Literature DB >> 10565799

Efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine versus citalopram: a double-blind, randomized study in patients with major depressive disorder. Nordic Antidepressant Study Group.

E Leinonen1, J Skarstein, K Behnke, H Agren, J T Helsdingen.   

Abstract

We aimed to compare the antidepressant and anxiolytic effects, tolerability and effects on quality of life of mirtazapine and citalopram in a randomized, double-blind, multicentre, 8-week study. Patients with a Major Depressive Episode (DSM-IV) and a baseline score of > or = 22 on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) were randomized to 8 weeks treatment with either mirtazapine (n = 137, 15-60 mg/day) or citalopram (n = 133, 20-60 mg/day). Efficacy was evaluated by the MADRS, Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A), Clinical Global Impression scales (CGI), the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire (LSEQ) and Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (QLESQ). The efficacy analyses were performed on the Intent-To-Treat Group using the Last Observation Carried Forward method. Vital signs and laboratory variables are measured and adverse events recorded at each weekly visit. The magnitude of reduction from baseline in group mean MADRS scores was large in both groups, reaching after 8 weeks of treatment mean scores of 9.1 in the mirtazapine group and 8.9 in the citalopram group. Both treatments also resulted in a substantial improvement in anxiety symptoms, sleep disturbances and quality of life, and high percentage of responders. However, at day 14, statistically significantly larger magnitudes of change favouring mirtazapine were present in the group mean MADRS, HAM-A and CGI-Severity of illness and Quality of life scores. A difference of 2.3 points on MADRS favouring mirtazapine is considered indicative for a clinically relevant superiority between two proven antidepressants. Mirtazapine treatment was also related to faster improvement of sleep, quality of sleep and improved alertness following awakening, as shown by statistically significant differences on the self-rating LSEQ at various time points. There were no differences between two treatment groups on self-rating QLSEQ. Both drugs were well tolerated, with a low number of patients in either group prematurely terminating the study due to adverse events (mirtazapine: 3.6%, citalopram, 3.0%). Sweating and nausea were statistically significantly more frequent in the citalopram group and increased appetite and complaints of weight increase in the mirtazapine group. There were no clinically relevant changes in laboratory parameters and vital sign variables with either treatment, except for clinically relevant increase in body weight, occurring more frequently in mirtazapine patients. In this study, mirtazapine and citalopram were equally effective in reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety, and well tolerated. However, mirtazapine was significantly more effective than citalopram after 2 weeks of treatment on the MADRS, HAM-A and CGI Severity of illness and Quality of life scales. This finding, consistently present at all major efficacy variables, suggests potentially faster onset of efficacy of mirtazapine over citalopram.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10565799     DOI: 10.1097/00004850-199911000-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Clin Psychopharmacol        ISSN: 0268-1315            Impact factor:   1.659


  26 in total

Review 1.  Third-generation antidepressants: do they offer advantages over the SSRIs?

Authors:  J S Olver; G D Burrows; T R Norman
Journal:  CNS Drugs       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 5.749

Review 2.  Mirtazapine versus other antidepressive agents for depression.

Authors:  Norio Watanabe; Ichiro M Omori; Atsuo Nakagawa; Andrea Cipriani; Corrado Barbui; Rachel Churchill; Toshi A Furukawa
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2011-12-07

Review 3.  How should primary care doctors select which antidepressants to administer?

Authors:  Gerald Gartlehner; Kylie Thaler; Seth Hill; Richard A Hansen
Journal:  Curr Psychiatry Rep       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 5.285

Review 4.  A systematic review of patient-reported outcome instruments measuring sleep dysfunction in adults.

Authors:  Emily Beth Devine; Zafar Hakim; Jesse Green
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Newer antidepressants in the primary care setting.

Authors:  J Sloan Manning
Journal:  Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry       Date:  2004

6.  Does study design influence outcome?. The effects of placebo control and treatment duration in antidepressant trials.

Authors:  Bret R Rutherford; Joel R Sneed; Steven P Roose
Journal:  Psychother Psychosom       Date:  2009-03-24       Impact factor: 17.659

7.  Does differential drop-out explain the influence of study design on antidepressant response? A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Bret R Rutherford; Joel R Sneed; Steven P Roose
Journal:  J Affect Disord       Date:  2012-03-02       Impact factor: 4.839

Review 8.  Panic disorder.

Authors:  M H Rapaport; C Barrett
Journal:  Curr Psychiatry Rep       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 5.285

9.  Antidepressant use and body mass index change in overweight adolescents: a historical cohort study.

Authors:  Richard G Cockerill; Bridget K Biggs; Tyler S Oesterle; Paul E Croarkin
Journal:  Innov Clin Neurosci       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec

10.  Venlafaxine versus mirtazapine in the treatment of undifferentiated somatoform disorder: a 12-week prospective, open-label, randomized, parallel-group trial.

Authors:  Changsu Han; Chi-Un Pae; Bun-Hee Lee; Young-Hoon Ko; Prakash S Masand; Ashwin A Patkar; Sook-Haeng Joe; In-Kwa Jung
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.859

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.