4.7 Review

Antidepressants in elderly: Metaregression of double-blind, randomized clinical trials

期刊

JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
卷 147, 期 1-3, 页码 1-8

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2012.11.053

关键词

Older; Elderly; Depression; Antidepressant; Effectiveness; Clinic profile

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Depression is common in the elderly and in the last few years this led to a significant increase in antidepressant prescription rates. However, little is known about antidepressant efficacy profile in relation with socio-demographic and clinical features in this population. The aim of the present study was to define the most suitable socio-demographic and clinical profile for the use of antidepressant treatments in late-life depression. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focused on efficacy of antidepressants of all classes in major depressed elderly subjects (> 60 years old). Reviews and meta-analyses focusing on this topic have been considered as well. Thirty-four RCTs were included and socio-demographic and clinical features were investigated via meta-regression analysis as moderators of efficacy measures (standardized mean difference based on Hamilton Depressive Rating Scale and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale). Results: A lower rate of response to antidepressants of all classes was found in patients of male gender, of older age, and with a longer mean duration of the current episode. On the contrary, a higher rate of response was found in patients with a higher baseline severity and at their first episode of illness. Subsamples treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors alone yielded similar results. Limitations: RCTs only have been included. Conclusions: A number of socio-demographic and clinical features have been found to moderate antidepressant efficacy in elderly population. Those variables could help clinicians for a more individualized treatment. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据