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 & NA ; Primary care patients with a major depressive disorder and 17‐item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression ( 17‐HAM‐D ) score > 18 were r and omized to 24 weeks of treatment with mirtazapine  30‐45 mg/day ( n= 99 ) or paroxetine 20‐30 mg/day ( n=98 ) . Both treatments were efficacious in improving depressive symptomatology , as assessed by group mean 17‐HAM‐D scores , percentages of HAM‐D responders and remitters and Clinical Global Improvement responders . The mirtazapine group showed statistically significantly larger decreases from baseline in group mean 17‐HAM‐D scores at weeks 1 , 2 and 4 , and the difference with the paroxetine group reached the level of clinical relevance at weeks 2 and 4 . Antidepressant efficacy was maintained throughout both the acute and continuation phase of treatment . Both treatments were well tolerated . The only adverse event with a statistically significantly higher incidence in the mirtazapine group was fatigue . Statistically significantly more paroxetine‐treated patients complained of increased sweating , headache and nausea . The results demonstrate that both mirtazapine and paroxetine were efficacious and well tolerated when used for 24 weeks in depressed patients treated in primary care . An observed difference in efficacy favouring mirtazapine between weeks 1 and 4 indicates that mirtazapine patients had improved earlier compared to those on paroxetine , and corroborates similar findings in other comparisons of mirtazapine versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors ABSTRACT Objective : This trial was conducted to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a fixed dose of escitalopram 10 mg/day with sertraline optimally dosed within its recommended dose range ( 50–200 mg/day ) for the treatment of major depressive disorder . Methods : In this multicenter trial , depressed patients ( DSM‑IV defined ; baseline Montgomery – Asberg Depression Rating Scale [ MADRS ] ≥ 22 ) aged 18–80 years were r and omly assigned to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with escitalopram ( 10 mg/day ) or sertraline ( 50–200 mg/day ) following a 1‑week single-blind placebo lead-in period . There was no placebo comparison arm . Sertraline was initiated at 50 mg/day , and could be increased by 50 mg/day at weekly intervals based on clinical need and tolerability at the lower dose level . The blind was maintained with matching double-blind placebo capsules for the escitalopram group . Change from baseline to endpoint in MADRS total score ( last observation carried forward ) was the primary efficacy measure . Results : A total of 212 patients received double-blind medication . At week 8 , the mean sertraline dosage was 144 mg/day ( median = 150 mg/day ) . Mean changes from baseline to endpoint in MADRS scores were –19.1 and –18.4 for the escitalopram and sertraline groups , respectively . At endpoint , 75 % and 70 % of escitalopram- and sertraline-treated patients , respectively , were responders ( ≥ 50 % improvement from baseline in mean MADRS scores ) . Both treatments were generally well tolerated ; only 2 % and 4 % of patients prematurely discontinued escitalopram and sertraline treatment , respectively , due to adverse events . Conclusion : No differences in efficacy were observed for fixed-dose escitalopram 10 mg/day and sertraline flexibly dosed from 50–200 mg/day . At these doses , both escitalopram and sertraline were generally well tolerated Background : the efficacy and tolerability of the new antidepressant mirtazapine were evaluated in a multicentre , r and omized , double-blind , amitriptyline-controlled , 5 week clinical study . Method : 156 patients with a DSM-III diagnosis of major depressive episode and 21-item Hamilton Psychiatric Rating Scale for Depression ( HPRSD ) score ≥ 18 , were r and omized to treatment with either mirtazapine  20 - 60 mg/day or amitriptyline  75 - 225 mg/day . Results : mirtazapine and amitriptyline were equally effective in reducing depressive symptoms , as assessed by the 17-item HPRSD and MADRS scales . Mirtazapine was better tolerated than amitriptyline , with fewer drop-outs due to adverse events and lower incidences of adverse events both at the beginning and at the end of the trial . Conclusion : this study shows that mirtazapine is as effective as amitriptyline in treating major depression , while at the same time better tolerated BACKGROUND Previous comparative studies of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors ( SSRIs ) have rarely included a placebo control group and have rarely demonstrated significant between-group differences . The study reported on here was a placebo-controlled comparison of the antidepressant effects of two SSRIs , citalopram and sertraline . METHODS Three hundred twenty-three patients with DSM-IV-defined major depressive disorder were r and omized to 24 weeks of double-blind treatment with citalopram ( 20 - 60 mg/day ) , sertraline ( 50 - 150 mg/day ) , or a placebo . The primary efficacy measure was the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ( HAMD ) and the primary statistical analysis was an analysis of variance comparing the change from baseline to the last observation carried forward in each treatment group . RESULTS Both citalopram and sertraline produced significantly greater improvement than placebo on the HAMD , the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale , and the Clinical Global Impression Scale . Significant improvement was observed at earlier timepoints in the citalopram group than the sertraline group ; however , sertraline treatment was associated with increased gastrointestinal side effects and a tendency toward early discontinuation , and analyses that excluded early dropouts revealed similar acute efficacy for the two active treatments . The Hamilton Anxiety Scale demonstrated a significant anxiolytic effect of citalopram , but not sertraline , relative to placebo . CONCLUSIONS This study confirms the antidepressant efficacy of two SSRIs , citalopram and sertraline . It is hypothesized that the more consistent evidence of antidepressant activity that was observed early in treatment in the citalopram group was related to more pronounced antianxiety effects and better tolerability upon initiation of therapy OBJECTIVE The objective of this double-blind , multi-center clinical study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of hypericum extract versus sertraline in the treatment of moderate depression . METHODS A total of 241 patients with a diagnosis of moderate depressive disorder ( according to ICD-10 criteria ) were r and omized with either 50 mg sertraline or 612 mg hypericum extract ( hypericum group n = 123 ; sertraline group n = 118 ) . According to the study protocol , 200 patients were treated for at least 12 weeks ( n = 102 hypericum extract ; n = 98 sertraline )  ; 81 patients in the hypericum group and 80 in the sertraline group were treated after week 12 for an additional 12 weeks . Thus , most patients were treated for a period of 6 months . The primary efficacy variable was the 17-item HAMD total score at the end of the first 12-week double-blind treatment period . RESULTS After the first 12-week treatment period , the HAMD score decreased from almost identical initial values ( 22.0 + /- 1.1 for hypericum and 22.1 + /- 1.1 points for sertraline ) to 8.3 + /- 5.5 points ( hypericum ) and 8.1 + /- 5.6 points ( sertraline ) ( mean + /- SD ) in the patients treated per- protocol ( PP ) population . The statistical test for non-inferiority ( boundary delta = 3 ) revealed that hypericum extract is not inferior to sertraline ( P < 0.0001 ) . The mean difference between the treatments was 0.1995 points , with a corresponding one-sided 97.5 % confidence interval ( -infinity , 1.3772 ) . In patients who continued treatment in the follow-up phase , the HAMD score at the end of the study was 5.7 + /- 4.8 points ( hypericum group ) and 7.1 + /- 6.3 points ( sertraline group ) . Comparable improvement was also found for the von Zerssen 's Adjective Mood Scale ( BfS ) and CGI during the first and second 12-week treatment period in both treatment groups . With 68.6 % of patients in the hypericum group and 70.4 % in the sertraline group , the percentage of patients rated as responders did not differ significantly between treatment groups ( 12 weeks ) . The adverse events of 12 patients in the hypericum group ( 9.8 % ) and of 16 patients in the sertraline group ( 13.6 % ) were possibly related to study medication . No basic differences in the treatment groups were observed and no interaction with concomitant medication was documented . In most cases , the investigators assessed the tolerability of hypericum extract and sertraline as " good " or " very good . " CONCLUSIONS The results indicate that hypericum extract STW 3 is not inferior to sertraline and that it is a well-tolerated drug for the treatment of moderate depression . These favorable effects were achieved with a once-daily dose of 612 mg of hypericum extract given for up to 24 weeks OBJECTIVE Authors studied the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine and paroxetine in elderly patients with major depression during an acute phase ( 8 weeks ) and an extension phase ( 16 weeks ) . METHODS Patients with major depression and without dementia , at least 65 years old , were eligible ; they were r and omized to mirtazapine or paroxetine once daily , with doses increasing over 42 days . Efficacy was assessed with the Ham-D and Clinical Global Impressions Scale , and tolerability was assessed from adverse events . RESULTS Of 255 patients r and omized , 126 on mirtazapine and 120 on paroxetine were included in the efficacy analysis . Differences favoring mirtazapine were observed for the mean change from baseline in Ham-D-17 score . Other significant differences were in the proportion of patients classified as responders ( 50 % decrease from baseline Ham-D-17 scores ) at Day 14 and in remission ( Ham-D-17 score of 7 or less ) at Day 42 . The median time to response was 26 days in the mirtazapine group and 40 days in the paroxetine group . The mirtazapine group also showed more reduction in Ham-D Factor I ( Anxiety/Somatization ) and Factor VI ( Sleep Disturbance ) scores . Efficacy of both drugs was maintained during the extension phase . Patients on paroxetine were more likely to discontinue therapy in the acute phase because of adverse events . CONCLUSION During the first weeks of treatment , antidepressant effects were more pronounced in the mirtazapine group , suggesting that mirtazapine has an earlier onset of action . Mirtazapine also demonstrated a better tolerability profile and represents a valuable option for the treatment of depression in elderly patients A national survey was administer 
    Output:
    
agent
Mirtazapine was significantly more effective than a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor ( venlafaxine only , two trials , n = 415 ) at two weeks ( OR 2.29 , 95 % CI 1.45 to 3.59 ) and at the end of acute-phase treatment ( OR 1.53 , 95 % CI 1.03 to 2.25).In terms of dropouts , there was no robust evidence to detect a difference between mirtazapine and other antidepressants .
Mirtazapine was more likely to cause weight gain or increased appetite and somnolence than SSRIs but less likely to cause nausea or vomiting and sexual dysfunction .
AUTHORS ' CONCLUSIONS Some statistically significant and possibly clinical ly meaningful differences between mirtazapine and other antidepressive agents were found for the acute-phase treatment of major depression .
Mirtazapine is likely to have a faster onset of action than SSRIs during the acute-phase treatment .
Dropouts occur similarly in participants treated with mirtazapine and those treated with other antidepressants , although the adverse event profile of mirtazapine is unique
***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 & NA ; Primary care patients with a major depressive disorder and 17‐item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression ( 17‐HAM‐D ) score > 18 were r and omized to 24 weeks of treatment with mirtazapine  30‐45 mg/day ( n= 99 ) or paroxetine 20‐30 mg/day ( n=98 ) . Both treatments were efficacious in improving depressive symptomatology , as assessed by group mean 17‐HAM‐D scores , percentages of HAM‐D responders and remitters and Clinical Global Improvement responders . The mirtazapine group showed statistically significantly larger decreases from baseline in group mean 17‐HAM‐D scores at weeks 1 , 2 and 4 , and the difference with the paroxetine group reached the level of clinical relevance at weeks 2 and 4 . Antidepressant efficacy was maintained throughout both the acute and continuation phase of treatment . Both treatments were well tolerated . The only adverse event with a statistically significantly higher incidence in the mirtazapine group was fatigue . Statistically significantly more paroxetine‐treated patients complained of increased sweating , headache and nausea . The results demonstrate that both mirtazapine and paroxetine were efficacious and well tolerated when used for 24 weeks in depressed patients treated in primary care . An observed difference in efficacy favouring mirtazapine between weeks 1 and 4 indicates that mirtazapine patients had improved earlier compared to those on paroxetine , and corroborates similar findings in other comparisons of mirtazapine versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors ABSTRACT Objective : This trial was conducted to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a fixed dose of escitalopram 10 mg/day with sertraline optimally dosed within its recommended dose range ( 50–200 mg/day ) for the treatment of major depressive disorder . Methods : In this multicenter trial , depressed patients ( DSM‑IV defined ; baseline Montgomery – Asberg Depression Rating Scale [ MADRS ] ≥ 22 ) aged 18–80 years were r and omly assigned to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with escitalopram ( 10 mg/day ) or sertraline ( 50–200 mg/day ) following a 1‑week single-blind placebo lead-in period . There was no placebo comparison arm . Sertraline was initiated at 50 mg/day , and could be increased by 50 mg/day at weekly intervals based on clinical need and tolerability at the lower dose level . The blind was maintained with matching double-blind placebo capsules for the escitalopram group . Change from baseline to endpoint in MADRS total score ( last observation carried forward ) was the primary efficacy measure . Results : A total of 212 patients received double-blind medication . At week 8 , the mean sertraline dosage was 144 mg/day ( median = 150 mg/day ) . Mean changes from baseline to endpoint in MADRS scores were –19.1 and –18.4 for the escitalopram and sertraline groups , respectively . At endpoint , 75 % and 70 % of escitalopram- and sertraline-treated patients , respectively , were responders ( ≥ 50 % improvement from baseline in mean MADRS scores ) . Both treatments were generally well tolerated ; only 2 % and 4 % of patients prematurely discontinued escitalopram and sertraline treatment , respectively , due to adverse events . Conclusion : No differences in efficacy were observed for fixed-dose escitalopram 10 mg/day and sertraline flexibly dosed from 50–200 mg/day . At these doses , both escitalopram and sertraline were generally well tolerated Background : the efficacy and tolerability of the new antidepressant mirtazapine were evaluated in a multicentre , r and omized , double-blind , amitriptyline-controlled , 5 week clinical study . Method : 156 patients with a DSM-III diagnosis of major depressive episode and 21-item Hamilton Psychiatric Rating Scale for Depression ( HPRSD ) score ≥ 18 , were r and omized to treatment with either mirtazapine  20 - 60 mg/day or amitriptyline  75 - 225 mg/day . Results : mirtazapine and amitriptyline were equally effective in reducing depressive symptoms , as assessed by the 17-item HPRSD and MADRS scales . Mirtazapine was better tolerated than amitriptyline , with fewer drop-outs due to adverse events and lower incidences of adverse events both at the beginning and at the end of the trial . Conclusion : this study shows that mirtazapine is as effective as amitriptyline in treating major depression , while at the same time better tolerated BACKGROUND Previous comparative studies of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors ( SSRIs ) have rarely included a placebo control group and have rarely demonstrated significant between-group differences . The study reported on here was a placebo-controlled comparison of the antidepressant effects of two SSRIs , citalopram and sertraline . METHODS Three hundred twenty-three patients with DSM-IV-defined major depressive disorder were r and omized to 24 weeks of double-blind treatment with citalopram ( 20 - 60 mg/day ) , sertraline ( 50 - 150 mg/day ) , or a placebo . The primary efficacy measure was the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ( HAMD ) and the primary statistical analysis was an analysis of variance comparing the change from baseline to the last observation carried forward in each treatment group . RESULTS Both citalopram and sertraline produced significantly greater improvement than placebo on the HAMD , the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale , and the Clinical Global Impression Scale . Significant improvement was observed at earlier timepoints in the citalopram group than the sertraline group ; however , sertraline treatment was associated with increased gastrointestinal side effects and a tendency toward early discontinuation , and analyses that excluded early dropouts revealed similar acute efficacy for the two active treatments . The Hamilton Anxiety Scale demonstrated a significant anxiolytic effect of citalopram , but not sertraline , relative to placebo . CONCLUSIONS This study confirms the antidepressant efficacy of two SSRIs , citalopram and sertraline . It is hypothesized that the more consistent evidence of antidepressant activity that was observed early in treatment in the citalopram group was related to more pronounced antianxiety effects and better tolerability upon initiation of therapy OBJECTIVE The objective of this double-blind , multi-center clinical study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of hypericum extract versus sertraline in the treatment of moderate depression . METHODS A total of 241 patients with a diagnosis of moderate depressive disorder ( according to ICD-10 criteria ) were r and omized with either 50 mg sertraline or 612 mg hypericum extract ( hypericum group n = 123 ; sertraline group n = 118 ) . According to the study protocol , 200 patients were treated for at least 12 weeks ( n = 102 hypericum extract ; n = 98 sertraline )  ; 81 patients in the hypericum group and 80 in the sertraline group were treated after week 12 for an additional 12 weeks . Thus , most patients were treated for a period of 6 months . The primary efficacy variable was the 17-item HAMD total score at the end of the first 12-week double-blind treatment period . RESULTS After the first 12-week treatment period , the HAMD score decreased from almost identical initial values ( 22.0 + /- 1.1 for hypericum and 22.1 + /- 1.1 points for sertraline ) to 8.3 + /- 5.5 points ( hypericum ) and 8.1 + /- 5.6 points ( sertraline ) ( mean + /- SD ) in the patients treated per- protocol ( PP ) population . The statistical test for non-inferiority ( boundary delta = 3 ) revealed that hypericum extract is not inferior to sertraline ( P < 0.0001 ) . The mean difference between the treatments was 0.1995 points , with a corresponding one-sided 97.5 % confidence interval ( -infinity , 1.3772 ) . In patients who continued treatment in the follow-up phase , the HAMD score at the end of the study was 5.7 + /- 4.8 points ( hypericum group ) and 7.1 + /- 6.3 points ( sertraline group ) . Comparable improvement was also found for the von Zerssen 's Adjective Mood Scale ( BfS ) and CGI during the first and second 12-week treatment period in both treatment groups . With 68.6 % of patients in the hypericum group and 70.4 % in the sertraline group , the percentage of patients rated as responders did not differ significantly between treatment groups ( 12 weeks ) . The adverse events of 12 patients in the hypericum group ( 9.8 % ) and of 16 patients in the sertraline group ( 13.6 % ) were possibly related to study medication . No basic differences in the treatment groups were observed and no interaction with concomitant medication was documented . In most cases , the investigators assessed the tolerability of hypericum extract and sertraline as " good " or " very good . " CONCLUSIONS The results indicate that hypericum extract STW 3 is not inferior to sertraline and that it is a well-tolerated drug for the treatment of moderate depression . These favorable effects were achieved with a once-daily dose of 612 mg of hypericum extract given for up to 24 weeks OBJECTIVE Authors studied the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine and paroxetine in elderly patients with major depression during an acute phase ( 8 weeks ) and an extension phase ( 16 weeks ) . METHODS Patients with major depression and without dementia , at least 65 years old , were eligible ; they were r and omized to mirtazapine or paroxetine once daily , with doses increasing over 42 days . Efficacy was assessed with the Ham-D and Clinical Global Impressions Scale , and tolerability was assessed from adverse events . RESULTS Of 255 patients r and omized , 126 on mirtazapine and 120 on paroxetine were included in the efficacy analysis . Differences favoring mirtazapine were observed for the mean change from baseline in Ham-D-17 score . Other significant differences were in the proportion of patients classified as responders ( 50 % decrease from baseline Ham-D-17 scores ) at Day 14 and in remission ( Ham-D-17 score of 7 or less ) at Day 42 . The median time to response was 26 days in the mirtazapine group and 40 days in the paroxetine group . The mirtazapine group also showed more reduction in Ham-D Factor I ( Anxiety/Somatization ) and Factor VI ( Sleep Disturbance ) scores . Efficacy of both drugs was maintained during the extension phase . Patients on paroxetine were more likely to discontinue therapy in the acute phase because of adverse events . CONCLUSION During the first weeks of treatment , antidepressant effects were more pronounced in the mirtazapine group , suggesting that mirtazapine has an earlier onset of action . Mirtazapine also demonstrated a better tolerability profile and represents a valuable option for the treatment of depression in elderly patients A national survey was administer 
    Output:
    