We found no clear evidence that paroxetine was more or less effective compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at acute ( six to 12 weeks ) , early ( one to four weeks ) , or longer term follow-up ( four to six months ) .
Paroxetine was associated with a lower rate of adverse events than amitriptyline , imipramine and older ADs as a class , but was less well tolerated than agomelatine and hypericum .
Some possibly clinical ly meaningful differences between paroxetine and other ADs exist , but no definitive conclusions can be drawn from these findings .
In terms of early response to treatment ( one to four weeks ) there was moderate quality of evidence that mirtazapine was better than paroxetine and that paroxetine was better than reboxetine .
However there was no clear evidence that paroxetine was better or worse compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at any time point .
BACKGROUND Paroxetine is the most potent inhibitor of the reuptake of serotonin of all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors ( SSRIs ) and has been studied in many r and omised controlled trials ( RCTs ) .
However , these comparative studies provided contrasting findings and systematic review s of RCTs have always considered the SSRIs as a group , and evidence applicable to this group of drugs might not be applicable to paroxetine alone .
The present systematic review assessed the efficacy and tolerability profile of paroxetine in comparison with tricyclics ( TCAs ) , SSRIs and newer or non-conventional agents .
OBJECTIVES 1 .
To determine the efficacy of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents in alleviating the acute symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder.2  .
To review acceptability of treatment with paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.3 .
To investigate the adverse effects of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents .
Direct Cost of Depression: Analysis of Treatment Costs of Paroxetine versus Imipramine in Canada
Objective To assess the potential economic impact of new and more expensive antidepressants on the overall cost of treatment using cost-effectiveness analysis . Method For this analysis , a computerized decision tree of clinical practice was developed to model the 12-month treatment of moderate to severe depression in Canada . To complete the model , data were obtained from physician panels , the Ontario Ministry of Health , and clinical comparative trials of paroxetine , a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor , and Imipramine , a tricyclic antidepressant . Results The overall cost of treatment when paroxetine 30 mg per day was used first-line was found to be lower than when generic imipramine was used as the initial therapy ( $ 1697 versus $ 1793 ) . The higher drug cost of paroxetine ( $ 1.69 per day ) versus imipramine ( $ 0.05 per day ) was offset by a higher rate of treatment failures with the tricyclic necessitating an alternate therapy , additional physician visits and /or hospitalization . Sensitivity analysis of key variables determined that drug price and relapse rates after discontinuation were relatively insensitive predictors of the overall cost of care . More important was the continuation rate while on different therapies . Conclusion Paroxetine demonstrated a cost-benefit relative to Imipramine when the continuation rate was ≥ 47 % . Clinical trials of paroxetine have reported continuation rates of 41 % to 65 % , suggesting that paroxetine is a cost-effective alternative to Imipramine in the 1-year management of patients with moderate to severe depression
We found no clear evidence that paroxetine was more or less effective compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at acute ( six to 12 weeks ) , early ( one to four weeks ) , or longer term follow-up ( four to six months ) .
Paroxetine was associated with a lower rate of adverse events than amitriptyline , imipramine and older ADs as a class , but was less well tolerated than agomelatine and hypericum .
Some possibly clinical ly meaningful differences between paroxetine and other ADs exist , but no definitive conclusions can be drawn from these findings .
In terms of early response to treatment ( one to four weeks ) there was moderate quality of evidence that mirtazapine was better than paroxetine and that paroxetine was better than reboxetine .
However there was no clear evidence that paroxetine was better or worse compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at any time point .
BACKGROUND Paroxetine is the most potent inhibitor of the reuptake of serotonin of all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors ( SSRIs ) and has been studied in many r and omised controlled trials ( RCTs ) .
However , these comparative studies provided contrasting findings and systematic review s of RCTs have always considered the SSRIs as a group , and evidence applicable to this group of drugs might not be applicable to paroxetine alone .
The present systematic review assessed the efficacy and tolerability profile of paroxetine in comparison with tricyclics ( TCAs ) , SSRIs and newer or non-conventional agents .
OBJECTIVES 1 .
To determine the efficacy of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents in alleviating the acute symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder.2  .
To review acceptability of treatment with paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.3 .
To investigate the adverse effects of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents .