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 of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events?
CONTEXT Previous studies indicate that industry-sponsored trials tend to draw proindustry conclusions . OBJECTIVE To explore whether the association between funding and conclusions in r and omized drug trials reflects treatment effects or adverse events . DESIGN Observational study of 370 r and omized drug trials included in meta-analyses from Cochrane review s selected from the Cochrane Library , May 2001 . From a r and om sample of 167 Cochrane review s , 25 contained eligible meta-analyses ( assessed a binary outcome ; pooled at least 5 full-paper trials of which at least 1 reported adequate and 1 reported inadequate allocation concealment ) . The primary binary outcome from each meta- analysis was considered the primary outcome for all trials included in each meta- analysis . The association between funding and conclusions was analyzed by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment effect , adverse events , and additional confounding factors ( method ological quality , control intervention , sample size , publication year , and place of publication ) . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Conclusions in trials , classified into whether the experimental drug was recommended as the treatment of choice or not . RESULTS The experimental drug was recommended as treatment of choice in 16 % of trials funded by nonprofit organizations , 30 % of trials not reporting funding , 35 % of trials funded by both nonprofit and for-profit organizations , and 51 % of trials funded by for-profit organizations ( P<.001 ; chi2 test ) . Logistic regression analyses indicated that funding , treatment effect , and double blinding were the only significant predictors of conclusions . Adjusted analyses showed that trials funded by for-profit organizations were significantly more likely to recommend the experimental drug as treatment of choice ( odds ratio , 5.3 ; 95 % confidence interval , 2.0 - 14.4 ) compared with trials funded by nonprofit organizations . This association did not appear to reflect treatment effect or adverse events . CONCLUSIONS Conclusions in trials funded by for-profit organizations may be more positive due to biased interpretation of trial results . Readers should carefully evaluate whether conclusions in r and omized trials are supported by data
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 .