Associations of Maternal Antidepressant Use During the First Trimester of Pregnancy With Preterm Birth, Small for Gestational Age, Autism Spectrum Disorder, and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Offspring

Importance  Prenatal antidepressant exposure has been associated with adverse outcomes. Previous studies, however, may not have adequately accounted for confounding.

Objective  To evaluate alternative hypotheses for associations between first-trimester antidepressant exposure and birth and neurodevelopmental problems.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This retrospective cohort study included Swedish offspring born between 1996 and 2012 and followed up through 2013 or censored by death or emigration. Analyses controlling for pregnancy, maternal and paternal covariates, as well as sibling comparisons, timing of exposure comparisons, and paternal comparisons, were used to examine the associations.

Exposures  Maternal self-reported first-trimester antidepressant use and first-trimester antidepressant dispensations.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Preterm birth (<37 gestational weeks), small for gestational age (birth weight <2 SDs below the mean for gestational age), and first inpatient or outpatient clinical diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in offspring.

Results  Among 1 580 629 offspring (mean gestational age, 279 days; 48.6% female; 1.4% [n = 22 544] with maternal first-trimester self-reported antidepressant use) born to 943 776 mothers (mean age at childbirth, 30 years), 6.98% of exposed vs 4.78% of unexposed offspring were preterm, 2.54% of exposed vs 2.19% of unexposed were small for gestational age, 5.28% of exposed vs 2.14% of unexposed were diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder by age 15 years, and 12.63% of exposed vs 5.46% of unexposed were diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder by age 15 years. At the population level, first-trimester exposure was associated with all outcomes compared with unexposed offspring (preterm birth odds ratio [OR], 1.47 [95% CI, 1.40-1.55]; small for gestational age OR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.06-1.25]; autism spectrum disorder hazard ratio [HR], 2.02 [95% CI, 1.80-2.26]; attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder HR, 2.21 [95% CI, 2.04-2.39]). However, in models that compared siblings while adjusting for pregnancy, maternal, and paternal traits, first-trimester antidepressant exposure was associated with preterm birth (OR, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.18-1.52]) but not with small for gestational age (OR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.81-1.25]), autism spectrum disorder (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.62-1.13]), or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.79-1.25]). Results from analyses assessing associations with maternal dispensations before pregnancy and with paternal first-trimester dispensations were consistent with findings from the sibling comparisons.

Conclusions and Relevance  Among offspring born in Sweden, after accounting for confounding factors, first-trimester exposure to antidepressants, compared with no exposure, was associated with a small increased risk of preterm birth but no increased risk of small for gestational age, autism spectrum disorder, or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Association Between Serotonergic Antidepressant Use During Pregnancy and Autism Spectrum Disorder in Children

Importance  Previous observations of a higher risk of child autism spectrum disorder with serotonergic antidepressant exposure during pregnancy may have been confounded.

Objective  To evaluate the association between serotonergic antidepressant exposure during pregnancy and child autism spectrum disorder.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Retrospective cohort study. Health administrative data sets were used to study children born to mothers who were receiving public prescription drug coverage during pregnancy in Ontario, Canada, from 2002-2010, reflecting 4.2% of births. Children were followed up until March 31, 2014.

Exposures  Serotonergic antidepressant exposure was defined as 2 or more consecutive maternal prescriptions for a selective serotonin or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor between conception and delivery.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Child autism spectrum disorder identified after the age of 2 years. Exposure group differences were addressed by inverse probability of treatment weighting based on derived high-dimensional propensity scores (computerized algorithm used to select a large number of potential confounders) and by comparing exposed children with unexposed siblings.

Results  There were 35 906 singleton births at a mean gestational age of 38.7 weeks (50.4% were male, mean maternal age was 26.7 years, and mean duration of follow-up was 4.95 years). In the 2837 pregnancies (7.9%) exposed to antidepressants, 2.0% (95% CI, 1.6%-2.6%) of children were diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The incidence of autism spectrum disorder was 4.51 per 1000 person-years among children exposed to antidepressants vs 2.03 per 1000 person-years among unexposed children (between-group difference, 2.48 [95% CI, 2.33-2.62] per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 2.16 [95% CI, 1.64-2.86]; adjusted HR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.17-2.17]). After inverse probability of treatment weighting based on the high-dimensional propensity score, the association was not significant (HR, 1.61 [95% CI, 0.997-2.59]). The association was also not significant when exposed children were compared with unexposed siblings (incidence of autism spectrum disorder was 3.40 per 1000 person-years vs 2.05 per 1000 person-years, respectively; adjusted HR, 1.60 [95% CI, 0.69-3.74]).

Conclusions and Relevance  In children born to mothers receiving public drug coverage in Ontario, Canada, in utero serotonergic antidepressant exposure compared with no exposure was not associated with autism spectrum disorder in the child. Although a causal relationship cannot be ruled out, the previously observed association may be explained by other factors.

Off-label indications for antidepressants in primary care: descriptive study of prescriptions from an indication based electronic prescribing system

Objective To examine off-label indications for antidepressants in primary care and determine the level of scientific support for off-label prescribing.

Design Descriptive study of antidepressant prescriptions written by primary care physicians using an indication based electronic prescribing system.

Setting Primary care practices in and around two major urban centres in Quebec, Canada.

Participants Patients aged 18 years or older who visited a study physician between 1 January 2003 and 30 September 2015 and were prescribed an antidepressant through the electronic prescribing system.

Main outcome measures Prevalence of off-label indications for antidepressant prescriptions by class and by individual drug. Among off-label antidepressant prescriptions, the proportion of prescriptions in each of the following categories was measured: strong evidence supporting use of the prescribed drug for the respective indication; no strong evidence for the prescribed drug but strong evidence supporting use of another drug in the same class for the indication; or no strong evidence supporting use of the prescribed drug and all other drugs in the same class for the indication.

Results 106 850 antidepressant prescriptions were written by 174 physicians for 20 920 adults. By class, tricyclic antidepressants had the highest prevalence of off-label indications (81.4%, 95% confidence interval, 77.3% to 85.5%), largely due to a high off-label prescribing rate for amitriptyline (93%, 89.6% to 95.7%). Trazodone use for insomnia was the most common off-label use for antidepressants, accounting for 26.2% (21.9% to 30.4%) of all off-label prescriptions. For only 15.9% (13.0% to 19.3%) of all off-label prescriptions, the prescribed drug had strong scientific evidence for the respective indication. For 39.6% (35.7% to 43.2%) of off-label prescriptions, the prescribed drug did not have strong evidence but another antidepressant in the same class had strong evidence for the respective indication. For the remaining 44.6% (40.2% to 49.0%) of off-label prescriptions, neither the prescribed drug nor any other drugs in the class had strong evidence for the indication.

Conclusions When primary care physicians prescribed antidepressants for off-label indications, these indications were usually not supported by strong scientific evidence, yet often another antidepressant in the same class existed that had strong evidence for the respective indication. There is an important need to generate and provide physicians with evidence on off-label antidepressant use to optimise prescribing decisions.

BMJ 2017;356:j603

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants for major depressive disorder in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis

Background

Major depressive disorder is one of the most common mental disorders in children and adolescents. However, whether to use pharmacological interventions in this population and which drug should be preferred are still matters of controversy. Consequently, we aimed to compare and rank antidepressants and placebo for major depressive disorder in young people.

Methods

We did a network meta-analysis to identify both direct and indirect evidence from relevant trials. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LiLACS, regulatory agencies’ websites, and international registers for published and unpublished, double-blind randomised controlled trials up to May 31, 2015, for the acute treatment of major depressive disorder in children and adolescents. We included trials of amitriptyline, citalopram, clomipramine, desipramine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, imipramine, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine. Trials recruiting participants with treatment-resistant depression, treatment duration of less than 4 weeks, or an overall sample size of less than ten patients were excluded. We extracted the relevant information from the published reports with a predefined data extraction sheet, and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcomes were efficacy (change in depressive symptoms) and tolerability (discontinuations due to adverse events). We did pair-wise meta-analyses using the random-effects model and then did a random-effects network meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework. We assessed the quality of evidence contributing to each network estimate using the GRADE framework. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015016023.

Findings

We deemed 34 trials eligible, including 5260 participants and 14 antidepressant treatments. The quality of evidence was rated as very low in most comparisons. For efficacy, only fluoxetine was statistically significantly more effective than placebo (standardised mean difference −0·51, 95% credible interval [CrI] −0·99 to −0·03). In terms of tolerability, fluoxetine was also better than duloxetine (odds ratio [OR] 0·31, 95% CrI 0·13 to 0·95) and imipramine (0·23, 0·04 to 0·78). Patients given imipramine, venlafaxine, and duloxetine had more discontinuations due to adverse events than did those given placebo (5·49, 1·96 to 20·86; 3·19, 1·01 to 18·70; and 2·80, 1·20 to 9·42, respectively). In terms of heterogeneity, the global I2 values were 33·21% for efficacy and 0% for tolerability.

Interpretation

When considering the risk–benefit profile of antidepressants in the acute treatment of major depressive disorder, these drugs do not seem to offer a clear advantage for children and adolescents. Fluoxetine is probably the best option to consider when a pharmacological treatment is indicated.

Funding

National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program).

The Lancet, Volume 388, No. 10047, p881–890, 27 August 2016

Antidepressant use and risk of cardiovascular outcomes in people aged 20 to 64: cohort study using primary care database

Objective To assess associations between different antidepressant treatments and rates of three cardiovascular outcomes (myocardial infarction, stroke or transient ischaemic attack, and arrhythmia) in people with depression.

Design Cohort study.

Setting UK general practices contributing to the QResearch primary care database.

Participants 238 963 patients aged 20 to 64 years with a first diagnosis of depression between 1 January 2000 and 31 July 2011.

Exposures Antidepressant class (tricyclic and related antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, other antidepressants), dose, duration of use, and commonly prescribed individual antidepressant drugs.

Main outcome measures First diagnoses of myocardial infarction, stroke or transient ischaemic attack, and arrhythmia during five years’ follow-up. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios, adjusting for potential confounding variables.

Results During five years of follow-up, 772 patients had a myocardial infarction, 1106 had a stroke or transient ischaemic attack, and 1452 were diagnosed as having arrhythmia. No significant associations were found between antidepressant class and myocardial infarction over five years’ follow-up. In the first year of follow-up, patients treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors had a significantly reduced risk of myocardial infarction (adjusted hazard ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.79) compared with no use of antidepressants; among individual drugs, fluoxetine was associated with a significantly reduced risk (0.44, 0.27 to 0.72) and lofepramine with a significantly increased risk (3.07, 1.50 to 6.26). No significant associations were found between antidepressant class or individual drugs and risk of stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Antidepressant class was not significantly associated with arrhythmia over five years’ follow-up, although the risk was significantly increased during the first 28 days of treatment with tricyclic and related antidepressants (adjusted hazard ratio 1.99, 1.27 to 3.13). Fluoxetine was associated with a significantly reduced risk of arrhythmia (0.74, 0.59 to 0.92) over five years, but citalopram was not significantly associated with risk of arrhythmia even at high doses (1.11, 0.72 to 1.71 for doses ≥40 mg/day).

Conclusions This study found no evidence that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are associated with an increased risk of arrhythmia or stroke/transient ischaemic attack in people diagnosed as having depression between the ages of 20 to 64 or that citalopram is associated with a significantly increased risk of arrhythmia. It found some indication of a reduced risk of myocardial infarction with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, particularly fluoxetine, and of an increased risk with lofepramine.

By Carol Coupland et al, BMJ 2016;352:i1350

Suicidality and aggression during antidepressant treatment: systematic review and meta-analyses based on clinical study reports

Objective To study serious harms associated with selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.

Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Main outcome measures Mortality and suicidality. Secondary outcomes were aggressive behaviour and akathisia.

Data sources Clinical study reports for duloxetine, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine obtained from the European and UK drug regulators, and summary trial reports for duloxetine and fluoxetine from Eli Lilly’s website.

Eligibility criteria for study selection Double blind placebo controlled trials that contained any patient narratives or individual patient listings of harms.

Data extraction and analysis Two researchers extracted data independently; the outcomes were meta-analysed by Peto’s exact method (fixed effect model).

Results We included 70 trials (64 381 pages of clinical study reports) with 18 526 patients. These trials had limitations in the study design and discrepancies in reporting, which may have led to serious under-reporting of harms. For example, some outcomes appeared only in individual patient listings in appendices, which we had for only 32 trials, and we did not have case report forms for any of the trials. Differences in mortality (all deaths were in adults, odds ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 4.06), suicidality (1.21, 0.84 to 1.74), and akathisia (2.04, 0.93 to 4.48) were not significant, whereas patients taking antidepressants displayed more aggressive behaviour (1.93, 1.26 to 2.95). For adults, the odds ratios were 0.81 (0.51 to 1.28) for suicidality, 1.09 (0.55 to 2.14) for aggression, and 2.00 (0.79 to 5.04) for akathisia. The corresponding values for children and adolescents were 2.39 (1.31 to 4.33), 2.79 (1.62 to 4.81), and 2.15 (0.48 to 9.65). In the summary trial reports on Eli Lilly’s website, almost all deaths were noted, but all suicidal ideation events were missing, and the information on the remaining outcomes was incomplete.

Conclusions Because of the shortcomings identified and having only partial access to appendices with no access to case report forms, the harms could not be estimated accurately. In adults there was no significant increase in all four outcomes, but in children and adolescents the risk of suicidality and aggression doubled. To elucidate the harms reliably, access to anonymised individual patient data is needed.

By Tarang Sharm (et al), BMJ 2016;352:i65

Comparative benefits and harms of second generation antidepressants and cognitive behavioral therapies in initial treatment of major depressive disorder: systematic review and meta-analysis

Study question What are the benefits and harms of second generation antidepressants and cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs) in the initial treatment of a current episode of major depressive disorder in adults?

Methods This was a systematic review including qualitative assessment and meta-analyses using random and fixed effects models. Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched from January1990 through January 2015. The 11 randomized controlled trials included compared a second generation antidepressant CBT. Ten trials compared antidepressant monotherapy with CBT alone; three compared antidepressant monotherapy with antidepressant plus CBT.

Summary answer and limitations Meta-analyses found no statistically significant difference in effectiveness between second generation antidepressants and CBT for response (risk ratio 0.91, 0.77 to 1.07), remission (0.98, 0.73 to 1.32), or change in 17 item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score (weighted mean difference, −0.38, −2.87 to 2.10). Similarly, no significant differences were found in rates of overall study discontinuation (risk ratio 0.90, 0.49 to 1.65) or discontinuation attributable to lack of efficacy (0.40, 0.05 to 2.91). Although more patients treated with a second generation antidepressant than receiving CBT withdrew from studies because of adverse events, the difference was not statistically significant (risk ratio 3.29, 0.42 to 25.72). No conclusions could be drawn about other outcomes because of lack of evidence. Results should be interpreted cautiously given the low strength of evidence for most outcomes. The scope of this review was limited to trials that enrolled adult patients with major depressive disorder and compared a second generation antidepressant with CBT, and many of the included trials had methodological shortcomings that may limit confidence in some of the findings.

What this study adds Second generation antidepressants and CBT have evidence bases of benefits and harms in major depressive disorder. Available evidence suggests no difference in treatment effects of second generation antidepressants and CBT, either alone or in combination, although small numbers may preclude detection of small but clinically meaningful differences.

Funding, competing interests, data sharing This project was funded under contract from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality by the RTI-UNC Evidence-based Practice Center. Detailed methods and additional information are available in the full report, available at http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/.

Halle R Amick et al, BMJ 2015;351:h6019