New Study Tells Us Which Antidepressants Work the Best

Here’s some news for all my fellow depressives. Aaron Carroll points today to a massive new study on the effectiveness of antidepressants:

The reassuring news is that all of the antidepressants were more effective than placebos….Further good news is that smaller trials did not have substantially different results from larger trials….It also did not appear that industry sponsoring of trials correlated with significant differences in response or dropout rates.

….The bad news is that even though there were statistically significant differences, the effect sizes were still mostly modest. The benefits also applied only to people who were suffering from major depression, specifically in the short term. In other words, this study provides evidence that when people are found to have acute major depression, treatment with antidepressants works to improve outcomes in the first two months of therapy.

Just to clarify this, this was a metastudy focused solely on studies of antidepressants for major depression. It didn’t conclude anything one way or the other about how well these drugs work for those with moderate depression. Also, they warn that Prozac is probably the only antidepressant that works for children and teenagers.

And now it’s time for the payoff to my clickbait headline. How does your antidepressant perform? Here’s the chart:

The left chart shows how well each antidepressant worked. The right chart shows how well people tolerated it. For example, I use venlafaxine (Effexor), which appears to be pretty effective (odds ratio = 1.78). Its tolerability, as measured by how many people dropped out of studies, is about the same as a placebo.

As always, this is just raw data. Different drugs work differently for different people. Only you and your doctor can decide for sure what works best for you.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.