Guangjian Li1, Xu Wang1, Dihui Ma2. 1. Department of Neurology and Neuroscience Center, First Hospital of Jinlin University, No. 71, Xinmin Street, Changchun, 130021, Jilin, China. 2. Department of Neurology and Neuroscience Center, First Hospital of Jinlin University, No. 71, Xinmin Street, Changchun, 130021, Jilin, China. madihui@263.net.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Vortioxetine and duloxetine are two new antidepressant drugs that have been used clinically in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). The objectives of this meta-analysis were to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of vortioxetine compared with duloxetine in MDD. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically reviewed to compare vortioxetine with duloxetine in terms of efficacy and tolerability in patients with MDD. Results were expressed as the risk ratio (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), and weighted mean difference (WMD). Pooled estimates were calculated by using a fixed-effects model or a randomized-effects model, depending on the heterogeneity among studies. RESULTS: A total of five RCTs involving 2287 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled results showed that duloxetine was associated with a higher response rate than vortioxetine, as well as showing a similar remission rate with vortioxetine. The changes from baseline in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D24), Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (CGI-I), CGI-Severity scale (CGI-S), Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) scores were significantly greater in the duloxetine group than in the vortioxetine group. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was significantly higher in the duloxetine group than in the vortioxetine group. CONCLUSION: Duloxetine was more effective but less well-tolerated than vortioxetine in MDD. Considering the potential limitations of this meta-analysis, more large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Vortioxetine and duloxetine are two new antidepressant drugs that have been used clinically in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). The objectives of this meta-analysis were to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of vortioxetine compared with duloxetine in MDD. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically reviewed to compare vortioxetine with duloxetine in terms of efficacy and tolerability in patients with MDD. Results were expressed as the risk ratio (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), and weighted mean difference (WMD). Pooled estimates were calculated by using a fixed-effects model or a randomized-effects model, depending on the heterogeneity among studies. RESULTS: A total of five RCTs involving 2287 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled results showed that duloxetine was associated with a higher response rate than vortioxetine, as well as showing a similar remission rate with vortioxetine. The changes from baseline in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D24), Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (CGI-I), CGI-Severity scale (CGI-S), Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) scores were significantly greater in the duloxetine group than in the vortioxetine group. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was significantly higher in the duloxetine group than in the vortioxetine group. CONCLUSION:Duloxetine was more effective but less well-tolerated than vortioxetine in MDD. Considering the potential limitations of this meta-analysis, more large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.
Authors: F P Bymaster; L J Dreshfield-Ahmad; P G Threlkeld; J L Shaw; L Thompson; D L Nelson; S K Hemrick-Luecke; D T Wong Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: L L Judd; H S Akiskal; J D Maser; P J Zeller; J Endicott; W Coryell; M P Paulus; J L Kunovac; A C Leon; T I Mueller; J A Rice; M B Keller Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 1998-09 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Richeek Pradhan; David C Hoaglin; Matthew Cornell; Weisong Liu; Victoria Wang; Hong Yu Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2018-09-23 Impact factor: 6.437