Cited by 105Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesTreatment of Major DepressionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Pharmacologic treatment of depression in multiple sclerosis

Open access
Koch, Marcus W, Glazenborg, Arjon, Uyttenboogaart, Maarten, Mostert, Jop, De Keyser, Jacques·2011·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common problem in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). It is unclear which pharmacologic treatment is the most effective and the least harmful. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of pharmacologic treatments for depression in patients with MS. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis Group's Trials Register (June 2010), reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings. Regulatory agencies were used as additional sources of information on adverse effects. SELECTION CRITERIA: Adequately and quasi-randomized controlled blinded or unblinded trials in children and adults with MS. EXPERIMENTAL INTERVENTION: pharmacologic treatments for depression without restrictions regarding dose, route of administration, frequency, or duration. Control intervention: placebo treatment or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two teams of reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected adverse effects from the trials.Information about study population, type of intervention, outcome measures, and study design were extracted from the selected studies. Trial quality was evaluated with the criteria: randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, handling of incomplete outcome data, freedom from selective reporting and freedom from other bias.The impact of missing data on the study results was explored with sensitivity analyses comparing the results from the analyses of study completers with those from best- and worst-case scenarios. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials (70 participants) were included. One trial (28 participants) compared treatment with desipramine for five weeks to placebo. The other trial (42 participants) compared treatment with paroxetine for twelve weeks to placebo. Both trials had a significant number of patients lost to follow-up or with missing outcome measurements.There was a trend towards efficacy of both treatments compared to placebo, but this difference was not statistically significant except for one outcome. Confidence intervals were wide in all analyses and our sensitivity analysis showed that the missing data may have had an important effect in both trials, with large differences between best-case and worst-case scenarios for all assessed outcomes.Both treatments were associated with adverse effects, with significantly more patients treated with paroxetine suffering from nausea or headache. Given the difference in trial duration and type of drug, we decided not to perform a meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Both desipramine and paroxetine show a trend towards efficacy in depression in MS the short term, but both treatments were associated with adverse effects, with significantly more patients treated with paroxetine suffering from nausea or headache. Further clinical research on the treatment of depression in MS is clearly needed. Future trials should address the efficacy and tolerability in the long term and compare antidepressant treatments head-to-head.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd007295.pub2

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The difference between this review's conclusions and the Cochrane review's null finding may be explained by the Cochrane review analysing categorical rather than continuous outcomes.

    “the authors of this review analyzed categorical outcomes (e.g. reduction of scores by 7 points or more, any reduction in score), rather than continuous outcomes (Koch et al., 2011”

    From Systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions for depression and anxiety in persons with multiple sclerosis (2016) · cites this paper as Koch et al., 2011

    The Measures of treatment effect section and the outcome tables show that the review analysed categorical depression outcomes using odds ratios, rather than continuous score changes. But its threshold was a score reduced to 7 or lower, not a reduction by 7 points or more. The Authors’ conclusions describe a trend toward efficacy, so calling the conclusion simply a null finding also loses that qualification; the proposed explanation for the difference between reviews is the citing authors’ own framing. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Serotonin Selective Reuptake Inhibitors are quite effective for depression in MS, but with prominent side effects and high drop-out rates.

    “A Cochrane Review [16] showed that Serotonin Selective Reuptake Inhibitors are quite effective, but with prominent side effects and high drop-out rates.”

    From The efficacy of a Mindfulness Based Intervention for depressive symptoms in patients with Multiple Sclerosis and their caregivers: study protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial. (2016) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Main results and Discussion (page not available in our copy) report adverse effects with paroxetine, particularly nausea and headache, and substantial loss to follow-up. But the review found only a trend toward efficacy, with wide confidence intervals and no statistically significant difference from placebo except on one outcome; it does not establish that SSRIs are “quite effective.” The paroxetine trial lost 5 of 22 treated patients to follow-up, but the review does not show that adverse effects caused those losses. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Koch, M. W., Glazenborg, A., Uyttenboogaart, M., Mostert, J., & De Keyser, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • Mental Health Care Centre Drenthe; Postbus 30002 Emmen Netherlands 7800 RA
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
  • Rijnstate Hospital (NL)
  • Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel; Department of Neurology; Laarbeeklaan 101 Brussels Belgium 1090
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-02-16
Volume
2011
Issue
5
Pages
CD007295-CD007295
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W2099725206
Cited by
105
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 9
FWCI
7.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
depression, multiple sclerosis, antidepressants, desipramine, paroxetine, treatment efficacy, tolerability, adverse effects, nausea, headache, missing data, sensitivity analysis, long-term follow-up
MeSH terms
Adult, Antidepressive Agents, Depression, Desipramine, Humans, Multiple Sclerosis, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Paroxetine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review