A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of desvenlafaxine succinate in the treatment of major depressive disorder

The antidepressant efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine succinate (desvenlafaxine) were evaluated in a phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Outpatients with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder were treated with fixed once-daily doses of desvenlafaxine 200 or 400 mg for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. At the final on-therapy evaluation, adjusted mean change from baseline in 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score was greater for desvenlafaxine 200 and 400 mg/day vs. placebo. Both desvenlafaxine doses showed greater efficacy than placebo on the secondary efficacy measures, including the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale scores, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores, CGI-Severity, and 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression response rate. Desvenlafaxine 200 mg/day was also significantly better than placebo on remission, Visual Analog Scale-Pain Intensity overall scores, and some Visual Analog Scale-Pain Intensity subscale scores. Desvenlafaxine 400 mg/day was significantly better than placebo on selected Visual Analog Scale-Pain Intensity subscale scores. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity, and safety assessments revealed few clinically significant changes in vital signs, laboratory tests, and electrocardiogram results. These data provide support for the efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine in the treatment of major depressive disorder.     

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of citalopram in adolescents with major depressive disorder

In a European, multicenter, double-blind study, 244 adolescents, 13 to 18 years old, with major depression were randomized to treatment with citalopram (n = 124) or placebo (n = 120). One third of the patients in both groups withdrew from the study. No significant differences in improvement of scores from baseline to week 12 between citalopram and placebo were found. The response rate was 59% to 61% in both groups according to the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for school-aged children-Present episode version (Kiddie-SADS-P) (depression and anhedonia scores < or =2) and Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) (> or =50% reduction). Remission (MADRS score < or =12) was achieved by 51% of patients with citalopram and 53% with placebo. A post hoc analysis revealed that more than two thirds of all patients received psychotherapy during this study. For those patients not receiving psychotherapy, there was a higher percentage of Kiddie-SADS-P responders with citalopram (41%) versus placebo (25%) and a significantly higher percentage of MADRS responders and remitters with citalopram (52% and 45%, respectively) versus placebo (22% and 19%, respectively). Mild to moderate treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 75% citalopram and 71% of placebo patients, most commonly headache, nausea, and insomnia. Serious adverse events occurred in 14% to 15% in both groups. Suicide attempts, including suicidal thoughts and tendencies, were reported by 5 patients in the placebo group and by 14 patients in the citalopram group (not significant) with no pattern with respect to duration of treatment, time of onset, or dosage. In contrast, the suicidal ideation (Kiddie-SADS-P) single item showed worsening more frequently in the placebo (18%) than in the citalopram group (8%).     

A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of fluoxetine plus quetiapine or clomipramine versus fluoxetine plus placebo for obsessive-compulsive disorder

Obsessive-compulsive disorder patients who do not improve sufficiently after treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor might improve further if other drugs were added to the treatment regimen. The authors present a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing the efficacy of adding quetiapine or clomipramine to a treatment regimen consisting of fluoxetine. Between May 2007 and March 2010, a total of 54 patients with a primary diagnosis of obsessive-compulsive disorder, as defined by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision, and a current Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) score of at least 16, the score having dropped by less than 35% after fluoxetine monotherapy, were allocated to 1 of 3 arms (n = 18 per arm): quetiapine + fluoxetine (≤200 and ≤40 mg/d, respectively), clomipramine + fluoxetine (≤75 and ≤40 mg/d, respectively), or placebo + fluoxetine (≤80 mg/d of fluoxetine). Follow-up was 12 weeks. The Y-BOCS scores were the main outcome measure. No severe adverse events occurred during the trial, and 40 patients (74%) completed the 12-week protocol. The Y-BOCS scores (mean [SD]) were significantly better in the placebo + fluoxetine and clomipramine + fluoxetine groups than in the quetiapine + fluoxetine group (final: 18 [7] and 18 [7], respectively, vs 25 [6], P < 0.001) (reduction from baseline: -6.7 [confidence interval {CI}, -9.6 to -3.8; and -6.5 [CI, -9.0 to -3.9], respectively, vs -0.1 [CI, -2.9 to 2.7], P < 0.001; number needed to treat = 2.4). The clomipramine-fluoxetine combination is a safe and effective treatment for fluoxetine nonresponders, especially those who cannot tolerate high doses of fluoxetine. However, the period of monotherapy with the maximum dose of fluoxetine should be extended before a combination treatment strategy is applied.     

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of augmentation topiramate for chronic combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder

BACKGROUND: Topiramate, a novel anticonvulsant, has been reported to rapidly reduce symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in an open-label trial. The present study was designed as a test of topiramate's efficacy as adjunctive therapy in a 7-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. METHODS: Forty male veterans with PTSD in a residential treatment program were randomized to flexible-dose topiramate or placebo augmentation. The primary outcome measures were PTSD symptom severity and global symptom improvement. RESULTS: Baseline Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale scores were 62.1 +/- 13.9 for placebo and 61.0 +/- 22.2 for topiramate. There was a high dropout rate from the study (55% topiramate; 25% placebo), with 40% of topiramate and 10% of placebo dropping because of adverse events (AEs). No significant treatment effects of topiramate versus placebo were observed for the primary treatment outcomes. Subjects reporting central nervous system-related AEs and with higher baseline severity of depression were more likely to discontinue because of AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Primary outcome measures failed to demonstrate a significant effect for topiramate over placebo; however, high dropout rate in the treatment group prohibits definitive conclusions about the efficacy of topiramate in this population.     

A Double-blind, randomized trial of St John's wort, fluoxetine, and placebo in major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE: This study looks to compare the antidepressant efficacy and safety of a standardized extract of St John's wort with both placebo and fluoxetine. METHOD: After a 1-week single-blind washout, patients with major depressive disorder diagnosed by Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition were randomized to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with LI-160 St John's wort extract (900 mg/d), fluoxetine (20 mg/d), or placebo. The 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) was the primary efficacy measure, and analysis of covariance was used to compare differences in end point HAMD-17 scores across the 3 treatment groups, treating the baseline HAMD-17 as the covariate. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five patients (57% women; mean age, 37.3 +/- 11.0; mean HAMD-17, 19.7 +/- 3.2) were randomized to double-blind treatment and were included in the intent-to-treat analyses. Analysis of covariance analyses showed lower mean HAMD-17 scores at end point in the St John's wort group (n = 45; mean +/- SD, 10.2 +/- 6.6) compared with the fluoxetine group (n = 47; 13.3 +/- 7.3; P < 0.03) and a trend toward a similar finding relative to the placebo group (n = 43; 12.6 +/- 6.4; P = 0.096). There was also a trend toward higher rates of remission (HAMD-17 <8) in the St John's wort group (38%) compared with the fluoxetine group (30%) and the placebo group (21%). Overall, St John's wort appeared to be safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSION: St John's wort was significantly more effective than fluoxetine and showed a trend toward superiority over placebo. A (25%) smaller than planned sample size is likely to account for the lack of statistical significance for the advantage (indicating a moderate effect size, d = 0.45) of St John's wort over placebo.     

Omega-3 fatty acids in major depressive disorder. A preliminary double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Patients with depression have been extensively reported to be associated with the abnormality of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), including significantly low eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid in cell tissue contents (red blood cell membrane, plasma, etc.) and dietary intake. However, more evidence is needed to support its relation. In this study, we conducted an 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, comparing omega-3 PUFAs (6.6 g/day) [corrected] with placebo, on the top of the usual treatment, in 28 patients with major depressive disorder. Patients in the omega-3 PUFA group had a significantly decreased score on the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression than those in the placebo group (P < 0.001). From the preliminary findings in this study, omega-3 PUFAs could improve the short-term course of illness and were well tolerated in patients with major depressive disorder.     

Cost-effectiveness of fluoxetine plus pindolol in patients with major depressive disorder: results from a randomized, double-blind clinical trial

Some preliminary studies have suggested that the beta-adrenoceptor 5-HT1A antagonist pindolol (PIN) could increase the effect of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). We prospectively estimated the cost-effectiveness of fluoxetine and pindolol versus fluoxetine plus placebo, using results from the first double-blind randomized clinical trial comparing both treatments. Efficacy and medical care resource utilization were collected prospectively in a parallel, randomized, double-blind clinical trial conducted in a single centre in Spain. Average cost-effectiveness (cost/% response and cost/% remission) as well as the incremental cost-effectiveness were calculated for both treatments. A 'bootstrap' method was used to calculate confidence limits around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. A significantly greater percentage of patients (one-tailed P < 0.05) in the fluoxetine FLX + PIN group than in the FLX + PLA group had experienced a therapeutic response (74.5% versus 58.97%) at 6 weeks. Direct medical costs were lower in the FLX + PIN group (mean 2508 pesetas per patient) than in the FLX + PLA group (mean 31870 pesetas per patient). Hospital admissions due to worsening of depressive symptoms were significantly lower (P < 0.05) in the FLX + PIN group (0/55) than in the FLX + PLA group (4/56). The observed differences in average costs and percentage response in the study were -29362 pesetas (< 0) and 15.6% (> 0), respectively, and the resulting cost-effectiveness ratio was negative. These outcomes indicate that the FLX + PIN option completely dominates FLX + PLA. These results suggest that, over a course of 6 weeks of treatment, the combination of fluoxetine and pindolol incurs lower direct medical costs than treatment with fluoxetine placebo. Despite their limitations, economic assessments in addition to clinical trials allow a 'dynamic assessment' on the potential success of the drug, both from a clinical and an economic point of view, allowing decisions on priorities to be made earlier.     

Reboxetine: a double-blind comparison with fluoxetine in major depressive disorder

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of reboxetine, a uniquely selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, fluoxetine. A double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicentre design was employed. One hundred and sixty-eight patients with acute major depressive episodes were randomized to receive oral reboxetine (8-10 mg/day) or oral fluoxetine (20-40 mg/day). The treatment period was 8 weeks. Reboxetine and fluoxetine were similarly effective as assessed by the mean reduction in total Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score, the percentage of responders and patients in remission, Clinical Global Impression severity of illness and global improvement scores and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. A sub-analysis of patients with severe depression indicated that reboxetine had superior efficacy compared with fluoxetine. Both treatments resulted in some improvement in Social Adaptation Self-evaluation Scale total scores and this was more evident for those patients treated with reboxetine who achieved remission. Both treatments were well tolerated. The results indicate that reboxetine is an effective and well tolerated antidepressant, being more effective than fluoxetine in patients with severe depression, and more effective in terms of social functioning in those patients who achieved remission.     

Pindolol augmentation in patients with treatment-resistant panic disorder: A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of pindolol as an augmentor of fluoxetine in treatment-resistant panic disorder (PD). Twenty-five outpatients having PD with or without agoraphobia were included. These patients had not responded to two different trials with antidepressants and an 8-week trial of fluoxetine 20 mg/day. Treatment-resistant PD was defined as a less than 20% reduction in score on the Panic Self-Questionnaire (number of attacks per week) (PSQ) and the Clinical Anxiety Scale With Panic Attacks (CAS+PA). These patients continued to receive fluoxetine 20 mg/day and were randomly assigned to additionally receive either pindolol (2.5 mg three times daily) or placebo for the following 4 weeks. Evaluations were performed weekly using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the CAS+PA, the NIMH Anxiety Scale, the PSQ, and the Clinical Global Impression Scale. The data were analyzed using a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a t-test for independent samples. Patients treated with the combination of pindolol and fluoxetine (N = 13) demonstrated a significant improvement over the patients treated with fluoxetine and placebo on all rating scales, with the exception of HAM-D. The statistical differences were shown using the repeated-measures ANOVA (baseline, week 2, week 4) and also with t-tests from the second week of the trial. These preliminary results demonstrate that pindolol has an augmenting effect on fluoxetine in patients with treatment-resistant PD.     

A randomized placebo-controlled trial of duloxetine in patients with major depressive disorder and associated painful physical symptoms

Abstract

Objective:

Painful physical symptoms are common in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and may predict poorer treatment outcomes. Duloxetine has demonstrated efficacy in treating both MDD and certain other painful conditions. This randomized, double-blind clinical trial assessed the effects of duloxetine in patients with both MDD and MDD-associated physical pain.     

A placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal study of sertraline for major depressive disorder in Japan

The objective of this double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre randomized withdrawal study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of sertraline for 16 weeks in treating Japanese patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who had achieved a response to 8 weeks of sertraline treatment. Patients (n=361) were initially treated with 8 weeks of open-label sertraline treatment followed by 16 weeks of double-blind treatment with either sertraline (50-100 mg/day) or placebo. Responders during the open-label phase were eligible to be entered into the double-blind phase. A total of 235 patients (65.1%) were entered to the double-blind phase and randomly assigned to receive sertraline (n=117) or placebo (n=118). A significantly (P=0.016) lower relapse rate was found for sertraline (8.5%) compared to placebo (19.5%) during the double-blind phase. Examination of time-to-relapse showed that the relapse free rate curve was significantly higher for sertraline (log-rank test, P=0.026) than placebo. Mean changes from beginning to end of the double-blind phase on measure of depressive symptoms, quality of life and global improvement also significantly favoured sertraline over placebo. Sertraline was well-tolerated, with similar adverse events as found in previous studies. These results confirm the efficacy of sertraline in preventing the relapse of MDD in Japanese patients.     

Short-term testosterone augmentation in male schizophrenics: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Although there are few studies on the treatment of schizophrenia with testosterone, several indirect findings have suggested testosterone as a possible treatment modality for schizophrenia. To explore the therapeutic effect of testosterone augmentation of antipsychotic medication on symptoms in male patients with schizophrenia, the authors performed a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial on 30 schizophrenic men, using either 5 g of 1% testosterone gel (Testogel; Besins Iscovesco, Paris, France) or a placebo added to a fixed dosage of antipsychotic medication over a period of 4 weeks with a 2-week washout period. In addition, to get additional information about the involvement of these reproductive hormones after testosterone augmentation, the authors evaluated several hormones such as total testosterone, free testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate, estradiol, and prolactin. Results indicated a significant improvement of negative symptoms in both the last observation carried forward and the completer analyses and a nonsignificant trend for the improvement of depressive symptoms in completers. There were no significant changes in serum hormone levels except total and free testosterone. The findings of this study suggest that testosterone augmentation may be a potential therapeutic strategy in patients with schizophrenia.     

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pseudoephedrine in coryza

1. The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy of pseudoephedrine in coryza. 2. In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled design, 48 adults with acute coryza received a single oral dose of 60 mg pseudoephedrine (Sudafed; Pfizer Consumer HealthCare Group, Caringbah, NSW, Australia) or matching placebo. Before and after dosing, nasal airway resistance (NAR), nasal volume, the minimum intranasal cross-sectional area (MCA) and the symptom of nasal congestion were measured. 3. Pseudoephedrine produced a significant decrease in NAR (P = 0.005; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.073, 0.383). Nasal volume increased, but this did not reach significance (P = 0.07; 95% CI -0.842, 0.034). There was no change in MCA and symptoms. 4. In conclusion, pseudoephedrine has a moderate effect in decreasing objective measures of nasal congestion in coryza.     

A double-blind controlled comparison of fluoxetine and lofepramine in major depressive illness

One hundred and eighty three patients with DSM-III-R major depressive illness were allocated randomly to treatment with one of two new generation antidepressants, fluoxetine and lofepramine. Both patient groups had significantly lower mean scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) 6 weeks after entry to the trial (p < 0.001), but there were no differences between the groups, either at baseline or after 6 weeks, in total HRDS score or in subscores for anxiety or suicidality. Anticholinergic side effects were commoner with lofepramine; adverse effects were on the whole mild and few patients dropped out because of them. This study does not support previous claims of specific adverse effects of fluoxetine on anxiety and suicidality.     

The efficacy and safety of aripiprazole as adjunctive therapy in major depressive disorder: a second multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Nonresponse to one or more antidepressants is common and an important public health problem. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of adjunctive aripiprazole or placebo to standard antidepressant therapy (ADT) in patients with major depressive disorder who showed an inadequate response to at least 1 and up to 3 historical and 1 additional prospective ADT. The study comprised a 7-28-day screening, an 8-week prospective treatment, and a 6-week randomization phase. During prospective treatment, patients experiencing a major depressive episode (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score > or = 18) received single-blind adjunctive placebo plus clinicians' choice of ADT (escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine controlled-release, sertraline, or venlafaxine extended-release). Subjects with inadequate response were randomized to adjunctive placebo (n = 190) or adjunctive aripiprazole (n = 191) (starting dose 5 mg/d, dose adjustments 2-20 mg/d, mean end-point dose of 11.0 mg/d). The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score from end of prospective treatment phase to end of randomized treatment phase (last observation carried forward). Mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score was significantly greater with adjunctive aripiprazole than placebo (-8.5 vs -5.7; P = 0.001). Remission rates were significantly greater with adjunctive aripiprazole than placebo (25.4% vs 15.2%; P = 0.016) as were response rates (32.4% vs 17.4%; P < 0.001). Adverse events occurring in 10% of patients or more with adjunctive placebo or aripiprazole were akathisia (4.2% vs 25.9%), headache (10.5% vs 9.0%), and fatigue (3.7% vs 10.1%). Incidence of adverse events leading to discontinuation was low (adjunctive placebo [1.1%] vs adjunctive aripiprazole [3.7%]). Aripiprazole is an effective and safe adjunctive therapy as demonstrated in this short-term study for patients who are nonresponsive to standard ADT.     

Efficacy of extended release quetiapine fumarate monotherapy in patients with major depressive disorder: a pooled analysis of two 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies

Prospectively planned pooled analysis evaluating the efficacy of quetiapine extended release (XR) monotherapy in major depressive disorder (MDD). Data were pooled from two 6-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of quetiapine XR in outpatients with MDD. The primary endpoint was Montgomery-?sberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score change from randomization at week 6. Other evaluations were MADRS response/remission, Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety, and subgroup analyses. A total of 968 patients were randomized to quetiapine XR, 150 mg/day (n=315), 300 mg/day (n=323), or placebo (n=330). The mean MADRS total score reductions from randomization were significant at week 6 with quetiapine XR, 150 mg/day (-14.7; P<0.001) and 300 mg/day (-14.7; P<0.001) versus placebo (-11.1), with significant reductions versus placebo from week 1 onward. Response rates (week 6): 52.7% (P<0.001) quetiapine XR 150 mg/day and 49.5% (P<0.001) quetiapine XR 300 mg/day versus placebo (33.0%). MADRS remission (score≤8; week 6): 23.5% (P=0.208) quetiapine XR 150 mg/day and 28.8% (P<0.01) quetiapine XR 300 mg/day versus placebo (19.4%). Quetiapine XR (both doses) significantly improved eight of 10 MADRS items versus placebo at week 6. The therapeutic effect of quetiapine XR was neither limited to nor driven by factors such as sex, age, or severity of depression. In patients with MDD, quetiapine XR (150 and 300 mg/day) monotherapy reduced depressive symptoms, with significant improvements compared with placebo from week 1 onward.     

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, duloxetine-referenced, fixed-dose study comparing the efficacy and safety of Lu AA21004 in elderly patients with major depressive disorder

The efficacy and tolerability of Lu AA21004 at 5 mg/day, a novel multimodal antidepressant, were assessed in elderly patients with recurrent major depressive disorder. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to Lu AA21004 5 mg/day, duloxetine 60 mg/day (reference) or to placebo in an 8-week double-blind study. The primary efficacy measure was the 24-item Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D(24)) total score (analysis of covariance, last observation carried forward). Patients (mean age 70.6 years) had a mean baseline HAM-D(24) score of 29.0. Lu AA21004 showed significantly (P = 0.0011) greater improvement on the primary efficacy endpoint compared with placebo at week 8 (3.3 points). Duloxetine also showed superiority to placebo at week 8, thereby validating the study. HAM-D(24) response (53.2 vs. 35.2%) and HAM-D(17) remission (29.2 vs. 19.3%) rates at endpoint were higher for Lu AA21004 than for placebo. Lu AA21004 showed superiority to placebo in cognition tests of speed of processing, verbal learning and memory. The withdrawal rate due to adverse events was 5.8% (Lu AA21004), 9.9% (duloxetine) and 2.8% (placebo). Whereas nausea was the only adverse event with a significantly higher incidence on treatment with Lu AA21004 (21.8%) compared with placebo (8.3%), the incidence of nausea, constipation, dry mouth, hyperhidrosis and somnolence was higher for duloxetine. In conclusion, Lu AA21004 was efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of elderly patients with recurrent major depressive disorder.     

A comparative, randomized, double-blind study of trazodone prolonged-release and sertraline in the treatment of major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of trazodone prolonged-release compared with sertraline in the treatment of patients with major depression. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 122 patients aged 19-64 years were enrolled in this multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, comparator-controlled study. Patients received 7 days of single-blind placebo treatment followed by 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with trazodone prolonged-release 150-450 mg/day (n = 62) or sertraline 50-100 mg/day (n = 60). OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy was evaluated by mean changes from baseline in the Hamilton Depression Rating scale (HAM-D), Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Hamilton Anxiety Rating scale, and the Clinical Global Impression-Global Improvement/Severity scores; and by the rates of patients responding to treatment and considered to be in remission. Time to onset of efficacy and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Trazodone and sertraline were equally effective in reducing depressive symptoms and promoting remission, and had similar onset times. In the Intent-to-Treat population, there were no significant differences in favor of trazodone at study endpoint in all efficacy measures, while a statistically significant difference was detected in the Per-Protocol population on HAM-D and in the percentage of responders. Analysis of HAM-D factors (anxiety/somatization, cognitive disturbance, retardation, and sleep disturbance) indicated that sleep disturbances were significantly less evident for patients taking trazodone at study endpoint. Adverse drug reactions, mostly of mild intensity, were reported in 42% of trazodone-treated patients (mainly of the nervous system) and 43% of sertraline-treated patients (mainly gastrointestinal). One event was considered to be serious: a patient treated with trazodone 450 mg/day showed moderate anxiety/tremor/insomnia and was hospitalized. Treatment was discontinued; the patient made a full recovery. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that after 6 weeks, trazodone and sertraline were not different in reducing symptoms of depression and in producing disease remission. Tolerability profiles reflected the differing pharmacological properties of these antidepressants. Trazodone may be a therapeutic option in the treatment of patients with major depression showing prevalent sleep disturbances.     

A comparative,randomized, double-blind study of trazodone prolonged-release and sertraline in the treatment of major depressive disorder

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of trazodone prolonged-release compared with sertraline in the treatment of patients with major depression.

Research design and methods: A total of 122 patients aged 19–64 years were enrolled in this multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, comparator-controlled study. Patients received 7 days of single-blind placebo treatment followed by 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with trazodone prolonged-release 150–450?mg/day (n = 62) or sertraline 50–100?mg/day (n = 60).

Outcome measures: Efficacy was evaluated by mean changes from baseline in the Hamilton Depression Rating scale (HAM‐D), Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Hamilton Anxiety Rating scale, and the Clinical Global Impression-Global Improvement/Severity scores; and by the rates of patients responding to treatment and considered to be in remission. Time to onset of efficacy and safety were assessed.

Results: Trazodone and sertraline were equally effective in reducing depressive symptoms and promoting remission, and had similar onset times. In the Intent-to-Treat population, there were no significant differences in favor of trazodone at study endpoint in all efficacy measures, while a statistically significant difference was detected in the Per-Protocol population on HAM‐D and in the percentage of responders. Analysis of HAM‐D factors (anxiety/somatization, cognitive disturbance, retardation, and sleep disturbance) indicated that sleep disturbances were significantly less evident for patients taking trazodone at study endpoint. Adverse drug reactions, mostly of mild intensity, were reported in 42% of trazodone-treated patients (mainly of the nervous system) and 43% of sertraline-treated patients (mainly gastrointestinal). One event was considered to be serious: a patient treated with trazodone 450?mg/day showed moderate anxiety/tremor/insomnia and was hospitalized. Treatment was discontinued; the patient made a full recovery.

Conclusions: This study showed that after 6 weeks, trazodone and sertraline were not different in reducing symptoms of depression and in producing disease remission. Tolerability profiles reflected the differing pharmacological properties of these antidepressants. Trazodone may be a therapeutic option in the treatment of patients with major depression showing prevalent sleep disturbances.