Efficacy and tolerability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors compared with tricyclic antidepressants in depression treated in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis

Steve MacGillivray, Bruce Arroll, Simon Hatcher, Simon Ogston, Ian Reid, Frank Sullivan, Brian Williams, Iain Crombie

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • 186 Citations

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of tricyclic antidepressants with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in depression in primary care.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Data sources: Register of the Cochrane Collaboration's depression, anxiety, and neurosis group. Reference lists of initial studies and other relevant review papers. Selected authors and experts.

Selection of studies: Studies had to meet minimum requirements on: adequacy of sample size, adequate allocation concealment, clear description of treatment, representative source of subjects, use of diagnostic criteria or clear specification of inclusion criteria, details regarding number and reasons for withdrawal by group, and outcome measures described clearly or use of validated instruments.

Main outcome measures: Standardised mean difference of final mean depression scores and relative risk of response when using the clinical global impression score. Relative risk of withdrawing from treatment at any time, and the number withdrawing due to side effects.

Results: 11 studies (2951 participants) compared a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor with a tricyclic antidepressant. Efficacy between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclics did not differ significantly (standardised weighted mean difference, fixed effects 0.07, 95% confidence interval −0.02 to 0.15; z=1.59, P<0.11). Significantly more patients receiving a tricyclic withdrew from treatment (relative risk 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.90; z=3.37, P<0.0007) and withdrew specifically because of side effects (0.73, 0.60 to 0.88; z=3.24, P<0.001). Most studies included were small and supported by commercial funding. Many studies were of low methodological quality or did not present adequate data for analysis, or both, and were of short duration, typically six to eight weeks.

Conclusion: The evidence on the relative efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants in primary care is sparse and of variable quality. The study setting is likely to be an important factor in assessing the efficacy and tolerability of treatment with antidepressant drugs.

Original languageEnglish
Article number1014
Pages (from-to)1014-1019
Number of pages6
JournalBritish Medical Journal
Volume326
DOIs
StatePublished - 10 May 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Tricyclic Antidepressive Agents
Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors
Meta-Analysis
Primary Health Care
Color
Depression
Widowhood
Orphaned Children
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Confidence Intervals
Withholding Treatment
Anxiety Disorders
Antidepressive Agents
Randomized Controlled Trials

Cite this

MacGillivray, Steve; Arroll, Bruce; Hatcher, Simon; Ogston, Simon; Reid, Ian; Sullivan, Frank; Williams, Brian; Crombie, Iain / Efficacy and tolerability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors compared with tricyclic antidepressants in depression treated in primary care : systematic review and meta-analysis.

In: British Medical Journal, Vol. 326, 1014, 10.05.2003, p. 1014-1019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9ed357724cc84d399e9e76450d8569ee,
title = "Efficacy and tolerability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors compared with tricyclic antidepressants in depression treated in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Objective: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of tricyclic antidepressants with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in depression in primary care.Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sources: Register of the Cochrane Collaboration's depression, anxiety, and neurosis group. Reference lists of initial studies and other relevant review papers. Selected authors and experts.Selection of studies: Studies had to meet minimum requirements on: adequacy of sample size, adequate allocation concealment, clear description of treatment, representative source of subjects, use of diagnostic criteria or clear specification of inclusion criteria, details regarding number and reasons for withdrawal by group, and outcome measures described clearly or use of validated instruments.Main outcome measures: Standardised mean difference of final mean depression scores and relative risk of response when using the clinical global impression score. Relative risk of withdrawing from treatment at any time, and the number withdrawing due to side effects.Results: 11 studies (2951 participants) compared a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor with a tricyclic antidepressant. Efficacy between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclics did not differ significantly (standardised weighted mean difference, fixed effects 0.07, 95% confidence interval −0.02 to 0.15; z=1.59, P<0.11). Significantly more patients receiving a tricyclic withdrew from treatment (relative risk 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.90; z=3.37, P<0.0007) and withdrew specifically because of side effects (0.73, 0.60 to 0.88; z=3.24, P<0.001). Most studies included were small and supported by commercial funding. Many studies were of low methodological quality or did not present adequate data for analysis, or both, and were of short duration, typically six to eight weeks.Conclusion: The evidence on the relative efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants in primary care is sparse and of variable quality. The study setting is likely to be an important factor in assessing the efficacy and tolerability of treatment with antidepressant drugs.",
author = "Steve MacGillivray and Bruce Arroll and Simon Hatcher and Simon Ogston and Ian Reid and Frank Sullivan and Brian Williams and Iain Crombie",
year = "2003",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.326.7397.1014",
volume = "326",
pages = "1014--1019",
journal = "BMJ (Clinical research ed.)",
issn = "0267-0623",
publisher = "British Medical Association",

}

Efficacy and tolerability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors compared with tricyclic antidepressants in depression treated in primary care : systematic review and meta-analysis. / MacGillivray, Steve; Arroll, Bruce; Hatcher, Simon; Ogston, Simon; Reid, Ian; Sullivan, Frank; Williams, Brian; Crombie, Iain.

In: British Medical Journal, Vol. 326, 1014, 10.05.2003, p. 1014-1019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Efficacy and tolerability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors compared with tricyclic antidepressants in depression treated in primary care

T2 - BMJ (Clinical research ed.)

AU - MacGillivray,Steve

AU - Arroll,Bruce

AU - Hatcher,Simon

AU - Ogston,Simon

AU - Reid,Ian

AU - Sullivan,Frank

AU - Williams,Brian

AU - Crombie,Iain

PY - 2003/5/10

Y1 - 2003/5/10

N2 - Objective: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of tricyclic antidepressants with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in depression in primary care.Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sources: Register of the Cochrane Collaboration's depression, anxiety, and neurosis group. Reference lists of initial studies and other relevant review papers. Selected authors and experts.Selection of studies: Studies had to meet minimum requirements on: adequacy of sample size, adequate allocation concealment, clear description of treatment, representative source of subjects, use of diagnostic criteria or clear specification of inclusion criteria, details regarding number and reasons for withdrawal by group, and outcome measures described clearly or use of validated instruments.Main outcome measures: Standardised mean difference of final mean depression scores and relative risk of response when using the clinical global impression score. Relative risk of withdrawing from treatment at any time, and the number withdrawing due to side effects.Results: 11 studies (2951 participants) compared a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor with a tricyclic antidepressant. Efficacy between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclics did not differ significantly (standardised weighted mean difference, fixed effects 0.07, 95% confidence interval −0.02 to 0.15; z=1.59, P<0.11). Significantly more patients receiving a tricyclic withdrew from treatment (relative risk 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.90; z=3.37, P<0.0007) and withdrew specifically because of side effects (0.73, 0.60 to 0.88; z=3.24, P<0.001). Most studies included were small and supported by commercial funding. Many studies were of low methodological quality or did not present adequate data for analysis, or both, and were of short duration, typically six to eight weeks.Conclusion: The evidence on the relative efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants in primary care is sparse and of variable quality. The study setting is likely to be an important factor in assessing the efficacy and tolerability of treatment with antidepressant drugs.

AB - Objective: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of tricyclic antidepressants with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in depression in primary care.Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sources: Register of the Cochrane Collaboration's depression, anxiety, and neurosis group. Reference lists of initial studies and other relevant review papers. Selected authors and experts.Selection of studies: Studies had to meet minimum requirements on: adequacy of sample size, adequate allocation concealment, clear description of treatment, representative source of subjects, use of diagnostic criteria or clear specification of inclusion criteria, details regarding number and reasons for withdrawal by group, and outcome measures described clearly or use of validated instruments.Main outcome measures: Standardised mean difference of final mean depression scores and relative risk of response when using the clinical global impression score. Relative risk of withdrawing from treatment at any time, and the number withdrawing due to side effects.Results: 11 studies (2951 participants) compared a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor with a tricyclic antidepressant. Efficacy between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclics did not differ significantly (standardised weighted mean difference, fixed effects 0.07, 95% confidence interval −0.02 to 0.15; z=1.59, P<0.11). Significantly more patients receiving a tricyclic withdrew from treatment (relative risk 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.90; z=3.37, P<0.0007) and withdrew specifically because of side effects (0.73, 0.60 to 0.88; z=3.24, P<0.001). Most studies included were small and supported by commercial funding. Many studies were of low methodological quality or did not present adequate data for analysis, or both, and were of short duration, typically six to eight weeks.Conclusion: The evidence on the relative efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants in primary care is sparse and of variable quality. The study setting is likely to be an important factor in assessing the efficacy and tolerability of treatment with antidepressant drugs.

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.326.7397.1014

DO - 10.1136/bmj.326.7397.1014

M3 - Article

VL - 326

SP - 1014

EP - 1019

JO - BMJ (Clinical research ed.)

JF - BMJ (Clinical research ed.)

SN - 0267-0623

M1 - 1014

ER -