Cited by 299Treatment of Major DepressionElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 112 of the 112 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 169 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Addressing the Side Effects of Contemporary Antidepressant Drugs: A Comprehensive Review

Open access

Abstract

Randomized trials have shown that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) have better safety profiles than classical tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). However, an increasing number of studies, including meta-analyses, naturalistic studies, and longer-term studies suggested that SSRIs and SNRIs are no less safe than TCAs. We focused on comparing the common side effects of TCAs with those of newer generation antidepressants including SSRIs, SNRIs, mirtazapine, and bupropion. The main purpose was to investigate safety profile differences among drug classes rather than the individual antidepressants, so studies containing comparison data on drug groups were prioritized. In terms of safety after overdose, the common belief on newer generation antidepressants having fewer side effects than TCAs appears to be true. TCAs were also associated with higher drop-out rates, lower tolerability, and higher cardiac side-effects. However, evidence regarding side effects including dry mouth, gastrointestinal side effects, hepatotoxicity, seizure, and weight has been inconsistent, some studies demonstrated the superiority of SSRIs and SNRIs over TCAs, while others found the opposite. Some other side effects such as sexual dysfunction, bleeding, and hyponatremia were more prominent with either SSRIs or SNRIs.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This narrative review compares side effects of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) with newer-generation agents (SSRIs, SNRIs, mirtazapine, bupropion), concluding that newer drugs are clearly safer in overdose and better tolerated, but that evidence for many other side effects (dry mouth, GI effects, hepatotoxicity, seizure, weight) is inconsistent. Side effects tied to high serotonin selectivity — sexual dysfunction, bleeding, hyponatremia — appear more prominent with SSRIs/SNRIs than TCAs.

Key findings

  • Tolerability: a meta-analysis of 3 head-to-head studies found SSRIs had significantly lower dropout rates (OR=0.41; 95% CI 0.19–0.86) and adverse events (OR=0.48; 95% CI 0.32–0.70; p<0.001) than TCAs; a network meta-analysis found fluoxetine (OR=0.23), citalopram (OR=0.27), and paroxetine (OR=0.22) better tolerated than imipramine in children/adolescents with MDD.
  • Overdose safety: hazard indices were highest for amoxapine (292), maprotiline (211), and desipramine (187), with newer antidepressants (except bupropion) much lower; case fatality rate ratio was 0.5 (95% CI 0.4–0.7) for SSRIs vs 13.8 (95% CI 13.0–14.7) for TCAs, with venlafaxine 2.5 and mirtazapine 1.9.
  • Cardiovascular: SSRIs prolonged QTc by 6 ms more than placebo (dose-dependent), with citalopram prolonging most; overall cardiovascular adverse reactions were 0.15% for TCAs, 0.08% for SSRIs, 0.07% for mirtazapine, and SNRIs showed significantly higher hypertension risk (p<0.001), with venlafaxine incidence 0.05%.
  • Serotonergic side effects: SSRI bleeding risk RR=3.0 vs RR=0.8 for non-serotonergic antidepressants; dry mouth risk was RR 1.64 for SSRIs, 2.24 for SNRIs, and 2.0 for bupropion (all p<0.001); hyponatremia ORs were 1.5–21.6 for SSRIs vs 1.1–4.9 for TCAs, with older age (OR 6.3) and thiazide diuretics (OR 11.2–13.5) raising risk.
  • Seizure and weight evidence was contradictory: bupropion IR >450 mg raised seizure incidence ~10-fold, while SR formulation showed 0.1% in 3,094 patients; in a UK cohort of 238,963 patients trazodone had the highest risk (HR 5.41, NNH 65), TCAs HR 2.32 vs SSRIs HR 1.92, while a separate nested case-control study found SSRIs OR 1.98 vs TCAs OR 0.99. An EHR study of 22,610 patients found all antidepressants caused weight gain, with bupropion, amitriptyline, and nortriptyline gaining significantly less than citalopram.

Methods

  • Narrative/comprehensive review; articles identified from PubMed, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science using the keywords "antidepressant," "side-effects," and "tolerability."
  • Prioritized large-scale observational studies, well-designed RCTs, and prior reviews/meta-analyses, with studies containing class-level comparison data (e.g., SSRIs vs TCAs) favored over individual-drug comparisons; multimodal antidepressants (vilazodone, vortioxetine) covered in a separate section.
  • Searches and verification handled by lead authors (C-U Pae and C Han) and independently reassessed by coauthors (S-J Lee and S-M Wang).

Limitations

  • Stated: the volume of studies on antidepressant side effects could not all be included "due to space limitations"; the authors also note that evidence on dry mouth, GI side effects, hepatotoxicity, seizure, and weight is inconsistent, and that short-term RCTs and long-term naturalistic/pharmacovigilance studies yield discrepant results.
  • Stated: adverse-effect reporting is prone to systematic expectation influences — a meta-analysis found significantly more adverse effects reported in TCA-placebo groups than SSRI-placebo groups (e.g., dry mouth OR 3.5, drowsiness OR 2.7, constipation OR 2.7, sexual problems OR 2.3), which the authors attribute to possible investigator expectation (Golem effect).
  • Evident from the text: no systematic search dates, inclusion/exclusion criteria, study-quality appraisal, or quantitative synthesis are reported, so the review's conclusions rest on selected evidence rather than a reproducible systematic protocol.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4068/cmj.2018.54.2.101

Cites

112 of 112 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 169 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 53
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 18
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
65 of 65
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The drug classes compared (SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, etc.) are sufficiently homogeneous that class-level safety comparisons are meaningful.

    “We aimed to compare safety among different drug classes (i.e. SSRIs vs TCAs) rather than the individual antidepressants (i.e. fluoxetine vs imipramine).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The literature search identified the relevant body of evidence on antidepressant side effects.

    “Published articles were identified from PubMed, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Web of Science using the key words “antidepressant,” “side-effects,” and “tolerability.””
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Classically, TCAs were known to have a higher risk of seizure than bupropion.

    “Classically, TCAs were known to have a higher risk of seizure than bupropion.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is a large discrepancy in patient characteristics between subjects enrolled in RCT and in real clinical practice.

    “There is a large discrepancy in patient characteristics between subjects enrolled in RCT and in real clinical practice.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In the industry's perspective, conducting such studies would result in more loss than gain.

    “In the industry's perspective, conducting such studies would result in more loss than gain.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Such studies will represent a large financial and chronological burden, so it is almost impossible for investigators to undertake such studies without industry's support.

    “However, such studies will represent a large financial and chronological burden, so it is almost impossible for investigators to undertake such studies without industry's support.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The ethical burden is another important obstacle.

    “The ethical burden is another important obstacle.”
7 of 7

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Dry-mouth finding conflicts with stated exceptions

    Minor

    The paper says all antidepressants in the cited meta-analysis increased dry mouth compared with placebo, then says fluvoxamine and vortioxetine were not associated with an increased risk.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 111 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Hong, 1994, Gac Med Mex, 130, 131
  2. Fava, 2000, J Clin Psychiatry, 61, 37
  3. Degner, 2004, Pharmacopsychiatry, 37, S39
  4. Mago, 2013, Ann Clin Psychiatry, 25, 186
  5. Kolli, 2013, Innov Clin Neurosci, 10, 10
  6. Butt, 1989, J Clin Psychiatry, 50, 146

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 299

Metadata

Authors
Wang, S.-M., Han, C., Bahk, W.-M., Lee, S.-J., Patkar, A. A., Masand, P. S., & Pae, C.-U.
Affiliations
  • The Catholic University of Korea Seoul St. Mary's Hospital (KR)
  • Korea University (KR)
  • Catholic University of Korea (KR)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • Global Medical Education, New York, NY, USA.
Corresponding author
Pae, Chi-Un
Venue
Chonnam Medical Journal
Published
2018
Volume
54
Issue
2
Pages
101
ISSN
  • 0377-9564 (ISSN-L)
  • 2233-7385
  • 2233-7393
OpenAlex
W2804876758
Cited by
299
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Chonnam Medical Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Keywords
antidepressant side effects, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, mirtazapine, bupropion, drug safety comparison, antidepressant overdose, cardiac side effects, sexual dysfunction, hyponatremia, hepatotoxicity, gastrointestinal adverse effects, drug tolerability

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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