Mirtazapine was significantly more effective than a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor ( venlafaxine only , two trials , n = 415 ) at two weeks ( OR 2.29 , 95 % CI 1.45 to 3.59 ) and at the end of acute-phase treatment ( OR 1.53 , 95 % CI 1.03 to 2.25).In terms of dropouts , there was no robust evidence to detect a difference between mirtazapine and other antidepressants .
Mirtazapine was more likely to cause weight gain or increased appetite and somnolence than SSRIs but less likely to cause nausea or vomiting and sexual dysfunction .
AUTHORS ' CONCLUSIONS Some statistically significant and possibly clinical ly meaningful differences between mirtazapine and other antidepressive agents were found for the acute-phase treatment of major depression .
Mirtazapine is likely to have a faster onset of action than SSRIs during the acute-phase treatment .
Dropouts occur similarly in participants treated with mirtazapine and those treated with other antidepressants , although the adverse event profile of mirtazapine is unique
BACKGROUND Mirtazapine has a unique mechanism of antidepressive action and is one of the commonly used antidepressants in clinical practice .
OBJECTIVES The aim of the present review was to assess the evidence on the efficacy and acceptability of mirtazapine compared with other antidepressive agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression in adults .
Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials.
BACKGROUND Conflicting reports exist in the medical literature regarding the association between industry funding and published research findings . In this study , we examine the association between industry funding and the statistical significance of results in recently published medical and surgical trials . METHODS We examined a consecutive series of 332 r and omized trials published between January 1999 and June 2001 in 8 leading surgical journals and 5 medical journals . Each eligible study was independently review ed for method ological quality using a 21-point index with 5 domains : r and omization , outcomes , eligibility criteria , interventions and statistical issues . Our primary analysis included studies that explicitly identified the primary outcome and reported it as statistically significant . For studies that did not explicitly identify a primary outcome , we defined a " positive " study as one with at least 1 statistically significant outcome measure . We used multivariable regression analysis to determine whether there was an association between reported industry funding and trial results , while controlling for study quality and sample size . RESULTS Among the 332 r and omized trials , there were 158 drug trials , 87 surgical trials and 87 trials of other therapies . In 122 ( 37 % ) of the trials , authors declared industry funding . An unadjusted analysis of this sample of trials revealed that industry funding was associated with a statistically significant result in favour of the new industry product ( odds ratio [ OR ] 1.9 , 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] 1.3 - 3.5 ) . The association remained significant after adjustment for study quality and sample size ( adjusted OR 1.8 , 95 % CI 1.1 - 3.0 ) . There was a nonsignificant difference between surgical trials ( OR 8.0 , 95 % CI 1.1 - 53.2 ) and drug trials ( OR 1.6 , 95 % CI 1.1 - 2.8 ) , both of which were likely to have a pro-industry result ( relative OR 5.0 , 95 % CI 0.7 - 37.5 , p = 0.14 ) . INTERPRETATION Industry-funded trials are more likely to be associated with statistically significant pro-industry findings , both in medical trials and surgical interventions
Mirtazapine was significantly more effective than a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor ( venlafaxine only , two trials , n = 415 ) at two weeks ( OR 2.29 , 95 % CI 1.45 to 3.59 ) and at the end of acute-phase treatment ( OR 1.53 , 95 % CI 1.03 to 2.25).In terms of dropouts , there was no robust evidence to detect a difference between mirtazapine and other antidepressants .
Mirtazapine was more likely to cause weight gain or increased appetite and somnolence than SSRIs but less likely to cause nausea or vomiting and sexual dysfunction .
AUTHORS ' CONCLUSIONS Some statistically significant and possibly clinical ly meaningful differences between mirtazapine and other antidepressive agents were found for the acute-phase treatment of major depression .
Mirtazapine is likely to have a faster onset of action than SSRIs during the acute-phase treatment .
Dropouts occur similarly in participants treated with mirtazapine and those treated with other antidepressants , although the adverse event profile of mirtazapine is unique
BACKGROUND Mirtazapine has a unique mechanism of antidepressive action and is one of the commonly used antidepressants in clinical practice .
OBJECTIVES The aim of the present review was to assess the evidence on the efficacy and acceptability of mirtazapine compared with other antidepressive agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression in adults .