Cargando…

Which placebo to cure depression? A thought-provoking network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are often considered to be mere placebos despite the fact that meta-analyses are able to rank them. It follows that it should also be possible to rank different placebos, which are all made of sucrose. To explore this issue, which is rather more epistemological than clini...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Naudet, Florian, Millet, Bruno, Charlier, Philippe, Reymann, Jean Michel, Maria, Anne Solène, Falissard, Bruno
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3819667/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24160565
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-230
_version_ 1782290017760051200
author Naudet, Florian
Millet, Bruno
Charlier, Philippe
Reymann, Jean Michel
Maria, Anne Solène
Falissard, Bruno
author_facet Naudet, Florian
Millet, Bruno
Charlier, Philippe
Reymann, Jean Michel
Maria, Anne Solène
Falissard, Bruno
author_sort Naudet, Florian
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are often considered to be mere placebos despite the fact that meta-analyses are able to rank them. It follows that it should also be possible to rank different placebos, which are all made of sucrose. To explore this issue, which is rather more epistemological than clinical, we designed an unusual meta-analysis to investigate whether the effects of placebo in one situation are different from the effects of placebo in another situation. METHODS: Published and unpublished studies were searched for by three reviewers on Medline, the Cochrane Library, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, Current Controlled Trial, in bibliographies, and by mailing key organizations. The following studies in first-line treatment for major depressive disorder were considered to construct an “evidence network”: 1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) versus placebo on fluoxetine, venlafaxine and 2) fluoxetine versus venlafaxine head-to-head RCTs. Two network meta-analyses were run to indirectly compare response and remission rates among three different placebos: 1) fluoxetine placebo, 2) venlafaxine placebo, and 3) venlafaxine/fluoxetine placebo (that is, placebo compared to both venlafaxine and fluoxetine). Publication biases were assessed using funnel plots and statistically tested. RESULTS: The three placebos were not significantly different in terms of response or remission. The antidepressant agents were significantly more efficacious than the placebos, and venlafaxine was more efficacious than fluoxetine. The funnel plots, however, showed a major publication bias. CONCLUSION: The presence of significant levels of publication bias indicates that we cannot even be certain of the conclusion that sucrose equals sucrose in trials of major depressive disorder. This result should remind clinicians to step back to take a more objective view when interpreting a scientific result. It is of crucial importance for their practice, far more so than ranking antidepressant efficacy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3819667
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38196672013-11-11 Which placebo to cure depression? A thought-provoking network meta-analysis Naudet, Florian Millet, Bruno Charlier, Philippe Reymann, Jean Michel Maria, Anne Solène Falissard, Bruno BMC Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are often considered to be mere placebos despite the fact that meta-analyses are able to rank them. It follows that it should also be possible to rank different placebos, which are all made of sucrose. To explore this issue, which is rather more epistemological than clinical, we designed an unusual meta-analysis to investigate whether the effects of placebo in one situation are different from the effects of placebo in another situation. METHODS: Published and unpublished studies were searched for by three reviewers on Medline, the Cochrane Library, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, Current Controlled Trial, in bibliographies, and by mailing key organizations. The following studies in first-line treatment for major depressive disorder were considered to construct an “evidence network”: 1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) versus placebo on fluoxetine, venlafaxine and 2) fluoxetine versus venlafaxine head-to-head RCTs. Two network meta-analyses were run to indirectly compare response and remission rates among three different placebos: 1) fluoxetine placebo, 2) venlafaxine placebo, and 3) venlafaxine/fluoxetine placebo (that is, placebo compared to both venlafaxine and fluoxetine). Publication biases were assessed using funnel plots and statistically tested. RESULTS: The three placebos were not significantly different in terms of response or remission. The antidepressant agents were significantly more efficacious than the placebos, and venlafaxine was more efficacious than fluoxetine. The funnel plots, however, showed a major publication bias. CONCLUSION: The presence of significant levels of publication bias indicates that we cannot even be certain of the conclusion that sucrose equals sucrose in trials of major depressive disorder. This result should remind clinicians to step back to take a more objective view when interpreting a scientific result. It is of crucial importance for their practice, far more so than ranking antidepressant efficacy. BioMed Central 2013-10-25 /pmc/articles/PMC3819667/ /pubmed/24160565 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-230 Text en Copyright © 2013 Naudet et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Naudet, Florian
Millet, Bruno
Charlier, Philippe
Reymann, Jean Michel
Maria, Anne Solène
Falissard, Bruno
Which placebo to cure depression? A thought-provoking network meta-analysis
title Which placebo to cure depression? A thought-provoking network meta-analysis
title_full Which placebo to cure depression? A thought-provoking network meta-analysis
title_fullStr Which placebo to cure depression? A thought-provoking network meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Which placebo to cure depression? A thought-provoking network meta-analysis
title_short Which placebo to cure depression? A thought-provoking network meta-analysis
title_sort which placebo to cure depression? a thought-provoking network meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3819667/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24160565
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-230
work_keys_str_mv AT naudetflorian whichplacebotocuredepressionathoughtprovokingnetworkmetaanalysis
AT milletbruno whichplacebotocuredepressionathoughtprovokingnetworkmetaanalysis
AT charlierphilippe whichplacebotocuredepressionathoughtprovokingnetworkmetaanalysis
AT reymannjeanmichel whichplacebotocuredepressionathoughtprovokingnetworkmetaanalysis
AT mariaannesolene whichplacebotocuredepressionathoughtprovokingnetworkmetaanalysis
AT falissardbruno whichplacebotocuredepressionathoughtprovokingnetworkmetaanalysis