ArticleTherapeutic advances in psychopharmacology2020
Study of mental health outcomes associated with different brands of venlafaxine at the Kumeu medical centre from January 2017 to October 2018.
Article in Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact and implications of national centralized drug procurement in China.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe antidepressant venlafaxine has been available in New Zealand for two decades and is funded by the New Zealand Drug Purchasing Agency PHARMAC. This audit aimed to determine whether change to a different funded generic formulation of venlafaxine affected patient responses to venlafaxine.
methodsA retrospective review of patient records for all patients at Kumeu Medical Centre, Auckland, New Zealand who received a prescription for venlafaxine since January 2017 was performed. Outcomes for patients who had experienced a stable positive clinical response to either of the two previously funded venlafaxine formulations and who were switched to the newly funded formulation were summarised.
resultsOf 49 patients who had been prescribed venlafaxine, 34 patients were excluded; 15 patients had experienced a stable positive clinical response to either of the two previously funded venlafaxine formulations and switched to the newly funded formulation. Of these, 12 (80%) had poor outcomes following the change in venlafaxine formulation. Nine patients switched back to the original brand venlafaxine and showed improvement in clinical symptoms.
conclusionThese cases, reported from a single general practice, should be sufficient to call attention to the possibility of loss of effectiveness for patients treated with a funded generic brand of venlafaxine, and the need for further research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.