Systematic review and meta-analysis of second-generation antidepressants for the treatment of older adults with depression: questionable benefit and considerations for frailty

Table 1 Studies of subjects ≥65 years included in the meta-analysis

Author Year	Drug & Dose	Time (weeks)	N	Mean Age (years)	Quality^a	Scale	Primary outcome	Statistical benefit
Evans 1997 [14]^b	FLU 20 mg	8	62	82	Low^d	HDRS-17	Response	No
Fraguas 2009 [15]^bc	CIT 20-40 mg	8	37	74	Low	HDRS-17	Response	No
Hewett 2010 [16]	BUP 105–300 mg	10	418	71	Low^d	MADRS	Change from baseline	Inconsistent^e
Kasper 2005 [17]	ESC 10 mg FLU 20 mg	8	517	75	Moderate^d	MADRS	Change from baseline	No
Katona 2012 [18]	DUL 60 mg	8	452	71	High^d	HDRS-24	Change from baseline	Yes
Raskin 2008 [19] ^b	DUL 60 mg	8	311	73	Low^d	HDRS-17	Response/ remission	Yes
Robinson 2014 [20]^b	DUL 60 mg	12 + 24 extension	370	73	Low^-d	HDRS-17 Maier subscale	Change from baseline	No
Roose 2004 [21]	CIT 10–20 mg	8	174	80	High^d	HDRS	Response/ remission	No
Schatzberg 2006 [22]^b	FLU 40–60 mg VEN 150–225 mg	8	300	71	High^d	HDRS-21	Response/ remission	No

^a Quality based on Cochrane risk of bias criteria; ^b Enrolled subjects with dementia/did not explicitly exclude dementia subjects; ^c Subjects had heart failure; ^d Trial had industry funding/industry employees as authors; ^e The pre-specified ANCOVA analysis was not statistically significant (p = 0.09). Post-hoc rank-based ANCOVA analysis was statistically significant (p = 0.03). Response was statistically significant (p = 0.01), but remission was not statistically significant (p = 0.17)
FLU Fluoxetine, CIT Citalopram, BUP Buspirone, ESC Escitalopram, DUL Duloxetine, VEN Venlafaxine, HDRS Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, MADRS Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale

ISSN: 1471-2318