• Home
  • Store
    • Newsletter Subscriptions
    • Multimedia
    • Books
    • eBooks
    • ABPN SA Courses
    • Social Work Courses
  • CME Center
  • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Webinars
    • Blog
    • Psychiatry News Videos
    • Medication Guide Videos
  • Newsletters
    • General Psychiatry
    • Child Psychiatry
    • Addiction Treatment
    • Hospital Psychiatry
    • Geriatric Psychiatry
    • Psychotherapy and Social Work
  • FAQs
  • Med Fact Book App
  • Log In
  • Register
  • Welcome
  • Sign Out
  • Subscribe
Home » Two New Meta-Analyses Compare Antidepressants

Two New Meta-Analyses Compare Antidepressants

March 1, 2009
Glen Spielmans, PhD
From The Carlat Psychiatry Report
Issue Links: Learning Objectives | Editorial Information | PDF of Issue
Section editor, Glen Spielmans, PhD. Dr. Spielmans has disclosed that he has no relevant financial or other interests in any commercial companies ertaining to this educational activity.

 Subject:
Antidepressants

Short Description:
Two New Meta-Analyses Compare Antidepressants

Background:
Two recent meta-analyses compared second-generation antidepressants (SGADs) to each other regarding efficacy and safety. One study (Cipriani A et al., Lancet 2009; online ahead of print), compared 12 SGADs across 117 controlled trials consisting of 25,298 participants. The researchers used data at the end of eight weeks whenever possible and defined treatment response as 50% or greater improvements on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and the Montgomery-Asberg Rating Scale (MADRS), or much improved or very much improved on the Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI). Two primary statistical methods were used: a) a traditional meta-analysis of studies that directly compared various ADs to each other and b) a set of complex statistical methods that incorporated data from all studies, even those that did not directly compare the medications. For example, to determine the efficacy and safety of Zoloft (sertraline) versus Paxil (paroxetine), they examined a) studies that directly compared the two drugs and b) studies that compared Zoloft or Paxil to other SGADs. Few differences were found in the direct comparisons: most notably, Prozac (fluoxetine) performed worse than Zoloft, Effexor (venlafaxine), and Remeron (mirtazapine). When incorporating data from direct and indirect comparisons of the drugs, the researchers found that Remeron, Lexapro (escitalopram), Effexor, and Zoloft were significantly more efficacious than Cymbalta (duloxetine), Prozac, Luvox (fluvoxamine), and Paxil. Overall, the authors concluded that Zoloft and Lexapro fared best in combined efficacy and tolerability.  The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) sponsored a similar comprehensive meta-analysis of SGADs (Garltehner G et al. Ann Intern Med 2008:149;734-750). They found that efficacy differences between newer ADs were negligible, although Remeron had a faster onset of action than Celexa (citalopram), Prozac, Paxil, or Zoloft. They also found that Remeron leads to more weight gain than other medications, that Effexor is linked to higher rates of nausea and vomiting, and that Paxil and Effexor may have the highest rates of discontinuation symptoms. Additionally, Paxil was linked to higher rates of sexual dysfunction than Prozac, Fluvox, Serzone (nefazodone), and Zoloft. Unsurprisingly, Wellbutrin (bupropion) was linked to lower rates of sexual dysfunction than other medications. Both meta-analyses found that Lexapro was more efficacious than Celexa, but the Garltehner et al study concluded that the difference between the two drugs was quite small. 

TCPR's Take:
The Lancet study took more of a “stand” than the AHRQ study, concluding that Zoloft and Lexapro, by slim margins, were the winners in terms of combined efficacy and  tolerability. The AHRQ study was less inclined to name a winner, but did provide some useful (though unsurprising) details about relative side effects of different agents. One can argue that the AHRQ study is the more accurate of the two, since these researchers analyzed more raw data, including response rates, change scores, and individual side effects. The Lancet researchers looked only at response rates and used rates of drop-out from studies as a proxy for adverse events. Neither study appeared to be influenced by conflicts of interest. Contrary to some papers published over the last decade, neither of these comprehensive reviews found Effexor to be more effective than SSRIs. Ultimately, it appears that our antidepressant prescribing decisions must still be based on a mixture of efficacy data, side effects properties, drug-drug interactions, and clinical judgment.                                                                      

General Psychiatry
KEYWORDS antidepressants
    Ccpr octnovdec2020 qa1 headshot spielmans 150x150
    Glen Spielmans, PhD

    L-Methylfolate May Offer Modest Boost to Antidepressants

    More from this author
    www.thecarlatreport.com
    Issue Date: March 1, 2009
    SUBSCRIBE NOW
    Table Of Contents
    Atypicals for Non-psychotic disorders
    Prescribing Atypical Antipsychotics: What are the Risks?
    Two New Meta-Analyses Compare Antidepressants
    The Neurobiology of Schizophrenia
    DOWNLOAD NOW
    Featured Book
    • MFB7e_Print_App_Access.png

      Medication Fact Book for Psychiatric Practice, Seventh Edition (2024) - Regular Bound Book

      The updated 2024 reference guide covering the most commonly prescribed medications in psychiatry.
      READ MORE
    Featured Video
    • KarXT (Cobenfy)_ The Breakthrough Antipsychotic That Could Change Everything.jpg
      General Psychiatry

      KarXT (Cobenfy): The Breakthrough Antipsychotic That Could Change Everything

      Read More
    Featured Podcast
    • shutterstock_2622607431.jpg
      General Psychiatry

      Should You Test MTHFR?

      MTHFR is a...
      Listen now
    Recommended
    • Join Our Writing Team

      July 18, 2024
      WriteForUs.png
    • Insights About a Rare Transmissible Form of Alzheimer's Disease

      February 9, 2024
      shutterstock_2417738561_PeopleImages.com_Yuri A.png
    • How to Fulfill the DEA's One Time, 8-Hour Training Requirement for Registered Practitioners

      May 24, 2024
      DEA_Checkbox.png
    • Join Our Writing Team

      July 18, 2024
      WriteForUs.png
    • Insights About a Rare Transmissible Form of Alzheimer's Disease

      February 9, 2024
      shutterstock_2417738561_PeopleImages.com_Yuri A.png
    • How to Fulfill the DEA's One Time, 8-Hour Training Requirement for Registered Practitioners

      May 24, 2024
      DEA_Checkbox.png
    • Join Our Writing Team

      July 18, 2024
      WriteForUs.png
    • Insights About a Rare Transmissible Form of Alzheimer's Disease

      February 9, 2024
      shutterstock_2417738561_PeopleImages.com_Yuri A.png
    • How to Fulfill the DEA's One Time, 8-Hour Training Requirement for Registered Practitioners

      May 24, 2024
      DEA_Checkbox.png

    About

    • About Us
    • CME Center
    • FAQ
    • Contact Us

    Shop Online

    • Newsletters
    • Multimedia Subscriptions
    • Books
    • eBooks
    • ABPN Self-Assessment Courses

    Newsletters

    • The Carlat Psychiatry Report
    • The Carlat Child Psychiatry Report
    • The Carlat Addiction Treatment Report
    • The Carlat Hospital Psychiatry Report
    • The Carlat Geriatric Psychiatry Report
    • The Carlat Psychotherapy Report

    Contact

    carlat@thecarlatreport.com

    866-348-9279

    PO Box 626, Newburyport MA 01950

    Follow Us

    Please see our Terms and Conditions, Privacy Policy, Subscription Agreement, Use of Cookies, and Hardware/Software Requirements to view our website.

    © 2025 Carlat Publishing, LLC and Affiliates, All Rights Reserved.