4.5 Article

Antidepressant use and risk of coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of observational studies

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 78, Issue 4, Pages 727-737

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12383

Keywords

antidepressant; coronary heart disease; meta-analysis; myocardial infarction; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor; tricyclic antidepressant

Funding

  1. SNUH Research Fund [23-2013-0030]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIMS Our goal was to evaluate the association between antidepressant use and the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) among subjects with no history of coronary heart disease. METHODS A search of Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library was performed in January 2013. Two authors independently reviewed and selected eligible observational studies, based on predetermined selection criteria. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects models. RESULTS Sixteen observational studies (seven case-control studies and nine cohort studies) were included in the final analysis. There was no association between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor use and the risk of CHD overall [odds ratio (OR), 0.93; 95% CI, 0.65-1.33] or in subgroup meta-analysis of case-control studies (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.60-1.37) and cohort studies (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.59-1.55). The use of tricyclic antidepressant was associated with an increased risk of CHD overall (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.07-2.12), but it was observed only in case-control studies (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.24-1.96) and low-quality studies (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.20-1.85) in the subgroup meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis of observational studies in subjects with no history of CHD suggests that neither selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor nor tricyclic antidepressant use is associated with an increased risk of CHD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available