human
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: CONTEXT Previous studies indicate that industry-sponsored trials tend to draw proindustry conclusions . OBJECTIVE To explore whether the association between funding and conclusions in r and omized drug trials reflects treatment effects or adverse events . DESIGN Observational study of 370 r and omized drug trials included in meta-analyses from Cochrane review s selected from the Cochrane Library , May 2001 . From a r and om sample of 167 Cochrane review s , 25 contained eligible meta-analyses ( assessed a binary outcome ; pooled at least 5 full-paper trials of which at least 1 reported adequate and 1 reported inadequate allocation concealment ) . The primary binary outcome from each meta- analysis was considered the primary outcome for all trials included in each meta- analysis . The association between funding and conclusions was analyzed by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment effect , adverse events , and additional confounding factors ( method ological quality , control intervention , sample size , publication year , and place of publication ) . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Conclusions in trials , classified into whether the experimental drug was recommended as the treatment of choice or not . RESULTS The experimental drug was recommended as treatment of choice in 16 % of trials funded by nonprofit organizations , 30 % of trials not reporting funding , 35 % of trials funded by both nonprofit and for-profit organizations , and 51 % of trials funded by for-profit organizations ( P<.001 ; chi2 test ) . Logistic regression analyses indicated that funding , treatment effect , and double blinding were the only significant predictors of conclusions . Adjusted analyses showed that trials funded by for-profit organizations were significantly more likely to recommend the experimental drug as treatment of choice ( odds ratio , 5.3 ; 95 % confidence interval , 2.0 - 14.4 ) compared with trials funded by nonprofit organizations . This association did not appear to reflect treatment effect or adverse events . CONCLUSIONS Conclusions in trials funded by for-profit organizations may be more positive due to biased interpretation of trial results . Readers should carefully evaluate whether conclusions in r and omized trials are supported by data BACKGROUND Depression is now seen as a chronic disabling condition that spans the patient 's lifetime and creates significant medical , economic and quality of life consequences . METHODS 500 depressed patients were treated with milnacipran for 6 months . A total of 214 recovered patients were r and omised to receive either milnacipran ( 50 mg bid ) or a matching placebo for a 1-year recurrence prevention phase . Recurrence rate was the primary criteria ; quality of life ( QoL ) consequences were evaluated through a shortened version of the French Sickness Impact Profile ( SIP ) , the Depression Impact Profile ( DIP ) . RESULTS Milnacipran demonstrated its ability to reduce recurrences ( Odds-Ratio=1.5 ; P<0.05 ) , with a more marked effect in recovered patients with few residual symptoms ( Odds-Ratio=3.0 ) . Responders who continued treatment with milnacipran had a dramatic improvement in their quality of life , although patients with residual symptoms still experienced some deterioration in their QoL ( recreation , emotional , social , alertness and home assistance scores ) . Even recovered patients having zero scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-21 items ( HDRS ) had some QoL deterioration . The DIP emotional score was found to be more predictive of recurrence than the HDRS . Overall , the QoL was improved for those in the milnacipran group in comparison to placebo on the mobility , communication , psycho-social and total scores . LIMITATIONS The QoL evaluation was a secondary criteria ; no a priori sample size estimate was performed . The choice of a generic QoL instrument might have reduced the sensitivity to clinical changes in depression . CONCLUSIONS Prevention of recurrence in MDD with milnacipran contributes to an improvement in the Abstract Objective To examine the extent and nature of outcome reporting bias in a broad cohort of published r and omised trials . Design Retrospective review of publications and follow up survey of authors . Cohort All journal articles of r and omised trials indexed in PubMed whose primary publication appeared in December 2000 . Main outcome measures Prevalence of incompletely reported outcomes per trial ; reasons for not reporting outcomes ; association between completeness of reporting and statistical significance . Results 519 trials with 553 publications and 10 557 outcomes were identified . Survey responders ( response rate 69 % ) provided information on unreported outcomes but were often unreliable — for 32 % of those who denied the existence of such outcomes there was evidence to the contrary in their publications . On average , over 20 % of the outcomes measured in a parallel group trial were incompletely reported . Within a trial , such outcomes had a higher odds of being statistically non-significant compared with fully reported outcomes ( odds ratio 2.0 ( 95 % confidence interval 1.6 to 2.7 ) for efficacy outcomes ; 1.9 ( 1.1 to 3.5 ) for harm outcomes ) . The most commonly reported reasons for omitting efficacy outcomes included space constraints , lack of clinical importance , and lack of statistical significance . Conclusions Incomplete reporting of outcomes within published articles of r and omised trials is common and is associated with statistical non- significance . The medical literature therefore represents a selective and biased subset of study outcomes , and trial protocol s should be made publicly available Milnacipran is a new antidepressive drug , a combined noradrenaline/serotonin ( NA/5‐HT ) reuptake inhibitor , which has been suggested to be as effective as and better tolerated than tricyclic antidepressants . Since long‐term studies are lacking , we compared the efficacy , safety and tolerability of milnacipran and clomipramine in a double‐blind , r and omized , parallel‐group study setting during 26 weeks of treatment in patients with major depression . A total of 107 patients were treated with either milnacipran  ( n=52 ) or clomipramine ( n=55 ) . Due to active treatment of duration less than 12 days in four patients and protocol deviation in one patient , in total 47 milnacipran‐treated patients were eligible for efficacy analysis . Nine patients in the clomipramine group continued on active treatment for less than 12 days . Thus 46 clomipramine‐treated patients were finally included in the efficacy analysis . After 1 week of dose escalation , there was a fixed dosage regimen of either milnacipran ( 200 mg daily ) or clomipramine ( 150 mg daily ) during weeks 2 to 10 , followed by flexible dosing of milnacipran ( 100,150 or 200 mg daily ) or clomipramine ( 75 , 100 or 150 mg daily ) during weeks 11 to 26 . A total of 53 patients ( 49 % ) completed the 26‐week study period ; 21 % ( 11/52 ) of the patients in the milnacipran group and 38 % ( 21/55 ) of the patients in the clomipramine group discontinued their medication prematurely due to adverse events , whereas 19 % ( 10/52 ) of those on milnacipran and 7 % ( 4/55 ) of those on clomipramine treatment withdrew due to either lack of efficacy or clinical deterioration . The mean change ( ±SD ) in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ( HAMD ) score between the baseline and the last rating ranged from 23.7±3.1 to 12.0±9.5 in the milnacipran‐treated patients and from 23.1±3.5 to 8.0±8.5 in the clomipramine‐treated patients , revealing a significant difference in favour of clomipramine . In total 58 % of the milnacipran‐treated patients vs. 72 % of the clomipramine‐treated patients showed a ≥50 % reduction in their baseline HAMD scores and 45 % vs. 63 % had an HAMD score of ≤7 at the last rating , respectively . Moreover , the time to the onset of the antidepressant action ( defined as ≥50 % reduction of the baseline HAMD score ) showed a significant difference in favour of clomipramine . In addition , clomipramine was significantly more efficacious in patients with a baseline HAMD score of ≥24 as evidence d by the analysis of the HAMD score at week 6 and at the last rating . The Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale ( MADRS ) and the Clinical Global Impression ( CGI ) scale did not show significant differences between the treatment groups . The safety analysis did not reveal any differences of clinical significance in cardiovascular variables between the study drugs . Dry mouth was significantly less frequently reported by the milnacipran‐treated patients during the early and later phases ( weeks 6 to 26 ) of the study , while insomnia was more common in the milnacipran group during weeks 1 to 6 . In conclusion , milnacipran appeared to be less effective  than clomipramine in the long‐term treatment of depression . The side‐effects of the drugs differed to a certain extent , and milnacipran tended to be somewhat better tolerated  than clomipramine Milnacipran is a new potential antidepressant selected for its equipotent inhibition of noradrenaline and serotonin uptake and its lack of effect at any postsynaptic receptor . We recently compared milnacipran 100 and 50 mg/d and amitriptyline 150 mg/d in three parallel r and omized groups of major depressive in patients and found a statistically significant superiority of milnacipran 100 mg/d and amitriptyline over milnacipran 50 mg/d after 4 weeks of treatment . Later on we found similar improvement with milnacipran 200 mg and amitriptyline 150 mg but better tolerance with milnacipran . In order to compare the therapeutic activity of the three doses of milnacipran ( 50 mg/d , 100 mg/d , and 200 mg/d ) we used the responses to amitriptyline  as a reference against which to compare the 3 doses of the new drug using analysis of variance on the adjusted data . This approach reveals milnacipran 200 mg is more effective than milnacipran 50 and 100 mg and is the only dose which shows efficacy at least equivalent to that of amitriptyline 150 mg . The dose/efficacy relationship was linear BACKGROUND Milnacipran is a dual-action antidepressant which inhibits both serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake with no affinity for any neurotransmitter receptor studied . METHODS A 6-week double-blind multicentre study compared milnacipran ( 100 mg/day ) with paroxetine ( 20 mg/day ) in 300 out patients with major depression . Efficacy was evaluated using HAMD17 , MADRS and CGI for severity of illness and global improvement . Data were analysed on an intention to treat , last observation carried forward , basis . RESULTS Milnacipran and paroxetine were both effective and well tolerated with no significant difference in their effects . After treatment discontinuation , milnacipran was associated with significantly less emergent symptoms . Responders , at endpoint , to milnacipran had significantly greater levels of psychomotor retardation at baseline than non-responders . LIMITATIONS The study did not include a placebo group so that it is impossible to determine absolute levels of efficacy . CONCLUSIONS Both milnacipran and paroxetine were effective and well tolerated by out patients with major depression treated for 6 weeks . After treatment discontinuation milnacipran was associated with less emergent symptoms . Psychomotor retardation at baseline may be a predictive factor of a favourable response to milnacipran The antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran , a dual action serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor , were compared with those of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor , fluvoxamine , in 113 patients with moderate to severe major depression . Treatment with milnacipran , 50 mg b.d . for 6 weeks , produced a significantly greater reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale ( MADRS ) scores than fluvoxamine , 100 mg b.d . ( P = 0.007 ; 65.4 % versus 49.9 % , respectively ) ; significantly greater decreases were also seen on days 7 ( P = 0.04 ) and 28 ( P = 0.03 ) . The response rate ( the proportion of patients showing a decrease in MADRS scores of at least 50 % ) was 78.9 % in patients receiving milnacipran , compared with 60.7 % in fluvoxamine-treated patients ( P = 0.04 ) . Milnacipran also produced greater improvements in 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores ( P = 0.05 ) . On the Clinical Global Impression Improvement scale , 77.2 % of milnacipran-treated patients were rated as considerably or markedly improved , compared with 60.7 % of patients receiving fluvoxamine ( P = 0.06 chi-squared ) . Both treatments were well tolerated ; the only significant difference between the two groups was a higher incidence of tremor and drowsiness in patients treated with fluvoxamine . It is concluded that milnacipran may offer some advantages over selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors , such as fluvoxamine , in the treatment of 
    Output:
    
agent
There was also some weak evidence to suggest that patients taking milnacipran experienced fewer adverse events of sleepiness/ drowsiness , dry mouth or constipation compared with TCAs .
AUTHORS ' CONCLUSIONS Currently , there is inadequate evidence to conclude whether milnacipran is superior , inferior or the same as other antidepressive agents in terms of efficacy , acceptability and tolerability in the acute phase treatment of major depression .
However , there is some evidence in favour of milnacipran over TCAs in terms of dropouts due to adverse events ( acceptability ) and the rates of experiencing adverse events ( tolerability ) .
Further study is needed to answer whether milnacipran would be the better choice of antidepressant for acute major depression
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: CONTEXT Previous studies indicate that industry-sponsored trials tend to draw proindustry conclusions . OBJECTIVE To explore whether the association between funding and conclusions in r and omized drug trials reflects treatment effects or adverse events . DESIGN Observational study of 370 r and omized drug trials included in meta-analyses from Cochrane review s selected from the Cochrane Library , May 2001 . From a r and om sample of 167 Cochrane review s , 25 contained eligible meta-analyses ( assessed a binary outcome ; pooled at least 5 full-paper trials of which at least 1 reported adequate and 1 reported inadequate allocation concealment ) . The primary binary outcome from each meta- analysis was considered the primary outcome for all trials included in each meta- analysis . The association between funding and conclusions was analyzed by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment effect , adverse events , and additional confounding factors ( method ological quality , control intervention , sample size , publication year , and place of publication ) . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Conclusions in trials , classified into whether the experimental drug was recommended as the treatment of choice or not . RESULTS The experimental drug was recommended as treatment of choice in 16 % of trials funded by nonprofit organizations , 30 % of trials not reporting funding , 35 % of trials funded by both nonprofit and for-profit organizations , and 51 % of trials funded by for-profit organizations ( P<.001 ; chi2 test ) . Logistic regression analyses indicated that funding , treatment effect , and double blinding were the only significant predictors of conclusions . Adjusted analyses showed that trials funded by for-profit organizations were significantly more likely to recommend the experimental drug as treatment of choice ( odds ratio , 5.3 ; 95 % confidence interval , 2.0 - 14.4 ) compared with trials funded by nonprofit organizations . This association did not appear to reflect treatment effect or adverse events . CONCLUSIONS Conclusions in trials funded by for-profit organizations may be more positive due to biased interpretation of trial results . Readers should carefully evaluate whether conclusions in r and omized trials are supported by data BACKGROUND Depression is now seen as a chronic disabling condition that spans the patient 's lifetime and creates significant medical , economic and quality of life consequences . METHODS 500 depressed patients were treated with milnacipran for 6 months . A total of 214 recovered patients were r and omised to receive either milnacipran ( 50 mg bid ) or a matching placebo for a 1-year recurrence prevention phase . Recurrence rate was the primary criteria ; quality of life ( QoL ) consequences were evaluated through a shortened version of the French Sickness Impact Profile ( SIP ) , the Depression Impact Profile ( DIP ) . RESULTS Milnacipran demonstrated its ability to reduce recurrences ( Odds-Ratio=1.5 ; P<0.05 ) , with a more marked effect in recovered patients with few residual symptoms ( Odds-Ratio=3.0 ) . Responders who continued treatment with milnacipran had a dramatic improvement in their quality of life , although patients with residual symptoms still experienced some deterioration in their QoL ( recreation , emotional , social , alertness and home assistance scores ) . Even recovered patients having zero scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-21 items ( HDRS ) had some QoL deterioration . The DIP emotional score was found to be more predictive of recurrence than the HDRS . Overall , the QoL was improved for those in the milnacipran group in comparison to placebo on the mobility , communication , psycho-social and total scores . LIMITATIONS The QoL evaluation was a secondary criteria ; no a priori sample size estimate was performed . The choice of a generic QoL instrument might have reduced the sensitivity to clinical changes in depression . CONCLUSIONS Prevention of recurrence in MDD with milnacipran contributes to an improvement in the Abstract Objective To examine the extent and nature of outcome reporting bias in a broad cohort of published r and omised trials . Design Retrospective review of publications and follow up survey of authors . Cohort All journal articles of r and omised trials indexed in PubMed whose primary publication appeared in December 2000 . Main outcome measures Prevalence of incompletely reported outcomes per trial ; reasons for not reporting outcomes ; association between completeness of reporting and statistical significance . Results 519 trials with 553 publications and 10 557 outcomes were identified . Survey responders ( response rate 69 % ) provided information on unreported outcomes but were often unreliable — for 32 % of those who denied the existence of such outcomes there was evidence to the contrary in their publications . On average , over 20 % of the outcomes measured in a parallel group trial were incompletely reported . Within a trial , such outcomes had a higher odds of being statistically non-significant compared with fully reported outcomes ( odds ratio 2.0 ( 95 % confidence interval 1.6 to 2.7 ) for efficacy outcomes ; 1.9 ( 1.1 to 3.5 ) for harm outcomes ) . The most commonly reported reasons for omitting efficacy outcomes included space constraints , lack of clinical importance , and lack of statistical significance . Conclusions Incomplete reporting of outcomes within published articles of r and omised trials is common and is associated with statistical non- significance . The medical literature therefore represents a selective and biased subset of study outcomes , and trial protocol s should be made publicly available Milnacipran is a new antidepressive drug , a combined noradrenaline/serotonin ( NA/5‐HT ) reuptake inhibitor , which has been suggested to be as effective as and better tolerated than tricyclic antidepressants . Since long‐term studies are lacking , we compared the efficacy , safety and tolerability of milnacipran and clomipramine in a double‐blind , r and omized , parallel‐group study setting during 26 weeks of treatment in patients with major depression . A total of 107 patients were treated with either milnacipran  ( n=52 ) or clomipramine ( n=55 ) . Due to active treatment of duration less than 12 days in four patients and protocol deviation in one patient , in total 47 milnacipran‐treated patients were eligible for efficacy analysis . Nine patients in the clomipramine group continued on active treatment for less than 12 days . Thus 46 clomipramine‐treated patients were finally included in the efficacy analysis . After 1 week of dose escalation , there was a fixed dosage regimen of either milnacipran ( 200 mg daily ) or clomipramine ( 150 mg daily ) during weeks 2 to 10 , followed by flexible dosing of milnacipran ( 100,150 or 200 mg daily ) or clomipramine ( 75 , 100 or 150 mg daily ) during weeks 11 to 26 . A total of 53 patients ( 49 % ) completed the 26‐week study period ; 21 % ( 11/52 ) of the patients in the milnacipran group and 38 % ( 21/55 ) of the patients in the clomipramine group discontinued their medication prematurely due to adverse events , whereas 19 % ( 10/52 ) of those on milnacipran and 7 % ( 4/55 ) of those on clomipramine treatment withdrew due to either lack of efficacy or clinical deterioration . The mean change ( ±SD ) in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ( HAMD ) score between the baseline and the last rating ranged from 23.7±3.1 to 12.0±9.5 in the milnacipran‐treated patients and from 23.1±3.5 to 8.0±8.5 in the clomipramine‐treated patients , revealing a significant difference in favour of clomipramine . In total 58 % of the milnacipran‐treated patients vs. 72 % of the clomipramine‐treated patients showed a ≥50 % reduction in their baseline HAMD scores and 45 % vs. 63 % had an HAMD score of ≤7 at the last rating , respectively . Moreover , the time to the onset of the antidepressant action ( defined as ≥50 % reduction of the baseline HAMD score ) showed a significant difference in favour of clomipramine . In addition , clomipramine was significantly more efficacious in patients with a baseline HAMD score of ≥24 as evidence d by the analysis of the HAMD score at week 6 and at the last rating . The Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale ( MADRS ) and the Clinical Global Impression ( CGI ) scale did not show significant differences between the treatment groups . The safety analysis did not reveal any differences of clinical significance in cardiovascular variables between the study drugs . Dry mouth was significantly less frequently reported by the milnacipran‐treated patients during the early and later phases ( weeks 6 to 26 ) of the study , while insomnia was more common in the milnacipran group during weeks 1 to 6 . In conclusion , milnacipran appeared to be less effective  than clomipramine in the long‐term treatment of depression . The side‐effects of the drugs differed to a certain extent , and milnacipran tended to be somewhat better tolerated  than clomipramine Milnacipran is a new potential antidepressant selected for its equipotent inhibition of noradrenaline and serotonin uptake and its lack of effect at any postsynaptic receptor . We recently compared milnacipran 100 and 50 mg/d and amitriptyline 150 mg/d in three parallel r and omized groups of major depressive in patients and found a statistically significant superiority of milnacipran 100 mg/d and amitriptyline over milnacipran 50 mg/d after 4 weeks of treatment . Later on we found similar improvement with milnacipran 200 mg and amitriptyline 150 mg but better tolerance with milnacipran . In order to compare the therapeutic activity of the three doses of milnacipran ( 50 mg/d , 100 mg/d , and 200 mg/d ) we used the responses to amitriptyline  as a reference against which to compare the 3 doses of the new drug using analysis of variance on the adjusted data . This approach reveals milnacipran 200 mg is more effective than milnacipran 50 and 100 mg and is the only dose which shows efficacy at least equivalent to that of amitriptyline 150 mg . The dose/efficacy relationship was linear BACKGROUND Milnacipran is a dual-action antidepressant which inhibits both serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake with no affinity for any neurotransmitter receptor studied . METHODS A 6-week double-blind multicentre study compared milnacipran ( 100 mg/day ) with paroxetine ( 20 mg/day ) in 300 out patients with major depression . Efficacy was evaluated using HAMD17 , MADRS and CGI for severity of illness and global improvement . Data were analysed on an intention to treat , last observation carried forward , basis . RESULTS Milnacipran and paroxetine were both effective and well tolerated with no significant difference in their effects . After treatment discontinuation , milnacipran was associated with significantly less emergent symptoms . Responders , at endpoint , to milnacipran had significantly greater levels of psychomotor retardation at baseline than non-responders . LIMITATIONS The study did not include a placebo group so that it is impossible to determine absolute levels of efficacy . CONCLUSIONS Both milnacipran and paroxetine were effective and well tolerated by out patients with major depression treated for 6 weeks . After treatment discontinuation milnacipran was associated with less emergent symptoms . Psychomotor retardation at baseline may be a predictive factor of a favourable response to milnacipran The antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran , a dual action serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor , were compared with those of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor , fluvoxamine , in 113 patients with moderate to severe major depression . Treatment with milnacipran , 50 mg b.d . for 6 weeks , produced a significantly greater reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale ( MADRS ) scores than fluvoxamine , 100 mg b.d . ( P = 0.007 ; 65.4 % versus 49.9 % , respectively ) ; significantly greater decreases were also seen on days 7 ( P = 0.04 ) and 28 ( P = 0.03 ) . The response rate ( the proportion of patients showing a decrease in MADRS scores of at least 50 % ) was 78.9 % in patients receiving milnacipran , compared with 60.7 % in fluvoxamine-treated patients ( P = 0.04 ) . Milnacipran also produced greater improvements in 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores ( P = 0.05 ) . On the Clinical Global Impression Improvement scale , 77.2 % of milnacipran-treated patients were rated as considerably or markedly improved , compared with 60.7 % of patients receiving fluvoxamine ( P = 0.06 chi-squared ) . Both treatments were well tolerated ; the only significant difference between the two groups was a higher incidence of tremor and drowsiness in patients treated with fluvoxamine . It is concluded that milnacipran may offer some advantages over selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors , such as fluvoxamine , in the treatment of 
    Output:
    