Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Systematic Review and Guide to Selection of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Drugs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A meta-analysis of 20 short term comparative studies of 5 selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; citalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine and sertraline) has shown no difference in efficacy between individual compounds but a slower onset of action of fluoxetine. There were suggestions that fluoxetine caused more agitation, weight loss and dermatological reactions than the other SSRIs. More patients discontinued fluvoxamine and fewer patients stopped sertraline because of adverse effects than their comparator SSRIs.

The most common adverse reactions to the SSRIs were gastrointestinal (especially nausea) and neuropsychiatric (particularly headache and tremor). Data from the Committee on Safety of Medicines showed more reports of suspected reactions (including discontinuation reactions) to paroxetine, and of gastrointestinal reactions to fluvoxamine and paroxetine, than the other SSRIs during their first 2 years of marketing.

Prescription-event monitoring revealed a higher incidence of adverse events related to fluvoxamine than its comparators. There were higher incidences of gastrointestinal symptoms, malaise, sedation and tremor during treatment with fluvoxamine and of sedation, tremor, sweating, sexual dysfunction and discontinuation reactions with paroxetine. Fluoxetine was not associated with a higher incidence of suicidal, aggressive and related events than the other SSRIs.

Patients have survived large overdoses of each of the compounds, but concern has been expressed over 6 fatalities following overdoses of citalopram.

Drug interactions mediated by cytochrome P450 enzymes are theoretically less likely to occur during treatment with citalopram and sertraline, but there is a sparsity of clinical data to support this.

Methodological difficulties and price changes do not allow choice for recommendations on the choice of SSRI based on pharmacoeconomic data.

Taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of the methods used to compare drugs, guidelines to the selection of individual SSRIs in clinical practice are proposed. Citalopram should be avoided in patients likely to take overdoses. Fluoxetine may not be the drug of first choice for patients in whom a rapid antidepressant effect is important or for those who are agitated, but it may have advantages over other SSRIs in patients who are poorly compliant with treatment and those who have previously had troublesome discontinuation symptoms. Fluvoxamine, and possibly paroxetine, should not be used as first choice in patients especially prone to SSRI-related adverse reactions, while paroxetine should be avoided if previous discontinuation of treatment was troublesome. When in doubt about the risks of drug interactions, citalopram or sertraline should be considered given the lower theoretical risk of interactions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fagius J, Osterman PO, Siden A, et al. Guillain-Barre syndrome following zimeldine treatment. J Neurol, Neurosurg Psychiatry 1985; 48: 65–9

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Edwards JG. Withdrawal of psychotropic drugs from the market: I. From thalidomide to zimeldine. In: Hindmarch I, Stonier PD, editors. Human psychopharmacology. Vol 6. Chichester: John Wiley, 1997: 199–214

    Google Scholar 

  3. McTavish D, Benfield P. Clomipramine: an overview of its pharmacological properties and a review of its therapeutic use in obsessive compulsive disorder and panic disorder. Drugs 1990; 39: 136–153

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mendlewicz J. Pharmacologic profile and efficacy of venlafaxine. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1995; 10 (Suppl. 2): 5–13

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tatsumi M, Groshan K, Blakely RD, et al. Pharmacological profile of antidepressants and related compounds at human monoamine transporters. Eur J Pharmacol 1997; 340: 249–58

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Davis R, Whittington R, Bryson HM. Nefazodone: a review of its pharmacology and clinical efficacy in the management of major depression. Drugs 1997; 53: 608–36

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kasper S, Fuger J, Moller H-J. Comparative efficacy of antidepressants. Drugs 1992. 43 (Suppl. 2): 11–23

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Montgomery SA, Henry J, MacDonald G, et al. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: meta-analysis of discontinuation rates. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1994; 9: 47–53

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Finley PR. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: pharmacologic profiles and potential therapeutic distinctions. Ann Pharmacother 1994; 28: 1359–69

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lane R, Baldwin D, Preskorn S. The SSRIs: advantages, disadvantages and differences. J Psychopharmacol 1995; 9 (Suppl.): 163–78

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Edwards JG. Drug choice in depression. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or tricyclic antidepressants? CNS Drugs. 1995; 4: 141–59

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Anderson I. Lessons to be learnt from meta-analyses of newer versus older antidepressants. Adv Psychiatr Treat 1997; 3: 58–63

    Google Scholar 

  13. Edwards JG. Prevention of relapse and recurrence of depression: newer versus older antidepressants. Adv Psychiatr Treat 1997; 3: 52–7

    Google Scholar 

  14. Henry JA. Toxicity of newer versus older antidepressants. Adv Psychiatr Treat 1997; 3: 41–5

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hotopf M, Hardy R, Lewis G. Discontinuation rates of SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants: a meta-analysis and investigation of heterogeneity. Br J Psychiatry 1997; 170: 120–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Steffens DC, Krishnan KRR, Helms MJ. Are SSRIs better than TCAs? Comparison of SSRIs and TCAs: a meta-analysis. Depression Anxiety 1997; 6: 10–18

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Aguglia E, Casacchia M, Cassano GB, et al. Double-blind study of the efficacy and safety of sertraline versus fluoxetine in major depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1993: 8: 197–202

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ansseau M, Gabriels A, Loyens J, et al. Controlled comparison of paroxetine and fluvoxamine in major depression. Hum Psychopharmacol 1994: 9: 329–36

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bennie EH, Mullin JM, Martindale JJ. A double-blind multicenter trial comparing sertraline and fluoxetine in outpatients with major depression. J Clin Psychiatry 1995: 56(6): 229–37

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bisserbe JC, Boyer P, Souetre E, et al. A 6-month sertraline fluoxetine comparative study in depressed outpatients: outcome and costs. Presented at the 20th Congress of the International College of Neuropsychopharmacology; 1996 Jun 23–7; Melbourne

  21. Bougerol T, Scotto J-C, Patris FM, et al. Citalopram and fluoxetine in major depression: comparison of two clinical trials in a psychiatrist setting and in general practice. Clin Drug Invest 1997; 14: 77–89

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. de Wilde J, Spiers R, Mertens C, et al. A double-blind, comparative, multicentre study comparing paroxetine with fluoxetine in depressed patients. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1993; 87: 141–5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gagiano CA. A double blind comparison of paroxetine and fluoxetine in patients with major depression. Br J Clin Res 1993; 4: 145–52

    Google Scholar 

  24. Haffmans PMJ, Timmerman L, Hoogduin CAL, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of citalopram in comparison with fluvoxamine in depressed outpatients: a double-blind, multicentre study. Int Clin Psychopharmcol 1996; 11: 157–64

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kiev A, Feiger A. A double-blind comparison of fluvoxamine and paroxetine in the treatment of depressed outpatients. J Clin Psychiatry 1997; 58(4): 146–52

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Latimer PR, Ravindran AV, Bernatchez J-P, et al. A six-month comparison of toleration and efficacy of sertraline and fluoxetine treatment of major depression. Presented at the 20th Congress of the International College of Neuropsychopharmacology; 1996 Jun 23–7, Melbourne

  27. Linden RD, Newhouse P, Krishman KR, et al. SSRIs in the depressed elderly: a double-blind comparison of sertraline and fluoxetine in depressed geriatric patients. Presented at the 148th Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association; 1995 May 20–25, Miami

  28. Nemeroff CB, Ninan PT, Ballenger J, et al. Double-blind multicenter comparison of fluvoxamine versus sertraline in the treatment of depressed outpatients. Depression 1995; 3: 163–9

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ontiveros A, Garcia-Barriga C. A double-blind comparative study of paroxetine and fluoxetine in out-patients with depression. Br J Clin Res 1997; 8: 23–32

    Google Scholar 

  30. Patris M, Bouchard J-M, Bougerol T, et al. Citalopram versus fluoxetine: a double-blind, controlled, multicentre, phase III trial in patients with unipolar major depression treated in general practice. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1996; 11: 129–36

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Rapaport M, Coccaro E, Sheline Y, et al. A comparison of fluvoxamine and fluoxetine in the treatment of major depression. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1996; 16: 373–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Schone W, Ludwig M. A double-blind study of paroxetine comparedwith fluoxetine in geriatric patients with major depression. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1993; 13 (Suppl. 2): 34S–39S

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Sechter D, Troy S, Rioux P. A double-blind comparison of sertraline and fluoxetine in the treatment of major depressive episode in outpatients. Presented at the 20th Congress of the International College of Neuropsychopharmacology; 1996 Jun 23–7; Melbourne

  34. Shrivastava RK, Shrivastava S, Overweg N. Efficacy trial: paroxetine and fluoxetine in depression. Presented at the 146th Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association; 1993 May 22–7, San Francisco

  35. Tignol J. A double-blind, randomized, fluoxetine-controlled, multicenter study of paroxetine in the treatment of depression. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1993; 13 (Suppl. 2): 18S–22S

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Van Moffaert M, Bartholome F, Cosyns P, et al. A controlled comparison of sertraline and fluoxetine in acute and continuation treatment of major depression. Hum Psychopharmacol 1995: 10: 393–405

    Google Scholar 

  37. Zanardi R, Franchini L, Gasperini M, et al. Double-blind controlled trial of sertraline versus paroxetine in the treatment of delusional depression. Am J Psychiatry 1996; 153: 1631–3

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Geretsegger C, Bohmer F, Ludwig M. Paroxetine in the elderly depressed patient: randomized comparison with fluoxetine of efficacy, cognitive and behavioural effects. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1994; 9: 25–29

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando: Academic Press Inc., 1985

    Google Scholar 

  40. Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Statistics with confidence. London: British Medical Association, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. J Neurol, Neurosurg Psychiatry 1960; 23: 56–63

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Montgomery SA, Asberg MA. Anew depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry 1979; 134: 382–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177–88

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Rawlins MD. Spontaneous reporting of adverse reactions. I: The data. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1988a; 26: 1–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Rawlins MD. Spontaneous reporting of adverse reactions. II: Uses. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1988b; 26: 7–11

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Wood SM, Coulson R. Adverse drug reactions on-line information trading (ADROIT) Pharmaceut Med 1993; 7: 203–13

    Google Scholar 

  47. Rawlins MD, Jeffreys DB. Study of United Kingdom product licence applications containing new active substances, 1987–9. BMJ 1991; 302: 223–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Inman WHW, Rawson NSB, Wilton LV. Prescription-event monitoring. In: Inman WHW, editor. Monitoring for drug safety. 2nd ed. London: MTP Press, 1986: 213–35

    Google Scholar 

  49. Rawson NSB, Pearce GL, Inman WHW. Prescription-event monitoring: methodology and recent progress. J Clin Epidemiol 1990; 43: 509–22

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Mann RD. Databases and drug epidemiology — the situation in the UK. Eur J Clin Res 1994a; 6: 91–104

    Google Scholar 

  51. Mann RD. Epidemiologic systems: prescription event monitoring in the UK. Southampton Med J 1994b; 10: 12–7

    Google Scholar 

  52. Andrew JE, Prescott P, Smith TMF, et al. Testing for adverse reactions using prescription event monitoring. Stat Med 1996; 15: 887–1002

    Google Scholar 

  53. Mann RD, Wilton LV, Pearce GL, et al. Prescription-event monitoring (PEM) in 1996 — a method of non-interventional observational cohort pharmacovigilance. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1997; 6 Suppl. 3: S5–S11

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Edwards JG, Inman WHW, Pearce GL, et al. Prescription-event monitoring of 10 895 patients treated with alprazolam. Br J Psychiatry 1991; 158: 387–92

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Edwards JG, Inman WHW, Wilton L, et al. Prescription-event monitoring of 10 401 patients treated with fluvoxamine. Br J Psychiatry 1994; 164: 387–95

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Edwards JG, Inman WHW, Wilton L, et al. Drug safety monitoring of 12 692 patients treated with fluoxetine. Hum Psychopharmacol 1997; 12: 127–37

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Mackay FJ, Dunn NR, Wilton LV, et al. A comparison of fluvoxamine, fluoxetine, sertraline and paroxetine examined by observational cohort studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1997; 6: 235–46

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Kubota K, Inman WHW. Terminology in prescription-event monitoring. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 46: 497–500

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Kubota K, Kubota N, Pearce GL, et al. Signalling drug-induced rash with 36 drugs recently marketed in the United Kingdom and studied by Prescription-Event Monitoring. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995; 33: 219–25

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Anderson IM, Tomerson BM. Treatment discontinuation with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors compared with tricyclic antidepressants: a meta-analysis. BMJ 1995; 310: 1433–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Montgomery SA, Kasper S. Comparison of compliance between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants: a meta-analysis. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1995; 9 Suppl. 4: 33–40

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Richelson E. Pharmacology of antidepressants — characteristics of the ideal drug. Mayo Clin Proc 1994; 69: 1069–81

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Preskorn SH. Clinically relevant pharmacology of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: an overview with emphasis on pharmacokinetics and effects on oxidative drug metabolism. Clin Pharmacokinet 1997; 32 (Suppl. 1): 1–21

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Davidson RA. Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. J Gen Intern Med 1986; 1: 155–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Wager E, Herxheimer A. Peer review and the pharmaceutical industry. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, editors. Peer review and health care, London: British Medical Association. In press

  66. Goldstein DJ, Hamilton SH, Masica DN, et al. Fluoxetine in medically stable, depressed geriatric patients: effect on weight. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1997; 17: 365–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Thase ME, Blomgren SL, Birkett MA, et al. Fluoxetine treatment of patients with major depressive disorder who failed initial treatment with sertraline. J Clin Psychiatry 1997; 58: 16–21

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Grimsley SR, Jann MW. Paroxetine, sertraline, and fluvoxamine: new selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Clin Pharmacol 1992; 11: 930–57

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Baldwin DS. Psychotropic drugs and sexual dysfunction. Int Rev Psychiatry 1995; 7: 261–73

    Google Scholar 

  70. Edwards JG. Adverse reactions to and interactions with psychotropic drugs: mechanisms, methods of assessment and medico-legal considerations. In: King DJ, editor. Seminars in clinical psychopharmacology. London: Gaskell Press, 1995: 480–513

    Google Scholar 

  71. Baldwin DS, Thomas SC, Birtwhistle J. Effects of antidepressant drugs on sexual function. Int J Psychiatr Clin Pract 1997; 1: 47–58

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Baldwin D, Johnson RN. Tolerability and safety of citalopram. Rev Contemp Pharmacother 1995; 6: 315–25

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Cooper GL. The safety of fluoxetine — an update. Br J Psychiatry 1988; 15: (Suppl. 3): 77–86

    Google Scholar 

  74. Wagner W, Zaborny BA, Gray TE. Fluvoxamine: a review of its safety profile in world-wide studies. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1994; 9: 223–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Boyer WF, Blumhardt CL. The safety profile of paroxetine. J Clin Psychiatry 1992; 53 (Suppl.): 61–6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Doogan DP. Toleration and safety of sertraline: experience worldwide. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1991; 6 (Suppl.. 2): 47–56

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Rawlins MD. Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions. Q J Med 1996; 59: 531–4

    Google Scholar 

  78. Mediplus. The research database in primary care. London: International Medical Statistics UK & Ireland, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  79. Committee on Safety of Medicines. Dystonia and withdrawal symptoms with paroxetine (Seroxat). Current Probl Pharmacovig 1993; 19: 1

    Google Scholar 

  80. Price JS, Waller PC, Wood SM, et al. A comparison of the post-marketing safety of four selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors including the investigation of symptoms during withdrawal. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1996; 42: 757–63

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Teicher MT, Glod C, Cole JO. Emergence of intense suicidal preoccupation during fluoxetine treatment. Am J Psychiatry 1990; 147: 207–10

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Dasgupta K. Additional cases of suicidal ideation associated with fluoxetine [letter]. Am J Psychiatry 1990; 147: 1570

    Google Scholar 

  83. Creaney W, Murray I, Healy D. Antidepressant-induced suicidal ideation. Hum Psychopharmacol 1991; 6: 329–32

    Google Scholar 

  84. King RA, Riddle MA, Chappell PB, et al. Emergence of self-destructive phenomena in children and adolescents during fluoxetine treatment. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1991; 30: 179–186

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Koizumi H. Fluoxetine and suicidal ideation [letter]. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1991; 30: 695

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Mann JJ, Kapur S. The emergence of suicidal ideation and behavior during antidepressant pharmacotherapy. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1991; 48: 1027–32

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Masand P, Gupta S, Dewan M. Suicidal ideation relating to fluoxetine treatment [letter]. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 420

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Spina E, Perucca E. Newer and older interactions: a comparative review of drug interactions. CNS Drugs 1994; 2: 479–97

    Google Scholar 

  89. Nemeroff CB, DeVane CL, Pollock BG. Newer antidepressants and the cytochrome P450 system. Am J Psychiatry 1996; 153: 311–20

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Harvey AT, Preskorn SH. Cytochrome P450 enzymes: interpretation of their interactions with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Part 1. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1996a; 16: 273–85

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Harvey AT, Preskorn SH. Cytochrome P450 enzymes: interpretation of their interactions with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Part II. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1996b; 16: 345–55

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Preskorn SH. Clinically relevant pharmacology of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: an overview with emphasis on pharmacokinetics and effects on oxidative drug metabolism. Clin Pharmacokinet 1997; 32 (Suppl. 1): 1–21

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. British National Formulary, Number 35 (March 1998) London: British Medical Association & Pharmaceutical Press, 1998; 554–85

    Google Scholar 

  94. Henry JA, Alexander CA, Sener EK. Relative mortality from overdose of antidepressants. BMJ 1995; 310: 221–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Roos JC. Cardiac effects of antidepressant drugs: a comparison of the tricyclic antidepressants and fluvoxamine. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1983; 15: 439S–45S

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Fisch C. Effect of fluoxetine on the electrocardiogram. J Clin Psychiatry 1985; 46: 42–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Upward JW, Edwards JG, Goldie A, et al. Comparative effects of fluoxetine and amitriptyline on cardiac function. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1988; 26: 399–402

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Edwards JG, Goldie A, Papayanni-Papasthatis S. The effect of paroxetine on the electrocardiogram. Psychopharmacology 1989; 97: 96–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Warrington SJ, Dan-Heeri J, Sinclair AT. Cardiovascular and psychomotor effects of repeated doses of paroxetine: a comparison with amitriptyline and placebo in healthy men. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1989; 80 Suppl. 350: 42–4

    Google Scholar 

  100. Guy S, Silke B. The electrocardiogram as a tool for therapeutic monitoring: a critical analysis. J Clin Psychiatry 1990; Suppl. B: 37-9

  101. Grundemar L, Wohlfart B, Lagerstedt C, et al. Symptoms and signs of severe citalopram overdose [letter]. Lancet 1997; 349: 1602

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Wernicke JF. The side effect profile and safety of fluoxetine. J Clin Psychiatry 1985; 3 Sec 2: 59–67

    Google Scholar 

  103. Garnier R, Azoyan P, Chataigner D, et al. Acute fluvoxamine poisoning. J Int Med Res 1993; 21: 197–208

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Dechant KL, Clissold SP. Paroxetine: a review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic potential in depressive illness. Drugs 1991; 41: 225–53

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Goldney RD, Trowse MM, Chia MM. Direct cost saving of SSRI overdose. Med J Aust 1995; 162: 668–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Ostrom M, Eriksson A, Thorson J, et al. Fatal overdose with citalopram [letter]. Lancet 1996; 34: 339–40

    Google Scholar 

  107. Brion F, Brion N, Durigon M. Fatal overdose with citalopram? [letter]. Lancet 1996; 348: 1380

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Personne M, Persson H, Sjoberg G. Citalopram toxicity [letter]. Lancet 1997; 350: 518–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Glassman AH. Citalopram toxicity [letter]. Lancet 1997; 350: 818

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Gregor KJ, Overhage JM, Coons SJ, et al. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor dose titration in the naturalistic setting. Clin Ther 1994; 16: 306–315

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Donoghue JM. Prescribing patterns of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in primary care: a naturalistic follow up study. J Serotonin Res 1996 4: 267–70

    Google Scholar 

  112. Jonsson B, Bebbington P. What price depression? The cost of depression and the cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatment. Br J Psychiatry 1994; 164: 665–73

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. Woods SW, Rizzo JA. Cost-effectiveness of antidepressant treatment reassessed. Br J Psychiatry 1997 170: 257–63

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. Sclar DA, Robison LM, Skaer TL, et al. Antidepressant pharmacotherapy: economic outcomes in a health maintenance organisation. Clin Ther 1994; 16: 715–30

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Inman W, Pearce G. Prescriber profile and post-marketing surveillance. Lancet 1993; 342: 658–61

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Lejoyeux M. Ades J, Mourad I, et al. Antidepressant withdrawal syndrome: recognition, prevention and management. CNS Drugs 1996; 5: 278–92

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Edwards G. Guide to management of antidepressant withdrawal. Prescriber 1998; 9: 107–9

    Google Scholar 

  118. Haddad P, Lejoyeux M, Young A. Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome. BMJ 1998; 316: 1105–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, Health and Biological Sciences, Department of Psychiatry, Royal South Hants Hospital, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO14 0YG, England

    J. Guy Edwards

  2. School of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, University of Manchester, Rawnsley Building, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, England

    Ian Anderson

Authors
  1. J. Guy Edwards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ian Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Edwards, J.G., Anderson, I. Systematic Review and Guide to Selection of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors. Drugs 57, 507–533 (1999). https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-199957040-00005

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-199957040-00005

Keywords

Search

Navigation