MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2189128873

St. John's wort and S-adenosyl methionine as "natural" alternatives to conventional antidepressants in the era of the suicidality boxed warning: what is the evidence for clinically relevant benefit?

2011· article· en· W2189128873 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Carpenter

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNatural Compound Pharmacology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMajor depressive disorderPsychiatryAntidepressantAdverse effectPlaceboDepression (economics)Rating scalePsychologyClinical psychologyMedicineInternal medicineAlternative medicineAnxietyMood
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: A boxed-warning in antidepressant labeling now informs prescribers of the potential for treatment-emergent suicidality to occur. Consequently, alternative "natural" antidepressant therapies widely viewed to be devoid of this risk, such as St. John's wort (SJW) and s-adenosyl methionine (SAM-e), may experience a resurgence in popularity and expansion of use beyond mild forms of depressive illness. The purpose of this article is to critically assess whether the clinical evidence supports the use of SJW and SAM-e as alternatives to conventional antidepressants in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). In addition, this article evaluates whether the behavioral adverse event profiles of SJW and SAM-e suggest an increased risk for suicidality, like their conventional counterparts. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was performed (Jan 1975-July 2010) to identify all English language reports of placebo-controlled studies of SJW and SAM-e conducted for psychiatric indications. MDD studies were categorized as "positive" or "negative" based on statistical superiority to placebo on prospectively-defined, primary, clinician-rated efficacy parameters (e.g., change in Hamilton Depression scores [HAM-D] or Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total). Treatment effect size (Cohen's d) was also calculated in each case to assess the clinical relevance of the findings. Behavioral-related adverse events were summarized by treatment. RESULTS: Ten of 14 (71%) SJW studies in mild-to-moderate MDD were positive. The mean and median effect sizes for HAM-D change in those studies were 0.64 and 0.48, respectively, indicative of a moderately-large treatment effect. In the few studies that included patients with severe symptoms, however, or which evaluated long-term maintenance of effect, SJW did not differentiate from placebo. The majority of SAM-e studies in MDD were also positive (8/14, 57%); however, most were methodologically flawed to some extent. Based on the magnitude of the treatment-effect size in a number of positive studies, SJW appears to be useful for the short-term treatment of mild-to-moderate depressive illness in adults. Existing data do not support the use of SJW in more severely depressed individuals. The SAM-e clinical data also are strongly suggestive of antidepressant efficacy; however, until more rigorously generated data become available it is not possible to reach a more definitive conclusion. There are no long-term treatment data that convincingly demonstrate long-term maintenance of effect for either product. The reviewed studies did not reveal evidence of treatment-emergent suicidality, suggesting that this risk for either product is low. However, the studies examined were not prospectively designed to detect such events and therefore were likely unable to reliably assess this risk.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicNatural Compound Pharmacology StudiesFrench-language works237,207