Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-05T11:25:19.454Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The risks of adverse events with venlafaxine for adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2024

C. B. Kamp*
Affiliation:
Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region, Copenhagen University Hospital – Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark Department of Regional Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
J. J. Petersen
Affiliation:
Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region, Copenhagen University Hospital – Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
P. Faltermeier
Affiliation:
Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region, Copenhagen University Hospital – Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark MSH Medical School Hamburg, University of Applied Sciences and Medical University, Hamburg, Germany
S. Juul
Affiliation:
Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region, Copenhagen University Hospital – Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark Stolpegaard Psychotherapy Centre, Mental Health Services in the Capital Region of Denmark, Gentofte, Denmark Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
F. Siddiqui
Affiliation:
Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region, Copenhagen University Hospital – Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
J. Moncrieff
Affiliation:
Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK* Research and Development Department, North East London NHS Foundation Trust (NELFT), London, UK
M. A. Horowitz
Affiliation:
Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK* Research and Development Department, North East London NHS Foundation Trust (NELFT), London, UK
M. P. Hengartner
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Psychology, Zurich University of Applied Sciences Zurich, Switzerland
I. Kirsch
Affiliation:
Program in Placebo Studies, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
C. Gluud
Affiliation:
Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region, Copenhagen University Hospital – Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark Department of Regional Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
J. C. Jakobsen
Affiliation:
Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region, Copenhagen University Hospital – Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark Department of Regional Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
*
Corresponding author: Caroline Barkholt Kamp; Email: caroline.kamp@ctu.dk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aims

Venlafaxine is used to treat depression worldwide. Previous reviews have demonstrated that venlafaxine lowers scores on depression rating scales, producing statistically significant results but the relevance to patients remains uncertain. Knowledge of the incidence of the adverse effects associated with venlafaxine has previously been based on the results of non-randomised studies. Our primary objective was to assess the risks of adverse events with venlafaxine in the treatment of adults with major depressive disorder in randomised trials.

Methods

We searched relevant databases and other sources from inception to 7 March 2024 for randomised clinical trials comparing venlafaxine versus placebo or no intervention in adults with major depressive disorder. Data were synthesised using meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis. The primary outcomes were suicides or suicide attempts, serious adverse events and non-serious adverse events.

Results

We included 28 trials randomising 6,253 participants to venlafaxine versus placebo. All results were at high risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence was very low. All trials assessed outcomes at a maximum of 12 weeks after randomisation. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis showed insufficient information to assess the effects of venlafaxine on the risks of suicides or suicide attempts. Meta-analysis showed evidence of harm of venlafaxine versus placebo on serious adverse events (risk ratio: 2.66; 95% confidence interval: 1.67–4.25; p < 0.01; 22 trials), mainly due to a higher risk of sexual dysfunction and anorexia. Meta-analysis showed that venlafaxine also increased the risk of several non-serious adverse events: nausea, dry mouth, dizziness, sweating, somnolence, constipation, nervousness, insomnia, asthenia, tremor and decreased appetite.

Conclusions

Short-term results show that venlafaxine has uncertain effects on the risks of suicides but increases the risks of serious adverse events (especially sexual dysfunction and anorexia) and many non-serious adverse events. The long-term effects of venlafaxine for major depressive disorder are unknown. It is a particular cause for concern that there are no data on the long-term adverse effects of venlafaxine given that so many people use these drugs for several years.

Type
Original Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Introduction

Major depressive disorder is a psychiatric condition characterised by depressed mood, feelings of hopelessness and lack of interest or motivation (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Major depressive disorder is associated with an increased risk of suicidal behaviour, reduced quality of life and impaired cognition (Chen and Dilsaver, Reference Chen and Dilsaver1996; Ishak et al., Reference Ishak, Mirocha, James, Tobia, Vilhauer, Fakhry, Pi, Hanson, Nashawati, Peselow and Cohen2015; Kessler et al., Reference Kessler, Borges and Walters1999; Pan et al., Reference Pan, Park, Brietzke, Zuckerman, Rong, Mansur, Fus, Subramaniapillai, Lee and Mcintyre2019; Qin, Reference Qin2011; Saragoussi et al., Reference Saragoussi, Christensen, Hammer-Helmich, Rive, Touya and Haro2018). Major depressive disorder affects approximately 280 million people globally, causing a severe burden on patients and societies (World Health Organization, 2023). The serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, venlafaxine, is approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder in several countries, including the United States, EU countries and the United Kingdom (European Medicines Agency, 2008; National Health Service, 2018; Singh and Saadabadi, Reference Singh and Saadabadi2021). Venlafaxine is often recommended as a second-line treatment for major depressive disorder (Malone, Reference Malone2007; National Health Service, 2018; NHS East and North Hertfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group and NHS Herts Valleys Clinical Commissioning Group, 2018; Singh and Saadabadi, Reference Singh and Saadabadi2021).

Previous reviews have demonstrated that venlafaxine lowers scores on depression rating scales, producing statistically significant results but the relevance to patients remains uncertain. (Cipriani et al., Reference Cipriani, Furukawa, Salanti, Chaimani, Atkinson, Ogawa, Leucht, Ruhe, Turner, Higgins, Egger, Takeshima, Hayasaka, Imai, Shinohara, Tajika, Ioannidis and Geddes2018; Hengartner and Ploderl, Reference Hengartner and Ploderl2022; Jakobsen et al., Reference Jakobsen, Gluud and Kirsch2020; Schueler et al., Reference Schueler, Koesters, Wieseler, Grouven, Kromp, Kerekes, Kreis, Kaiser, Becker and Weinmann2011). Previously, understanding of the adverse effects of venlafaxine has primarily been based on results of non-randomised studies, which may under- or overestimate the occurrence of adverse effects due to confounding and biased reporting (Vandenbroucke, Reference Vandenbroucke2006). Previous reviews have not systematically assessed the risks of all adverse events using data from randomised clinical trials (Cipriani et al., Reference Cipriani, Furukawa, Salanti, Chaimani, Atkinson, Ogawa, Leucht, Ruhe, Turner, Higgins, Egger, Takeshima, Hayasaka, Imai, Shinohara, Tajika, Ioannidis and Geddes2018; Schueler et al., Reference Schueler, Koesters, Wieseler, Grouven, Kromp, Kerekes, Kreis, Kaiser, Becker and Weinmann2011).

Our primary objective was to assess the risks of adverse events with venlafaxine versus placebo or ‘active placebo’ in the treatment of adults with major depressive disorder.

Methods

We report this systematic review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (Supplementary File 1) (Liberati et al., Reference Liberati, Altman, Tetzlaff, Mulrow, Gotzsche, Ioannidis, Clarke, Devereaux, Kleijnen and Moher2009; Moher et al., Reference Moher, Shamseer, Clarke, Ghersi, Liberati, Petticrew, Shekelle and Stewart2015). The methodology was predefined in our protocol based on the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins et al., Reference Higgins, Thomas, Chandler, Cumpston, Li, Page and Welch2022; Jorgensen et al., Reference Jorgensen, Juul, Siddiqui, Horowitz, Moncrieff, Munkholm, Hengartner, Kirsch, Gluud and Jakobsen2023). Our protocol was also preregistered in the PROSPERO database (ID: CRD42022315395). This systematic review is a part of a larger project investigating the beneficial and harmful effects of all antidepressants for major depressive disorder (Jorgensen et al., Reference Jorgensen, Juul, Siddiqui, Barbateskovic, Munkholm, Hengartner, Kirsch, Gluud and Jakobsen2021; Juul et al., Reference Juul, Siddiqui, Barbateskovic, Jorgensen, Hengartner, Kirsch, Gluud and Jakobsen2021b; Kamp et al., Reference Kamp, Petersen, Faltermeier, Juul, Siddiqui, Barbateskovic, Kristensen, Moncrieff, Horowitz, Hengartner, Kirsch, Gluud and Jakobsen2024; Siddiqui et al., Reference Siddiqui, Barbateskovic, Juul, Katakam, Munkholm, Gluud and Jakobsen2021).

Search strategy

An information specialist searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), PsycINFO, Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index–Social Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH) to identify relevant trials. We searched all databases from their inception to 7 March 2024. For a detailed search strategy for all electronic databases, see Supplementary File 2. We searched clinical trial registers and websites of pharmaceutical companies to identify unpublished data. We requested clinical study reports from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency and national medicines agencies (Sharma et al., Reference Sharma, Guski, Freund and Gotzsche2016).

Selection criteria

Our eligibility criteria included randomised clinical trials of adults with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder as defined by standardised diagnostic criteria, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) or the International Classification of Diseases (World Health Organization, 2021). Major depressive disorder had to be the primary diagnosis, and we did, therefore, not include trials randomising participants with a non-psychiatric primary diagnosis and comorbid major depressive disorder. If a trial reported data where only a subset of participants was eligible (e.g. a combination of adolescents and adults), we only included those that fulfilled our inclusion criteria, so it required that data could be obtained for that specific group. The experimental intervention was venlafaxine, and the control interventions were placebo, ‘active placebo’ or no intervention.

Data extraction and risk of bias assessment

Three review authors (CBK, SJ and FS) screened abstracts and articles using Covidence to identify relevant trials (Covidence, 2024). Three review authors (JJP, PF and CBK) extracted data and assessed risk of bias based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, version 2 (RoB 2) (Higgins et al., Reference Higgins, Thomas, Chandler, Cumpston, Li, Page and Welch2022; Sterne et al., Reference Sterne, Savovic, Page, Elbers, Blencowe, Boutron, Cates, Cheng, Corbett, Eldridge, Emberson, Hernan, Hopewell, Hrobjartsson, Junqueira, Juni, Kirkham, Lasserson, Li, Mcaleenan, Reeves, Shepperd, Shrier, Stewart, Tilling, White, Whiting and Higgins2019). Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed independently by at least two review authors. Any discrepancies were resolved through internal discussion or, if required, through discussion with the last author (JCJ). We emailed all corresponding authors with available contact information to confirm data and risk of bias assessments.

Outcomes and subgroup analyses

The primary outcomes were suicides or suicide attempts, serious adverse events (International Council on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, 2015) and non-serious adverse events (Jorgensen et al., Reference Jorgensen, Juul, Siddiqui, Horowitz, Moncrieff, Munkholm, Hengartner, Kirsch, Gluud and Jakobsen2023). Exploratory outcomes were depressive symptoms measured on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17), quality of life, all adverse events, suicidal ideation, level of functioning, depressive symptoms measured on the Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) (Montgomery and Åsberg, Reference Montgomery and Åsberg1979), the Beck’s Depression Inventory (BDI) (Beck et al., Reference Beck, Steer and Brown1996) or HDRS-6 (López-Pina et al., Reference López-Pina, Sánchez-Meca and Rosa-Alcázar2009; Timmerby et al., Reference Timmerby, Andersen, Søndergaard, Østergaard and Bech2017), withdrawal symptoms and proportion of participants that guessed their treatment allocation (Jorgensen et al., Reference Jorgensen, Juul, Siddiqui, Horowitz, Moncrieff, Munkholm, Hengartner, Kirsch, Gluud and Jakobsen2023). Short-term follow-up was defined as the assessment closest to 3 months after randomisation, and long-term follow-up was defined as 6 months or more after randomisation. We also planned several subgroup analyses (Jorgensen et al., Reference Jorgensen, Juul, Siddiqui, Horowitz, Moncrieff, Munkholm, Hengartner, Kirsch, Gluud and Jakobsen2023).

Assessment of statistical and clinical significance

We performed meta-analyses according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins et al., Reference Higgins, Thomas, Chandler, Cumpston, Li, Page and Welch2022), Keus et al. (Reference Keus, Wetterslev, Gluud and Van Laarhoven2010) and the eight-step procedure by Jakobsen et al. (Reference Jakobsen, Wetterslev, Winkel, Lange and Gluud2014). We adjusted the threshold for statistical significance by the number of primary outcomes and therefore used a p-value of 0.025 or less as threshold (Jakobsen et al., Reference Jakobsen, Wetterslev, Winkel, Lange and Gluud2014). We analysed data using the software Stata version 17 (Statacorp, 2019). We used both random-effects (Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman) (Inthout et al., Reference Inthout, Ioannidis and Borm2014) and fixed-effect model meta-analyses (Mantel–Haenszel for dichotomous outcomes and inverse variance for continuous outcomes) to assess intervention effects (DeMets, Reference DeMets1987; Higgins et al., Reference Higgins, Thomas, Chandler, Cumpston, Li, Page and Welch2022). We primarily reported the most conservative result (highest p-value), and considered the less conservative result a sensitivity analysis (Jakobsen et al., Reference Jakobsen, Wetterslev, Winkel, Lange and Gluud2014). Trial Sequential Analysis was used to control for random errors by estimating the diversity-adjusted required information size (Brok et al., Reference Brok, Thorlund, Gluud and Wetterslev2008a, Reference Brok, Thorlund, Wetterslev and Gluud2008b; Copenhagen Trial Unit – Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, 2023; Imberger et al., Reference Imberger, Thorlund, Gluud and Wetterslev2016; Thorlund et al., Reference Thorlund, Anema and Mills2010, Reference Thorlund, Devereaux, Wetterslev, Guyatt, Ioannidis, Thabane, Gluud, Als-Nielsen and Gluud2008, Reference Thorlund, Engstrøm, Wetterslev, Brok, Imberger and Gluud2017; Wetterslev et al., Reference Wetterslev, Thorlund, Brok and Gluud2008, Reference Wetterslev, Thorlund, Brok and Gluud2009). We estimated the required information size based on the observed proportion of participants with an outcome in the control group, a relative risk reduction or a relative risk increase of 20%, an alpha of 2.5%, a beta of 10% and the observed diversity. The 20% relative risk reduction or increase was chosen as it is a common effect size when an intervention is beneficial and may be important to patients. We calculated Bayes factor for all primary outcomes. We used Grading Recommendations Assessment Development Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence for the primary outcomes (Guyatt et al., Reference Guyatt, Oxman, Schünemann, Tugwell and Knottnerus2011, Reference Guyatt, Oxman, Vist, Kunz, Falck-Ytter, Alonso-Coello and Schünemann2008; Schünemann et al., Reference Schünemann, Best, Vist and Oxman2003). Please see the published protocol for a detailed description of the statistical analysis plan (Jorgensen et al., Reference Jorgensen, Juul, Siddiqui, Horowitz, Moncrieff, Munkholm, Hengartner, Kirsch, Gluud and Jakobsen2023).

Results

A total of 28 trials randomising 6,253 participants were included (Alvarez et al., Reference Alvarez, Perez, Dragheim, Loft and Artigas2012; Cunningham, Reference Cunningham1997; Cunningham et al., Reference Cunningham, Borison, Carman, Chouinard, Crowder, Diamond, Fischer and Hearst1994; Guelfi et al., Reference Guelfi, White, Hackett, Guichoux and Magni1995; Hewett et al., Reference Hewett, Chrzanowski, Schmitz, Savela, Milanova, Gee, Krishen, Millen, Leary and Modell2009, Reference Hewett, Gee, Krishen, Wunderlich, Le Clus, Evoniuk and Modell2010; Higuchi et al., Reference Higuchi, Kamijima, Nakagome, Itamura, Asami, Kuribayashi and Imaeda2016; Hopkins et al., Reference Hopkins, Reasner and Koblan2013; Hunter et al., Reference Hunter, Muthen, Cook and Leuchter2010; Khan et al., Reference Khan, Fabre and Rudolph1991, Reference Khan, Upton, Rudolph, Entsuah and Leventer1998; Learned et al., Reference Learned, Graff, Roychowdhury, Moate, Krishnan, Archer, Modell, Alexander, Zamuner, Lavergne, Evoniuk and Ratti2012; Lieberman et al., Reference Lieberman, Montgomery, Tourian, Brisard, Rosas, Padmanabhan, Germain and Pitrosky2008; Luthringer et al., Reference Luthringer, Toussaint, Schaltenbrand, Bailey, Danjou, Hackett, Guichoux and Macher1996; Mendels et al., Reference Mendels, Johnston, Mattes and Riesenberg1993; Nemeroff et al., Reference Nemeroff, Thase and Group2007; Rudolph et al., Reference Rudolph, Fabre, Feighner, Rickels, Entsuah and Derivan1998; Rudolph and Feiger, Reference Rudolph and Feiger1999; Schatzberg and Roose, Reference Schatzberg and Roose2006; Schweizer et al., Reference Schweizer, Feighner, Mandos and Rickels1994, Reference Schweizer, Weise, Clary, Fox and Rickels1991; Sharma et al., Reference Sharma, Guski, Freund and Gotzsche2016; Sheehan et al., Reference Sheehan, Nemeroff, Thase, Entsuah and Group2009; Silverstone and Ravindran, Reference Silverstone and Ravindran1999; Thase, Reference Thase1997; Wyeth-Ayerst, 1991a, 1991b, 1992, 1991c; Wyeth-Ayerst Research, 1996) (Fig. 1). We identified unpublished data through clinical study reports for 11 trials (Alvarez et al., Reference Alvarez, Perez, Dragheim, Loft and Artigas2012; Eudract 2004-000562-13, 2016; Eudract Number 2007-007025-51, 2010; Hewett et al., Reference Hewett, Chrzanowski, Schmitz, Savela, Milanova, Gee, Krishen, Millen, Leary and Modell2009; Learned et al., Reference Learned, Graff, Roychowdhury, Moate, Krishnan, Archer, Modell, Alexander, Zamuner, Lavergne, Evoniuk and Ratti2012; Sharma et al., Reference Sharma, Guski, Freund and Gotzsche2016; Wyeth-Ayerst, 1991a, 1991b, 1992, 1991c; Wyeth-Ayerst Research, 1996). Most trials included both men and women aged 18 years or older with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder (Supplementary Table 1). One trial only included participants aged 65 years or older (Schatzberg and Roose, Reference Schatzberg and Roose2006). The mean HDRS entry scores ranged from 22.4 to 30.6 (Supplementary Table 1). All trials involved an inert placebo control, i.e. we did not identify any trials using an ‘active placebo’ or no intervention as control interventions. All trials assessed outcomes at a maximum of 12 weeks after randomisation. Most trials did not adequately report the proportion of participants with missing data at follow-up, and it was, therefore, not possible to perform ‘best-worst/worst-best’ sensitivity analyses. All trials were assessed at overall high risk of bias, particularly due to lack of information, missing data, lack of information on blinding, risk of unblinding due to adverse events or other noticeable changes, inappropriate analysis methods and poor reporting (Supplementary Fig. 1). Three trials did not report any relevant data (Hopkins et al., Reference Hopkins, Reasner and Koblan2013; Hunter et al., Reference Hunter, Muthen, Cook and Leuchter2010).

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

Primary outcomes

Suicides or suicide attempts

Only 7 of 28 trials reported results on suicides or suicide attempts (Hewett et al., Reference Hewett, Chrzanowski, Schmitz, Savela, Milanova, Gee, Krishen, Millen, Leary and Modell2009; Higuchi et al., Reference Higuchi, Kamijima, Nakagome, Itamura, Asami, Kuribayashi and Imaeda2016; Sharma et al., Reference Sharma, Guski, Freund and Gotzsche2016; Sheehan et al., Reference Sheehan, Nemeroff, Thase, Entsuah and Group2009; Wyeth-Ayerst, 1991b, 1992; Wyeth-Ayerst Research, 1996). All trials only assessed outcomes at the end of the treatment period, i.e. 6–8 weeks after randomisation. A total of 6/1,127 (0.5%) experimental participants attempted or committed suicide compared with 6/780 (0.8%) control participants. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between venlafaxine versus placebo on suicides or suicide attempts (odds ratio: 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25–1.71; p = 0.38; 7 trials; Bayes factor: 0.74) (Fig. 2). Visual inspection of the forest plot and statistical tests (I 2 = 0.0%) indicated no clear signs of heterogeneity. Trial Sequential Analysis showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject the hypothesis that venlafaxine influenced the risk of suicides or suicide attempts with a relative risk reduction of 20% (no graph produced). This outcome result was assessed as overall high risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence was very low (Supplementary Tables 2–3).

Figure 2. Meta-analysis of venlafaxine versus placebo on suicides or suicide attempts.

Tests of interaction comparing the effects of using a placebo washout period prior to randomisation showed no evidence of a difference (p = 1.00) (Supplementary Fig. 2). The remaining predefined subgroup analyses could not be performed due to a lack of relevant data.

Serious adverse events

Twenty-two trials reported results on serious adverse events (Alvarez et al., Reference Alvarez, Perez, Dragheim, Loft and Artigas2012; Cunningham, Reference Cunningham1997; Eudract 2004-000562-13, 2016; Eudract Number 2007-007025-51, 2010; Hewett et al., Reference Hewett, Chrzanowski, Schmitz, Savela, Milanova, Gee, Krishen, Millen, Leary and Modell2009, Reference Hewett, Gee, Krishen, Wunderlich, Le Clus, Evoniuk and Modell2010; Higuchi et al., Reference Higuchi, Kamijima, Nakagome, Itamura, Asami, Kuribayashi and Imaeda2016; Learned et al., Reference Learned, Graff, Roychowdhury, Moate, Krishnan, Archer, Modell, Alexander, Zamuner, Lavergne, Evoniuk and Ratti2012; Lieberman et al., Reference Lieberman, Montgomery, Tourian, Brisard, Rosas, Padmanabhan, Germain and Pitrosky2008; Mendels et al., Reference Mendels, Johnston, Mattes and Riesenberg1993; Nemeroff et al., Reference Nemeroff, Thase and Group2007; Rudolph et al., Reference Rudolph, Fabre, Feighner, Rickels, Entsuah and Derivan1998; Rudolph and Feiger, Reference Rudolph and Feiger1999; Schatzberg and Roose, Reference Schatzberg and Roose2006; Sharma et al., Reference Sharma, Guski, Freund and Gotzsche2016; Sheehan et al., Reference Sheehan, Nemeroff, Thase, Entsuah and Group2009; Silverstone and Ravindran, Reference Silverstone and Ravindran1999; Thase, Reference Thase1997; Wyeth-Ayerst, 1991a, 1991b, 1992, 1991c; Wyeth-Ayerst Research, 1996). All trials only assessed outcomes at the end of the treatment period, i.e. 4–12 weeks after randomisation. A total of 224/3,164 (7.1%) experimental participants had one or more serious adverse event compared with 58/2,362 (2.5%) control participants. Meta-analysis showed evidence of a harmful effect of venlafaxine versus placebo on serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR): 2.66; 95% CI: 1.67–4.25; p < 0.01; 22 trials; Bayes factor: 0.06) (Fig. 3). Visual inspection of the forest plot and statistical tests (I 2 = 52.0%) indicated heterogeneity that could not be resolved. Trial Sequential Analysis showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject the hypothesis that venlafaxine influenced the risk of serious adverse events with a relative risk reduction or increase of 20% (Supplementary Fig. 3). This outcome result was assessed as overall high risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence was very low (Supplementary Tables 2–3).

Figure 3. Meta-analysis of venlafaxine versus placebo on serious adverse events.

Tests of interaction comparing the effects of using a placebo washout period prior to randomisation showed no evidence of a difference (p = 0.87) (Supplementary Fig. 4). The remaining predefined subgroup analyses could not be performed due to a lack of relevant data.

When each specific serious adverse event was analysed separately, 2/11 meta-analyses showed evidence of a harmful effect of venlafaxine versus placebo: sexual dysfunction (RR: 6.49; 95% CI: 3.02–13.93; p < 0.01; I 2 = 1.9%; 8 trials; number needed to harm (NNH): 12) (Supplementary Fig. 5) and anorexia (RR: 3.23; 95% CI: 1.75–5.97; p < 0.01; I 2 = 44.7%; 9 trials; NNH: 14) (Supplementary Fig. 6). The remaining meta-analyses showed no evidence of differences (Supplementary Tables 4–5, Supplementary Fig. 7–15).

Non-serious adverse events

Twenty-four trials reported results on non-serious adverse events (Alvarez et al., Reference Alvarez, Perez, Dragheim, Loft and Artigas2012; Cunningham, Reference Cunningham1997; Eudract 2004-000562-13, 2016; Eudract Number 2007-007025-51, 2010; Guelfi et al., Reference Guelfi, White, Hackett, Guichoux and Magni1995; Hewett et al., Reference Hewett, Chrzanowski, Schmitz, Savela, Milanova, Gee, Krishen, Millen, Leary and Modell2009, Reference Hewett, Gee, Krishen, Wunderlich, Le Clus, Evoniuk and Modell2010; Higuchi et al., Reference Higuchi, Kamijima, Nakagome, Itamura, Asami, Kuribayashi and Imaeda2016; Khan et al., Reference Khan, Fabre and Rudolph1991, Reference Khan, Upton, Rudolph, Entsuah and Leventer1998; Learned et al., Reference Learned, Graff, Roychowdhury, Moate, Krishnan, Archer, Modell, Alexander, Zamuner, Lavergne, Evoniuk and Ratti2012; Lieberman et al., Reference Lieberman, Montgomery, Tourian, Brisard, Rosas, Padmanabhan, Germain and Pitrosky2008; Nemeroff et al., Reference Nemeroff, Thase and Group2007; Rudolph et al., Reference Rudolph, Fabre, Feighner, Rickels, Entsuah and Derivan1998; Rudolph and Feiger, Reference Rudolph and Feiger1999; Schatzberg and Roose, Reference Schatzberg and Roose2006; Schweizer et al., Reference Schweizer, Feighner, Mandos and Rickels1994, Reference Schweizer, Weise, Clary, Fox and Rickels1991; Sheehan et al., Reference Sheehan, Nemeroff, Thase, Entsuah and Group2009; Silverstone and Ravindran, Reference Silverstone and Ravindran1999; Thase, Reference Thase1997; Wyeth-Ayerst, 1991b, 1992, 1991c; Wyeth-Ayerst Research, 1996). All trials only assessed outcomes at the end of the treatment period, i.e. 4–12 weeks after randomisation. A total of 1,804/3,127 (57.7%) experimental participants had one or more non-serious adverse events compared with 1,111/2,356 (47.2%) control participants. Meta-analysis showed evidence of a harmful effect of venlafaxine versus placebo on non-serious adverse events (RR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.21–1.69; p < 0.01; 24 trials; Bayes factor: 0.001) (Fig. 4). Visual inspection of the forest plot and statistical tests (I 2 = 92.9%) indicated heterogeneity that could not be resolved. Trial Sequential Analysis showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject the hypothesis that venlafaxine influenced the risk of non-serious adverse events with a relative risk reduction or increase of 20% (Supplementary Fig. 16). This outcome result was assessed as overall high risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence was very low (Supplementary Tables 2–3).

Figure 4. Meta-analysis of venlafaxine versus placebo on non-serious adverse events.

Tests of interaction comparing the effects of using a placebo washout period prior to randomisation showed evidence of a difference (p < 0.01) (Supplementary Fig. 17). When the subgroup of trials with a placebo washout period was analysed separately, meta-analysis showed evidence of a harmful effect of venlafaxine (RR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.30–2.05; p < 0.01; 15 trials). When the subgroup of trials without a placebo washout period was analysed separately, meta-analysis showed evidence of a harmful effect (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.04–1.23; p < 0.01; 9 trials). The remaining predefined subgroup analyses could not be performed due to a lack of relevant data.

When each specific non-serious adverse event was analysed separately, 11/47 meta-analyses showed evidence of a harmful effect of venlafaxine versus placebo: nausea (RR: 2.72; 95% CI: 2.26–3.28; p < 0.01; I 2 = 46.4%; 23 trials; NNH: 5) (Supplementary Fig. 18), dry mouth (RR: 2.16; 95% CI: 1.71–2.74; p < 0.01; I 2 = 40.7%; 21 trials; NNH: 10) (Supplementary Fig. 19), dizziness (RR: 2.49; 95% CI: 1.90–3.26; p < 0.01; I 2 = 37.9%; 20 trials; NNH: 11) (Supplementary Fig. 20), sweating (RR: 3.99; 95% CI: 2.88–5.54; p < 0.01; I 2 = 20.5%; 20 trials; NNH: 11) (Supplementary Fig. 21), somnolence (RR: 2.23; 95% CI: 1.78–2.78; p < 0.01; I2 = 16.9%; 18 trials; NNH: 11) (Supplementary Fig. 22), constipation (RR: 2.24; 95% CI: 1.64–3.04; p < 0.01; I 2 = 38.3%; 18 trials; NNH: 14) (Supplementary Fig. 23), nervousness (RR: 2.20; 95% CI: 1.43–3.40; p < 0.01; I 2 = 33.4%; 11 trials; NNH: 15) (Supplementary Fig. 24), insomnia (RR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.37–2.19; p < 0.01; I 2 = 26.9%; 19 trials; NNH: 19) (Supplementary Fig. 25), asthenia (RR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.30–2.43; p < 0.01; I 2 = 19.7%; 16 trials; NNH: 27) (Supplementary Fig. 26), tremor (RR: 2.30; 95% CI: 1.22–4.32; p = 0.01; I 2 = 37.0%; 11 trials; NNH: 29) (Supplementary Fig. 27) and decreased appetite (RR: 2.52; 95% CI: 1.04–6.09; p < 0.01; I 2 = 1.0%; 3 trials; NNH: 47) (Supplementary Fig. 28). The remaining meta-analyses showed no evidence of differences (Supplementary Table 6, Supplementary Fig. 29–64).

Exploratory outcomes and sensitivity analyses

HDRS-17

Only two trials reported results on HDRS-17 (Higuchi et al., Reference Higuchi, Kamijima, Nakagome, Itamura, Asami, Kuribayashi and Imaeda2016; Learned et al., Reference Learned, Graff, Roychowdhury, Moate, Krishnan, Archer, Modell, Alexander, Zamuner, Lavergne, Evoniuk and Ratti2012). Both trials only assessed outcomes at the end of the treatment period, i.e. 8–10 weeks after randomisation. Meta-analysis showed evidence of a beneficial effect of venlafaxine (mean difference (MD): −1.50 points; 95% CI: −2.48 to −0.53; p < 0.01; 2 trials) (Supplementary Fig. 65), however, the effect size was below proposed minimal important differences (Jakobsen et al., Reference Jakobsen, Gluud and Kirsch2020). Visual inspection of the forest plot and statistical tests (I 2 = 2.5%) indicated no clear signs of heterogeneity. This outcome result was assessed as overall high risk of bias.

Suicidal ideation

Four trials reported results on suicidal ideation (Hewett et al., Reference Hewett, Gee, Krishen, Wunderlich, Le Clus, Evoniuk and Modell2010; Higuchi et al., Reference Higuchi, Kamijima, Nakagome, Itamura, Asami, Kuribayashi and Imaeda2016; Sheehan et al., Reference Sheehan, Nemeroff, Thase, Entsuah and Group2009; Wyeth-Ayerst Research, 1996). All trials only assessed outcomes at the end of the treatment period, i.e. 6–8 weeks after randomisation. A total of 91/812 (11.2%) experimental participants had suicidal ideation compared with 42/548 (7.7%) control participants. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between venlafaxine and placebo (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.74–1.73; p = 0.58; 4 trials) (Supplementary Fig. 66). Visual inspection of the forest plot and statistical tests (I 2 = 15.8%) indicated no clear signs of heterogeneity. This outcome result was assessed as overall high risk of bias.

MADRS, BDI and HDRS-6

Nine trials reported results on MADRS (Alvarez et al., Reference Alvarez, Perez, Dragheim, Loft and Artigas2012; Guelfi et al., Reference Guelfi, White, Hackett, Guichoux and Magni1995; Hewett et al., Reference Hewett, Gee, Krishen, Wunderlich, Le Clus, Evoniuk and Modell2010; Higuchi et al., Reference Higuchi, Kamijima, Nakagome, Itamura, Asami, Kuribayashi and Imaeda2016; Khan et al., Reference Khan, Fabre and Rudolph1991; Mendels et al., Reference Mendels, Johnston, Mattes and Riesenberg1993; Schweizer et al., Reference Schweizer, Feighner, Mandos and Rickels1994; Sheehan et al., Reference Sheehan, Nemeroff, Thase, Entsuah and Group2009; Thase, Reference Thase1997; Wyeth-Ayerst Research, 1996). No trials reported results on BDI or HDRS-6. All trials only assessed outcomes at the end of the treatment period, i.e. 4–8 weeks after randomisation. Meta-analysis showed evidence of a beneficial effect of venlafaxine versus placebo (MD: −4.03 MADRS points; 95% CI: −5.30 to −2.75; p < 0.01; 9 trials) (Supplementary Fig. 67), however, the effect size was below proposed minimal important differences (Leucht et al., Reference Leucht, Fennema, Engel, Kaspers-Janssen, Lepping and Szegedi2017). Visual inspection of the forest plot and statistical tests (I 2 = 60.0%) indicated heterogeneity. This outcome result was assessed as overall high risk of bias.

Remaining results

It was not possible to analyse the remaining exploratory outcomes due to a lack of relevant data. We performed all meta-analyses as both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses and reported the most conservative results as the main results. For the less conservative results, please see Supplementary Fig. 68–131.

Discussion

We conducted a systematic review assessing the risks of adverse events with venlafaxine for adults with major depressive disorder. We included 28 trials randomising 6,253 participants to venlafaxine versus placebo. All results were at high risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence was very low. Data were limited to a maximum of 12 weeks after randomisation. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis showed insufficient information to assess the effects of venlafaxine on risks of suicides or suicide attempts. Meta-analysis showed evidence of a harmful effect of venlafaxine on serious adverse events, mainly due to higher risks of sexual dysfunction and anorexia. Meta-analysis showed that venlafaxine increased the risk of several non-serious adverse events: nausea, dry mouth, dizziness, sweating, somnolence, constipation, nervousness, insomnia, asthenia, tremor and decreased appetite. Our results contribute important information on the risks of adverse events, since previous reviews have not systematically assessed all adverse effects (Cipriani et al., Reference Cipriani, Furukawa, Salanti, Chaimani, Atkinson, Ogawa, Leucht, Ruhe, Turner, Higgins, Egger, Takeshima, Hayasaka, Imai, Shinohara, Tajika, Ioannidis and Geddes2018; Schueler et al., Reference Schueler, Koesters, Wieseler, Grouven, Kromp, Kerekes, Kreis, Kaiser, Becker and Weinmann2011). We confirmed the previously shown statistically significant effects of antidepressants on depressive symptom rating scales (Cipriani et al., Reference Cipriani, Furukawa, Salanti, Chaimani, Atkinson, Ogawa, Leucht, Ruhe, Turner, Higgins, Egger, Takeshima, Hayasaka, Imai, Shinohara, Tajika, Ioannidis and Geddes2018; Hengartner and Ploderl, Reference Hengartner and Ploderl2022; Jakobsen et al., Reference Jakobsen, Gluud and Kirsch2020; Kamp et al., Reference Kamp, Petersen, Faltermeier, Juul, Siddiqui, Barbateskovic, Kristensen, Moncrieff, Horowitz, Hengartner, Kirsch, Gluud and Jakobsen2024; Schueler et al., Reference Schueler, Koesters, Wieseler, Grouven, Kromp, Kerekes, Kreis, Kaiser, Becker and Weinmann2011), but with effect sizes below proposed minimal important differences (3 HDRS points and 7–9 MADRS points) (Jakobsen et al., Reference Jakobsen, Gluud and Kirsch2020; Leucht et al., Reference Leucht, Fennema, Engel, Kaspers-Janssen, Lepping and Szegedi2017).

Our systematic review has several strengths. Previously, understanding of the adverse effects of venlafaxine has primarily been based on results of non-randomised studies. Accordingly, this is the first systematic review to assess all adverse effects of venlafaxine in adults with major depressive disorder. Data on adverse effects are essential for enabling patients and clinicians to make informed decisions about the use of any treatment. Our predefined methodology was based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins et al., Reference Higgins, Thomas, Chandler, Cumpston, Li, Page and Welch2022), PRISMA (Liberati et al., Reference Liberati, Altman, Tetzlaff, Mulrow, Gotzsche, Ioannidis, Clarke, Devereaux, Kleijnen and Moher2009), Trial Sequential Analysis (Copenhagen Trial Unit – Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, 2023; Thorlund et al., Reference Thorlund, Engstrøm, Wetterslev, Brok, Imberger and Gluud2017), the eight-step procedure by Jakobsen et al. (Reference Jakobsen, Wetterslev, Winkel, Lange and Gluud2014b), the GRADE approach (Guyatt et al., Reference Guyatt, Oxman, Schünemann, Tugwell and Knottnerus2011), and risks of systematic and random errors, external validity, publication bias and heterogeneity were taken into account. Furthermore, unpublished data were included in the analyses to increase the validity of our results (Golder et al., Reference Golder, Loke, Wright and Norman2016; Higgins et al., Reference Higgins, Thomas, Chandler, Cumpston, Li, Page and Welch2022; Maund et al., Reference Maund, Tendal, Hróbjartsson, Jørgensen, Lundh, Schroll and Gøtzsche2014; Tang et al., Reference Tang, Ravaud, Riveros, Perrodeau and Dechartres2015).

Our systematic review also has limitations. First, the included trials only reported results at the end of treatment at a maximum of 12 weeks, so the long-term effects of venlafaxine are unknown. There is a need for trials with long-term follow-up to assess the benefits and harms since, for example, half of patients on antidepressants in the United Kingdom and 70% of patients in the USA have used them for more than 2 years (Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Macdonald, Atkinson, Buchanan, Downes and Dougall2012; Mojtabai and Olfson, Reference Mojtabai and Olfson2014). This is particularly pertinent for medications that are associated with tolerance and withdrawal effects, which tend to show diminishing beneficial effects over time (Kinrys et al., Reference Kinrys, Gold, Pisano, Freeman, Papakostas, Mischoulon, Nierenberg and Fava2019). Second, all included trials were assessed at overall high risk of bias mainly driven by risks of bias due to missing data, lack of information on blinding (Juul et al., Reference Juul, Gluud, Simonsen, Frandsen, Kirsch and Jakobsen2021a), risk of unblinding due to adverse events, inappropriate analysis methods and poor reporting. The reporting and assessment of adverse events were especially inadequate, and a major limitation is that data on adverse events are rarely collected systematically, even in randomised trials. It usually depends on spontaneous reporting, and our analyses are likely to underestimate serious adverse event incidences. Third, the certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcome results. It is, therefore, likely that trials conducted with higher methodological quality will show different results and possibly reveal more severe adverse events. Fourth, only six of the included trials reported on suicides or suicide attempts, and there was not enough information to confirm or reject the effects of venlafaxine on suicides or suicide attempts. This is particularly problematic since major depressive disorder is associated with increased risks of suicidal behaviour (Chen and Dilsaver, Reference Chen and Dilsaver1996; Kessler et al., Reference Kessler, Borges and Walters1999; Qin, Reference Qin2011), and because antidepressants have been linked with an increased risk of suicidal behaviour, especially in young people (Sharma et al., Reference Sharma, Guski, Freund and Gotzsche2016). There is a need for larger trials at low risk of bias to assess the risks of suicides and suicide attempts. Fifth, only eight trials had publicly available protocols or trial registrations, making it difficult to assess risks of bias, particularly whether selective reporting had occurred. Sixth, we included three primary outcomes, which increased the risk of type I errors. To control the risks of random errors, we adjusted our threshold for significance according to the number of primary outcomes, but we did not adjust the thresholds for significance according to the total number of comparisons, including exploratory outcomes, subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses. Seventh, trials comparing antidepressants with ‘active placebo’ indicate that the beneficial effects may be inflated due to the unblinding effects of the drug when compared with an inert placebo (Moncrieff et al., Reference Moncrieff, Wessely and Hardy2004). We did not identify any trials comparing venlafaxine to ‘active placebo’, which leaves open the possibility that efficacy results are impacted by unblinding caused by adverse effects or other noticeable changes produced by medication, as shown in trials of other antidepressants (Jureidini et al., Reference Jureidini, Moncrieff, Klau, Aboustate and Raven2024). Lastly, withdrawal effects of venlafaxine were only assessed in two of the included trials (Wyeth-Ayerst, 1991b, 1991c), emphasising the lack of data on a harm of treatment that has increasingly been highlighted (Davies and Read, Reference Davies and Read2019) and is particularly relevant to venlafaxine, given its short half-life (Campagne, Reference Campagne2005; Gastaldon et al., Reference Gastaldon, Schoretsanitis, Arzenton, Raschi, Papola, Ostuzzi, Moretti, Seifritz, Kane, Trifiro and Barbui2022). These limitations need to be considered when interpreting our results.

Conclusions

Short-term results show that venlafaxine has uncertain effects on the risks of suicides but increases the risks of serious adverse events (especially sexual dysfunction and anorexia) and many non-serious adverse events. The long-term effects of venlafaxine for major depressive disorder are unknown. More information on adverse effects is critical if patients and clinicians should make informed decisions about the costs and benefits of using venlafaxine. It is a particular cause for concern that there are no data on the long-term adverse effects of venlafaxine given that so many people use these drugs for several years.

Differences between the protocol and the review

There were no differences between the protocol and the review.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796024000520.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this article and its supplementary material files.

Author contributions

CBK, SJ, FS, JM, MAH, MPH, IK, CG and JCJ contributed to the conceptualisation and design of the systematic review. CBK, SF and FS screened studies for inclusion. JJP, PF and CBK extracted data. CBK analysed data. CBK and JCJ wrote the original draft. All authors commented and approved the final manuscript. CBK and JCJ are the guarantors. The guarantors had full access to all the data in the systematic review, take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analyses and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

Financial support

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests

We received no support from any organisation for the submitted work. MAH is a co-applicant and member of the DSMB of the RELEASE trial in Australia, funded by the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF). MAH is co-founder and consultant for Outro Health, a digital clinic helping patients to stop unnecessary antidepressant medication. MAH has been paid honoraria by several NHS Trusts for grand rounds presentations, and by Salomon’s University, the University of Arizona and the University of Washington. JM is a co-investigator on REDUCE (programme grant studying discontinuation of antidepressants) and Chief Investigator on RADAR (programme grant to explore antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation). JM has been paid honoraria by University of Basel, Alberta Psychiatric Association and Case Western University. JM receives royalties from Palgrave Macmillan and PCCS Books for three books about psychiatric drugs. JM is a co-chair person (unfunded position) of Critical Psychiatry Network. MPH receives royalties from Palgrave Macmillan for a book about antidepressants. We report no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Ethical standards

Ethics approval and written informed consent were not required for this study.

Footnotes

*This position is honorary for MAH

References

Alvarez, E, Perez, V, Dragheim, M, Loft, H and Artigas, F (2012) A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, active reference study of Lu AA21004 in patients with major depressive disorder. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology 15, 589600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5®). Washington DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.Google Scholar
Beck, AT, Steer, RA and Brown, GK (1996) Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Brok, J, Thorlund, K, Gluud, C and Wetterslev, J (2008a) Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 61, 763769.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brok, J, Thorlund, K, Wetterslev, J and Gluud, C (2008b) Apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be inconclusive—Trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta-analyses. International Journal of Epidemiology 38, 287298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campagne, DM (2005) Venlafaxine and serious withdrawal symptoms: Warning to drivers. Medscape General Medicine 7, .Google ScholarPubMed
Chen, Y-W and Dilsaver, SC (1996) Lifetime rates of suicide attempts among subjects with bipolar and unipolar disorders relative to subjects with other axis I disorders. Biological Psychiatry 39, 896899.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cipriani, A, Furukawa, TA, Salanti, G, Chaimani, A, Atkinson, LZ, Ogawa, Y, Leucht, S, Ruhe, HG, Turner, EH, Higgins, JPT, Egger, M, Takeshima, N, Hayasaka, Y, Imai, H, Shinohara, K, Tajika, A, Ioannidis, JPA and Geddes, JR (2018) Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. The Lancet 391, 13571366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Copenhagen Trial Unit – Centre for Clinical Intervention Research (2023) TSA - Trial Sequential Analysis 0.9.5.10 Beta [Computer program]. Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research 2023. http://www.ctu.dk/tsa/ (accessed 1 September 2020).Google Scholar
Covidence (2024) Covidence Systematic Review Software [ Online ]. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation. www.covidence.org (accessed 1 April 2024).Google Scholar
Cunningham, LA (1997) Once-daily venlafaxine extended release (XR) and venlafaxine immediate release (IR) in outpatients with major depression. Venlafaxine XR 208 Study Group. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 9, 157164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunningham, LA, Borison, RL, Carman, JS, Chouinard, G, Crowder, JE, Diamond, BI, Fischer, DE and Hearst, E (1994) A comparison of venlafaxine, trazodone, and placebo in major depression. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 14, 99106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, J and Read, J (2019) A systematic review into the incidence, severity and duration of antidepressant withdrawal effects: Are guidelines evidence-based? Addictive Behaviors 97, 111121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeMets, DL (1987) Methods for combining randomized clinical trials: Strengths and limitations. Statistics in Medicine 6, 341348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eudract 2004-000562-13 (2016) A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, flexible-dose study of DVS-233 SR and venlafaxine ER in adult outpatients with major depressive disorder.Google Scholar
Eudract Number 2007-007025-51 (2010) A randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, and active-referenced study evaluating the efficacy and safety of three fixed-dose regimens of Lu AA34893 in the treatment of major depressive disorder.Google Scholar
European Medicines Agency (2008) Efexor. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/referrals/efexor (accessed 1 April 2023).Google Scholar
Gastaldon, C, Schoretsanitis, G, Arzenton, E, Raschi, E, Papola, D, Ostuzzi, G, Moretti, U, Seifritz, E, Kane, JM, Trifiro, G and Barbui, C (2022) Withdrawal syndrome following discontinuation of 28 antidepressants: Pharmacovigilance analysis of 31,688 reports from the WHO spontaneous reporting database. Drug Safety 45, 15391549.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golder, S, Loke, YK, Wright, K and Norman, G (2016) Reporting of adverse events in published and unpublished studies of health care interventions: A systematic review. PLoS Medicine 13, .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guelfi, JD, White, C, Hackett, D, Guichoux, JY and Magni, G (1995) Effectiveness of venlafaxine in patients hospitalized for major depression and melancholia. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 56, 450458.Google ScholarPubMed
Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Schünemann, HJ, Tugwell, P and Knottnerus, A (2011) GRADE guidelines: A new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64, 380382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Vist, GE, Kunz, R, Falck-Ytter, Y, Alonso-Coello, P and Schünemann, HJ (2008) GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. The BMJ 336, 924926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hengartner, MP and Ploderl, M (2022) Estimates of the minimal important difference to evaluate the clinical significance of antidepressants in the acute treatment of moderate-to-severe depression. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine 27, 6973.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hewett, K, Chrzanowski, W, Schmitz, M, Savela, A, Milanova, V, Gee, M, Krishen, A, Millen, L, Leary, MO and Modell, J (2009) Eight-week, placebo-controlled, double-blind comparison of the antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of bupropion XR and venlafaxine XR. Journal of Psychopharmacology 23, 531538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hewett, K, Gee, MD, Krishen, A, Wunderlich, HP, Le Clus, A, Evoniuk, G and Modell, JG (2010) Double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of the antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of bupropion XR and venlafaxine XR. Journal of Psychopharmacology 24, 12091216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, J, Thomas, J, Chandler, J, Cumpston, M, Li, T, Page, M and Welch, V (2022) Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. https:www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.Google Scholar
Higuchi, T, Kamijima, K, Nakagome, K, Itamura, R, Asami, Y, Kuribayashi, K and Imaeda, T (2016) A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine extended release and a long-term extension study for patients with major depressive disorder in Japan. International Clinical Psychopharmacology 31, 819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, SC, Reasner, DS and Koblan, KS (2013) Catechol-O-methyltransferase genotype as modifier of superior responses to venlafaxine treatment in major depressive disorder. Psychiatry Research 208, 285287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunter, AM, Muthen, BO, Cook, IA and Leuchter, AF (2010) Antidepressant response trajectories and quantitative electroencephalography (QEEG) biomarkers in major depressive disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Research 44, 9098.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Imberger, G, Thorlund, K, Gluud, C and Wetterslev, J (2016) False-positive findings in Cochrane meta-analyses with and without application of trial sequential analysis: An empirical review. BMJ Open 6, .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
International Council on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (2015) ICH harmonised guideline: Integrated addendum to ICH E6(R1): Guideline for good clinical practice (ICH-GCP). Step 2 version. https://ichgcp.net/da (accessed 1 September 2020).Google Scholar
Inthout, J, Ioannidis, JPA and Borm, GF (2014) The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method. BMC Medical Research Methodology 14, .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ishak, WW, Mirocha, J, James, D, Tobia, G, Vilhauer, J, Fakhry, H, Pi, S, Hanson, E, Nashawati, R, Peselow, ED and Cohen, RM (2015) Quality of life in major depressive disorder before/after multiple steps of treatment and one-year follow-up. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 131, 5160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jakobsen, JC, Gluud, C and Kirsch, I (2020) Should antidepressants be used for major depressive disorder? BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine 25, .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jakobsen, JC, Wetterslev, J, Winkel, P, Lange, T and Gluud, C (2014) Thresholds for statistical and clinical significance in systematic reviews with meta-analytic methods. BMC Medical Research Methodology 14, .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, CF, Macdonald, HJ, Atkinson, P, Buchanan, AI, Downes, N and Dougall, N (2012) Reviewing long-term antidepressants can reduce drug burden: A prospective observational cohort study. British Journal of General Practice 62, e7739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jorgensen, CK, Juul, S, Siddiqui, F, Barbateskovic, M, Munkholm, K, Hengartner, MP, Kirsch, I, Gluud, C and Jakobsen, JC (2021) Tricyclic antidepressants versus ‘active placebo’, placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: A protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis. Systematic Reviews 10, .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jorgensen, CK, Juul, S, Siddiqui, F, Horowitz, MA, Moncrieff, J, Munkholm, K, Hengartner, MP, Kirsch, I, Gluud, C and Jakobsen, JC (2023) The risks of adverse events with venlafaxine and mirtazapine versus ‘active placebo’, placebo, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: A protocol for two separate systematic reviews with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis. Systematic Reviews 12, .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jureidini, J, Moncrieff, J, Klau, J, Aboustate, N and Raven, M (2024) Treatment guesses in the treatment for adolescents with depression study: Accuracy, unblinding and influence on outcomes. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 58, 355364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juul, S, Gluud, C, Simonsen, S, Frandsen, FW, Kirsch, I and Jakobsen, JC (2021a) Blinding in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions: A retrospective study of published trial reports. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine 26, .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juul, S, Siddiqui, F, Barbateskovic, M, Jorgensen, CK, Hengartner, MP, Kirsch, I, Gluud, C and Jakobsen, JC (2021b) Beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: A protocol for a systematic review of published and unpublished data with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses. Systematic Reviews 10, .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kamp, CB, Petersen, JJ, Faltermeier, P, Juul, S, Siddiqui, F, Barbateskovic, M, Kristensen, AT, Moncrieff, J, Horowitz, MA, Hengartner, MP, Kirsch, I, Gluud, C and Jakobsen, JC (2024) Beneficial and harmful effects of tricyclic antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. BMJ Mental Health 27, .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kessler, RC, Borges, G and Walters, EE (1999) Prevalence of and risk factors for lifetime suicide attempts in the National Comorbidity Survey. Archives of General Psychiatry 56, 617626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keus, F, Wetterslev, J, Gluud, C and Van Laarhoven, CJ (2010) Evidence at a glance: Error matrix approach for overviewing available evidence. BMC Medical Research Methodology 10, .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, A, Fabre, LF and Rudolph, R (1991) Venlafaxine in depressed outpatients. Psychopharmacology Bulletin 27, 141144.Google ScholarPubMed
Khan, A, Upton, GV, Rudolph, RL, Entsuah, R and Leventer, SM (1998) The use of venlafaxine in the treatment of major depression and major depression associated with anxiety: A dose-response study. Venlafaxine Investigator Study Group. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 18, 1925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kinrys, G, Gold, AK, Pisano, VD, Freeman, MP, Papakostas, GI, Mischoulon, D, Nierenberg, AA and Fava, M (2019) Tachyphylaxis in major depressive disorder: A review of the current state of research. Journal of Affective Disorders 245, 488497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Learned, S, Graff, O, Roychowdhury, S, Moate, R, Krishnan, KR, Archer, G, Modell, JG, Alexander, R, Zamuner, S, Lavergne, A, Evoniuk, G and Ratti, E (2012) Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a triple reuptake inhibitor GSK372475 in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder: Two randomized, placebo- and active-controlled clinical trials. Journal of Psychopharmacology 26, 653662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leucht, S, Fennema, H, Engel, RR, Kaspers-Janssen, M, Lepping, P and Szegedi, A (2017) What does the MADRS mean? Equipercentile linking with the CGI using a company database of mirtazapine studies. Journal of Affective Disorders 210, 287293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liberati, A, Altman, DG, Tetzlaff, J, Mulrow, C, Gotzsche, PC, Ioannidis, JP, Clarke, M, Devereaux, PJ, Kleijnen, J and Moher, D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. The BMJ 339, .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lieberman, DZ, Montgomery, SA, Tourian, KA, Brisard, C, Rosas, G, Padmanabhan, K, Germain, JM and Pitrosky, B (2008) A pooled analysis of two placebo-controlled trials of desvenlafaxine in major depressive disorder. International Clinical Psychopharmacology 23, 188197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
López-Pina, JA, Sánchez-Meca, J and Rosa-Alcázar, AI (2009) The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression: A meta-analytic reliability generalization study. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 9, 143159.Google Scholar
Luthringer, R, Toussaint, M, Schaltenbrand, N, Bailey, P, Danjou, PH, Hackett, D, Guichoux, JY and Macher, JP (1996) A double-blind, placebo-controlled evaluation of the effects of orally administered venlafaxine on sleep in inpatients with major depression. Psychopharmacology Bulletin 32, 637646.Google ScholarPubMed
Malone, DC (2007) A budget-impact and cost-effectiveness model for second-line treatment of major depression. Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy 13, S818.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maund, E, Tendal, B, Hróbjartsson, A, Jørgensen, KJ, Lundh, A, Schroll, J and Gøtzsche, PC (2014) Benefits and harms in clinical trials of duloxetine for treatment of major depressive disorder: Comparison of clinical study reports, trial registries, and publications. The BMJ 348, .Google ScholarPubMed
Mendels, J, Johnston, R, Mattes, J and Riesenberg, R (1993) Efficacy and safety of b.i.d. doses of venlafaxine in a dose-response study. Psychopharmacology Bulletin 29, 169174.Google Scholar
Moher, D, Shamseer, L, Clarke, M, Ghersi, D, Liberati, A, Petticrew, M, Shekelle, P and Stewart, LA (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews 4, .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mojtabai, R and Olfson, M (2014) National trends in long-term use of antidepressant medications: Results from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 75, 169177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moncrieff, J, Wessely, S and Hardy, R (2004) Active placebos versus antidepressants for depression. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004(1), .Google ScholarPubMed
Montgomery, SA and Åsberg, M (1979) A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. The British Journal of Psychiatry 134, 382389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Health Service (2018) Venlafaxine. https://www.nhs.uk/medicines/venlafaxine/ (accessed 28 September 2021).Google Scholar
Nemeroff, CB, Thase, ME and Group, ES (2007) A double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of venlafaxine and fluoxetine treatment in depressed outpatients. Journal of Psychiatric Research 41, 351359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NHS East and North Hertfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group & NHS Herts Valleys Clinical Commissioning Group (2018) Guidelines on choice and selection of antidepressants for the management of depression. https://hertsvalleysccg.nhs.uk/application/files/1615/3633/3654/Guidelines_on_Choice_and_Selection_of_Antidepressants_for_the_Management_of_Depression_Final_Sept_2016.pdf (accessed 31 January 2022).Google Scholar
Pan, Z, Park, C, Brietzke, E, Zuckerman, H, Rong, C, Mansur, RB, Fus, D, Subramaniapillai, M, Lee, Y and Mcintyre, RS (2019) Cognitive impairment in major depressive disorder. CNS Spectrums 24, 2229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qin, P (2011) The impact of psychiatric illness on suicide: Differences by diagnosis of disorders and by sex and age of subjects. Journal of Psychiatric Research 45, 14451452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rudolph, RL, Fabre, LF, Feighner, JP, Rickels, K, Entsuah, R and Derivan, AT (1998) A randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-response trial of venlafaxine hydrochloride in the treatment of major depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 59, 116122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rudolph, RL and Feiger, AD (1999) A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of once-daily venlafaxine extended release (XR) and fluoxetine for the treatment of depression. Journal of Affective Disorders 56, 171181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saragoussi, D, Christensen, MC, Hammer-Helmich, L, Rive, B, Touya, M and Haro, JM (2018) Long-term follow-up on health-related quality of life in major depressive disorder: A 2-year European cohort study. Neuropsychiatric Disease & Treatment 14, 13391350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schatzberg, A and Roose, S (2006) A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of venlafaxine and fluoxetine in geriatric outpatients with major depression. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 14, 361370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schueler, YB, Koesters, M, Wieseler, B, Grouven, U, Kromp, M, Kerekes, MF, Kreis, J, Kaiser, T, Becker, T and Weinmann, S (2011) A systematic review of duloxetine and venlafaxine in major depression, including unpublished data. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 123, 247265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schweizer, E, Feighner, J, Mandos, LA and Rickels, K (1994) Comparison of venlafaxine and imipramine in the acute treatment of major depression in outpatients. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 55, 104108.Google ScholarPubMed
Schweizer, E, Weise, C, Clary, C, Fox, I and Rickels, K (1991) Placebo-controlled trial of venlafaxine for the treatment of major depression. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 11, 233236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schünemann, HJ, Best, D, Vist, G and Oxman, AD (2003) Letters, numbers, symbols and words: How to communicate grades of evidence and recommendations. Canadian Medical Association Journal 169, 677680.Google ScholarPubMed
Sharma, T, Guski, LS, Freund, N and Gotzsche, PC (2016) Suicidality and aggression during antidepressant treatment: Systematic review and meta-analyses based on clinical study reports. The BMJ 352, .Google ScholarPubMed
Sheehan, DV, Nemeroff, CB, Thase, ME, Entsuah, R and Group, ES (2009) Placebo-controlled inpatient comparison of venlafaxine and fluoxetine for the treatment of major depression with melancholic features. International Clinical Psychopharmacology 24, 6186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siddiqui, F, Barbateskovic, M, Juul, S, Katakam, KK, Munkholm, K, Gluud, C and Jakobsen, JC (2021) Duloxetine versus ‘active’ placebo, placebo or no intervention for major depressive disorder; a protocol for a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Systematic Reviews 10, .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silverstone, PH and Ravindran, A (1999) Once-daily venlafaxine extended release (XR) compared with fluoxetine in outpatients with depression and anxiety. Venlafaxine XR 360 Study Group. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 60, 2228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, D and Saadabadi, A (2021) Venlafaxine. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing.Google Scholar
Statacorp (2019) Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.Google Scholar
Sterne, JAC, Savovic, J, Page, MJ, Elbers, RG, Blencowe, NS, Boutron, I, Cates, CJ, Cheng, HY, Corbett, MS, Eldridge, SM, Emberson, JR, Hernan, MA, Hopewell, S, Hrobjartsson, A, Junqueira, DR, Juni, P, Kirkham, JJ, Lasserson, T, Li, T, Mcaleenan, A, Reeves, BC, Shepperd, S, Shrier, I, Stewart, LA, Tilling, K, White, IR, Whiting, PF and Higgins, JPT (2019) RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. The BMJ 366, .Google ScholarPubMed
Tang, E, Ravaud, P, Riveros, C, Perrodeau, E and Dechartres, A (2015) Comparison of serious adverse events posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in corresponding journal articles. BMC Medicine 13, .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thase, ME (1997) Efficacy and tolerability of once-daily venlafaxine extended release (XR) in outpatients with major depression. The Venlafaxine XR 209 Study Group. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 58, 393398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thorlund, K, Anema, A and Mills, E (2010) Interpreting meta-analysis according to the adequacy of sample size. An example using isoniazid chemoprophylaxis for tuberculosis in purified protein derivative negative HIV-infected individuals. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2, .Google Scholar
Thorlund, K, Devereaux, P, Wetterslev, J, Guyatt, G, Ioannidis, JP, Thabane, L, Gluud, L-L, Als-Nielsen, B and Gluud, C (2008) Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses? International Journal of Epidemiology 38, 276286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thorlund, K, Engstrøm, J, Wetterslev, J, Brok, J, Imberger, G and Gluud, C (2017) User Manual for Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research.Google Scholar
Timmerby, N, Andersen, JH, Søndergaard, S, Østergaard, SD and Bech, P (2017) A systematic review of the clinimetric properties of the 6-item version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D6). Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 86, 141149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vandenbroucke, JP (2006) What is the best evidence for determining harms of medical treatment? Canadian Medical Association Journal 174, 645646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wetterslev, J, Thorlund, K, Brok, J and Gluud, C (2008) Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 61, 6475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wetterslev, J, Thorlund, K, Brok, J and Gluud, C (2009) Estimating required information size by quantifying diversity in random-effects model meta-analyses. BMC Medical Research Methodology 9, .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (2021) International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD). https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/classification-of-diseases (accessed 1 April 2024).Google Scholar
World Health Organization (2023) Depressive disorder (depression). https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/depression (accessed April 1 2023).Google Scholar
Wyeth-Ayerst (1991a) A randomised, double-blind, parallel group comparison of venlafaxine and placebo capsules in inpatients with major depression and melancholia (protocol 600A-206, unpublished data).Google Scholar
Wyeth-Ayerst (1991b) Randomized double-blind comparison of venlafaxine (WY-45, 030), imipramine, and placebo capsules in outpatients with major depression: Final report (protocol 600A-301-US/301 Ext-US, unpublished data).Google Scholar
Wyeth-Ayerst (1991c) Randomized, double-blind comparison of venlafaxine (WY-45, 030), imipramine, and placebo capsules in outpatients with major depression: Final report (protocol 600A-303-US/303 Ext, unpublished data).Google Scholar
Wyeth-Ayerst (1992) Randomized, double-blind comparison of venlafaxine (WY-45, 030), trazodone, and placebo capsules in outpatients with major depression: Final report (protocol 600A-302-US, CA/302 Ext, unpublished data).Google Scholar
Wyeth-Ayerst Research (1996) 600-B-367-EU: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed dose study of the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine extended-release and paroxetine in depressed outpatients: Final report (unpublished data).Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Meta-analysis of venlafaxine versus placebo on suicides or suicide attempts.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Meta-analysis of venlafaxine versus placebo on serious adverse events.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Meta-analysis of venlafaxine versus placebo on non-serious adverse events.

Supplementary material: File

Kamp et al. supplementary material

Kamp et al. supplementary material
Download Kamp et al. supplementary material(File)
File 8 MB