major depressive disorder in adults, a systematic review evaluating their beneficial and harmful effects is urgently needed. This review will inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent and burdensome disorder. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020220279

scholarly journals Investigating regions of shared genetic variation in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and major depressive disorder: a GWAS meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Powell ◽  
Joanna Martin ◽  
Anita Thapar ◽  
Frances Rice ◽  
Richard J. L. Anney
Keyword(s):  
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Genetic Correlation ◽  
Attention Deficit ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
High Level ◽  
Genomic Regions

AbstractAttention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) demonstrates a high level of comorbidity with major depressive disorder (MDD). One possible contributor to this is that the two disorders show high genetic correlation. However, the specific regions of the genome that may be responsible for this overlap are unclear. To identify variants associated with both ADHD and MDD, we performed a meta-analysis of GWAS of ADHD and MDD. All genome wide significant (p < 5 × 10–8) SNPs in the meta-analysis that were also strongly associated (p < 5 × 10–4) independently with each disorder were followed up. These putatively pleiotropic SNPs were tested for additional associations across a broad range of phenotypes. Fourteen linkage disequilibrium-independent SNPs were associated with each disorder separately (p < 5 × 10–4) and in the cross-disorder meta-analysis (p < 5 × 10–8). Nine of these SNPs had not been highlighted previously in either individual GWAS. Evidence supported nine of the fourteen SNPs acting as eQTL and two as brain eQTL. Index SNPs and their genomic regions demonstrated associations with other mental health phenotypes. Through conducting meta-analysis on ADHD and MDD only, our results build upon the previously observed genetic correlation between ADHD and MDD and reveal novel genomic regions that may be implicated in this overlap.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document