A double-blind comparison of fluvoxamine, desipramine and placebo in outpatients with depression

RETRACTED: Individual Differences in Response to Antidepressants

“…We assessed whether imputation of some SDs was associated with our primary finding of more variability in responses to ADs than to placebo. When we restricted our analysis to the 63 RCTs (corresponding to 84 comparisons) for which SDs were not estimated, our findings did not qualitatively differ from those derived from all outcomes (CVR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.10-1.16; P < .001).…”

RETRACTED: Individual Differences in Response to Antidepressants

“…We assessed whether imputation of some SDs was associated with our primary finding of more variability in responses to ADs than to placebo. When we restricted our analysis to the 63 RCTs (corresponding to 84 comparisons) for which SDs were not estimated, our findings did not qualitatively differ from those derived from all outcomes (CVR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.10-1.16; P < .001).…”

An Overview of the Systematic Reviews About the Efficacy of Fluvoxamine on Depression

“…Evidence of fluvoxamine’s efficacy against placebo included one high-quality review [ 49 ], one moderate-quality review [ 50 ], and one low-quality review [ 41 ] that were considered for the response to treatment analysis, while two high-quality reviews [ 49 , 52 ] and one moderate-quality review [ 50 ] were considered for the remission analysis. Focusing specifically on high-quality reviews, Cipriani and collaborators (2018) included 14 RCTs [ 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 ] totaling 1799 patients with a follow-up time ranging between 4–6 weeks to demonstrate the superiority of fluvoxamine over placebo considering treatment response and remission outcomes [ 49 ]. In terms of remission, a review by Kishi and collaborators (2023) [ 52 ] included a single RCT [ 73 ] with 204 patients in a 52-week follow-up study that also demonstrated fluvoxamine’s superiority over placebo.…”

Beneficial and harmful effects of tricyclic antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

“…A total of 103 trials randomising 10 590 participants were included (figure 1). 66–223 Most trials (92/103) included both men and women between 18 and 65 years of age with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder (online supplemental table S1). Ten trials only included elderly participants (defined by trialists as above 50–65 years) 90 110 144 146 159 170 196 211 213 214.…”

“…Both the experimental and the control participants in eight trials also received a co-intervention, such as psychotherapy or other drugs 78 83 103 131 187 198 211 215. The included trials assessed the effects of different tricyclic antidepressants: imipramine (50 trials),31 69 84 87 90 98–103 114 117–119 121 123–127 133–136 142 146 150 152–155 163 164 166–170 187 208 210 212–214 217 218 224 amitriptyline (31 trials),66–68 70–72 74–80 82 83 85–89 91–96 151 221–223 225 nortriptyline (8 trials),110 131 159 179 196 198 209 211 desipramine (6 trials),104 130 143 177 178 207 dothiepin (4 trials),73 93 112 137 tianeptine (4 trial),117 144 174 201 doxepin (3 trials),88 112 137 clomipramine (2 trials),81 149 amoxapine (1 trial),150 cianopramine (1 trial),226 lofepramine (1 trial)224 and maprotiline (1 trial) 180. Inert placebos were used in 102 trials, while only one trial used ‘active placebo’ as control intervention 198.…”

“…Only 17 trials reported results on HDRS-17 69 82–84 86 91 101 127 130 137 144 152 198 215 221 222. All trials only assessed outcomes at the end of the treatment period, that is, from 4 to 12 weeks after randomisation.…”

RETRACTED: Individual Differences in Response to Antidepressants

“…We assessed whether imputation of some SDs was associated with our primary finding of more variability in responses to ADs than to placebo. When we restricted our analysis to the 63 RCTs (corresponding to 84 comparisons) for which SDs were not estimated, our findings did not qualitatively differ from those derived from all outcomes (CVR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.10-1.16; P < .001).…”

An Overview of the Systematic Reviews About the Efficacy of Fluvoxamine on Depression

“…Evidence of fluvoxamine’s efficacy against placebo included one high-quality review [ 49 ], one moderate-quality review [ 50 ], and one low-quality review [ 41 ] that were considered for the response to treatment analysis, while two high-quality reviews [ 49 , 52 ] and one moderate-quality review [ 50 ] were considered for the remission analysis. Focusing specifically on high-quality reviews, Cipriani and collaborators (2018) included 14 RCTs [ 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 ] totaling 1799 patients with a follow-up time ranging between 4–6 weeks to demonstrate the superiority of fluvoxamine over placebo considering treatment response and remission outcomes [ 49 ]. In terms of remission, a review by Kishi and collaborators (2023) [ 52 ] included a single RCT [ 73 ] with 204 patients in a 52-week follow-up study that also demonstrated fluvoxamine’s superiority over placebo.…”

Beneficial and harmful effects of tricyclic antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

“…A total of 103 trials randomising 10 590 participants were included (figure 1). 66–223 Most trials (92/103) included both men and women between 18 and 65 years of age with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder (online supplemental table S1). Ten trials only included elderly participants (defined by trialists as above 50–65 years) 90 110 144 146 159 170 196 211 213 214.…”

“…Both the experimental and the control participants in eight trials also received a co-intervention, such as psychotherapy or other drugs 78 83 103 131 187 198 211 215. The included trials assessed the effects of different tricyclic antidepressants: imipramine (50 trials),31 69 84 87 90 98–103 114 117–119 121 123–127 133–136 142 146 150 152–155 163 164 166–170 187 208 210 212–214 217 218 224 amitriptyline (31 trials),66–68 70–72 74–80 82 83 85–89 91–96 151 221–223 225 nortriptyline (8 trials),110 131 159 179 196 198 209 211 desipramine (6 trials),104 130 143 177 178 207 dothiepin (4 trials),73 93 112 137 tianeptine (4 trial),117 144 174 201 doxepin (3 trials),88 112 137 clomipramine (2 trials),81 149 amoxapine (1 trial),150 cianopramine (1 trial),226 lofepramine (1 trial)224 and maprotiline (1 trial) 180. Inert placebos were used in 102 trials, while only one trial used ‘active placebo’ as control intervention 198.…”

“…Only 17 trials reported results on HDRS-17 69 82–84 86 91 101 127 130 137 144 152 198 215 221 222. All trials only assessed outcomes at the end of the treatment period, that is, from 4 to 12 weeks after randomisation.…”

RETRACTED: Individual Differences in Response to Antidepressants

“…We assessed whether imputation of some SDs was associated with our primary finding of more variability in responses to ADs than to placebo. When we restricted our analysis to the 63 RCTs (corresponding to 84 comparisons) for which SDs were not estimated, our findings did not qualitatively differ from those derived from all outcomes (CVR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.10-1.16; P < .001).…”

An Overview of the Systematic Reviews About the Efficacy of Fluvoxamine on Depression

“…Evidence of fluvoxamine’s efficacy against placebo included one high-quality review [ 49 ], one moderate-quality review [ 50 ], and one low-quality review [ 41 ] that were considered for the response to treatment analysis, while two high-quality reviews [ 49 , 52 ] and one moderate-quality review [ 50 ] were considered for the remission analysis. Focusing specifically on high-quality reviews, Cipriani and collaborators (2018) included 14 RCTs [ 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 ] totaling 1799 patients with a follow-up time ranging between 4–6 weeks to demonstrate the superiority of fluvoxamine over placebo considering treatment response and remission outcomes [ 49 ]. In terms of remission, a review by Kishi and collaborators (2023) [ 52 ] included a single RCT [ 73 ] with 204 patients in a 52-week follow-up study that also demonstrated fluvoxamine’s superiority over placebo.…”

Beneficial and harmful effects of tricyclic antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

“…A total of 103 trials randomising 10 590 participants were included (figure 1). 66–223 Most trials (92/103) included both men and women between 18 and 65 years of age with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder (online supplemental table S1). Ten trials only included elderly participants (defined by trialists as above 50–65 years) 90 110 144 146 159 170 196 211 213 214.…”

“…Both the experimental and the control participants in eight trials also received a co-intervention, such as psychotherapy or other drugs 78 83 103 131 187 198 211 215. The included trials assessed the effects of different tricyclic antidepressants: imipramine (50 trials),31 69 84 87 90 98–103 114 117–119 121 123–127 133–136 142 146 150 152–155 163 164 166–170 187 208 210 212–214 217 218 224 amitriptyline (31 trials),66–68 70–72 74–80 82 83 85–89 91–96 151 221–223 225 nortriptyline (8 trials),110 131 159 179 196 198 209 211 desipramine (6 trials),104 130 143 177 178 207 dothiepin (4 trials),73 93 112 137 tianeptine (4 trial),117 144 174 201 doxepin (3 trials),88 112 137 clomipramine (2 trials),81 149 amoxapine (1 trial),150 cianopramine (1 trial),226 lofepramine (1 trial)224 and maprotiline (1 trial) 180. Inert placebos were used in 102 trials, while only one trial used ‘active placebo’ as control intervention 198.…”

“…Only 17 trials reported results on HDRS-17 69 82–84 86 91 101 127 130 137 144 152 198 215 221 222. All trials only assessed outcomes at the end of the treatment period, that is, from 4 to 12 weeks after randomisation.…”