OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive aripiprazole compared with standard antidepressant therapy (ADT) for older patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who demonstrated an incomplete response to standard antidepressant monotherapy. METHODS: Data from three similar 14-week studies (an 8-week prospective ADT treatment phase and a 6-week randomized, double-blind phase) of aripiprazole augmentation were pooled for this post hoc analysis. Two age groups were defined: younger patients (aged 18-49 years) and older patients (aged 50-67 years). The older patient group was further divided into three subgroups: 50-55, 56-60, and 61-67 years. The efficacy endpoint was the mean change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from end of the prospective phase (Week 8) to endpoint (Week 14, last observation carried forward (LOCF)). Remission was defined as MADRS total score ≤10 at endpoint. RESULTS:Four hundred and nine older patients (placebo, n = 198; aripiprazole, n = 211) and 679 younger patients (placebo, n = 341; aripiprazole, n = 338) were included in this analysis. Older patients receivingaripiprazole demonstrated significantly greater improvement in MADRS total score versus placebo at Week 14 (-10.0 vs. -6.4; p < 0.001; LOCF), similar to the improvement seen in younger patients. Remission rates were significantly higher with aripiprazole versus placebo in older (32.5% vs. 17.1%; p < 0.001) and younger (26.9% vs. 16.4%; p < 0.001) patients. Akathisia was the most common adverse event in both the older (17.1%) and younger (26.0%) patient groups. CONCLUSIONS:Adjunctive aripiprazole was effective in improving depressive symptoms in older patients, 50-67 years, with MDD who have had an inadequate response to standard antidepressant medication.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive aripiprazole compared with standard antidepressant therapy (ADT) for older patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who demonstrated an incomplete response to standard antidepressant monotherapy. METHODS: Data from three similar 14-week studies (an 8-week prospective ADT treatment phase and a 6-week randomized, double-blind phase) of aripiprazole augmentation were pooled for this post hoc analysis. Two age groups were defined: younger patients (aged 18-49 years) and older patients (aged 50-67 years). The older patient group was further divided into three subgroups: 50-55, 56-60, and 61-67 years. The efficacy endpoint was the mean change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from end of the prospective phase (Week 8) to endpoint (Week 14, last observation carried forward (LOCF)). Remission was defined as MADRS total score ≤10 at endpoint. RESULTS: Four hundred and nine older patients (placebo, n = 198; aripiprazole, n = 211) and 679 younger patients (placebo, n = 341; aripiprazole, n = 338) were included in this analysis. Older patients receiving aripiprazole demonstrated significantly greater improvement in MADRS total score versus placebo at Week 14 (-10.0 vs. -6.4; p < 0.001; LOCF), similar to the improvement seen in younger patients. Remission rates were significantly higher with aripiprazole versus placebo in older (32.5% vs. 17.1%; p < 0.001) and younger (26.9% vs. 16.4%; p < 0.001) patients. Akathisia was the most common adverse event in both the older (17.1%) and younger (26.0%) patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive aripiprazole was effective in improving depressive symptoms in older patients, 50-67 years, with MDD who have had an inadequate response to standard antidepressant medication.
Authors: Meera Sheffrin; Henry C Driscoll; Eric J Lenze; Benoit H Mulsant; Bruce G Pollock; Mark D Miller; Meryl A Butters; Mary Amanda Dew; Charles F Reynolds Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2009-02-10 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Robert M Berman; Maurizio Fava; Michael E Thase; Madhukar H Trivedi; René Swanink; Robert D McQuade; William H Carson; David Adson; Leslie Taylor; James Hazel; Ronald N Marcus Journal: CNS Spectr Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 3.790
Authors: J Craig Nelson; Michael E Thase; Madhukar H Trivedi; Maurizio Fava; Jian Han; Quynh Van Tran; Andrei Pikalov; Ying Qi; Berit X Carlson; Ronald N Marcus; Robert M Berman Journal: Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2009
Authors: Robert M Berman; Ronald N Marcus; René Swanink; Robert D McQuade; William H Carson; Patricia K Corey-Lisle; Arif Khan Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Eric J Lenze; Benoit H Mulsant; Daniel M Blumberger; Jordan F Karp; John W Newcomer; Stewart J Anderson; Mary Amanda Dew; Meryl A Butters; Jacqueline A Stack; Amy E Begley; Charles F Reynolds Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-09-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Glenda M MacQueen; Benicio N Frey; Zahinoor Ismail; Natalia Jaworska; Meir Steiner; Ryan J Van Lieshout; Sidney H Kennedy; Raymond W Lam; Roumen V Milev; Sagar V Parikh; Arun V Ravindran Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Benoit H Mulsant; Daniel M Blumberger; Zahinoor Ismail; Kiran Rabheru; Mark J Rapoport Journal: Clin Geriatr Med Date: 2014-06-14 Impact factor: 3.076
Authors: Emmanuelle Weiller; Catherine Weiss; Christopher P Watling; Christopher Edge; Mary Hobart; Hans Eriksson; Maurizio Fava Journal: Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat Date: 2017-12-29 Impact factor: 2.570