4.6 Article

Efficacy of adjunctive celecoxib treatment for patients with major depressive disorder: A meta-analysis

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2013.09.006

关键词

Depression; Inflammation; Meta-analysis; NSAID; Randomized controlled trials

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Numerous studies have reported that inflammation is closely associated with depression, and adjunctive non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) treatment has been suggested as a novel therapeutic approach for depression. Methods: We searched electronic databases including Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We only included randomized controlled trials comparing adjunctive NSAIDs with placebos for treating depressive episodes. Results: Of the 654 retrieved entries, we identified four relevant studies with a total of 150 patients (75 NSAID patients and 75 placebo patients) with depressive episodes. All four studies used celecoxib as the NSAID. The patients receiving adjunctive celecoxib had significantly higher mean changes in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores between baseline and endpoint measurements compared with those receiving placebo (weighted mean difference = 3.26, 95% confidence interval; CI = 1.81 to 4.71). The adjunctive celecoxib group also showed better remission (odds ratio; OR = 6.58, 95% CI = 2.55 to 17.00) and response rates (OR = 6.49, 95% CI = 2.89 to 14.55) than the placebo group. The all-cause drop-out rate was more favorable for the celecoxib group than for the placebo group (OR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.18 to 1.13), although the statistical significance was not statistically significant (p = 0.09). Conclusion: Adjunctive treatment with NSAIDs, particularly celecoxib, can be a promising strategy for patients with depressive disorder. Future studies with a larger sample size and longer study duration are needed to confirm the efficacy and tolerability of NSAIDs for depression. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.6
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