BACKGROUND: This paper examines the current status of research on the efficacy and effectiveness of antidepressants. METHODS: This paper reviews four meta-analyses of efficacy trials submitted to America's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and analyzes STAR*D (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression), the largest antidepressant effectiveness trial ever conducted. RESULTS: Meta-analyses of FDA trials suggest that antidepressants are only marginally efficacious compared to placebos and document profound publication bias that inflates their apparent efficacy. These meta-analyses also document a second form of bias in which researchers fail to report the negative results for the pre-specified primary outcome measure submitted to the FDA, while highlighting in published studies positive results from a secondary or even a new measure as though it was their primary measure of interest. The STAR*D analysis found that the effectiveness of antidepressant therapies was probably even lower than the modest one reported by the study authors with an apparent progressively increasing dropout rate across each study phase. CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed findings argue for a reappraisal of the current recommended standard of care of depression. Copyright 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.
BACKGROUND: This paper examines the current status of research on the efficacy and effectiveness of antidepressants. METHODS: This paper reviews four meta-analyses of efficacy trials submitted to America's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and analyzes STAR*D (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression), the largest antidepressant effectiveness trial ever conducted. RESULTS: Meta-analyses of FDA trials suggest that antidepressants are only marginally efficacious compared to placebos and document profound publication bias that inflates their apparent efficacy. These meta-analyses also document a second form of bias in which researchers fail to report the negative results for the pre-specified primary outcome measure submitted to the FDA, while highlighting in published studies positive results from a secondary or even a new measure as though it was their primary measure of interest. The STAR*D analysis found that the effectiveness of antidepressant therapies was probably even lower than the modest one reported by the study authors with an apparent progressively increasing dropout rate across each study phase. CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed findings argue for a reappraisal of the current recommended standard of care of depression. Copyright 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Authors: Lin Pei; Shupeng Li; Min Wang; Mustansir Diwan; Hymie Anisman; Paul J Fletcher; José N Nobrega; Fang Liu Journal: Nat Med Date: 2010-11-28 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Lucille S Eller; Kenn M Kirksey; Patrice K Nicholas; Inge B Corless; William L Holzemer; Dean J Wantland; Suzanne S Willard; Linda Robinson; Mary Jane Hamilton; Elizabeth F Sefcik; Shahnaz Moezzi; Marta Rivero Mendez; Maria Rosa; Sarie Human Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2012-08-13
Authors: Helen Baxter; Rachel Winder; Melanie Chalder; Christine Wright; Sofie Sherlock; Anne Haase; Nicola J Wiles; Alan A Montgomery; Adrian H Taylor; Ken R Fox; Debbie A Lawlor; Tim J Peters; Deborah J Sharp; John Campbell; Glyn Lewis Journal: Trials Date: 2010-11-12 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Allison C Nugent; Nicolas D Iadarola; Frank G Miller; David A Luckenbaugh; Carlos A Zarate Journal: Lancet Psychiatry Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 27.083