ArticleBrain and behavior2021
Drug use evaluation: A two-year retrospective review of the effectiveness and tolerability of agomelatine versus mirtazapine in patients with depressive disorder.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Drug use evaluation: A two-year retrospective review of the effectiveness and tolerability of agomelatine versus mirtazapine in patients with depressive disorder.Brain and behavior · 2021Article
- Pharmacogenetics in Primary Headache Disorders.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness and tolerability of agomelatine with mirtazapine in patients with depressive disorder. To illustrate the prescribing pattern of agomelatine and identify factors that affect the pattern of treatment result and therapeutic outcome of it.
methodsThe clinical data of patients using agomelatine or mirtazapine, 93 patients in each group, were included and reviewed in this retrospective study. Background characteristics, adverse events, therapeutic outcomes (discontinued or continued), reason of discontinuation, and the presence of positive pattern of treatment result were assessed. Positive pattern of treatment result was defined as either recovery or improvement of depressive disorder after therapy.
resultsPatients using agomelatine were associated with higher starting dose and higher dose titrated than mirtazapine. More patients started agomelatine due to intolerability, and less due to ineffectiveness of the previous antidepressant. More patients started agomelatine before the use of at least two selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)/serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI). Patients using agomelatine were associated with less discontinuation due to intolerability, and less experience of adverse events within 90 days of initiation or dose increase, but more discontinuation due to ineffectiveness versus mirtazapine. The use of 50 mg resulted in less discontinuation. The use of at least two SSRI(s)/SNRI(s) before and more concomitant medications are independently associated with more discontinuation due to intolerability. The use of at least two SSRI(s)/SNRI(s) before was also associated with more adverse events. Using agomelatine as an augmentation to other antidepressant(s) and at a higher dose were independently associated with the experience of positive pattern of treatment result.
conclusionAgomelatine was more tolerable than mirtazapine, but could result in more discontinuation due to ineffectiveness. The use of higher dose and as an augmentation to other antidepressant(s) could improve the desired treatment result of agomelatine.
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.