CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 150Treatment of Major DepressionMental Health Treatment and AccessPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions

Comparative Risk for Harms of Second-Generation Antidepressants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Gartlehner, Gerald, Thieda, Patricia, Hansen, Richard A, Gaynes, Bradley N, DeVeaugh-Geiss, Angela, Krebs, Erin E, Lohr, Kathleen N·2008·Drug Safety
DOI 10.2165/00002018-200831100-00004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Evidence indicates that only minor differences in efficacy exist among second-generation antidepressants for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). However, a comprehensive assessment of both benefits and harms is crucial to evaluate the net benefit.Objective To review systematically the comparative harms of second-generation antidepressants for the treatment of MDD in adults by including both experimental and observational evidence.Data sources We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychLit, The Cochrane Library and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 1980 to April 2007. We manually searched reference lists of pertinent review articles and explored the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research database to identify unpublished research.Study selection Eligible study designs were trials and observational studies comparing one drug of interest with another.Data extraction Two persons independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles. One investigator extracted relevant data. A senior reviewer checked data for completeness and accuracy.Data synthesis We included 104 experimental and observational studies. If data were sufficient, we conducted meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials on the relative risk of specific adverse events. Findings indicate that the spectrum of adverse events is similar. The frequency of specific adverse events, however, differed across drugs. Venlafaxine was associated with a significantly higher rate of nausea and vomiting than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Compared with other drugs, paroxetine frequently led to more sexual adverse effects and bupropion to fewer such effects; mirtazapine and paroxetine was associated with more weight gain and sertraline with a higher rate of diarrhoea. Overall, however, these differences did not lead to different discontinuation rates. The evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about rare but severe adverse events.Conclusions Adverse event profiles are similar among second-generation antidepressants. However, different frequencies of specific adverse events might be clinically relevant and influence the choice of a treatment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2165/00002018-200831100-00004

Cites

141 of 141 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Around 60% of patients using second-generation antidepressants, such as SSRIs, encountered adverse events, and 7% to 15% quit treatment due to the events.

    “around 60% of patients using second-generation antidepressants, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs] encountered adverse events, and 7% to 15% quit treatment due to the events (Gartlehner et al. 2008)”

    From A Scoping Review of Correctional-Based Interventions for Women Prisoners with Mental Health Problems (2023) · cites this paper as Gartlehner et al. 2008

  • A meta-analysis showed that the relative risk of nausea and vomiting for venlafaxine was higher than those for SSRIs with RR of 1.53 (95% CI, 1.26-1.86).

    “A meta-analysis further showed that the relative risk of nausea and vomiting for venlafaxine was higher than those for SSRIs with RR of 1.53 (95% CI, 1.26–1.86).44”

    From Addressing the Side Effects of Contemporary Antidepressant Drugs: A Comprehensive Review (2018) · cites this paper as [44]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gartlehner, G., Thieda, P., Hansen, R. A., Gaynes, B. N., DeVeaugh-Geiss, A., Krebs, E. E., & Lohr, K. N.
Affiliations
  • Universität für Weiterbildung Krems (AT)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Regenstrief Institute (US)
  • RTI International (US)
Corresponding author
Gartlehner, Gerald
ORCID
Venue
Drug Safety
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2008
Volume
31
Issue
10
Pages
851-865
ISSN
0114-5916 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2165/00002018-200831100-00004
OpenAlex
W2006078781
Cited by
150
References
141
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 10
FWCI
9.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Drug Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Public Health Service (290-02-0016)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Keywords
second-generation antidepressants, major depressive disorder, adverse drug reactions, drug safety comparison, venlafaxine, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, paroxetine, bupropion, mirtazapine, sertraline, sexual adverse effects, weight gain, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, discontinuation rate, net benefit
MeSH terms
Adult, Blood Pressure, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Nausea, Seizures, Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological, Vomiting, Treatment Outcome, Risk Assessment, Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation, Sexual Dysfunctions, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review