Evidence Hub

Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of Adjunctive Pharmacotherapies for Acute Bipolar Depression: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Bahji A, Ermacora D, Stephenson C, Hawken ER, Vazquez G

Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, 2021

8,007 participants · 21 citations

Abstract

Objective: We investigated the comparative efficacy and tolerability of augmentation strategies for bipolar depression.

Data sources: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 8 electronic databases for double-blind, randomized controlled trials of adjunctive pharmacotherapies for acute bipolar depression.

Data extraction and synthesis: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and applied the Cochrane risk of bias tool for study quality appraisal. Two reviewers independently abstracted data. We resolved all discrepancies by consensus.

Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcomes were response and completion of treatment. We estimated summary rate ratios (RRs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) relative to placebo controls using frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis.

Results: We identified 69 trials meeting eligibility criteria (8,007 participants, 42.8 years, 58.0% female). Adjunctive racemic intravenous ketamine, coenzyme Q10, pramipexole, fluoxetine, and lamotrigine were more effective than placebo. Summary RRs for response ranged between 1.51 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11 to 2.06) for fluoxetine and 12.49 (95% CI, 3.06 to 50.93) for racemic intravenous ketamine. For completion of treatment, risperidone appeared less tolerable than placebo (RR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.94), while fluoxetine seemed more tolerable than placebo (RR = 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.24). None of the…

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. Reported size: 8,007 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

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.

Open this study Sign up free