Incidence of adverse events and comparative tolerability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors for the treatment of anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and stress disorders: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) show similar efficacy as treatments for anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and stress-related disorders. Hence, comparisons of adverse event rates across medications are an essential component of clinical decision-making. We aimed to compare patterns of adverse events associated with SSRIs and SNRIs in the treatment of children and adults diagnosed with these disorders through a network meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane, websites of regulatory agencies, and international registers from inception to 09 September 2022, for randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of SSRIs or SNRIs. We analyzed the proportion of participants experiencing at least one adverse event and incidence rates of 17 specific adverse events. We estimated incidence rates and odds ratios through network meta-analysis with random effects and three-level models. We analyzed 799 outcome measures from 80 studies (n = 21 338). Participants in medication groups presented higher rates of adverse events (80.22%, 95% CI 76.13-83.76) when compared to placebo groups (71.21%, 67.00-75.09). Nausea was the most common adverse event (25.71%, CI 23.96-27.54), while weight change was the least common (3.56%, 1.68-7.37). We found higher rates of adverse events of medications over placebo for most medications, except sertraline and fluoxetine. We found significant differences between medications for overall tolerability and for autonomic, gastrointestinal, and sleep-related symptoms. Adverse events are a common reason that patients discontinue SSRIs and SNRIs. Results presented here guide clinical decision-making when clinicians weigh one medication over another. This might improve treatment acceptability and compliance.

Placebo response in trials with patients with anxiety, obsessive-compulsive and stress disorders across the lifespan: a three-level meta-analysis.

QUESTION: Randomised controlled trials assessing treatments for anxiety, obsessive-compulsive and stress-related disorders often present high placebo response rates in placebo groups. Understanding the placebo response is essential in accurately estimating the benefits of pharmacological agents; nevertheless, no studies have evaluated the placebo response across these disorders using a lifespan approach. STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane, websites of regulatory agencies and international registers from inception to 9 September 2022. The primary outcome was the aggregate measure of internalising symptoms of participants in the placebo arms of randomised controlled trials designed to assess the efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) in individuals diagnosed with anxiety, obsessive-compulsive or stress-related disorders. The secondary outcomes were placebo response and remission rates. Data were analysed through a three-level meta-analysis. FINDINGS: We analysed 366 outcome measures from 135 studies (n=12 583). We found a large overall placebo response (standardised mean difference (SMD)=-1.11, 95% CI -1.22 to -1.00). The average response and remission rates in placebo groups were 37% and 24%, respectively. Larger placebo response was associated with a diagnosis of generalised anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, when compared with panic, social anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder (SMD range, 0.40-0.49), and with absence of a placebo lead-in period (SMD=0.44, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.78). No significant differences were found in placebo response across age groups. We found substantial heterogeneity and moderate risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Placebo response is substantial in SSRI and SNRI trials for anxiety, obsessive-compulsive and stress-related disorders. Clinicians and researchers should accurately interpret the benefits of pharmacological agents in contrast to placebo response. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017069090.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors for anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and stress disorders: A 3-level network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and stress-related disorders frequently co-occur, and patients often present symptoms of several domains. Treatment involves the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), but data on comparative efficacy and acceptability are lacking. We aimed to compare the efficacy of SSRIs, SNRIs, and placebo in multiple symptom domains in patients with these diagnoses over the lifespan through a 3-level network meta-analysis. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched for published and unpublished randomized controlled trials that aimed to assess the efficacy of SSRIs or SNRIs in participants (adults and children) with diagnosis of any anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, or stress-related disorder in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to 23 April 2015, with an update on 11 November 2020. We supplemented electronic database searches with manual searches for published and unpublished randomized controlled trials registered in publicly accessible clinical trial registries and pharmaceutical companies' databases. No restriction was made regarding comorbidities with any other mental disorder, participants' age and sex, blinding of participants and researchers, date of publication, or study language. The primary outcome was the aggregate measure of internalizing symptoms of these disorders. Secondary outcomes included specific symptom domains and treatment discontinuation rate. We estimated standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 3-level network meta-analysis with random slopes by study for medication and assessment instrument. Risk of bias appraisal was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017069090). We analyzed 469 outcome measures from 135 studies (n = 30,245). All medications were more effective than placebo for the aggregate measure of internalizing symptoms (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.51, p < 0.001), for all symptom domains, and in patients from all diagnostic categories. We also found significant results when restricting to the most used assessment instrument for each diagnosis; nevertheless, this restriction led to exclusion of 72.71% of outcome measures. Pairwise comparisons revealed only small differences between medications in efficacy and acceptability. Limitations include the moderate heterogeneity found in most outcomes and the moderate risk of bias identified in most of the trials. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that all SSRIs and SNRIs were effective for multiple symptom domains, and in patients from all included diagnostic categories. We found minimal differences between medications concerning efficacy and acceptability. This three-level network meta-analysis contributes to an ongoing discussion about the true benefit of antidepressants with robust evidence, considering the significantly larger quantity of data and higher statistical power when compared to previous studies. The 3-level approach allowed us to properly assess the efficacy of these medications on internalizing psychopathology, avoiding potential biases related to the exclusion of information due to distinct assessment instruments, and to explore the multilevel structure of transdiagnostic efficacy.