Skip to main content

Advertisement

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

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

Author YearDrug & DoseTime (weeks)NMean Age (years)QualityaScalePrimary outcomeStatistical benefit
Evans 1997 [14]bFLU 20 mg86282LowdHDRS-17ResponseNo
Fraguas 2009 [15]bcCIT 20-40 mg83774LowHDRS-17ResponseNo
Hewett 2010 [16]BUP 105–300 mg1041871LowdMADRSChange from baselineInconsistente
Kasper 2005 [17]ESC 10 mg
FLU 20 mg
851775ModeratedMADRSChange from baselineNo
Katona 2012 [18]DUL 60 mg845271HighdHDRS-24Change from baselineYes
Raskin 2008 [19] bDUL 60 mg831173LowdHDRS-17Response/
remission
Yes
Robinson 2014 [20]bDUL 60 mg12 + 24 extension37073Low-dHDRS-17 Maier subscaleChange from baselineNo
Roose 2004 [21]CIT 10–20 mg817480HighdHDRSResponse/
remission
No
Schatzberg 2006 [22]bFLU 40–60 mg
VEN 150–225 mg
830071HighdHDRS-21Response/
remission
No
  1. 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)
  2. FLU Fluoxetine, CIT Citalopram, BUP Buspirone, ESC Escitalopram, DUL Duloxetine, VEN Venlafaxine, HDRS Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, MADRS Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale