Sertraline versus other antidepressive agents for depression
Citation: Cipriani A., La Ferla T., Furukawa T.A., et al. Sertraline versus other antidepressive agents for depression. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD006117. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006117.pub4
Current evidence shows sertraline as initial choice of antidepressive agents in individuals suffering acute major depression
Depression is the fourth leading cause of disease burden worldwide and is expected to show a rising trend over the next 20 years. Although pharmacological and psychological interventions are both effective for major depression, antidepressant drugs remain the mainstay of treatment. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) including Sertraline have become the most commonly prescribed antidepressants over the last 20 years. This review assessed the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of sertraline in comparison with all other antidepressants in the acute‐phase treatment of major depression. Fifty‐nine randomised controlled trials (about 10,000 participants) were included in the review. Evidence showed differences in efficacy, acceptability and tolerability between sertraline and other antidepressants, with meta‐analyses highlighting a trend in favour of sertraline over other antidepressants. However, the outcomes of clear relevance to patients and clinicians, in particular patients and their carers’ attitudes to treatment, their ability to return to work and resume normal social functioning, were not reported in the included studies.
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.
If you have found this summary helpful, please consider making a donation. If everyone who looked at our COVID-19 resources gave us just £2 per month, it would fund Evidence Aid’s life-saving work.