Double-blind, multicenter comparative study of sertraline and amitriptyline in hospitalized patients with major depression. Faster onset of antidepressant effects of citalopram compared with sertraline in drug-naïve first-episode major depressive disorder in a Chinese population: a 6-week double-blind, randomized comparative study. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing the effects of sertraline versus amitriptyline in the treatment of major depression. Effect of sertraline on the recovery rate of cardiac autonomic function in depressed patients after acute myocardial infarction. Double-blind, multicenter comparative study of sertraline versus amitriptyline in outpatients with major depression. A randomized, double-blind, active-control study of sertraline versus venlafaxine XR in major depressive disorder. Placebo-controlled comparison of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors citalopram and sertraline. Sertraline versus fluvoxamine in the treatment of elderly patients with major depression: a double-blind, randomized trial. Double-blind study of the efficacy and safety of sertraline versus fluoxetine in major depression.
Sertraline is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) for which marketing approval has been obtained recently in Germany. The results of several double-blind, placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated that sertraline has a clear antidepressive effect. However these studies have been conducted in outpatient populations. In the context of this multicenter study, a total of 160 inpatients were treated with sertraline 50-150 mg or amitriptyline 75-225 mg over a period of 6 weeks in a double-blind fashion. Sixty-two patients in the sertraline and 59 patients in the amitriptyline group were evaluated for efficacy in the according-to-protocol (ATP) population; 80 sertraline and 75 amitriptyline patients were evaluated for safety in the Intention-to-treat population (ITT). No statistically significant differences were detected between the two groups in the efficacy analysis performed on the basis of the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) total score and Clinical Global Impression (CGI). Due to its sedating properties, amitriptyline was found to be significantly more effective with regard to the HAM-D factor "sleep disturbance". The safety analysis, which was based on the CGI, the global assessment at the end of study and a score for somatic adverse events (FSUCL) revealed statistically significant advantages of sertraline over amitriptyline. Amitriptyline was associated with more autonomic and circulatory side effects, while epigastric complaints occurred more often with sertraline. The incidence of nausea - a typical SSRI side effect - was the same in both groups. Several previous studies, including a meta-analysis, reported no significant differences between various selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of major depressive disorder. However, because of the different chemical structure of SSRIs and the difference in the frequency of serotonin transporter polymorphisms between ethnic groups, a head-to-head comparative study between SSRIs in different populations may be enlightening. We compared the efficacy and adverse effect profiles of citalopram and sertraline in a double-blinded randomized clinical trial in a Chinese population of drug-naïve patients with first-episode major depressive disorder. Fifty-one patients were randomly assigned to citalopram or sertraline treatment. The Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) was used as the primary outcome. Efficacy and adverse effects were analyzed in an intent-to-treat population. Efficacy was analyzed using a last-observation-carried-forward method for early terminators. There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics at baseline. No significant differences were found in MADRS scores between citalopram and sertraline at baseline (36.6 ± 5.5 vs 38.2 ± 4.9; P = 0.322) or at the end of treatment (week 6; 10.8 ± 10.0 vs 16.7 ± 11.3; P = 0.082). However, MADRS scores in the citalopram group were significantly lower at week 1 (25.2 ± 8.5 vs 30.4 ± 6.1; P = 0.029) and week 3 (15.9 ± 10.0 vs 22.1 ± 8.7; P = 0.037). Overall, treatment-emergent adverse effects were reported by 14.3% and 28.6% of patients in the citalopram and sertraline groups, respectively. In conclusion, citalopram and sertraline were both efficacious and well tolerated. However, citalopram exhibited a significantly faster onset than sertraline during the early weeks of treatment and tended to have a better efficacy in overall treatment, although the statistic was not significant. This study was designed to compare the efficacy, safety, tolerability profiles, and effects on quality of life of the serotonin selective reuptake inhibitor antidepressant sertraline versus the nonselective tricyclic antidepressant amitriptyline and placebo in patients with major depression.
                Outpatients with DSM-III-R major depression were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment for 8 weeks with sertraline (50-200 mg daily), amitriptyline (50-150 mg daily), or matching placebo. Assessments included the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale, Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale, Global Assessment Scale, Profile of Mood States, Beck Depression Inventory, Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire, and Health-Related Quality of Life battery.
                All treatment groups demonstrated statistically significant improvement from baseline in depression ratings by Week 1 and thereafter. The antidepressant effects of amitriptyline and sertraline were significantly (p < .05) greater than placebo and did not differ significantly from each other. Sertraline was associated with significantly (p < .05) greater subjective (i.e., patient-rated) improvement in mood than amitriptyline or placebo. Both active drugs were associated with greater improvements than placebo on most quality of life measurements. On several items, sertraline, but not amitriptyline, was superior to placebo. There was a discernible effect of sertraline earlier than amitriptyline on most quality of life scales. Amitriptyline therapy was associated with significantly more treatment-related adverse events, and discontinuations due to treatment-related adverse events, in comparison to both sertraline and placebo therapy.
                Sertraline and amitriptyline each were effective treatments for major depression as assessed by both physician- and patient-rated scales. These results show that sertraline therapy is better tolerated than amitriptyline therapy. Quality of life was also improved by effective antidepressant treatment, with sertraline showing a tendency to produce greater improvements on quality of life measures. Brain serotonin is known to possess sympathoinhibitory properties. The aim of this clinical physiologic study was to determine whether sertraline, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, facilitates the rate of recovery of cardiac autonomic function after an acute myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with depression.
                Thirty-eight post-MI depressed patients were randomized to receive either sertraline 50 mg per day or placebo for 6 months. Depression was defined as a score >15 on the standardized Inventory to Diagnose Depression questionnaire taken at prehospital discharge and again within 2 weeks of the acute infarct. Eleven stable post-MI nondepressed patients served as a nonrandomized reference group during follow-up. Twenty-seven patients completed the randomization. All 3 groups were followed up closely in a multidisciplinary post-MI clinic where they underwent serial testing for both time and frequency domain heart rate variability (HRV) indices at baseline (1-2 weeks after MI) and at 6, 10, 14, 18, and 22 weeks. The rate of recovery of HRV was determined by use of a growth curve model based on repeated-measures analysis of variance. There was a linear rate of increase in the SD of 24-hour N-N intervals (SDNN) in the sertraline-treated group that paralleled that of the nondepressed reference group. This contrasted with a modest but significant decline in SDNN in the placebo group from 2 to 22 weeks (t = 2.10, P <.05). However, the short-term power spectral indices, while trending toward a more rapid rate of recovery in the treated group, did not reach statistical significance compared with the placebo group.
                In depressed patients who have survived the acute phase of an MI sertraline facilitates the rate of recovery of SDNN, a recognized predictor of clinical outcome. To compare the efficacy and safety of sertraline and amitriptyline in a German outpatient population.
                Patients with Major Depression (DSM-III-R) and HAM-D (21 items) > or = 21 in 19 German centers received double-blind treatment with sertraline (initial dose 50 mg, titration up to 100 mg) or amitriptyline (75 mg, up to 150 mg) over 6 weeks. HAM-D (21 items), HAM-D Bech, CGI, DSI and SDS were evaluated for the efficacy analysis. FSUCL (Fischer Somatic and Undesired Effects Check List) and spontaneously reported adverse events were used for safety analysis.
                Of the 240 patients enrolled in the study, 205 (100 sertraline; 105 amitriptyline) were evaluable for efficacy. No statistically significant differences were detected between the two groups in the ITT and ATP efficacy analyses. Response, defined as score 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved) of the CGI improvement score, was 76% in the sertraline and 81% in the amitriptyline group (efficacy evaluable patients = ATP population). In the structured FSUCL, the side-effect burden (FSUCL score >2 for drug related symptoms) was significantly higher in the amitriptyline group at all follow up visits (p<0.05).
                Both sertraline and amitriptyline are suitable for the treatment of Major Depression; sertraline is comparable to amitriptyline with regard to efficacy, and offers the additional benefit of a more favorable safety profile. Sertraline may produce dual neurotransmitter effects similar to the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs); however, it has been tested against an SNRI in only 1 previous study, and never at an optimal dose. The objective of the current multisite study was to compare relatively higher doses of sertraline (i.e., 150 mg/day) and venlafaxine extended release (XR) (225 mg/day) in outpatients with major depressive disorder.
                Subjects with DSM-IV major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with sertraline (N = 82) or venlafaxine XR (N = 78). The study ran from January 2002 through January 2003. The primary outcome measure was the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire; secondary outcome variables included the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.
                Both treatments led to significant improvement in depressive symptoms and quality-of-life measures. No significant differences were noted between treatment groups for final scores on the primary or secondary measures. The treatment groups did not differ significantly in the percentage of responders (sertraline = 55%, venlafaxine XR = 65%; intent-to-treat [ITT] sample) or remitters (sertra-line = 38%, venlafaxine XR = 49%; ITT sample), although the proportions are similar to those found in earlier selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) vs. venlafaxine meta-analyses. In patients who achieved the maximum dose of drug and maintained it for 3 weeks, response rates were similar to those found at lower doses (sertraline = 59%, venlafaxine XR = 70%); however, remission rates for this sample were comparable for both drug groups (sertraline = 48%, venlafaxine XR = 50%).
                The efficacies of sertraline and venlafaxine XR were comparable. Although response and remission rates did not differ statistically, the rates were analogous to those reported in previous meta-analyses. However, at clinically relevant higher doses, the remission rates were very similar.
                ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00179283. Previous comparative studies of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have rarely included a placebo control group and have rarely demonstrated significant between-group differences. The study reported on here was a placebo-controlled comparison of the antidepressant effects of two SSRIs, citalopram and sertraline.
                Three hundred twenty-three patients with DSM-IV-defined major depressive disorder were randomized to 24 weeks of double-blind treatment with citalopram (20-60 mg/day), sertraline (50-150 mg/day), or a placebo. The primary efficacy measure was the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) and the primary statistical analysis was an analysis of variance comparing the change from baseline to the last observation carried forward in each treatment group.
                Both citalopram and sertraline produced significantly greater improvement than placebo on the HAMD, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, and the Clinical Global Impression Scale. Significant improvement was observed at earlier timepoints in the citalopram group than the sertraline group; however, sertraline treatment was associated with increased gastrointestinal side effects and a tendency toward early discontinuation, and analyses that excluded early dropouts revealed similar acute efficacy for the two active treatments. The Hamilton Anxiety Scale demonstrated a significant anxiolytic effect of citalopram, but not sertraline, relative to placebo.
                This study confirms the antidepressant efficacy of two SSRIs, citalopram and sertraline. It is hypothesized that the more consistent evidence of antidepressant activity that was observed early in treatment in the citalopram group was related to more pronounced antianxiety effects and better tolerability upon initiation of therapy. Major depression is a common psychiatric disorder in the elderly population. The efficacy of tricyclic antidepressants is well established, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors appear to have a similar effectiveness along with advantages in terms of tolerability and safety. Given the lack of literature data regarding fluvoxamine in the treatment of depressed elderly patients, the aim of the present study was to compare its efficacy and tolerability with those of sertraline in a sample of elderly patients.
                Under double-blind conditions, 93 hospitalized patients older than 59 years, who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria for a major depressive episode, were randomly assigned to receive sertraline (150 mg daily) or fluvoxamine (200 mg daily) for 7 weeks. The clinical response was defined as a reduction on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score to 8 or below.
                At study completion, the response rates were 55.6% (25/45) and 71.8% (28/39) for sertraline and fluvoxamine, respectively. No significant difference in final response rates was found between the 2 treatment groups (P = 0.12). A repeated-measures analysis of variance on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores revealed a significantly different decrease of depressive symptoms between the 2 treatment groups, favoring fluvoxamine (P = 0.007). The overall safety profile of sertraline and fluvoxamine was favorable with no differences between the 2 drugs.
                The results of this double-blind trial show that sertraline and fluvoxamine may be effective compounds in the treatment of elderly depression with the latter showing some advantage in terms of speed of response. These findings warrant further replication in placebo-controlled studies. An eight-week double-blind, multicentre study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sertraline vs. fluoxetine in the treatment of major depression (DSM-III-R). There were 108 out-patients, from nine Italian centres, entered into the study, of whom 88 were evaluable (48 sertraline, 40 fluoxetine). The final mean daily dose of sertraline was 72 mg and for fluoxetine it was 28 mg. Both treatment groups showed a statistically significant improvement from baseline at one week, and this was maintained until the end of treatment for all of the following measures: Hamilton Rating Scales for Depression and Anxiety, the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impressions Scale, Zung Self-Rating Scale for Anxiety and the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire. Although there was a numerical advantage for sertraline on several efficacy measures, there was no statistically significant difference found between the treatment groups. The incidence of adverse events was similar for both treatments; 40.4% for sertraline and 39.3% for fluoxetine. However, adverse events were generally rated by patients as of lower severity in the sertraline group. In addition, for the fluoxetine group, there was a higher incidence of agitation, anxiety and insomnia than for sertraline. Sertraline was considered to be better tolerated than fluoxetine overall, since only 9.6% of sertraline-treated patients discontinued treatment due to therapy failure whereas in the fluoxetine-treated group this figure was 19.6%. By contrast, 13.5% of sertraline-treated patients discontinued prematurely because of clinical improvement, compared with 10.7% of fluoxetine-treated patients.
This systematic review and meta-analysis highlighted a trend in favour of sertraline over other antidepressive agents both in terms of efficacy and acceptability, using 95% confidence intervals and a conservative approach, with a random effects analysis. However, the included studies did not report on all the outcomes that were pre-specified in the protocol of this review. Outcomes of clear relevance to patients and clinicians were not reported in any of the included studies.