A metaregression analysis indicated that , after adjusting for possible confounders , studies where fluoxetine was the experimental agent were positively associated with treatment effect , indicating a significant advantage for fluoxetine .
The evidence that the outcome of fluoxetine trials varied according to whether this drug was used as a new compound or a reference one suggests the presence of bias
The present study investigated whether the outcome of r and omized clinical trials study ing fluoxetine favored fluoxetine , where this was the experimental agent , and favored comparator antidepressants in trials where fluoxetine was the reference agent .
A double-blind multicenter trial comparing sertraline and fluoxetine in outpatients with major depression.
BACKGROUND Sertraline and fluoxetine have pharmacokinetic and pharmacologic differences , which may be of clinical relevance . METHOD A r and omized , double-blind , parallel-group study of 6 weeks ' duration comparing the efficacy and safety of sertraline ( 50 - 100 mg/day ) with those of fluoxetine ( 20 - 40 mg/day ) was conducted in 286 psychiatric out patients with DSM-III-R major depression or bipolar disorder ( depressed ) . Primary efficacy measurements consisted of the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression ( HAM-D ) and the Clinical Global Impressions ( CGI ) scale . Secondary measurements included the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety ( HAM-A ) , the Raskin Depression Scale , the Covi Anxiety Scale , and the Leeds Sleep Question naire . Additionally , scores for two items and five factors from the HAM-D were analyzed . RESULTS Efficacy was based on 124 evaluable patients in each treatment group . As measured by HAM-D and CGI-Severity scores , there was a significant ( p < .001 ) improvement from baseline to each follow-up visit in both treatment groups with no statistically significant difference between groups . There was also no significant difference in the proportion of responders in each group . CGI-Improvement responder rates were 69 % for sertraline and 67 % for fluoxetine . Results of secondary efficacy measurements followed the same trend , although from the second week of treatment there was a numerical advantage ( not statistically significant ) for sertraline over fluoxetine in improving anxiety symptoms as measured by the total HAM-A score . Headache and nausea were the most frequently reported events for both drugs . The incidence of early patient withdrawals due to treatment-emergent adverse events was 14 % for sertraline and 13 % for fluoxetine . The starting dosage ( sertraline 50 mg/day , fluoxetine 20 mg/day ) was the final dosage in 76 % of patients in both treatment groups . CONCLUSION Sertraline and fluoxetine were equally effective and well tolerated in patients with major depression and associated anxiety
A metaregression analysis indicated that , after adjusting for possible confounders , studies where fluoxetine was the experimental agent were positively associated with treatment effect , indicating a significant advantage for fluoxetine .
The evidence that the outcome of fluoxetine trials varied according to whether this drug was used as a new compound or a reference one suggests the presence of bias
The present study investigated whether the outcome of r and omized clinical trials study ing fluoxetine favored fluoxetine , where this was the experimental agent , and favored comparator antidepressants in trials where fluoxetine was the reference agent .