#7 Are some 2nd generation antidepressants more equal than others?
CLINICAL QUESTION
In adults suffering from depression, are any of the 2nd generation antidepressants better than others?
BOTTOM LINE
Among 2nd generation antidepressants, there is little or no reliable difference in the efficacy or frequency of adverse events, but the types of adverse events do vary. Clinicians should select antidepressants based on adverse effects profile and cost, not on efficacy differences.
Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits
Join NowAlready a CFPCLearn Member? Log in
EVIDENCE
Two groups compared the benefits and harms associated with 2nd generation antidepressants.
- 2011 systematic review1 (234 trials):
- No important difference in efficacy. The few statistical differences found were not clinically important.
- E.g. Escitalopram 1.13 points better than citalopram on the 60-point MADRS scale (minimal clinically important difference ≥2).
- Sponsorship may have played a role in these subtle differences.
- Similar number of patients had adverse events (61% had ≥1), but types varied
- E.g. Venlafaxine 11% more nausea and vomiting, sertraline 3% more diarrhea.
- No important difference in efficacy. The few statistical differences found were not clinically important.
- 2009 systematic review2 (117 trials):
- Identified some small differences in efficacy and acceptability.
- Efficacy top four: Mirtazapine, escitalopram, venlafaxine, sertraline.
- Acceptability top four: Escitalopram, sertraline, bupropion, citalopram.
- Cochrane reviews by the same authors suggested small efficacy advantages for sertraline3 and escitalopram4, whereas other agents (e.g. fluvoxamine5) did not show any benefit over other antidepressants.
- Antidepressant evidence suffers from significant bias. For example:
- ≤10% are high-quality studies.1,2
- Selective publication (and re-publication) of positive trials (publication bias).6,7
- Interpretation of results in favor of the sponsor (funding bias).8
- The 2009 review2 has important concerns regarding validity, including:
- Treated all depression scales as the same (and they are not).
- Using odds ratios exaggerated the differences they found.
- When they tried to account for sponsorship bias, differences between the drugs were reduced.
- Both reviews1,2 performed some indirect comparisons of drugs from different studies, which is less reliable than direct comparison in the same trial.
- The 2011 review was more robust overall.
Latest Tools for Practice
#370 Antibiotics or no antibiotics for acute diverticulitis, that is the question!
Do antibiotics change clinical outcomes for patients with acute uncomplicated diverticulitis?
#369 Remind me, do medications that target brain amyloid improve my dementia?
Are amyloid-targeting monoclonal antibodies safe and effective for mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s dementia?
#368 Sodium Restriction in Heart Failure: Beneficial or pouring salt in the wound?
Does sodium restriction improve outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure?
