Evidence Hub

Revisiting monoamine oxidase inhibitors for the treatment of depressive disorders: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

R. Suchting, Vaishali Tirumalajaru, R. Gareeb, Taya Bockmann, Constanza deDios, Jacob Aickareth, O. Pinjari, J. Soares et al.

Journal of Affective Disorders, 2021

6,462 participants · 62 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) were the first class of modern antidepressants; however, they are under-utilized as compared to the newer antidepressants.

METHODS

In this systematic review, network meta-analysis was used to investigate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of MAOIs for depressive disorders. Overall, the network meta-analysis included 52 double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared 14 antidepressants or placebo. Across studies, the mean arm size was n = 58 participants from a total N = 6462 (5309 active drug; 1153 placebo).

RESULTS

Except fluvoxamine, all antidepressants demonstrated superior efficacy to placebo, and none demonstrated substantially better or worse all-cause dropout rates. Phenelzine demonstrated superior evidence for efficacy compared to all other treatments, and clomipramine demonstrated superior evidence for acceptability compared to all other treatments.

LIMITATIONS

The study is primarily limited by low estimate precision due to a relative paucity of studies for some of the included treatment conditions. Further evidence is required to study the relative efficacy of MAOIs against newer antidepressants.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this analysis largely support the re-evaluation of the use of MAOIs as antidepressant agents in the treatment algorithm of depression.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 6,462 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free