Watanabe Norio, Omori Ichiro M, Nakagawa Atsuo, Cipriani Andrea, Barbui Corrado, Churchill Rachel, Furukawa Toshi A
Department of Psychiatry & Cognitive-Behavioral Medicine, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kawasumi 1, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan, 467-8601.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Dec 7(12):CD006528. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006528.pub2.
Mirtazapine has a unique mechanism of antidepressive action and is one of the commonly used antidepressants in clinical practice.
The aim of the present review was to assess the evidence on the efficacy and acceptability of mirtazapine compared with other antidepressive agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression in adults.
We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis review group's specialised register (CCDANCTR), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years to April 2011), EMBASE, (1980 to July 2011) MEDLINE (1950 to July 2011) and PsycINFO (1974 to July 2011). Reference lists of the reports of relevant studies were checked and experts in the field contacted. The review was not limited to English-language articles.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) allocating participants with major depression to mirtazapine versus any other antidepressive agent.
Two authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome was response to treatment. The secondary outcomes included dropouts and individual adverse events.Meta-analyses were conducted using the random-effects model.
A total of 29 RCTs (n = 4974), mostly following up the participants for six weeks in outpatient clinics and inadequately reporting the risk of bias, were included. In comparison with tricyclic antidepressants (10 trials, n = 1553) there was no robust evidence to detect a difference between mirtazapine and tricyclics in terms of response at two weeks (odds ratio (OR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.13) or at the end of acute-phase treatment (at 6 to 12 weeks) (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.10). In comparison with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (12 trials, n = 2626) mirtazapine was significantly more effective at two weeks (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.88) and at the end of acute-phase treatment (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.39). Mirtazapine was significantly more effective than a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (venlafaxine only, two trials, n = 415) at two weeks (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.45 to 3.59) and at the end of acute-phase treatment (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.25).In terms of dropouts, there was no robust evidence to detect a difference between mirtazapine and other antidepressants. Mirtazapine was more likely to cause weight gain or increased appetite and somnolence than SSRIs but less likely to cause nausea or vomiting and sexual dysfunction.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some statistically significant and possibly clinically meaningful differences between mirtazapine and other antidepressive agents were found for the acute-phase treatment of major depression. Mirtazapine is likely to have a faster onset of action than SSRIs during the acute-phase treatment. Dropouts occur similarly in participants treated with mirtazapine and those treated with other antidepressants, although the adverse event profile of mirtazapine is unique.
米氮平具有独特的抗抑郁作用机制,是临床实践中常用的抗抑郁药之一。
本综述旨在评估与其他抗抑郁药相比,米氮平在成人重度抑郁症急性期治疗中的疗效和可接受性证据。
我们检索了Cochrane协作抑郁、焦虑和神经症综述小组的专业注册库(CCDANCTR),其中包括来自以下书目数据库的相关随机对照试验:Cochrane图书馆(截至2011年4月的所有年份)、EMBASE(1980年至2011年7月)、MEDLINE(1950年至2011年7月)和PsycINFO(1974年至2011年7月)。检查了相关研究报告的参考文献列表,并联系了该领域的专家。本综述不限于英语文章。
将重度抑郁症患者分配至米氮平组与任何其他抗抑郁药组的随机对照试验(RCT)。
两位作者独立检查纳入标准,并按意向性分析提取数据。主要结局是治疗反应。次要结局包括退出研究和个体不良事件。采用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。
共纳入29项RCT(n = 4974),大多在门诊对参与者随访6周,且对偏倚风险报告不足。与三环类抗抑郁药相比(10项试验,n = 1553),没有确凿证据表明米氮平与三环类抗抑郁药在2周时的反应(优势比(OR)0.85,95%置信区间(CI)0.64至1.13)或急性期治疗结束时(6至12周)(OR 0.89,95%CI 0.72至1.10)存在差异。与选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂(SSRI)相比(12项试验,n = 2626),米氮平在2周时(OR 1.57,9%CI 1.30至1.88)和急性期治疗结束时(OR 1.19,95%CI 1.01至1.39)显著更有效。米氮平在2周时(OR 2.29,95%CI 1.45至3.59)和急性期治疗结束时(OR 1.53,95%CI 1.03至2.25)比5-羟色胺-去甲肾上腺素再摄取抑制剂(仅文拉法辛,2项试验,n = 415)显著更有效。在退出研究方面,没有确凿证据表明米氮平与其他抗抑郁药之间存在差异。与SSRI相比,米氮平更可能导致体重增加或食欲增加以及嗜睡,但导致恶心或呕吐和性功能障碍的可能性较小。
在重度抑郁症的急性期治疗中,发现米氮平与其他抗抑郁药之间存在一些具有统计学意义且可能具有临床意义的差异。在急性期治疗期间,米氮平的起效可能比SSRI更快。接受米氮平治疗的参与者与接受其他抗抑郁药治疗的参与者退出研究的情况相似,尽管米氮平的不良事件谱是独特的。