BMJ 1995;310:1433-1438 (3 June)

Papers

Treatment discontinuation with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors compared with tricyclic antidepressants: a meta-analysis

I M Anderson, senior lecturer,a B M Tomenson, statistician a

a University of Manchester Department of Psychiatry, Rawnsley Building, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester M13 9WL

Correspondence to: Dr Anderson.

Abstract

Objective: To assess treatment discontinuation rates with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors compared with tricyclic antidepressants.
Design: Meta-analysis of 62 randomised controlled trials.
Subjects: 6029 patients with major unipolar depression.
Main outcome measures: Pooled risk ratios for drop out rates with respect to all cases of discontinuation and those due to side effects and treatment failure.
Results: The total discontinuation rate was 10% lower with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors than with tricyclic antidepressants (risk ratio 0.90; 95% confidence interval 0.84 to 0.97) and the drop out rate due to side effects was 25% lower (risk ratio 0.75; 0.66 to 0.84). There was no significant difference between drug classes in the drop out rates for treatment failure. The risk ratios for drop out did not differ significantly between individual selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.
Conclusions: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are better tolerated than tricyclic antidepressants as measured by total numbers of drop outs. The definite advantage to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors is explained by fewer drop outs due to side effects. The overall difference, however, is comparatively small and may not be clinically relevant. Analyses of cost effectiveness should not overestimate the advantage to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

Key messages

  • Key messages

  • In a meta-analysis of randomised, short term clinical trials selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were associated with 10% fewer overall drop outs than tricyclic antidepressants (nine drop outs for every 10 with tricyclic agents)

  • This difference was accounted for by a lower rate of drop out related to side effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (25% reduction; three drop outs for every four with tricyclic agents)

  • This comparatively small difference in drop out rate is of uncertain importance clinically and when cost effectiveness is considered

  • Further studies of the tolerability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors compared with that of tricyclic antidepressants are required over a longer period in the setting of clinical practice rather than clinical trials

Introduction

There is debate about the cost effectiveness of newer, more expensive antidepressants--especially the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors--compared with the cheaper, first generation tricyclic antidepressants.1 2 Both groups of drugs are of comparable efficacy,3 4 5 so that cost effectiveness hinges on tolerability and safety. Tricyclic antidepressants are much cheaper per tablet than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. But if compliance is poorer tricyclic antidepressants may prove more expensive overall because of costs incurred through treatment failure (for example, costs of extra treatment, time off work, sickness benefit, etc).6

One way of assessing relative tolerability is to measure discontinuation rates in randomised, double blind, parallel comparative trials. Though this is fairly crude,7 it provides an objective measure of the proportion of patients who persist with each treatment during the study. In an influential meta-analysis, Song et al found that efficacy and drop out rates did not differ between tricyclic antidepressants and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and concluded that the increasing use of the newer drugs as first line treatment was not warranted.4 Their analysis was weakened by the inclusion of non-tricyclic, second generation antidepressants in the tricyclic group (table I), accounting for about a quarter of the studies they analysed. These drugs generally have a better side effect profile than the tricyclic antidepressants8 but are infrequently used in practice.9 Hence the clinical relevance of their inclusion in the meta-analysis can be questioned. 


TABLE I--Papers included in meta-analysis of total drop outs by Song et al4 but excluded from this analysis
for reasons stated
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Study                              Comparator antidepressant     Reason for exclusion
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debus et al, 198810                   Trazodone           Non-tricyclic antidepressant
de Jonghe et al, 199111               Maprotiline         Non-tricyclic antidepressant
de Jonghe et al, 199112               Matroptiline        Non-tricyclic antidepressant
Dorman, 199213                        Mianserin           Non-tricyclic antidepressant
Falk et al, 198914                    Trazodone           Non-tricyclic antidepressant
Feighner et al, 198915                Imipramine          Total drop outs not reported+
Feighner et al, 199116                Bupropion           Non-tricyclic antidepressant
Ferreri, 198917                       Amineptine          Non-tricyclic antidepressant
Laakmann et al, 198818                Amitriptyline       Conflicting numbers reported
Mertens and Pintens, 198819           Mianserin           Non-tricyclic antidepressant
Muijen et al, 198820                  Mianserin           Non-tricyclic antidepressant
Perez and Ashford, 199021             Mianserin           Non-tricyclic antidepressant
Perry et al, 198922                   Trazodone           Non-tricyclic antidepressant
Phanjoo et al, 199123                 Mianserine          Non-tricyclic antidepressant
Poelinger and Haber, 198924           Maprotiline         Non-tricyclic antidepressant
Taneri and Kohler, 198925             Nomifensine         Non-tricyclic antidepressant
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Reported only drop outs due to side effects.

Montgomery et al confined their meta-analysis to studies including tricyclic antidepressants and found that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors caused significantly fewer drop outs due to side effects whereas there was no difference in drop outs due to inefficacy.7 Unfortunately, given that discontinuation due to side effects accounts for only 30-50% of drop outs,4 27 27 they failed to analyse total drop out rates. Possibly more prominent side effects could lead to a greater attribution of discontinuation to adverse effects without changing the number of patients who in fact stopped treatment. It is therefore very important to analyse both the total number of drop outs and the discontinuations that may be attributable to side effects or treatment failure.

The main objective of this meta-analysis was to discover whether the overall discontinuation rate with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors is different from that with tricyclic antidepressants. Drop outs due to side effects and treatment failure were also analysed.

Methods

Potential studies testing five selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, sertraline, or citalopram) against a tricyclic antidepressant in patients with the equivalent of major unipolar depressive illness were identified from previous meta-analyses and reviews and by manual cross referencing and a Medline search in June 1993. We identified 81 reports of double blind randomised controlled trials in depressed patients. We were careful to avoid duplication and whenever possible for multicentre studies used the combined multicentre report; in two exceptions there was lack of information about drop outs.28 29 This left 71 studies, of which 62 provided adequate information on the total number of drop outs and a further two reported only drop outs due to side effects (table II). The 17 excluded studies are listed in table III. 


TABLE II--Discontinuation rates in double blind randomised studies in major depression comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors with tricyclic antidepressants
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                         Drop outs due to                                Drop outs due to
                                                   No of patients                       Total drop outs                                    side effects                                       failure
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Serotonin                   Study   Serotonin                     Risk ratio           Serotonin                       Risk ratio       Serotonin                        Risk ratio
                                                reuptake      Tricyclic     length  reuptake      Tricyclic     (95% confidence        reuptake      Tricyclic      (95% confidence     reuptake      Tricyclic       (95% confidence
Study                                           inhibitors antidepressants in weeks inhibitors antidepressants     interval)           inhibitors antidepressants       interval)       inhibitors antidepressants        interval)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluvoxamine:
  Amore et al, 198930                            15       15            4        0            5                        0              0        2                      0              0           0                     --
  Bramanti et al, 198931                         30       30            4        2            1               2.00 (0.19 to 20.90)    0        1                      0              2           0                     --
  De Wilde and Doogan, 198233                    15       15            4        0            0                        0              0        0                      0              0           0                     --
  De Wilde et al, 198334                         21       23            6        0            0                        0              0        0                      0              0           0                     --
  Dick and Ferrero, 198332                       17       15            4        4            3               1.18 (0.31 to 4.43)     0        0                      0              1           1            0.88 (0.06 to 12.91)
  Dominguez et al, 198535                        35       35            4       19           16               1.19 (0.74 to 1.90)    10        8              1.25 (0.56 to 2.79)    1           0                     --
  Feighner et al, 198915                         31       35            6       NA           NA                       NA              7       13              0.61 (0.28 to 1.33)   NA          NA                     NA
  Gasperini et al, 199236                        30       26            6        2            1               1.73 (0.17 to 18.04)    1        1              0.87 (0.06 to 13.81)  NA          NA                     NA
  Gonella et al 199037                           10       10            4        1            0                       --             NA       NA                      NA            NA          NA                     NA
  Guelfi et al, 198738                           77       81            4       19           18               1.11 (0.63 to 1.95)     2        5              0.42 (0.08 to 2.11)    0           3                      0
  Harris et al, 199139                           35       34            6       12           10               1.17 (0.58 to 2.33)     5        6              0.81 (0.27 to 2.41)    0           2                      0
  Itil et al, 198340                             22       25            4       12           12               1.14 (0.65 to 1.99)     9        7              1.46 (0.65 to 3.27)    0           1                      0
  Klok et al, 198141                             18       18            4        5            3               1.67 (0.47 to 5.96)     2        1              2.00 (0.20 to 20.15)   1           0                     --
  Lapierre et al, 198742                         22       21            6        7           12               0.56 (0.27 to 1.14)     1        1              0.95 (0.06 to 14.30)   2           6            0.32 (0.07 to 1.40)
  Lydiard et al, 198943                          18       18            6       NA           NA                       NA              1        2              0.50 (0.05 to 5.04)   NA          NA                     NA
  March et al, 199044                            18       18            6        5            3               1.67 (0.47 to 5.96)     4        3              1.33 (0.35 to 5.13)    1           0                     --
  Mullin et al, 198845                           37       36            6       11           12               0.89 (0.45 to 1.76)     9        6              1.46 (0.58 to 3.68)    2           4            0.49 (0.09 to 2.49)
  Nathan et al, 199046                           17       20            4        0            2                        0              0        2                       0             0           0                     --
  Norton et al, 198447                           35       31            4        4            1               3.54 (0.42 to 30.03)    2        0                      --             1           0                     --
  Rahman et al, 199148                           26       26            6        9            7               1.29 (0.56 to 2.93)     2        2              1.00 (0.15 to 6.57)    0           0                     --
  Roth et al, 199049                             30       30            6        6            9               0.67 (0.27 to 1.64)    NA       NA                      NA            NA          NA                     NA
Fluoxetine:
  Altamura et al, 198950                         13       15            5        2            4               0.58 (0.13 to 2.65)    NA       NA                      NA            NA          NA                     NA
  Bremner, 198451                                20       20            5        4            3               1.33 (0.34 to 5.21)     0        2                       0             0           0                     --
  Bressa et al, 198952                           15       15            5        2            1               2.00 (0.20 to 19.78)    0        0                       0             0           0                     --
  Chouinard, 198553                              25       28            5        4            6               0.77 (0.24 to 2.35)     0        4                       0             1           0                     --
  Cohn and Wilcox, 198554                        54       54            6       19           34               0.56 (0.37 to 0.85)     8       24              0.33 (0.16 to 0.68)    0           4                      0
  Corne and Hall, 198955                         49       51            6       14            7               2.08 (0.92 to 4.72)     7        2              3.64 (0.80 to 16.69)   1           1            1.04 (0.07 to 16.18)
  Fabre et al 199156                             103     102            5       39           45               0.86 (0.62 to 1.19)    17       29              0.58 (0.34 to 0.99)    2           5            0.40 (0.08 to 2.00)
  Fawcett et al, 198957                          20       20            6        8           11               0.73 (0.37 to 1.42)     4       10              0.40 (0.15 to 1.07)    2           0                     --
  Feighner, 198558                               22       22            5        5           13               0.38 (0.17 to 0.90)     2        6              0.33 (0.08 to 1.48)    1           3            0.33 (0.04 to 2.96)
  Feighner and Cohn, 198559                      78       79            6       37           48               0.78 (0.58 to 1.05)    25       34              0.74 (0.49 to 1.12)    6           4            1.52 (0.45 to 5.18)
  Feighner et al, 198960                         61       58            6       31           28               1.05 (0.73 to 1.51)    13       18              0.69 (0.37 to 1.27)   13           7            1.77 (0.76 to 4.11)
  Judd et al, 199361                             30       28            6        7            5               1.31 (0.47 to 3.64)     1        0                      --             1           1            0.93 (0.06 to 14.22)
  Keegan et al, 199162                           20       22            6        2            3               0.73 (0.14 to 3.95)     1        0                      --             0           3                      0
  Levine et al, 198763                           30       30            6        8            2               4.00 (0.92 to 17.30)    2        0                      --             2           1            2.00 (0.19 to 20.90)
  Masco and Sheetz, 198564                       20       21            6        1            5               0.21 (0.03 to 1.64)     0        2                       0             1           1            1.05 (0.07 to 15.68)
  Nielsen, et al 199365                          29       30            8        8            8               1.03 (0.45 to 2.39)     4        4              1.03 (0.29 to 3.75)    1           1            1.03 (0.07 to 15.77)
  Noguera et al, 199166                          60       60            6       13           16               0.81 (0.43 to 1.54)     2        6              0.33 (0.07 to 1.59)    3           0                     --
  Ropert et al, 198967                           71       72            6       16           24               0.68 (0.39 to 1.16)     4       12              0.34 (0.11 to 1.00)   NA          NA                     NA
  South Wales Antidepressant Drug Trial Group,
    198869                                       31       28            6       15            7               1.94 (0.93 to 4.05)     8        0                       0             5           4            1.13 (0.34 to 3.79)
  Stark and Hardison, 198569                     185     186            6       87           87               1.01 (0.81 to 1.25)    33       52              0.64 (0.43 to 0.94)   35          30            1.17 (0.75 to 1.83)
  Tamminen and Lehtinen, 198970                  26       23            5        5            4               1.11 (0.34 to 3.63)     3        1              2.65 (0.30 to 23.77)  NA          NA                     NA
  Young et al 198771                             32       32            6        7            7               1.00 (0.40 to 2.52)     2        0                      --             0           0                     --
Paroxetine:
  Bascara, 198972                                27       23            6        2            3               0.57 (0.10 to 3.11)     2        3              0.57 (0.10 to 3.11)   NA          NA                     NA
  Battegay et al, 198573                         11       10            4        3            8               0.34 (0.12 to 0.94)     1        3              0.30 (0.04 to 2.46)    0           0                     --
  Bignamini and Rapisarda, 199274                156     153            6       31           20               1.52 (0.91 to 2.55)     8        5              1.57 (0.53 to 4.69)    9           8            1.10 (0.44 to 2.79)
  Byrne, 198975                                  35       35            7       12            9               1.33 (0.64 to 2.76)     1        3              0.33 (0.04 to 3.05)    5           3            1.67 (0.43 to 6.45)
  Danish University Antidepressant Group, 199076 62       58            6       12           19               0.59 (0.32 to 1.11)     1       10              0.09 (0.01 to 0.71)    9           7            1.20 (0.48 to 3.02)
  Dunbar et al, 199177                           241     241            6      102          127               0.80 (0.66 to 0.97)    55       85              0.65 (0.48 to 0.86)   25          17            1.47 (0.82 to 2.65)
  Dunner et al, 199278                           136     135            6       45           39               1.15 (0.80 to 1.64)    33       26              1.26 (0.80 to 1.99)    4           6            0.66 (0.19 to 2.29)
  Guillibert et al, 198979                       40       39            6        9           12               0.73 (0.35 to 1.54)     3        5              0.59 (0.15 to 2.28)    4           3            1.30 (0.31 to 5.44)
  Hutchinson et al, 199180                       58       32            6       12           11               0.60 (0.30 to 1.21)     8        6              0.74 (0.28 to 11.93)   0           1                      0
  Kuhs and Rudolf, 198981                        20       20            6        6            3               2.00 (0.58 to 6.91)     2        0                      --             2           2            1.00 (0.16 to 6.42)
  Lund Laursen et al, 198582                     21       23            6        5            9               0.61 (0.24 to 1.53)     2        4              0.55 (0.11 to 2.69)    0           1                      0
  Moller et al, 199383                           112     110            6       37           48               0.76 (0.54 to 1.06)    13       21              0.61 (0.32 to 1.15)   16          14            1.12 (0.58 to 2.19)
  Nielsen et al, 199184                          16       15           12        7            9               0.73 (0.36 to 1.46)     1        3              0.31 (0.04 to 2.69)    3           5            0.56 (0.16 to 1.96)
  Ohrberg et al, 199285                          79       80            6       13           19               0.69 (0.37 to 1.31)    10       14              0.72 (0.34 to 1.53)    2           2            1.01 (0.15 to 7.07)
Sertraline:
  Cohn et al, 199086                             161      80            8       79           41               0.96 (0.73 to 1.25)    49       28              0.87 (0.60 to 1.27)   11           7            0.78 (0.31 to 1.94)
  Fontaine, 199187                               54       50           24       28           23               1.13 (0.76 to 1.67)     9        6              1.39 (0.53 to 3.62)    5           6            0.77 (0.25 to 2.37)
  Reimherr et al, 199086                         149     149            8       61           63               0.97 (0.74 to 1.27)    28       30              0.93 (0.59 to 1.48)   11           6            1.83 (0.70 to 4.83)
  Thompson, 199189                               88       93            6        9           13               0.73 (0.33 to 1.63)    NA       NA                      NA            NA          NA                     NA
Litalopram:
  Danish University Antidepressant Group, 198690 57       57            5       12            8               1.50 (0.66 to 3.39)     0        4                       0             9           4            2.48 (0.72 to 8.59)
  Gravem et al, 198791                           27       24            6        4            4               0.89 (0.25 to 3.17)     1        1              0.89 (0.06 to 13.45)   0           0                     --
  Shaw, 198692                                   24       20            6        7           15               0.41 (0.21 to 0.79)     1        5              0.17 (0.02 to 1.31)    4           5            0.67 (0.21 to 2.16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA=data not available.


TABLE III--Excluded studies comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors with tricyclic antidepressants,
 and reasons for exclusion
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Study                                  Serotonin reuptake inhibitor        Reason for exclusion
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amin et al, 198429                      Fluvoxamine            Multicentre study, drop outs not reported
Byerley et al, 198893                   Fluoxetine             In Stark and Hardison multicentre study69
Cohn et al, 199094                      Paroxetine             Drop outs not reported
Coleman and Block, 198228               Fluvoxamine            Summary of three studies
Feighner, 199295                        Paroxetine             Same study as Dunbar et al77
Feighner and Boyer, 198996              Paroxetine             In Dunbar et al multicentre study77
Feighner et al, 199397                  Paroxetine             Same study as Dunbar et al77
Gagiano et al, 198998                   Paroxetine             Insufficient information on drop outs
Ginestet et al, 198999                  Fluoxetine             Drop outs not reported
Guy et al, 1984100                      Fluvoxamine            Drop outs not reported
Hutchinson and Vince, 1992101           Paroxetine             Same study as Hutchinson et al80
Judd, 1991102                           Fluoxetine             Interim report of Judd et al61
Laakmann et al, 198818                  Fluoxetine             Conflicting numbers reported
Levine et al, 1989,103                  Fluoxetine             Same study as Levine et al63
Loeb et al, 1989104                     Fluoxetine             Drop outs not reported
Manna et al, 1989105                    Fluoxetine             Drop outs not reported
Peselow et al, 1989106                  Paroxetine             In Dunbar et al multicentre study77

The ratio of the risks of patients stopping treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (number of drop outs divided by number of patients) compared with those stopping tricyclic antidepressants (also referred to as relative risk)107 was calculated for each group for total drop outs and for those due to side effects and treatment failures. In addition, the ratio of the odds (number of drop outs divided by number of patients completing) was calculated107 to provide a comparison with results in previous meta-analyses.4 7 The complement of the risk ratio (1-risk ratio) gives the relative risk reduction comparing one treatment with another and allows implications to be drawn about drop out rates more easily than the odds ratio.108 For example, a risk ratio of 0.75 indicates a 25% reduction in risk (1-0.75).

The heterogeneity of the studies was assessed by using Cochran's Q test.109 No significant heterogeneity was found for total drop outs (Q=68.15; df=56; P=0.13) or for drop outs due to side effects (Q=46.38; df=41; P=0.26) or failure (Q=15.67; df=28; P=0.97), so the risk ratios were pooled by using a fixed effects model.107 For the odds ratios there was significant heterogeneity for total drop outs (Q=74.60; df=56; P=0.049), so the individual results were pooled by using a random effects model.110 Odds ratios for drop outs due to side effects (Q=48.79; df=41; P=0.19) and failure (Q=15.91; df=28; P=0.97) were not significantly heterogeneous and were pooled by using the fixed effects model. The studies were examined for any significant differences between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors by the method of Newman-Keuls.111 Using this method, we calculated a pooled variance and carried out the possible pairwise comparisons of risk ratios for each type of drop out and adjusted the significance values for the fact that multiple non-independent tests were done. To avoid sampling bias we excluded sertraline and citalopram from this analysis, as so few studies were available for these drugs.

The extent of publication bias was examined by means of a funnel plot,112 in which sample size was plotted against the natural logarithm of the odds ratio. Large studies, which formed the apex, were less likely to be subject to publication bias than small studies (with a larger scatter of results), which formed the base. Publication bias is likely to cause asymmetry at the base.

Results

More patients taking tricyclic antidepressants dropped out than patients taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, both overall and owing to side effects. In contrast, there was no significant difference in numbers of drop outs due to treatment failure (table IV). Results were similar for the risk and odds ratios, though for total drop outs the 95% confidence interval for the pooled odds ratio just encompassed 1. The pooled risk ratios indicated a 10% reduction in total drop outs (95% confidence interval 3% to 16%) and a 25% reduction in drop outs due to side effects (16% to 34%) when selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were compared with tricyclic antidepressants. In other words, if we take the average dropout rates suggested by these studies (table IV) 30 of every 100 patients taking tricyclic antidepressants will drop out compared with 27 of every 100 taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (a ratio of 10 to 9). Drop out attributable to side effects will amount to about 20 cases with tricyclic antidepressants compared with 15 with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (a ratio of 4 to 3). 


TABLE IV--Drop out rates for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors compared with tricyclic antidepressants
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Tricyclic
                                         Serotonin reuptake inhibitors     antidepressants
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total dropouts:
  Total No of patients                              3077                        2952
  No (%) of drop outs                            948 (30.8)                  986 (33.4)
  Risk ratio (95% confidence interval)      0.90 (0.84 to 0.97)**
  Odds ratio (95% confidence interval)      0.87 (0.75 to 1.00)*
Drop outs due to side effects:
  Total No of patients                              2912                        2782
  No (%) of drop outs                            419 (14.4)                  522 (18.8)
  Risk ratio (95% confidence interval)      0.75 (0.66 to 0.84)***
  Odds ratio (95% confidence interval)      0.68 (0.58 to 0.79)***
Drop outs due to failure:
  Total No of patients                              2786                        2660
  No (%) of drop outs                            204 (7.3)                   179 (6.8)
  Risk ratio (95% confidence interval)      1.11 (0.91 to 1.36)
  Odds ratio (95% confidence interval)      1.13 (0.90 to 1.42)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*P=0.065. **P=0.005. ***P<0.001.

The pooled odds ratios for the individual selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors fluvoxamine, fluoxetine, and paroxetine did not vary significantly for total drop outs or for drop outs due to side effects or treatment failure.

The funnel plot of sample size against the natural logarithm of the risk ratio was symmetrical (figure), suggesting that there was little publication bias in the selection of studies.

Discussion

The main finding of this meta-analysis was that tricyclic antidepressants are less well tolerated than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, certainly as measured by the fairly crude method of treatment discontinuations. The difference, however, is fairly small (about 10 patients taking tricyclic antidepressants dropping out for every nine taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). The difference between tricyclic antidepressants and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors was more noticeable for drop outs due to side effects than for total drop outs (about four patients taking tricyclic agents dropping out for every three taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). Though there may be a degree of "attributional" bias (that is, patients who drop out of treatment with tricyclic antidepressants may be more likely to attribute discontinuation to side effects because they are more prominent than with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors),113 the difference in drop outs due to side effects seems to account for the overall difference in treatment discontinuations.



View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Funnel plot of natural logarithm of risk ratio plotted against numbers of patients in study

Our results fall somewhere between those of previous meta-analyses. In agreement with Montgomery et al we found that drop outs due to side effects were significantly fewer with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors than with tricyclic antidepressants but that when we looked at the reduction in total drop outs the difference was less striking.7 Unlike Song et al4 we found a difference in the total drop out rate, which may be explained by our analysis of tricyclic antidepressants alone and in our larger dataset. The issue of the relative tolerability of second generation antidepressants (included by Song et al)4 should not be dismissed, particularly as many of these drugs share with the serotonin reuptake inhibitors the property of low toxicity in overdose. However, they are of minor importance clinically in terms of numbers of prescriptions9 and, with regard to cost effectiveness analyses, many (for example, lofepramine and trazodone) are nearly as expensive as the serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

RISKS OF BIAS

There are several possible methodological problems with this meta-analysis related to the quality of studies included and possible biases likely to influence outcome. The drop out rates differed widely between studies (from nil to 80% for individual drugs), probably influenced by factors such as patient selection, previous treatment, methodology, and study setting. Whether these biased the results in favour of one class of drug or another is difficult to determine, but arguably this was minimised by our including only double blind, randomised studies in patients with unipolar depression. Nine out of 71 studies did not provide adequate data on total drop outs, but these did not differ discernibly from the rest, so we believe that bias was unlikely from their exclusion. The large number of studies was likely to lessen the effect of random factors.

It could be argued that the total drop out rate in clinical trials is not relevant to everyday practice because of the study conditions and because a proportion of discontinuations are due to protocol violations. Extrapolating from the artificial setting of a trial to clinical practice is always difficult. However, the mean total drop out rate and the proportion of drop outs due to side effects in these studies (table IV) appear comparable to results in general practice, in which total drop out rates of between 30% and 70% have been reported by six weeks, some 30-40% of the drop outs being due to side effects.26 27 The results from these clinical trials are therefore arguably a guide to what happens in normal clinical prescribing, though this cannot be assumed.

COST EFFECTIVENESS

An important question is what the difference in drop out rates means for cost effectiveness. In their analysis, Jonsson and Bebbington6 used the results from a multicentre trial of paroxetine versus imipramine which found one of the larger differences in drop out rates between antidepressants (20% reduction).77 On this basis, and making assumptions about the cost of treatment failure due to drop out and relapse and the cost of alternative treatment, they argued that the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor cost about the same as imipramine for each patient treated and was cheaper per patient successfully treated.

Jonsson and Bebbington found that their model was fairly robust when they considered a range of costs and drop out rates, but the relative drop out rate suggested by this analysis lies very close to the break even point. Our results indicate that for the 54% drop out rate with tricyclic antidepressants on which they based their analysis, 49% of patients would drop out with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. With these figures the tricyclic antidepressant would be a little cheaper per patient treated and a little more expensive per successfully treated patient compared with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (about 5% in each case).6 It is not clear what the outcome would be if the lower average drop out rates suggested by our meta-analysis (about 30%) were used.

There was no significant difference between the risk ratios of drop outs for individual selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors when we used a conservative statistical test. The clinical impression of possible differences in tolerability between individual drugs is therefore not supported (but also not ruled out).

Conclusion

In conclusion, this meta-analysis shows that fewer patients discontinue treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors than with tricyclic antidepressants. This is due to a smaller drop out rate for side effects and probably reflects better tolerability. However, the difference is fairly small and, in purely economic terms in a cost effectiveness analysis, it is uncertain that this will offset the higher prescription costs of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that these studies were over a relatively short period whereas the recommended duration of antidepressant treatment is at least four to six months,114 115 during which drop out rates may be much higher.87 116

Though the degree of burden from side effects is reportedly associated with non-compliance,27 it is not certain how important a poorer side effect profile is in determining discontinuation in longer term treatment.87 116 It must also be remembered that drop out rates are a crude way to measure tolerability. The true relative side effect burden of the two classes of drugs, which includes quality of life, performance, and accidents,7 has not been addressed here.

The contentious issue of the relative cost effectiveness of newer versus older antidepressants remains unresolved, as the outcome of that analysis depends on the assumptions used; a main assumption concerns drop out rates. This meta-analysis should inform that debate. But the next step must be to investigate antidepressants prescribed in clinical practice rather than in clinical trials, with examination of a longer duration of treatment than four to eight weeks, using better measurements than crude drop out rates.

  1. Harrison G. New or old antidepressants? New is better. BMJ 1994;309:1280-1. [Free Full Text]
  2. Owens D. New or old antidepressants? Benefits of new drugs are exaggerated. BMJ 1994;309:1281-2. [Free Full Text]
  3. Kasper S, Fuger J, Moller H-J. Comparative efficacy of antidepressants. Drugs 1992;43:11-23.
  4. Song F, Freemantle N, Sheldon TA, House A, Watson P, Long A, et al. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: meta-analysis of efficacy and acceptability. BMJ 1993;306:683-7.
  5. Anderson IM, Tomenson BM. The efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in depression: a meta-analysis of studies against tricyclic antidepressants. Journal of Psychopharmacology 1994;8:238-49.
  6. Jonsson B, Bebbington PE. What price depression? The cost of depression and the cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatment. Br J Psychiatry 1994;164:665-73. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Montgomery SA, Henry J, McDonald G, Dinan T, Lader M, Hindmarch I, et al. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: meta-analysis of discontinuation rates. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1994;9:47-53. [Medline]
  8. Ballinger BR, Feely J. Antidepressants. BMJ 1983;286:1885-7.
  9. Jick SJ, Dean AD, Jick H. Antidepressants and suicide. BMJ 1995;310:215-8. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Debus JR, Rush AJ, Himmel C, Tyler D, Polatin P, Weissenburger J. Fluoxetine versus trazodone in the treatment of outpatients with major depression. J Clin Psychiatry 1988;49:422-6. [Medline]
  11. De Jonghe F, Ravelli DP, Tuynman-Qua H. A randomized, double-blind study of fluoxetine and maprotiline in the treatment of major depression. Pharmacopsychiatry 1991;24:62-7. [Medline]
  12. De Jonghe J, Swinkels J, Tuynman-Qua H. Randomized double-blind study of fluvoxamine and maprotiline in treatment of depression. Pharmacopsychiatry 1991;24:21-7. [Medline]
  13. Dorman T. Sleep and paroxetine: a comparison with mianserin in elderly depressed patients. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1992;6(suppl 4):53-8.
  14. Falk WE, Rosenbaum JF, Otto MW, Zusky PM, Weilburg JB, Nixon RA. Fluoxetine versus trazodone in depressed geriatric patients. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 1989;2:208-14.
  15. Feighner JP, Boyer WF, Meredith CH, Hendrickson GG. A placebocontrolled in-patient comparison of fluvoxamine maleate and imipramine in major depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1989;4:239-44. [Medline]
  16. Feighner JP, Gardner EA, Johnston JA, Batey SR, Khayrallah MA, Ascher JA, et al. Double-blind comparison of bupropion and fluoxetine in depressed outpatients. J Clin Psychiatry 1991;52:329-35. [Medline]
  17. Ferreri M. Fluoxetine versus amineptine in the treatment of outpatients with major depressive disorders. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1989;4:97-101.
  18. Laakmann G, Blaschke D, Engel R, Schwarz A. Fluoxetine vs amitriptyline in the treatment of depressed out-patients. Br J Psychiatry 1988;153(suppl 3):64-8.
  19. Mertens C, Pintens H. Paroxetine in the treatment of depression. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1988;77:683-8. [Medline]
  20. Muijen M, Roy T, Mehmet A, Christie M. A comparative clinical trial of fluoxetine, mianserin and placebo in depressed outpatients. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1988;78:384-90. [Medline]
  21. Perez A, Ashford JJ. A double-blind, randomized comparison of fluvoxamine with mianserin in depressive illness. Curr Med Res Opin 1990;12:234-41. [Medline]
  22. Perry PJ, Garvey MJ, Kelly MW, Cook BL, Dunner FJ, Winokur G. A comparative trial of fluoxetine versus trazodone in outpatients with major depression. J Clin Psychiatry 1989;50:290-4. [Medline]
  23. Phanjoo A, Wonnacott S, Hodgson A. A double-blind comparative multicentre study of fluvoxamine and mianserin in the treatment of major depressive episode in elderly people. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1991;83:476-9. [Medline]
  24. Poelinger W, Haber H. Fluoxetine 40mg vs maprotiline 75 mg in the treatment of out-patients with depressive disorders. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1989;4:47-50.
  25. Taneri Z, Kohler R. Fluoxetine versus nomifensine in out-patients with neurotic or reactive depression disorder. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1989;4:56-61.
  26. Johnson DAW. Depression: treatment compliance in general practice. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1981;63(suppl):447-53.
  27. Maddox JC, Levi M, Thompson C. The compliance with antidepressants in general practice. Journal of Psychopharmacology 1994;8:48-53.
  28. Coleman BS, Block BA. Fluvoxamine maleate, a serotonergic antidepressant; a comparison with chlorimipramine. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology 1982;6:475-8.
  29. Amin MM, Ananth JV, Coleman BS, Darcourt G, Farkas T, Goldstein B, et al. Fluvoxamine: antidepressant effects confirmed in a placebocontrolled international study. Clin Neuropharmacol 1984;7:580-1.
  30. Amore M, Bellini M, Berardi D, Berlinzani L, Cervino G, Cremonini A, et al. Double-blind comparison of fluvoxamine and imipramine in depressed patients. Current Therapeutic Research 1989;46:815-20.
  31. Bramanti P, Ricci RM, Roncari R, Bilone F, Inga F, Teti V, et al. An Italian multicentre experience with fluvoxamine, a new antidepressant drug, versus imipramine. Current Therapeutic Research 1988;43:718-24.
  32. Dick P, Ferrero E. A double-blind comparative study of the clinical efficacy of fluvoxamine and chlorimipramine. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1983;15:419-25S. [Medline]
  33. De Wilde JEM, Doogan DP. Fluvoxamine and chlorimipramine in endogenous depression. J Affect Disord 1982;4:9-59. [Medline]
  34. De Wilde JE, Mertens C, Wakelin JS. Clinical trials of fluvoxamine vs chlorimipramine with single and three times daily dosing. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1983;15:427-31S.
  35. Dominguez RA, Goldstein BJ, Jacobson AF, Steinbook RM. A double-blind placebo-controlled study of fluvoxamine and imipramine in depression. J Clin Psychiatry 1985;46:84-7. [Medline]
  36. Gasperini M, Gatti F, Bellini L, Anniverno R, Smeraldi E. Perspectives in clinical psychopharmacology of amitriptyline and fluvoxamine: a double-blind study in depressed inpatients. Pharmacopsychiatry 1992;26:186-92.
  37. Gonella G, Baignoli G, Ecari U. Fluvoxamine and imipramine in the treatment of depressive patients: a double-blind controlled study. Curr Med Res Opin 1990;12:177-84. [Medline]
  38. Guelfi JD, Dreyfus JF, Pichot P, GEPECP. A double-blind controlled clinical trial comparing fluvoxamine with imipramine. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1983;15:411-7S. [Medline]
  39. Harris B, Szulecka TK, Anstee JA. Fluvoxamine versus amitriptyline in depressed hospital out-patients: a multicentre double-blind comparative trial. British Journal of Clinical Research 1991;2:89-99.
  40. Itil TM, Shrivastava RK, Mukherjee S, Coleman BS, Michael ST. A double-blind placebo-controlled study of fluvoxamine and imipramine in out-patients with primary depression. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1983;15:433-8S.
  41. Klok CJ, Brouwer GJ, Van Praag HM, Doogan D. Fluvoxamine and clomipramine in depressed patients: a double-blind clinical study. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1981;64:1-11. [Medline]
  42. Lapierre YD, Browne M, Horn E, Oyewumi LK, Sarantidis D, Roberts N, et al. Treatment of major affective disorder with fluvoxamine. J Clin Psychiatry 1987;48:65-8 [Medline]
  43. Lydiard RB, Lyle KL, Morton WA, Steele TE, Kellner C, Laraia MT, et al. Fluvoxamine, imipramine and placebo in the treatment of depressed out-patients: effects on depression. Psychopharmacol Bull 1989;25:68-70. [Medline]
  44. March JS, Kobak KA, Jefferson JW, Mazza J, Greist JH. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of fluvoxamine versus imipramine in out-patients with major depression. J Clin Psychiatry 1990;51:200-2. [Medline]
  45. Mullin JM, Pandita-Gunawardena VR, Whitehead AM. A double-blind comparison of fluvoxamine and dothiepin in the treatment of major affective disorder. Br J Clin Pract 1988;42:51-5. [Medline]
  46. Nathan RS, Perel JM, Pollack BG, Kupfer DJ. The role of neuropharmacologic selectivity in antidepressant action: fluvoxamine versus desipramine. J Clin Psychiatry 1990;51:367-72. [Medline]
  47. Norton KRW, Sireling LI, Bhat AV, Rao B, Paykel ES. A double-blind comparison of fluvoxamine, imipramine and placebo in depressed patients. J Affect Disord 1984;7:297-308. [Medline]
  48. Rahman MK, Akhtar MJ, Savla NC, Sharma RR, Kellett JM, Ashford JJ. A double-blind, randomised comparison of fluvoxamine with dothiepin in the treatment of depression in elderly patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1991;45:255-8.
  49. Roth D, Mattes J, Sheehan KH, Sheehan DV. A double-blind comparison of fluvoxamine, desipramine and placebo in out-patient with depression. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 1990;14:929-39. [Medline]
  50. Altamura AC, Percudani M, Guercetti G, Invernizzi G. Efficacy and tolerability of fluoxetine in the elderly: a double-blind study versus amitriptyline. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1989;4:103-6.
  51. Bremner JD. Fluoxetine in depressed patients: a comparison with imipramine. J Clin Psychiatry 1984;45:414-9. [Medline]
  52. Bressa GM, Brugnoli R, Pancheri P. A double-blind study of fluoxetine and imipramine in major depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1989;4:69-73.
  53. Chouinard G. A double blind controlled clinical trial of fluoxetine and amitriptyline in the treatment of out-patients with major depressive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 1985;46:32-7. [Medline]
  54. Cohn JB, Wilcox C. A comparison of fluoxetine, imipramine, and placebo in patients with depressive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 1985;46:26-31.
  55. Corne SJ, Hall JR. A double-blind comparative study of fluoxetine and dothiepin in the treatment of depression in general practice. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1989;4:245-54. [Medline]
  56. Fabre LF, Scharf MB, Itil TM. Comparative efficacy and safety of nortriptyline and fluoxetine in the treatment of major depression: a clinical study. J Clin Psychiatry 1991;52:62-7.
  57. Fawcett J, Zajecka JM, Kravitz HM, Edwards J, Jeffriess H, Scorza E. Fluoxetine versus amitriptyline in adult out-patients with major depression. Current Therapeutic Research 1989;45:821-32.
  58. Feighner JP. A comparative trial of fluoxetine and amitriptyline in patients with major depressive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 1985;46:369-72. [Medline]
  59. Feighner JP, Cohn JB. Double-blind comparative trials of fluoxetine and doxepin in geriatric patients with major depressive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 1985;46:20-5.
  60. Feighner JP, Boyer WF, Merideth CH, Hendrickson GG. A double-blind comparison of fluoxetine, imipramine and placebo in out-patients with major depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1989;4:127-34. [Medline]
  61. Judd FK, Moore K, Norman TR, Burrows GD, Gupta RK, Parker G. A multicentre double blind trial of fluoxetine versus amitriptyline in the treatment of depressive illness. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 1993;27:49-55. [Medline]
  62. Keegan D, Bowen RC, Blackshaw S, Saleh S, Dayal N, Remillard F, et al. A comparison of fluoxetine and amitriptyline in the treatment of major depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1991;6:117-24. [Medline]
  63. Levine S, Deo R, Mahadevan K. A comparative trial of a new antidepressant, fluoxetine. Br J Psychiatry 1987;150:653-5. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  64. Masco HL, Sheetz MS. Double-blind comparison of fluoxetine and amitriptyline in the treatment of major depressive illness. Advances in Therapy 1985;2:275-83.
  65. Nielsen BM, Behnke K, Arup P, Christiansen PE, Geisler A, Ipsen E, et al. A comparison of fluoxetine and imipramine in the treatment of out-patients with major depressive disorder. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1993;87:269-72. [Medline]
  66. Noguera R, Altuna R, Alvarez E, Ayuso JL, Casais L, Udina C. Fluoxetine vs clomipramine in depressed patients: a controlled multicentre trial. J Affect Disord 1991;22:119-24. [Medline]
  67. Ropert R. Fluoxetine versus clomipramine in major depressive disorders. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1989;4:89-95.
  68. South Wales Antidepressant Drug Trial Group. A double-blind multi-centre trial of fluoxetine and dothiepin in major depressive illness. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1988;3:75-81. [Medline]
  69. Stark P, Hardison CD. A review of multicenter controlled studies of fluoxetine vs imipramine and placebo in out-patients with major depressive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 1985;46:53-8. [Medline]
  70. Tamminen TTA, Lehtinen VV. A double-blind parallel study to compare fluoxetine with doxepin in the treatment of major depressive disorders. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1989;4:51-6.
  71. Young JPR, Coleman A, Lader MH. A controlled comparison of fluoxetine and amitriptyline in depressed out-patients. Br J Psychiatry 1987;151:337-40. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  72. Bascara L. A double-blind study to compare the effectiveness and tolerability of paroxetine and amitriptyline in depressed patients. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1989;80(suppl 350):141-2
  73. Battegay R, Hager M, Rauchfleisch U. Double-blind comparative study of paroxetine and amitriptyline in depressed patients of a university psychiatric out-patient clinic (pilot study). Neuropsychobiology 1985;13:31-7. [Medline]
  74. Bignamini A, Rapisarda V. A double-blind multicentre study of paroxetine and amitriptyline in depressed out-patients. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1992;6(suppl 4):37-41.
  75. Byrne MM. Meta-analysis of early phase II studies with paroxetine in hospitalized depressed patients. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1989;80:138-9.
  76. Danish University Antidepressant Group. Paroxetine: a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor showing better tolerance but weaker antidepressant effect than clomipramine in a controlled multicentre study. J Affect Disord 1990;18:289-99. [Medline]
  77. Dunbar GC, Cohn JB, Fabre LF, Feighner JP, Fieve RR, Mendels J, et al. A comparison of paroxetine, imipramine and placebo in depressed out-patients. Br J Psychiatry 1991;159:394-8. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  78. Dunner DL, Cohn JB, Walshe T, Cohn CK, Feighner JP, Rieve RR, et al. Two combined, multicenter double-blind studies of paroxetine and doxepin in geriatric patients with major depression. J Clin Psychiatry 1992;53:57-60.
  79. Guillibert E, Pellicier Y, Archambault JC, Chabannes JP, Clerc G, Desvilles M, et al. A double-blind, multicentre study of paroxetine versus clomipramine in depressed elderly patients. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1989;80:132-4. [Medline]
  80. Hutchinson DR, Tong S, Moon CAL, Vince M, Clarke A. A double blind study in general practice to compare the efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine and amitriptyline in depressed elderly patients. British Journal of Clinical Research 1991;2:43-57.
  81. Kuhs H, Rudolf GAE. A double-blind study of the comparative antidepressant effect of paroxetine and amitriptyline. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1989;80:145-6.
  82. Lund Laursen LA, Mikkelsen PL, Rasmussen S, le Fevre Honore P. Paroxetine in the treatment of depression--a randomized comparison with amitriptyline. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1985;71:249-55. [Medline]
  83. Moller H-J, Berzewski H, Eckmann F, Gonzalves N, Kissling W, Knorr W, et al. Double-blind multicentre study of paroxetine and amitriptyline in depressed inpatients. Pharmacopsychiatry 1993;26:75-8. [Medline]
  84. Nielsen OA, Mosing I, Petersen JS, Larsen T, Moller SE, Manniche PM, et al. Paroxetine and imipramine treatment of depressive patients in a controlled multicentre study with plasma amino acid measurements. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1991;84:233-41. [Medline]
  85. Ohrberg S, Christiansen PE, Severin B, Calberg H, Nilakantan B, Borup B, et al. Paroxetine and imipramine in the treatment of depressive patients in psychiatric practice. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1992;86:437-44. [Medline]
  86. Cohn CK, Shrivastava R, Mendels J, Cohn JB, Fabre LF, Claghorn JL, et al. Double-blind, multicenter comparison of sertraline and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients. J Clin Psychiatry 1990;51:28-33.
  87. Fontaine R. The efficacy and safety of sertraline versus imipramine in out-patients with major depression: a six month double-blind, parallel multicenter study. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 1991;1:75
  88. Reimherr FW, Chouinard G, Cohn CK, Cole JO, Itil TM, LaPierre YD, et al. Antidepressant efficacy of sertraline: a double-blind, placebo- and amitriptyline-controlled, multicenter comparison study in out-patients with major depression. J Clin Psychiatry 1990;51:18-27.
  89. Thompson C. Sertraline in a primary care setting. In: Racagni G, ed. Biological psychiatry. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1991:863-5.
  90. Danish University Antidepressant Group. Citalopram: clinical effect profile in comparison with clomipramine. A controlled multicenter study. Psychopharmacology 1986;90:131-8. [Medline]
  91. Gravem A, Amthor KF, Astrup C, Elgen K, Gjessing LR, Gunby B, et al. A double-blind comparison of citalopram (Lu 10-171) and amitriptyline in depressed patients. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1987;75:478-86. [Medline]
  92. Shaw DM. A comparison of the antidepressant action of citalopram and amitriptyline. Br J Psychiatry 1986;149:515-7. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  93. Byerley WF, Reimherr FW, Wood DR, Grosser BI. Fluoxetine, a selective serotonin uptake inhibitor, for the treatment of out-patients with major depression. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1988;8:112-5. [Medline]
  94. Cohn JB, Crowder JE, Wilcox CS, Ryan PJ. A placebo- and imipramine-controlled study of paroxetine. Psychopharmacol Bull 1990;26:185-9. [Medline]
  95. Feighner JP. A double-blind comparison of paroxetine, imipramine and placebo in depressed outpatients. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1992;6:31-5.
  96. Feighner JP, Boyer WF. Paroxetine in the treatment of depression: a comparison with imipramine and placebo. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1989;80:125-9. [Medline]
  97. Feighner JP, Cohn JB, Fabre LF, Fieve RR, Mendels J, Shrivastava RK, et al. A study comparing paroxetine, placebo and imipramine in depressed patients. J Affect Disord 1993;28:71-9. [Medline]
  98. Gagiano CA, Muller PGM, Fourie J, Le Roux JF. The therapeutic efficacy of paroxetine: (a) an open study in patients with major depression not responding to antidepressants; (b) a double-blind comparison with amitriptyline in depressed outpatients. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1989;80:130-1.
  99. Ginester D, Alby JM, Besancon G, Carrier G, Cordier B, Degiovanni A, et al. Fluoxetine in endogenous depression melancholia versus clomipramine. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1989;4:37-40.
  100. Guy W, Wilson WH, Ban TA, King DL, Manov G, Fjetland IK. Double-blind clinical trial of fluvoxamine and imipramine in patients with primary depression. Psychopharmacol Bull 1984;20:73-8. [Medline]
  101. Hutchinson DR, Vince M. A double-blind study in general practice to compare with efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine and amitriptyline in depressed elderly patients. American Journal of Clinical Research 1992;1:49-61.
  102. Judd F. Preliminary report of a double-blind study comparing fluoxetine and amitriptyline in the treatment of depression. In: Recent advances in the treatment of depression. Journal of the American Medical Association SEA 1991;suppl:31-3.
  103. Levine S, Deo R, Mahadevan K. A comparative trial of a new antidepressant, fluoxetine. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1989;4(suppl 1):41-5.
  104. Loeb C, Albano C, Gandolfo C. Fluoxetine versus imipramine. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1989;4:75-9.
  105. Manna V, Martucci N, Agnoli A. Double-blind controlled study on the clinical efficacy and safety of fluoxetine vs clomipramine in the treatment of major depressive disorders. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1989;4:81-8.
  106. Peselow ED, Filippi AM, Goodnick P, Barouche F, Fieve RR. The short and long term efficacy of paroxetine HCl: data from a six-week double-blind parallel design trial vs imipramine and placebo. Psychopharmacol Bull 1989;25:267-71. [Medline]
  107. Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Statistics with confidence. London: BMJ, 1989.
  108. Sinclair JC, Bracken MB. Clinically useful measures of effect in binary analyses of randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47:881-9. [Medline]
  109. Armitage P, Berry G. Statistical methods in medical research. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific, 1987.
  110. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177-88. [Medline]
  111. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall, 1991.
  112. Wilson A, Henry DA. Meta-analysis. Part 2: assessing the quality of published meta-analyses. Med J Aust 1992;156:173-87. [Medline]
  113. Boyer WF, Feighner JP. Side-effects of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. In: Feighner JP, Boyer WF, eds. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Chichester: John Wiley, 1991:133-52.
  114. Consensus Committee. Guidelines for treating depressive illness with antidepressants: a statement from the British Association for Psychopharmacology. Journal of Psychopharmacology 1993;7:19-23.
  115. Paykel ES, Priest RG. Recognition and management of depression in general practice: consensus statement. BMJ 1992;305:1198-202.
  116. Claghorn JL, Feighner JP. A double-blind comparison of paroxetine with imipramine in the long-term treatment of depression. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1994;13:23-7S.
(Accepted 4 April 1995)


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Deciding which selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor to prescribe
Anthony J Cleare
BMJ 1995 311: 1641. [Extract] [Full Text]

Subject to many potential biases
Simon Gilbody, Allan House, Fujian Song, and Trevor Sheldon
BMJ 1995 311: 1303-1304. [Extract] [Full Text]

Meta-analysis of antidepressant prescribing
Nick Freemantle and James Mason
BMJ 1995 311: 751. [Extract] [Full Text]

Important differences exist between second generation antidepressants
John J Ferguson, Peter J Smith, and Martin G V Jenkins
BMJ 1995 311: 751. [Extract] [Full Text]

Acceptability of side effects as reason for stopping may bias results
Paul Ramchandani and Vicky Webb
BMJ 1995 311: 751. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Rabkin, J. G., McElhiney, M. C., Rabkin, R., McGrath, P. J., Ferrando, S. J. (2006). Placebo-Controlled Trial of Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) for Treatment of Nonmajor Depression in Patients With HIV/AIDS. Am. J. Psychiatry 163: 59-66 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Olfson, M., Marcus, S. C., Tedeschi, M., Wan, G. J. (2006). Continuity of Antidepressant Treatment for Adults With Depression in the United States. Am. J. Psychiatry 163: 101-108 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Arroll, B., Macgillivray, S., Ogston, S., Reid, I., Sullivan, F., Williams, B., Crombie, I. (2005). Efficacy and Tolerability of Tricyclic Antidepressants and SSRIs Compared With Placebo for Treatment of Depression in Primary Care: A Meta-Analysis. Ann Fam Med 3: 449-456 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Wright, J. H., Wright, A. S., Albano, A. M., Basco, M. R., Goldsmith, L. J., Raffield, T., Otto, M. W. (2005). Computer-Assisted Cognitive Therapy for Depression: Maintaining Efficacy While Reducing Therapist Time. Am. J. Psychiatry 162: 1158-1164 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Edwards, J. G. (2005). Newer v. older antidepressants in long-term pharmacotherapy: REVISITING... PREVENTION OF RELAPSE AND RECURRENCE OF DEPRESSION. Adv. Psychiatr. Treat. 11: 184-194 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Hansen, D. G., Vach, W., Rosholm, J.-U., Sondergaard, J., Gram, L. F, Kragstrup, J. (2004). Early discontinuation of antidepressants in general practice: association with patient and prescriber characteristics. Fam Pract 21: 623-629 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Pampallona, S., Bollini, P., Tibaldi, G., Kupelnick, B., Munizza, C. (2004). Combined Pharmacotherapy and Psychological Treatment for Depression: A Systematic Review. Arch Gen Psychiatry 61: 714-719 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Trick, L., Stanley, N., Rigney, U., Hindmarch, I. (2004). A Double-Blind, Randomized, 26-Week Study Comparing the Cognitive and Psychomotor Effects and Efficacy of 75 mg (37.5 mg b.i.d.) Venlafaxine and 75 mg (25 mg Mane, 50 mg Nocte) Dothiepin in Elderly Patients with Moderate Major Depression Being Treated in General Practice. J Psychopharmacol 18: 205-214 [Abstract]  
  • Weilburg, J. B., O'Leary, K. M., Meigs, J. B., Hennen, J., Stafford, R. S. (2003). Evaluation of the Adequacy of Outpatient Antidepressant Treatment. Psychiatr. Serv. 54: 1233-1239 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • MacGillivray, S., Arroll, B., Hatcher, S., Ogston, S., Reid, I., Sullivan, F., Williams, B., Crombie, I. (2003). Efficacy and tolerability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors compared with tricyclic antidepressants in depression treated in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 326: 1014-1014 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Ruhe, H. (2003). Review: Low dose tricyclic antidepressants may be effective for adults with acute depressive disorder. Evid. Based Ment. Health 6: 46-46 [Full text]  
  • Santarlasci, B., Messori, A. (2003). Clinical Trial Response and Dropout Rates with Olanzapine Versus Risperidone. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 37: 556-563 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • PAMPALLONA, S., BOLLINI, P., TIBALDI, G., KUPELNICK, B., MUNIZZA, C. (2002). Patient adherence in the treatment of depression. Br. J. Psychiatry 180: 104-109 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Otto, M. W., Tuby, K. S., Gould, R. A., McLean, R. Y.S., Pollack, M. H. (2001). An Effect-Size Analysis of the Relative Efficacy and Tolerability of Serotonin Selective Reuptake Inhibitors for Panic Disorder. Am. J. Psychiatry 158: 1989-1992 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • DONOGHUE, J., HYLAN, T. R. (2001). Antidepressant use in clinical practice: efficacy v. effectiveness. Br. J. Psychiatry 179 : s9-s17 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Peveler, R., Kendrick, T. (2001). Treatment delivery and guidelines in primary care: Depression and public health. Br Med Bull 57: 193-206 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • BARBUI, C., HOTOPF, M. (2001). Amitriptyline v. the rest: still the leading antidepressant after 40 years of randomised controlled trials. Br. J. Psychiatry 178: 129-144 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Baillargeon, J., Contreras, S., Grady, J. J., Black, S. A., Murray, O. (2000). Compliance With Antidepressant Medication Among Prison Inmates With Depressive Disorders. Psychiatr. Serv. 51: 1444-1446 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • CLAXTON, A. J., LI, Z., McKENDRICK, J. (2000). Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment in the UK: risk of relapse or recurrence of depression. Br. J. Psychiatry 177: 163-168 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Williams, J. W. Jr., Mulrow, C. D., Chiquette, E., Noel, P. H., Aguilar, C., Cornell, J. (2000). A Systematic Review of Newer Pharmacotherapies for Depression in Adults: Evidence Report Summary: Clinical Guideline, Part 2. ANN INTERN MED 132: 743-756 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • BECH, P., CIALDELLA, P., HAUGH, M. C., HOURS, A., BOISSEL, J. P., BIRKETT, M. A., TOLLEFSON, G. D. (2000). Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of fluoxetine v. placebo and tricyclic antidepressants in the short-term treatment of major depression. Br. J. Psychiatry 176: 421-428 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Carson, A. J., Shah, P. (2000). Size does matter: A study of antidepressant prescribing in a general hospital. Psychiatr. Bull. 24: 23-25 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Baldwin, R C, Haddad, P., McAllister-Williams, R H, Gordon, C., Livingston, M. G, Livingston, H. M (1999). Antidepressants for old people. BMJ 319: 849b-849 [Full text]  
  • Gallo, J. J. (1999). TCAs vs SSRIs: Same Bang for Whose Buck?. Arch Fam Med 8: 326-327 [Full text]  
  • Williams, J. W. Jr, Rost, K., Dietrich, A. J., Ciotti, M. C., Zyzanski, S. J., Cornell, J. (1999). Primary Care Physicians' Approach to Depressive Disorders: Effects of Physician Specialty and Practice Structure. Arch Fam Med 8: 58-67 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Schulberg, H. C., Katon, W., Simon, G. E., Rush, A. J. (1998). Treating Major Depression in Primary Care Practice: An Update of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Practice Guidelines. Arch Gen Psychiatry 55: 1121-1127 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Gamble, D., Thakore, J., Tobiansky, R., Manning, C., Edwards, J G. (1998). Long term pharmacotherapy of depression. BMJ 317: 1157-1157 [Full text]  
  • Moncrieff, J. (1998). Review: discontinuation rates are the same for serotonin specific reuptake inhibitors and newer tricyclic and heterocyclic antidepressants. Evid. Based Ment. Health 1: 21-21 [Full text]  
  • Kendrick, T. (1996). Prescribing antidepressants in general practice. BMJ 313: 829-830 [Full text]  
  • Cleare, A. J (1995). Deciding which selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor to prescribe. BMJ 311: 1641a-1641 [Full text]  
  • Gilbody, S., House, A., Song, F., Sheldon, T. (1995). Subject to many potential biases. BMJ 311: 1303c-1304 [Full text]  
  • Freemantle, N., Mason, J. (1995). Meta-analysis of antidepressant prescribing. BMJ 311: 751-751 [Full text]  
  • Ferguson, J. J, Smith, P. J, Jenkins, M. G V (1995). Important differences exist between second generation antidepressants. BMJ 311: 751a-751 [Full text]  
  • Ramchandani, P., Webb, V. (1995). Acceptability of side effects as reason for stopping may bias results. BMJ 311: 751b-751 [Full text]  
Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ