Variation in the Risk of Suicide Attempts and Completed Suicides by Antidepressant Agent in Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: A US Food and Drug Administration advisory has warned that antidepressants may be associated with an increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors in adolescents. This prompted a meta-analysis of trials in adults that found no overall increase in risk, but individual agents could not be studied. OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of suicide and suicide attempts associated with individual antidepressant agents. DESIGN: Cohort study of incident users of antidepressant agents. SETTING: Population-based health care utilization data of all residents of British Columbia, Canada, aged 18 years and older between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 2005. PATIENTS: British Columbia residents who had antidepressant therapy initiated and had a recorded diagnosis of depression. INTERVENTION: Initiation of various antidepressant medications. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Combined suicide death or hospitalization due to self-harm. RESULTS: In a population of 287,543 adults aged 18 years and older with antidepressant therapy initiated, we observed outcome rates ranging from 4.41/1000 person-years to 9.09/1000 person-years. Most events occurred in the first 6 months after treatment initiation. After extensive propensity score adjustment, we found no clinically meaningful variation in the risk of suicide and suicide attempt between antidepressant agents compared with fluoxetine hydrochloride initiation: citalopram hydrobromide, hazard ratio = 1.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.57); fluvoxamine maleate, hazard ratio = 0.98 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.51); paroxetine hydrochloride, hazard ratio = 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.35); and sertraline hydrochloride, hazard ratio = 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.05). Compared with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors as a drug class, other classes including serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic agents, and other newer and atypical agents had a similar risk. Restriction to patients with no antidepressant use in the past 3 years further reduced apparent differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our finding of equal event rates across antidepressant agents supports the US Food and Drug Administration's decision to treat all antidepressants alike in their advisory. Treatment decisions should be based on efficacy, and clinicians should be vigilant in monitoring after initiating therapy with any antidepressant agent.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".