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 .
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.
CONTEXT Selective reporting of outcomes within published studies based on the nature or direction of their results has been widely suspected , but direct evidence of such bias is currently limited to case reports . OBJECTIVE To study empirically the extent and nature of outcome reporting bias in a cohort of r and omized trials . DESIGN Cohort study using protocol s and published reports of r and omized trials approved by the Scientific-Ethical Committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg , Denmark , in 1994 - 1995 . The number and characteristics of reported and unreported trial outcomes were recorded from protocol s , journal articles , and a survey of trialists . An outcome was considered incompletely reported if insufficient data were presented in the published articles for meta- analysis . Odds ratios relating the completeness of outcome reporting to statistical significance were calculated for each trial and then pooled to provide an overall estimate of bias . Protocol s and published articles were also compared to identify discrepancies in primary outcomes . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Completeness of reporting of efficacy and harm outcomes and of statistically significant vs nonsignificant outcomes ; consistency between primary outcomes defined in the most recent protocol s and those defined in published articles . RESULTS One hundred two trials with 122 published journal articles and 3736 outcomes were identified . Overall , 50 % of efficacy and 65 % of harm outcomes per trial were incompletely reported . Statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared with nonsignificant outcomes for both efficacy ( pooled odds ratio , 2.4 ; 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] , 1.4 - 4.0 ) and harm ( pooled odds ratio , 4.7 ; 95 % CI , 1.8 - 12.0 ) data . In comparing published articles with protocol s , 62 % of trials had at least 1 primary outcome that was changed , introduced , or omitted . Eighty-six percent of survey responders ( 42/49 ) denied the existence of unreported outcomes despite clear evidence to the contrary . CONCLUSIONS The reporting of trial outcomes is not only frequently incomplete but also biased and inconsistent with protocol s. Published articles , as well as review s that incorporate them , may therefore be unreliable and overestimate the benefits of an intervention . To ensure transparency , planned trials should be registered and protocol s should be made publicly available prior to trial completion
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 .