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

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.