Skip to main content
. 2010 Mar 17;2010(3):CD006114. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006114.pub2

Comparison 4. Fluvoxamine versus SNRIs.

Outcome or subgroup title No. of studies No. of participants Statistical method Effect size
1 Response (acute phase): Primary outcome 3 224 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.48 [0.27, 0.85]
1.1 vs Milnacipran 1 113 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.57 [0.26, 1.23]
1.2 vs Venlafaxine 2 111 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.40 [0.18, 0.92]
2 Response (early phase) 5 351 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.73 [0.45, 1.19]
2.1 vs Milnacipran 3 240 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.65 [0.37, 1.15]
2.2 vs Venlafaxine 2 111 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.01 [0.39, 2.63]
3 Remission (early phase) 5 351 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.81 [0.35, 1.86]
3.1 vs Milnacipran 3 240 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.62 [0.22, 1.74]
3.2 vs Venlafaxine 2 111 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.54 [0.22, 10.74]
4 Remission (acute phase) 3 224 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.61 [0.34, 1.08]
4.1 vs Milnacipran 1 113 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.68 [0.30, 1.51]
4.2 vs Venlafaxine 2 111 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.54 [0.23, 1.24]
5 Depression scale ‐ Endpoint score: low=good (early phase) 4 274 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.07 [‐0.17, 0.32]
5.1 vs Milnacipran 2 172 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.00 [‐0.30, 0.31]
5.2 vs Venlafaxine 2 102 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.21 [‐0.21, 0.63]
6 Depression scale ‐ Endpoint score: low=good (early phase) ‐ missing SDs or skewed data     Other data No numeric data
6.1 vs Milnacipran     Other data No numeric data
7 Depression scale ‐ Endpoint score: low=good (acute phase) ‐ missing SDs or skewed data     Other data No numeric data
7.1 vs Venlafaxine     Other data No numeric data
8 Depression scale ‐ Change score: decrease=good (early phase) ‐ missing SDs     Other data No numeric data
8.1 vs Milnacipran     Other data No numeric data
8.3 vs Venlafaxine     Other data No numeric data
9 Depression scale ‐ Change score: decrease=good (acute phase) ‐ missing SDs     Other data No numeric data
9.1 vs Milnacipran     Other data No numeric data
9.3 vs Venlafaxine     Other data No numeric data
10 Total Dropout 5 351 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.57 [0.93, 2.67]
10.1 vs Milnacipran 3 240 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.26 [0.65, 2.45]
10.2 vs Venlafaxine 2 111 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 2.29 [0.97, 5.43]
11 Dropout due to inefficacy 3 240 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.86 [0.34, 2.16]
11.1 vs Milnacipran 3 240 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.86 [0.34, 2.16]
12 Dropout due to side effects 3 240 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 2.38 [0.73, 7.78]
12.1 vs Milnacipran 3 240 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 2.38 [0.73, 7.78]
13 Sensitivity analysis ‐ Response (acute phase) 3. Worst case scenario ITT 3 224 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.20 [0.05, 0.76]
13.1 vs Milnacipran 1 113 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.57 [0.26, 1.23]
13.2 vs Venlafaxine 2 111 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.11 [0.04, 0.29]
14 Sensitivity analysis ‐ Response (acute phase) 4. Best case scenario ITT 3 224 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.41 [0.43, 4.66]
14.1 vs Milnacipran 1 113 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.57 [0.26, 1.23]
14.2 vs Venlafaxine 2 111 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 2.67 [0.98, 7.26]
15 Sensitivity analysis ‐ Response (acute phase) 5. Excluding trials with imputation methods for calculating response 1 113 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.57 [0.26, 1.23]
15.1 vs Milnacipran 1 113 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.57 [0.26, 1.23]
16 Sensitivity analysis ‐ Response (acute phase) 6. Wish bias ‐ Fluvoxamine as a comparator drug 3 224 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.48 [0.27, 0.85]
16.1 vs Milnacipran 1 113 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.57 [0.26, 1.23]
16.2 vs Venlafaxine 2 111 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.40 [0.18, 0.92]
17 Sensitivity analysis ‐ Response (acute phase) 7. Funding ‐ Excluding trials funded by the fluvoxamine marketing company 3 224 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.48 [0.27, 0.85]
17.1 vs Milnacipran 1 113 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.57 [0.26, 1.23]
17.2 vs Venlafaxine 2 111 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.40 [0.18, 0.92]
18 Sensitivity analysis ‐ Response (acute phase) 8. Excluding trials that might include patients with bipolar depression 3 224 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.48 [0.27, 0.85]
18.1 vs Milnacipran 1 113 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.57 [0.26, 1.23]
18.2 vs Venlafaxine 2 111 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.40 [0.18, 0.92]
19 Sensitivity analysis ‐ Response (acute phase) 9. Excluding trials that included patients with psychotic features 2 111 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.40 [0.18, 0.92]
19.1 vs Venlafaxine 2 111 Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.40 [0.18, 0.92]