Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2006
A metaanalysis of clinical trials comparing moclobemide with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for the treatment of major depressive disorder.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Papakostas George I, Fava Maurizio
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare response rates among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with either moclobemide, an antidepressant thought to simultaneously enhance both noradrenergic and serotonergic neurotransmission, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).
METHODS: Using a random-effects model, we combined 12 trials involving 1207 outpatients with MDD.
RESULTS: Patients treated with moclobemide were as likely to experience clinical response as those treated with SSRIs (risk ratio 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.26; P = 0.314). Simply pooling response rates for the 2 agents resulted in a 62.1% response rate for moclobemide and a 57.5% response rate for the SSRIs. A metaregression did not reveal a statistically significant relation between the mean moclobemide dosage for each study and the risk ratio for response rates. Further, we found no difference between the 2 treatments in overall discontinuation rates, discontinuation rates due to adverse events, or discontinuation rates due to lack of efficacy. Also, rates of fatigue or somnolence and of insomnia were similar between the 2 treatment groups. However, SSRI treatment was associated with higher rates of nausea, headaches, and treatment-emergent anxiety than was treatment with moclobemide.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that moclobemide and the SSRIs do differ with respect to their side effect profiles but not in their overall efficacy in the treatment of MDD.
METHODS: Using a random-effects model, we combined 12 trials involving 1207 outpatients with MDD.
RESULTS: Patients treated with moclobemide were as likely to experience clinical response as those treated with SSRIs (risk ratio 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.26; P = 0.314). Simply pooling response rates for the 2 agents resulted in a 62.1% response rate for moclobemide and a 57.5% response rate for the SSRIs. A metaregression did not reveal a statistically significant relation between the mean moclobemide dosage for each study and the risk ratio for response rates. Further, we found no difference between the 2 treatments in overall discontinuation rates, discontinuation rates due to adverse events, or discontinuation rates due to lack of efficacy. Also, rates of fatigue or somnolence and of insomnia were similar between the 2 treatment groups. However, SSRI treatment was associated with higher rates of nausea, headaches, and treatment-emergent anxiety than was treatment with moclobemide.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that moclobemide and the SSRIs do differ with respect to their side effect profiles but not in their overall efficacy in the treatment of MDD.