4.7 Review

Comparative efficacy and safety of stimulant-type medications for depression: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
卷 292, 期 -, 页码 416-423

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.05.119

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reviewed the efficacy and safety of using psychostimulant medications to treat depression, with some psychostimulants, like methylphenidate, showing effectiveness and good tolerability for depression and related symptoms. However, due to small sample sizes and few RCTs, the strength of evidence in the estimates was generally considered low to very low, highlighting the need for additional high-quality RCTs to confirm the findings.
Background: Globally, depression impacts nearly 300 million people, and roughly half do not achieve remission with standard first-line therapies. For such individuals, augmentation strategies are often helpful at reducing the severity of depression. While there are many potential adjunctive medication choices, psychostimulants are among the more controversial options. Objectives: The present review sought to clarify the comparative efficacy and safety of different stimulant-like medications to treat depression. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) using psychostimulant medications to treat adults with depression. Outcomes were pooled using rate ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes (e.g., response, adverse events) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes (e.g., change in depression scores). Results: We identified 37 eligible studies (ranging from 1958 to 2016). We assessed nine psychostimulants: methylphenidate (n=14), dextroamphetamine (n=9), modafinil (n=6), lisdexamphetamine (n=3), methylamphetamine (n=3), pemoline (n=2), atomoxetine (n=1), desipramine (n=1), and imipramine (n=1). Overall, psychostimulants demonstrated efficacy for depression, reduced fatigue and sleepiness, and appeared well-tolerated. However, there was inconsistent evidence across particular psychostimulants. For example, the only psychostimulant which demonstrated efficacy for depression-in terms of both symptom severity and response rates-was methylphenidate. Conclusions: While our review suggests that some psychostimulants-particularly methylphenidate-appear well-tolerated and demonstrate some efficacy for depression, as well as fatigue and sleepiness, the strength of evidence in our estimates was low to very low for most agents given the small sample sizes, few RCTs, and imprecision in most estimates. A lack of consistent evidence precludes a definitive hierarchy of treatments and points to a need for additional, high-quality RCTs.

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