How many weeks of treatment constitute a full course of an antidepressant?
Depression is a complex mental illness that can result in significant disability, reduced quality of life, and societal burden. Pharmacological agents are one of several initial treatment modalities used for depression and one of the most frequently utilized classes of drugs are the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI). However, the rate of treatment response from baseline symptoms following first-line treatment with SSRIs is moderate, varying from 40 to 60 percent; remission rates vary from 30 to 45 percent.1 Up to one third of persons on drug treatment will develop recurrent symptoms of depression while on therapy.2 Moreover, there is limited evidence identifying reliable predictors (demographic, clinical, or genetic characteristics) of individual response.3 Adequate response to SSRI interventions is not consistently operationalized, but it is generally accepted that a 50 percent decrease in symptom severity from baseline is sufficient.4 Remission from depression is defined as being free or nearly free of symptoms for the current episode. Show
Given the large proportion of patients who do not respond adequately to SSRIs as first-line therapy, the practitioner is faced with the dilemma of determining the presence of inadequacy of the response and then selecting a new course of action. The new course of action may vary and can include: 1) an optimization strategy (altering dose or duration of the SSRI), 2) switching to other SSRIs, 3) switching to other classes of antidepressants, 4) combining SSRIs with other medications or non-pharmacological therapies 5) switching to non-pharmacological interventions alone, or 6) combinations of these.5 There is a need to examine the evidentiary base for these varying management strategies for patients who have failed to adequately respond to SSRI used as a first-line therapy for the index episode. For the purposes of this systematic review treatment failure (TF) is a response of less than 50 percent change relative to baseline and primarily reflects the perspective of the clinician and researcher; it marks the threshold of change by which a clinician will seek to progress or modify treatment for the patient. We use the terms “failure to respond” or “non-responder” in this same context. Unsatisfactory response is used in this review to capture the perspective of the patient being treated for depression; an unsatisfactory response may include other aspects of concern not captured by a change score relative to baseline. TF can encompass a number of subgroups of patients who do not adequately respond to interventions for their current episode of depression. TF is not consistently defined within the literature, but is generally understood to reflect patients with depression who have not responded to one course of therapy. TF populations may include patients who would meet criteria for treatment resistance (> 2 inadequate responses) subgroups based on past treatment for prior episodes of depression.6 A portion of patients who have experienced TF will also go on to be defined as treatment resistant, if they also fail to respond to subsequent treatment strategies. Treatment resistance is variably defined but usually refers to patients who have failed at least two trials of medication that have been of adequate dose and duration. Some definitions suggest that the failures should be to medications of different classes, but this is not universally accepted. Monitoring adherence to antidepressants is sometimes difficult, but non-adherence may account for up to 20 percent of patients classified as having treatment resistant depression.7 Similarly, there is the potential for pseudo-resistance (non-response to inadequate treatment). All this would suggest the difficulty of defining and capturing subjects who have had TF and related subgroups. It may also reflect heterogeneity across studies evaluating the efficacy of SSRIs within this patient population. Previous literature reviews would suggest that some of the strategies to treat patients following inadequate response may not be based on evidence; this is partially attributable to the small number of studies that have evaluated the different strategies. Rhue et al.8 evaluated the evidence for switching SSRIs in studies where 50 percent of subjects had previously used an SSRI and not responded adequately. This review found eight randomized trials and 23 open studies (with and without comparator groups). Response rates after switching to a new therapy varied from 12 to 86 percent and remission rates varied between 7 and 82 percent. Rates of dropouts due to harms varied from 9 to 39 percent. This review also identified some evidence showing that the number of failed responses to previous treatment with antidepressants was negatively associated with a positive response or outcome. Overall, this review showed that there was limited high quality evidence describing optimal strategies to switch medications in persons with previous SSRI use. In addition, there were limited studies that recruited prospectively determined SSRI non-responders. Papakostas et al.9 undertook a meta-analysis of four trials in subjects with TF who were randomized to switch to a non-SSRI versus another SSRI. The results suggest a modest and statistically significant advantage for remission rates when switching to non-SSRI rather than another SSRI. This review restricted eligible studies to those using three outcomes (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomology) and to those evaluating the acute phase of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Williams et al.10 completed a systematic review on the treatment of depression in adolescents and children. Although this review did not focus on subjects who had failed to respond, the eligible studies did show that the rate at which children failed to respond to an initial trial of SSRIs varied from 31 to 64 percent. There was also some evidence that not all SSRIs were efficacious and that combined therapy (including an SSRI) is effective in this population. A variety of treatment strategies aimed at helping individuals who have inadequate responses to first-line therapy with an SSRIs have been developed and applied in patients with depression. The primary goal of this CER is to examine the evidence guiding clinical treatment decisions and ultimately to aid clinicians in their care of patients in whom SSRI use as a first-line therapy for the index episode fails to bring about either complete or partial response or remission of depression. The Key QuestionsQuestion 1:
Monotherapy:
The pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions of interest are as follows: Selective-Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs): Serotonin-Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors (SNRIs): Monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs): Non-SSRI Antidepressants: Other Non-SSRI Antidepressants: Non-pharmacological therapies: Augmenters:
We will identify and include studies with comparative intervention groups. From a design hierarchy perspective, comparative group designs provide stronger evidence for efficacy and effectiveness than non-comparative designs. The interventions (either alone or in combination) may be compared to any of the following:
Primary Outcomes: Partial or complete response, Remission (free of all symptoms or with few symptoms), Speed of response or remission, and Relapse
Question 4:
Primary Outcomes: Partial or complete response, Remission (free of all symptoms or with few symptoms), Speed of response or remission, and Relapse
Question 5:
Primary Outcomes: Partial or complete response, Remission (free of all symptoms or with few symptoms), Speed of response or remission, and Relapse
Analytic FrameworkFigure 1 shows a flow diagram indicating the relationship between research questions in this CER. The first box in the figure shows the last question (KQ5) where current guidelines are reviewed. The other questions are related to interventions used following the unsatisfactory response to an SSRI for the index episode of depression. The treatment options following a failed response include the eight options (defined as interventions) for KQ1. Harms associated with any of these interventions are evaluated in KQ2 and can include suicide, sexual dysfunction, gastrointestinal effects and neuropsychiatric effects. The study effects are evaluated in KQ1, 3 and 4, with the latter two questions considering subgroups related to different population subgroups and different types of SSRIs. We note that intermediate outcomes, such as response and remission may precede quality of life or societal outcomes (costs, utilization). MethodsA. Criteria for Inclusion/Exclusion of Studies in the ReviewTarget Population: The population will include adults (> 18 years) and adolescents (12 to 18 years) with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Dysthymia, or Subsyndromal Depression, who meet the following criteria:
Exclusion
Target Intervention: We have further defined the non-pharmacological therapies and Biologically Based Practices to include the following: CBT, IPT, and other psychotherapies which may include: Behavior therapy, Interpersonal therapy (IPT), counseling, problem-solving therapy, psychodynamic therapy, bibliotherapy, guided self-help, distraction therapy Light therapy (any therapy that includes primarily exposure to light) Exercise (any type cardiovascular or strengthening or stretching and including yoga, hydrotherapy) CAM therapies including:
For clinical practice guidelines, we will focus on guidelines at a national level or from key professional organizations published in English but not limited to any country. Sample size: There are no restrictions for study sample size. Study Design, and Publication types: Inclusions: Full text reports as well as unpublished literature will be reviewed. Eligible study designs include:
Exclusions:
Language of Publication: Contacting Authors for missing data: B. Searching for the Evidence: Literature Search Strategies for Identification of Relevant Studies to Answer the Key Questions.Search Strategy Studies will be limited to those published from 1980 forward when SSRIs first became available. The following databases were searched: MEDLINE; Cochrane CENTRAL, PsychINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; EMBASE; CINAHL; AMED. Strategies used combinations of controlled vocabulary (medical subject headings, keywords) and text words. Grey literature will be identified through searching the websites of relevant specialty societies and organizations, Health Technology Assessment agencies (Hayes Inc. Health Technology Assessment), guideline collections, Regulatory information (i.e., United States Federal Drug Agency (FDA), Health Canada, Authorized Medicines for European Community), clinical trial registries (i.e., clinical.trials.gov, Current Controlled Clinical Trials, Clinical Study Results, WHO Clinical Trials), grants and federally funded research (i.e. National Institute of Health (NIH), HSRPROJ), Abstracts and conference proceedings (i.e. Conference Papers Index, Scopus), and the New York Academy of Medicine’s Grey Literature Index. Review of reference lists of eligible studies at full text screening will be undertaken. Any potentially relevant citations will be cross-checked with our citation database. Any references not found will be retrieved and screened at full text. Our initial search strategy yielded approximately 60,000 citations and after removing duplicates across databases our final yield will approximate 45,000. Our search strategy was intended to be broad as our population is not well indexed and treatment failure is inconsistently defined within the literature. The search strategy was not delimited by treatments or outcomes. Additionally, our strategy included targeted searches specific to some terms for the non-pharmacological therapies and for adverse events related to the use of antidepressants. Note that in Embase alone there are over 7,000 articles that “focus” on adverse events relating to antidepressants, none of which would be excluded from this review. We expect that the vast majority of these 43,000 citations will not include our population; we will not be able to determine this until they are screened as the population headings are not well indexed and there may be studies with subgroups of “failed response” subjects even though they are not the focus of the study. Updating of the search Incorporation of Public and Peer Review suggestions for literature C. Data Abstraction and Data ManagementRelevant fields of information will be extracted from individual studies by trained data extractors using standardized forms and a reference guide. Prior to performing the data extraction, a calibration exercise will be conducted using a random sample of 10 included studies. Key study elements will be reviewed by a second person (study investigator) with respect to study outcomes, seminal population characteristics (past psychiatric history elements and definition of prior “treatment failure”), and characteristics of the intervention. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus. Abstracted data will include study characteristics (e.g., first author, country of research origin, study design, sample size, sample size calculation or power estimate); clinical indications; and study duration or length of followup. Details of the patient population will include but not be limited to age, gender, racial composition, socio-economic status (income, education), sleeping disturbances or levels, co-morbidities (psychiatric and medical histories, use of alternative and complementary treatments concurrently or historically), definition of treatment failure, severity and duration of the depressive disorder. Details of the study intervention and comparator will include but will not be limited to type of intervention/comparator (pharmacological and non-pharmacological and the comparators as listed in the eligibility criteria above), dosage of intervention/comparator (type, dose, method of administration), frequency (number of treatments per week, number of total treatments, treatment fidelity for psychotherapy), treatment duration (total duration of care), duration of followup (from immediately post treatment to long term), and characteristics of treatment providers. Characteristics of the outcomes will include the type of instrument or scale, primary or secondary outcome status, type of effect measure (endpoint or change score, measure of variance (standard deviation, standard error), etc), definition of “adequate” treatment response, and type of statistical analysis (e.g., intention to treat). D. Assessment of Methodological Quality of Individual StudiesWe interpret methodological quality to include primarily elements of risk of bias, (systematic error) related to the design and conduct of the study. In addition, we will evaluate the presence of additional biases, such as the funding bias, and a specific form of selection bias related to “treatment failure” being determined prospectively. We have selected the Risk of Bias Tool by the Cochrane Collaboration11 to assess randomized controlled trials. The tool contains 12 items that include evaluation of the domains of randomization, blinding, co-intervention, and selective outcome reporting biases. Criteria for evaluation are standardized for these domains. However, there is some evidence that certain items where greater judgment is required may be prone to inconsistencies amongst raters.12 We will minimize inconsistency amongst raters by providing adequate training for raters and specifying clear decision rules in the standardized instructions. We have selected the Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Tool13 to assess risk of bias for observational studies. The study design elements evaluated with this tool include: selection of the study population, appropriate means for measuring exposures (case control studies) and outcomes (cohort studies), and comparability of groups (controlling for confounding). We will also evaluate potential biases related to funding sources or conflict of interest, as well as the determination of “treatment failure” prospectively. Additionally, we will evaluate studies for adequacy of collecting and reporting harms using the McHarm Tool; this tool has been specifically designed for adverse events and captures domains related to the classification of harms, method of collection (active versus passive), and also the level of withdrawals due to adverse events. We will judge experimental studies to be “fatally flawed” if allocation concealment, withdrawals, co-interventions, and adherence are all deemed inadequate. Studies that pass the first screening for fatal flaws will be classified into high or low risk of bias. A study with low risk of bias will be defined as a trial fulfilling six or more of the 12 methodological quality criteria in the Risk of Bias Tool and not having a fatal flaw. A study with high risk of bias will be defined as fulfilling fewer than six criteria and not having a fatal flaw. Similarly, studies with four or greater criteria on the NOS Tool will be considered to be high quality. We will wait to see the focus of the eligible observational studies (i.e., focus on outcomes of benefit or harm) in order to select the critical elements to specify that the study is fatally flawed. The classification of individual studies into categories of study limitations (high or low), will then be used to group studies for evaluation of the strength of the evidence. E. Data SynthesisQualitative synthesis For each trial, information on population characteristics (including history of treatment(s) for any previous episodes of depression, age of first diagnosis, etc.), study outcomes (both of benefit and of harm), sample size, settings, funding sources, treatments (type, dose, duration, and provider), methodological limitations, statistical analyses, and any important confounders will be summarized in text and summary tables. We will stratify results based on the depressive disorder (MDD, Dysthymia, and Subsyndromal depression) and by age (adolescents, adults, and elderly). Additionally, we will group study results: a) according to the intervention categories under monotherapy and combined therapies; and b) the proportion of patients on SSRIs prior to the new intervention being evaluated. Within each category of interventions, we will attempt to stratify results based on the type of intervention. Quantitative synthesis We will use DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model to generate pooled measures of treatment effect (i.e., estimates of relative risk (RR) and standardized or weighted mean difference (SMD or WMD) with 95 percent confidence intervals (95 percent CIs). We will evaluate the extent of statistical heterogeneity using a Chi-square (statistically significant: p<=0.1) and I2 (low: 25 percent moderate: 50 percent, and high: 75 percent) test statistics. The effect size will be calculated using the Kendal formula when continuous outcomes are reported as medians. We will separate studies by design type and only select like designs when meta-analysis is indicated. We will attempt to pilot the software Meta-Analyst developed within AHRQ (Tufts University). If this proves to be unsatisfactory we will use STATA (Version 10, StataCorp, College Station, Texas, U.S.A.) If relevant numerical data (e.g., point effect estimate, standard deviation, standard error) is missing or is not reported adequately, we will attempt to calculate or impute the needed parameters where possible, as well as contact study authors. However, to maintain our timelines, we can only allow for a specified interval for responses. Subgroup and Sensitivity Analysis To maximize the similarities amongst studies that could potentially be combined for meta-analyses, we will further stratify where possible studies based on the: 1) depressive disorder (MDD, Dysthymia, and Subsyndromal depression), and 2) age categories (adolescents, adults, elderly (65 years and older). There are several patient characteristics that we may further explore with sensitivity analyses (if meta-analyses can be undertaken) including the following: 1) disease severity (within MDD only); 2) gender; 3) number of prior “treatment failures”; and 4) co-morbidities related to other psychological disorders. Additionally, if there are sufficient studies, we will explore trial specific factors such as: 1) duration or dose of intervention; 2) type of treatment provider; and 3) method of defining “adequate” response. Finally, we will attempt to explore the impact of key methodological study limitations, in particular: 1) percent of withdrawals; 2) sample size; 3) high versus low overall quality; and 4) prospective determination of “treatment failure.) F. Grading the Evidence for Each Key QuestionWe will assess the overall strength of the body of the evidence using the GRADE approach.14 There are several factors that may decrease the overall strength of the evidence:
There are factors recommended by the GRADE working group (e.g., burden of therapy, importance of the outcome being evaluated) that may be taken into consideration when assigning a GRADE category. These will be explicitly detailed for each outcome evaluated. Publication bias We will attempt to evaluate the presence of publication bias for primary outcomes with 10 or more studies using funnel plots, recognizing the limitations of interpreting the symmetry of these. If a particular outcome is shown to have a high risk of publication bias, then the analyses will be presented and the summary estimate will be interpreted with caution. Definition of TermsTreatment Failure for this CER: Subjects who are currently on SSRI treatment for the index episode at the time of entry into the study and have been judged to have had an “inadequate response” at the time of entry into the study. Also, subjects who are recruited for entry into the study to be placed on an SSRI for purposes of monitoring prospectively the adequacy of their response; subsequent evaluation includes an intervention for those that have been shown to not respond adequately to the SSRI. Both these groups will be considered to have failed SSRI treatment. Inadequate Response: Using a standardized instrument, an inadequate response is one where the subjects’ severity scores do not decrease (improve) by 50 percent.18,19. This term is synonymous with non responders or failure to respond. These terms primarily reflect the perspective of the clinician or researcher. Unsatisfactory Response: Reflects the patient’s perception of their response to the intervention to treat their depression. Remission: Remission from depression is defined as being free or nearly free of symptoms for the current episode. Recurrence: Recurrence is defined as the return of a disease after its apparent cessation (symptoms return after a period of remission). Relapse: Relapse is a return of symptoms satisfying the full syndrome criteria for an episode and which occurs following a period of remission but before recovery. Relapse is the point at which recurrent symptoms are severe enough that the clinician determines an intervention is warranted. How many weeks must antidepressants be taken before they have a full effect?Antidepressants may take a while to kick in. You may feel some depression symptoms improve within the first couple weeks, but it can often take 4 to 8 weeks to feel the full effects of your medication. If you've taken your antidepressant for at least 4 weeks with no improvement, let your healthcare provider know.
Can you stop antidepressants after 3 weeks?People should not stop taking antidepressants abruptly, as it could cause severe withdrawal symptoms. Strategies to minimize withdrawal symptoms include: Tapering off slowly: Doctors typically recommend that people reduce their dose of antidepressants gradually, usually over 4 weeks, but sometimes longer.
|