10001606 J Clin Psychiatry / Document Archive

Psychiatrist.com Home    Keyword Search

Close [X]

Search Our Sites

Enter search terms below (keywords, titles, authors, or subjects). Then select a category to search and press the Search button. All words are assumed to be required. To search for an exact phrase, put it in quotes. To exclude a term, precede it with a minus sign (-).

Keyword search:

Choose a category:

Choosing the appropriate category will greatly improve your chances of finding the best match.

All files at our sites: J Clin Psychiatry, Primary Care Companion, CME Institute, and MedFair

Search materials from our journals:

Abstracts from The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 1996–present, both regular issues and supplements

PDFs of the full text of The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 1996–present, both regular issues and supplements (Net Society Platinum [paid subscribers])

PDFs of the full text of The Primary Care Companion to The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 1999–present

Search CME offerings:

CME Institute, including CME from journals , supplements, and Web activities for instant CME credit (Net Society Gold [registered users]); also includes information about our CME program

CME activities from regular issues of The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (Net Society Gold [registered users])

CME Supplements from The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (Net Society Gold [registered users])


The article you requested is

Assessing the Comparative Effectiveness of Antidepressant Therapies: A Prospective Clinical Practice Study.

J Clin Psychiatry 2001;62:117-125
Copyright 2001 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.

To view this item, select one of the options below.

    1. Purchase this PDF for $40
      If you are not a paid subscriber, you may purchase the PDF.
      (You'll need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.)
    2. Subscribe
      Receive immediate full-text access to JCP. You can subscribe to JCP print + online for $166 individual.
      JCP's 75th AnniversaryCelebrate!
      Celebrate JCP's 75th Anniversary with a special online-only subscription price of $75.
    1. Activate
      If you are a paid subscriber to JCP and do not yet have a username and password, activate your subscription now.
    2. Sign in
      As a paid subscriber who has activated your subscription, you have access to the HTML and PDF versions of this item.
  1. Did you forget your password?

Still can't log in? Contact the Circulation Department at 1-800-489-1001 x4 or send an email


Background: Although efficacy studies suggest equal potency among antidepressant treatments, their effectiveness in clinical practice appears more variable, particularly in that the newer antidepressants may be less effective in either more severe depression or the melancholic subtype of depression. We pursue some factors that may impact the effectiveness of antidepressant treatments in a clinical sample.

Method: A sample of 182 patients with DSM-IV major depressive disorder was assessed at baseline and 12 months later to establish treatments provided, identify patients who had recovered from the index episode, and quantify likely treatment determinants. Four systems for distinguishing patients with melancholic and nonmelancholic depression were examined to assess for differential effects of the antidepressant strategies across those subtypes.

Results: Multimodal therapy (commonly, psychotherapy combined with an antidepressant drug) and patients' frequent attribution of recovery to spontaneous improvement made for difficulty in disentangling recovery determinants. After excluding a spontaneous improvement component, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and the irreversible monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) appeared to be the most effective therapies across the sample, while the reversible inhibitor of monoamine oxidase-A (RIMA) appeared to be the least effective. The distinct gradient of suggested effectiveness of various strategies appeared to be contributed to principally by the varied effectiveness of alternate treatments across the melancholic subtype, whereby ECT, tricyclic antidepressants, and MAOIs were the most effective, and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), RIMAs, and antipsychotic drugs were much less effective. For the nonmelancholic disorders, the effectiveness of SSRIs appeared to be comparable with that of older antidepressants.

Conclusion: Although most patients received a physical treatment, they commonly judged psychotherapy and spontaneous improvement to be influential in their recovery. Reasons for such attributions are worthy of clarifying studies. Despite patients' concerns about the side effects and stigma of ECT as well as the side effects associated with the older antidepressants, these therapies were rated as more helpful by patients--and were more strongly associated with recovery--than the newer antidepressant drugs. Such overall results are compatible with an earlier study undertaken by us involving an independent sample and retrospective data. The overall gradient is clarified by studying depressive subtypes, allowing an important conclusion. Although the newer and older antidepressant drugs may be of similar effectiveness in nonmelancholic depression, the newer agents appear comparatively inferior for the treatment of melancholia, findings that have clinical implications and perhaps inform us about the pathogenesis of melancholia.