Current level of evidence for improvement of antidepressant efficacy and tolerability by pharmacogenomic-guided treatment: A Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials
Abstract
The aim of the study was to assess the clinical utility of currently available pharmacogenomic (PGx) tools compared with treatment as usual (TAU), using a meta-analysis of dichotomous and continuous antidepressant efficacy and tolerability data from previously published clinical trials. MEDLINE, clinicaltrial.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, WHO ICTRP and CENTRAL were systematically searched; of the 962 results originally reviewed, 15 trials were included. Antidepressant efficacy was quantified by relative and absolute changes in symptom severity after eight weeks of treatment and by response and remission rates, while tolerability was estimated by the rate of study discontinuation for any reason. In the PGx-guided patients, symptom severity reduced by an average of 31.0% after eight weeks of treatment, compared to an average reduction of 26.8% in the TAU group. Accordingly, PGx-guided patients experienced a greater reduction in symptom severity of 3.4% (95%CI: 1.6-5.3%), which corresponded to a reduction in the Hamilton Depression score of 0.75 (0.30-1.21), a 37% (15-63%) higher remission rate, and an 18% (5-33%) higher response rate compared with TAU patients, while no difference was observed in discontinuation rate between groups. Notably, the majority of associations lost statistical significance when restricting the dataset to low risk of bias studies, while certain funnel plots suggested a potential publication bias favoring the reporting of statistically significant…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials
- Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
- Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bonding Efficacy of Universal Resin Adhesives to Zirconia Substrates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- In vitro antimicrobial activity of extracts and essential oils of Cinnamomum, Salvia, and Mentha spp. against foodborne pathogens: A meta-analysis study
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.