Literature DB >> 17288694

Duloxetine versus escitalopram and placebo in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder: onset of antidepressant action, a non-inferiority study.

Andrew A Nierenberg1, John H Greist, Craig H Mallinckrodt, Apurva Prakash, Angelo Sambunaris, Gary D Tollefson, Madelaine M Wohlreich.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The goal of a non-inferiority study is to test whether a new treatment has at least as much efficacy as an established treatment. The purpose of this non-inferiority study was to compare the speed of onset of antidepressant efficacy for duloxetine (a dual serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor) and escitalopram (a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active comparator-controlled study, in which patients (> or = 18 years) meeting DSM-IV criteria for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) received duloxetine 60 mg once daily (QD; N = 273), escitalopram 10 mg QD (N = 274), or placebo (N = 137) for 8 weeks. The primary objective was to compare the onset of antidepressant efficacy, by testing the hypothesis that the percentage of duloxetine-treated patients achieving onset criteria at Week 2 was not inferior to that in the escitalopram group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Onset of efficacy was defined as a 20% decrease from baseline on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD(17)) Maier subscale that was maintained or exceeded at all subsequent visits.
RESULTS: Probabilities of meeting onset criteria at Week 2 for duloxetine- and escitalopram-treated patients were 42.6% versus 35.2%, respectively (treatment difference = 7.4%; 95% confidence interval, -1.3% to 16.2%; p = 0.097). Both drugs showed significant improvement compared with placebo (p < or = 0.05) on the primary efficacy measure (Maier subscale) at Week 1 and endpoint (Week 8). No differences were found between duloxetine, escitalopram, and placebo rates of remission or response at 8 weeks. Adverse events that occurred significantly more frequently among duloxetine-treated patients when compared with those receiving escitalopram were nausea, dry mouth, vomiting, yawning, and irritability. The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events did not differ significantly between treatment groups. LIMITATIONS: Given the difficulties in constructing appropriate dose comparisons, the results of this study should be interpreted specific to the doses tested and not extrapolated to the drug as a whole. This study employed a fixed-dose design; flexible-dose designs are more likely to find a difference between antidepressants and placebo.
CONCLUSION: In this study, both duloxetine and escitalopram showed significantly greater improvement on the primary efficacy measure than placebo over the 8-week acute treatment period, while no differences were observed between drugs or between drugs and placebo on response and remission rates at 8 weeks. Escitalopram at a starting dose of 10 mg QD was better tolerated than duloxetine at a starting dose of 60 mg QD. This study met its pre-defined primary objective of assessing if duloxetine was non-inferior to escitalopram in antidepressant onset efficacy, and the results show that duloxetine is at least as fast as (non-inferior to) escitalopram.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17288694     DOI: 10.1185/030079906X167453

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin        ISSN: 0300-7995            Impact factor:   2.580


  41 in total

Review 1.  Randomized, placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants for acute major depression: thirty-year meta-analytic review.

Authors:  Juan Undurraga; Ross J Baldessarini
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2011-12-14       Impact factor: 7.853

Review 2.  Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Dose-Response Relationship of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors in Major Depressive Disorder.

Authors:  Ewgeni Jakubovski; Anjali L Varigonda; Nicholas Freemantle; Matthew J Taylor; Michael H Bloch
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  2015-11-10       Impact factor: 18.112

Review 3.  Problems in the Descriptions of the Psychiatric Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria in Publications of Antidepressant Efficacy Trials: A Qualitative Review and Recommendations for Improved Clarity.

Authors:  Mark Zimmerman; Matthew Multach; Emily Walsh; Lia K Rosenstein; Douglas Gazarian; Heather L Clark
Journal:  CNS Drugs       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 5.749

4.  Impact of pretreatment with antidepressants on the efficacy of duloxetine in terms of mood symptoms and functioning: an analysis of 15 pooled major depressive disorder studies.

Authors:  Bruno R Barros; Alexander Schacht; Michael Happich; Foula Televantou; Lovisa Berggren; Daniel J Walker; Hector J Dueñas
Journal:  Prim Care Companion CNS Disord       Date:  2014-10-02

5.  Information for physicians and pharmacists about drugs that might cause dry mouth: a study of monographs and published literature.

Authors:  Caroline T Nguyen; Michael I MacEntee; Barbara Mintzes; Thomas L Perry
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 3.923

Review 6.  Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of New Generation Antidepressants.

Authors:  Ai Leng Khoo; Hui Jun Zhou; Monica Teng; Liang Lin; Ying Jiao Zhao; Lay Beng Soh; Yee Ming Mok; Boon Peng Lim; Kok Peng Gwee
Journal:  CNS Drugs       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 5.749

Review 7.  Duloxetine: a review of its use in the treatment of major depressive disorder.

Authors:  James E Frampton; Greg L Plosker
Journal:  CNS Drugs       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 5.749

8.  An evaluation of the cardiovascular safety profile of duloxetine: findings from 42 placebo-controlled studies.

Authors:  Joachim Wernicke; Alberto Lledó; Joel Raskin; Daniel K Kajdasz; Fujun Wang
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 9.  Duloxetine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression.

Authors:  Andrea Cipriani; Markus Koesters; Toshi A Furukawa; Michela Nosè; Marianna Purgato; Ichiro M Omori; Carlotta Trespidi; Corrado Barbui
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-10-17

10.  The impact of analytic method on interpretation of outcomes in longitudinal clinical trials.

Authors:  A Prakash; R C Risser; C H Mallinckrodt
Journal:  Int J Clin Pract       Date:  2008-06-28       Impact factor: 2.503

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.