Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors for anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and stress disorders: A 3-level network meta-analysis
Authors:
- Natan Pereira GosmannNGNatan Pereira Gosmann
- Marianna de Abreu CostaMCMarianna de Abreu Costa
- Marianna de Barros JaegerMJMarianna de Barros Jaeger
- Luis Souza MottaLMLuis Souza Motta
- Lucas SpanembergLSLucas Spanemberg
- Gisele Gus ManfroGMGisele Gus Manfro
- Pim CuijpersPCPim Cuijpers
- Giovanni Abrahão SalumGSGiovanni Abrahão Salum
Open Access
- 10 June 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLOS Medicine
- Vol. 18 (6) , e1003664
Abstract
Background: Anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and stress-related disorders frequently co-occur, and patients often present symptoms of several domains. Treatment involves the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), but data on comparative efficacy and acceptability are lacking. We aimed to compare the efficacy of SSRIs, SNRIs, and placebo in multiple symptom domains in patients with these diagnoses over the lifespan through a 3-level network meta-analysis. Methods and findings: We searched for published and unpublished randomized controlled trials that aimed to assess the efficacy of SSRIs or SNRIs in participants (adults and children) with diagnosis of any anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, or stress-related disorder in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to 23 April 2015, with an update on 11 November 2020. We supplemented electronic database searches with manual searches for published and unpublished randomized controlled trials registered in publicly accessible clinical trial registries and pharmaceutical companies’ databases. No restriction was made regarding comorbidities with any other mental disorder, participants’ age and sex, blinding of participants and researchers, date of publication, or study language. The primary outcome was the aggregate measure of internalizing symptoms of these disorders. Secondary outcomes included specific symptom domains and treatment discontinuation rate. We estimated standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 3-level network meta-analysis with random slopes by study for medication and assessment instrument. Risk of bias appraisal was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017069090). We analyzed 469 outcome measures from 135 studies (n = 30,245). All medications were more effective than placebo for the aggregate measure of internalizing symptoms (SMD −0.56, 95% CI −0.62 to −0.51, p < 0.001), for all symptom domains, and in patients from all diagnostic categories. We also found significant results when restricting to the most used assessment instrument for each diagnosis; nevertheless, this restriction led to exclusion of 72.71% of outcome measures. Pairwise comparisons revealed only small differences between medications in efficacy and acceptability. Limitations include the moderate heterogeneity found in most outcomes and the moderate risk of bias identified in most of the trials. Conclusions: In this study, we observed that all SSRIs and SNRIs were effective for multiple symptom domains, and in patients from all included diagnostic categories. We found minimal differences between medications concerning efficacy and acceptability. This three-level network meta-analysis contributes to an ongoing discussion about the true benefit of antidepressants with robust evidence, considering the significantly larger quantity of data and higher statistical power when compared to previous studies. The 3-level approach allowed us to properly assess the efficacy of these medications on internalizing psychopathology, avoiding potential biases related to the exclusion of information due to distinct assessment instruments, and to explore the multilevel structure of transdiagnostic efficacy.Keywords
Funding Information
- Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (001)
- Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (001)
This publication has 40 references indexed in Scilit:
- Dose equivalents of antidepressants: Evidence-based recommendations from randomized controlled trialsJournal of Affective Disorders, 2015
- A multilevel approach to network meta-analysis within a frequentist frameworkContemporary Clinical Trials, 2015
- Reporting Bias in Clinical Trials Investigating the Efficacy of Second-Generation Antidepressants in the Treatment of Anxiety DisordersJAMA Psychiatry, 2015
- Indirect and mixed‐treatment comparison, network, or multiple‐treatments meta‐analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis toolResearch Synthesis Methods, 2012
- Putting the efficacy of psychiatric and general medicine medication into perspective: review of meta-analysesThe British Journal of Psychiatry, 2012
- Common mental health disorders — identification and pathways to care: NICE clinical guidelineBritish Journal of General Practice, 2012
- The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trialsBMJ, 2011
- Fixed effects and variance components estimation in three-level meta-analysisResearch Synthesis Methods, 2011
- Imputing missing standard deviations in meta-analyses can provide accurate resultsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2006
- A comparison of the utility of dimensional and categorical representations of psychosisPsychological Medicine, 1999