Fluoxetine versus other types of pharmacotherapy for depression
Citation: Magni L.R., Purgato M., Gastaldon C., et al. Fluoxetine versus other types of pharmacotherapy for depression. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD004185. DOI: 0.1002/14651858.CD004185.pub3
This study detected differences in terms of efficacy and tolerability between fluoxetine and certain antidepressants, but the clinical meaning of these differences is uncertain.
Depression is common in primary care and is associated with marked personal, social and economic morbidity, thus creating significant demands on service providers. Fluoxetine has been studied in comparison with other conventional and unconventional antidepressants, however the findings have conflicted. This study aims to assess the effects of fluoxetine in comparison with all other antidepressants for depression in adult individuals with unipolar major depressive disorder. 171 studies were included in the analysis for this review (24,868 participants) including studies undertaken between 1984 and 2012. Fluoxetine was found to be more effective than ABT-200 and milnacipran, and less effective than venlafaxine. It was shown to be better tolerated than tricyclics (when considered as a group) along with amitriptyline, ABT-200, pramipexole and reboxetine. Most of the included studies were sponsored by drug companies, which could potentially have led to an overestimation of treatment effect. Consequently, no definitive implications can be drawn from the studies’ results.
Disclaimer: This summary has been written by staff and volunteers of Evidence Aid in order to make the content of the original document accessible to decision makers who are searching for the available evidence on the health of refugees and asylum seekers but may not have the time, initially, to read the original report in full. This summary is not intended as a substitute for the medical advice of physicians, other health workers, professional associations, guideline developers, or national governments and international agencies. If readers of this summary think that the evidence that is presented within it is relevant to their decision-making they should refer to the content and details of the original article, and the advice and guidelines offered by other sources of expertise, before making decisions. Evidence Aid cannot be held responsible for any decisions made about the health of refugees and asylum seekers on the basis of this summary alone.
We’ve already reached tens of thousands of people with plain language summaries of systematic reviews. If you’d like to help us to continue our work, please consider a donation.
Donate with PayPal
You can also donate through the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF) here. If you are based in the USA and want to make a tax-deductable donation, please donate to Evidence Aid via the British Schools and Universities Foundation.