1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Effectiveness of pharmacogenomic tests including CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genomic variants for guiding the treatment of depressive disorders: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p class="first" id="d1071793e204">Major depressive disorders are prevalent conditions with limited treatment response and remission. Pharmacogenomics tests including CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genomic variants provide the most reliable actionable approach to guide choice and dosing of antidepressants in major depression to improve outcomes. We carried out a meta-analysis and meta-regression analyses of randomised controlled trials evaluating pharmacogenomic tests with CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 polymorphisms in major depression. A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines to search several electronic databases. Logarithmically transformed odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (CI) for improvement, response and remission were calculated. A random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analyses were subsequently carried out. Twelve randomised controlled trials were included. Pharmacogenomic tests in the treatment of depression were more effective than treatment as usual for improvement (OR:1.63, CI: 1.19-2.24), response (OR: 1.46; CI: 1.16-1.85) and remission (OR: 1.85; CI: 1.23-2.76) with no evidence of publication bias. Remission was less favourable in recent studies. The results are promising but cautious use of pharmacogenomics in major depression is advisable. PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42021261143. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
                Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
                Elsevier BV
                01497634
                January 2023
                January 2023
                : 144
                : 104965
                Article
                10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104965
                36463971
                1e023daf-34c3-44ac-9c78-7bf5814c73bd
                © 2023

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-017

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-037

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-012

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-029

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-004

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article