Abstract
Background The average treatment effect of antidepressants in major depression was found to be about 2 points on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, which lies below clinical relevance. Here, we searched for evidence of a relevant treatment effect heterogeneity that could justify the usage of antidepressants despite their low average treatment effect.
Methods Bayesian meta-analysis of 169 randomized, controlled trials including 58,687 patients. We considered the effect sizes log variability ratio (lnVR) and log coefficient of variation ratio (lnCVR) to analyze the difference in variability of active and placebo response. We used Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses (REMA) for lnVR and lnCVR and fitted a random-effects meta-regression (REMR) model to estimate the treatment effect variability between antidepressants and placebo.
Results The variability ratio was found to be very close to 1 in the best fitting models (REMR: 95% HPD [0.98, 1.02], REMA: 95% HPD [1.00, 1.02]). The between-study variance τ2 under the REMA was found to be low (95% HPD [0.00, 0.00]). Simulations showed that a large treatment effect heterogeneity is only compatible with the data if a strong correlation between placebo response and individual treatment effect is assumed.
Conclusions The published data from RCTs on antidepressants for the treatment of major depression is compatible with a near-constant treatment effect. Although it is impossible to rule out a substantial treatment effect heterogeneity, its existence seems rather unlikely. Since the average treatment effect of antidepressants falls short of clinical relevance, the current prescribing practice should be re-evaluated.
Competing Interest Statement
CAM received consulting fees from Silence Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. The other authors declared no competing interest. All authors declare no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. No funder had any role in: the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Funding Statement
No funding.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data and the python code are available online.
