Duloxetine: A New Treatment for the Emotional and Physical Symptoms of Depression

BACKGROUND: Depression is underdiagnosed in the primary care setting. Physical symptoms such as aches, pains, and gastrointestinal disturbance are frequently associated with major depressive disorder (MDD) and are often the presenting symptoms. Duloxetine, a dual-reuptake inhibitor of serotonin and norepinephrine, may have a positive effect on physical symptoms in addition to efficacy in treating emotional symptoms of depression. METHOD: Efficacy was evaluated in 6 double-blind, placebo- and/or active comparator-controlled trials of duloxetine for patients with MDD (DSM-IV criteria). Efficacy in depression was determined primarily using the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17). Secondary efficacy measures included subscales of the HAM-D-17 and assessment of physical symptoms. Safety evaluations included adverse events, vital signs, laboratory analyses, and electrocardiograms. Safety was evaluated by pooling the data from the MDD trials and a study of duloxetine in nondepressed patients. RESULTS: Duloxetine demonstrated significant differences from placebo on core mood symptoms, physical symptoms (e.g., back pain), and global functioning as early as week 1 of treatment. The estimated probabilities of remission in the studies that demonstrated efficacy ranged from 43% to 57%. The most frequently observed adverse events for duloxetine-treated patients included nausea, dizziness, insomnia, fatigue, and somnolence. Duloxetine did not prolong corrected QT intervals, and the rate of sustained elevations of blood pressure did not differ significantly from placebo. CONCLUSION: In these studies, duloxetine was safe and effective in the treatment of both emotional and physical symptoms of MDD. Based on dose assessments, 60 mg q.d. appears to be the optimum starting and therapeutic dose.     

Duloxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder: a double-blind clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Duloxetine hydrochloride, a dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin and norepinephrine, was evaluated for therapeutic efficacy and safety/tolerability in the treatment of major depression. METHOD: In an 8-week multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 173 patients (aged 18-65 years) with DSM-IV major depressive disorder were randomly allocated to receive placebo (N = 70), duloxetine (N = 70), or fluoxetine, 20 mg q.d. (N = 33). Duloxetine dose was titrated in the first 3 weeks in a forced-titration regimen from 40 mg (20 mg b.i.d.) to 120 mg/day (60 mg b.i.d.). Patients were required to have a Clinical Global Impressions (CGI)-Severity of Illness scale score of at least moderate severity (> or = 4) and a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) total score of at least 15. Patients could not have had any current primary DSM-IV Axis I diagnosis other than major depressive disorder, or any anxiety disorder as a primary diagnosis within the past year, excluding specific phobias. The primary efficacy measurement was the HAM-D-17 total score, and secondary measures included the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, CGI-Severity of Illness and CGI-Improvement, and Patient Global Impression of Improvement. Safety was evaluated by recording the occurrence of discontinuation rates and treatment-emergent adverse events and by measurement of vital signs and laboratory analytes. RESULTS: Duloxetine was superior to placebo in change on the HAM-D-17 (p = .009). Estimated probabilities of response and remission were 64% and 56%, respectively, for duloxetine, compared with 52% and 30% for fluoxetine and 48% and 32% for placebo. Duloxetine was numerically superior to fluoxetine on the primary and most of the secondary outcome measures. In general, duloxetine was well tolerated; 76% of patients achieved the maximum dose, and insomnia and asthenia were the only adverse events reported statistically significantly (p < .05) more frequently by duloxetine-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that duloxetine is efficacious for the treatment of major depressive disorder and is well tolerated and safe.     

Duloxetine 60 mg once daily dosing versus placebo in the acute treatment of major depression

Existing therapies for major depressive disorder (MDD) have either limited efficacy and/or poor tolerability. The present study examined the effects of duloxetine, a potent and balanced dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE), in patients with MDD. Adult patients (N=267) with MDD were randomly assigned to receive duloxetine (60 mg/day) or placebo in this 9-week, multi-center, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial. Efficacy was evaluated using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD₁₇), Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for pain, Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S), Patient's Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and Quality of Life in Depression Scale (QLDS). Safety was evaluated by assessing discontinuation rates, adverse event rates, vital signs, and laboratory tests. Duloxetine (60 mg QD) significantly reduced the HAMD₁₇ total score compared with placebo at the end of 9-week therapy. Estimated probabilities of response and remission were 65 and 43%, respectively, for duloxetine compared with 42 and 28% for placebo. Duloxetine also reduced overall pain, back pain, shoulder pain and time in pain while awake significantly more than placebo. Global measures of improvement, including PGI-I and QLDS, were significantly improved by duloxetine compared with placebo. Discontinuations due to adverse events were more frequent for duloxetine-treated patients (12.5%) than for placebo-treated patients (4.3%). Nausea, dry mouth, dizziness, and constipation were more frequent for duloxetine than placebo. There was no significant incidence of hypertension, nor any other safety issues. Duloxetine 60 mg administered once daily appears to be a safe and effective treatment for MDD.     

Duloxetine 60 mg once-daily in the treatment of painful physical symptoms in patients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND: While emotional symptoms such as depressed mood and loss of interest have traditionally been considered to constitute the core symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD), the prevalence and importance of painful physical symptoms such as back pain, abdominal pain, and musculoskeletal pain is becoming increasingly appreciated. Antidepressants possessing dual serotonin/norepinephrine (5-HT/NE) reuptake inhibition may demonstrate greater efficacy in the alleviation of pain. The efficacy of duloxetine, a balanced and potent dual reuptake inhibitor of 5-HT and NE, was evaluated within a cohort of depressed patients with associated painful physical symptoms. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD were randomized to receive placebo (N=141) or duloxetine 60 mg QD (N=141). Patients were required to have a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD17) total score 15, a Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) score 4, and a Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Average Pain score 2 at baseline. The primary efficacy measure was the BPI Average Pain score, while secondary measures included other BPI items, the HAMD17 total score, CGI-S, the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale, Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for pain, and the Symptom Questionnaire, Somatic Subscale (SQSS). Safety was evaluated by recording treatment-emergent adverse events (spontaneously reported), vital signs, and laboratory analytes. RESULTS: Mean changes in BPI Average Pain for duloxetine- and placebo-treated patients differed significantly at most visits, but only approached significance at endpoint p=0.066. For the main effect of treatment (pooling all visits), significant advantages for duloxetine-treated patients were found in 10 of 11 assessed BPI pain severity and pain interference items, in addition to VAS overall pain and back pain. Mean changes in pain measures for duloxetine-treated patients corresponded to improvements of 25-50%, compared with 19-39% for placebo. Mean changes at endpoint in depression rating scales (HAMD17, CGI-S, PGI-I) did not differ significantly between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups due to unusually high placebo response. The magnitude of placebo treatment effects (as measured by HAMD17 total score and Maier subscale) was significantly smaller in patients with 1 previous depressive episode, compared to those patients with no previous episodes. In patients with 1 previous depressive episode the advantage of duloxetine over placebo was similar to previous studies. Rates of discontinuation due to adverse events were 14.2% vs. 2.1% for duloxetine and placebo, respectively p<0.001. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported at a significantly higher rate by duloxetine-treated patients included nausea, dry mouth, fatigue, and decreased appetite. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, duloxetine (60 mg QD) was shown to be an effective treatment for the painful physical symptoms which are frequently associated with depression. Improvements in pain severity occurred independently of changes in depressive symptom severity.     

Duloxetine for the treatment of major depressive disorder: a closer look at efficacy and safety data across the approved dose range

OBJECTIVE: This analysis focuses on efficacy and safety data obtained from studies of duloxetine for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) within the approved dose range of 40-60 mg/day. METHOD: Efficacy and safety data were obtained from the acute phase portions of four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials in patients meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD. In Studies 1 and 2, patients were randomized to duloxetine 60 mg once daily (QD) (n=123 [Study 1]; n=128 [Study 2]) or placebo (n=122 [Study 1]; n=139 [Study 2]) for 9 weeks. In Studies 3 and 4, patients were randomized to duloxetine 20 mg twice daily (BID) (n=91 [Study 3]; n=86 [Study 4]) or placebo (n=90 [Study 3]; n=89 [Study 4]) for 8 weeks. Efficacy measures included the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD17) total score (primary outcome), HAMD17 subscales, the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scales, and Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for pain. Safety assessments included rates of discontinuation due to adverse events, spontaneously reported treatment-emergent adverse events, and changes in vital signs. RESULTS: In both studies of duloxetine 60 mg QD, mean change in HAMD17 total score was significantly greater in duloxetine-treated patients compared with placebo (Study 1, p<.001; Study 2, p=.024). At a dose of 20 mg BID, duloxetine demonstrated significant superiority over placebo on the HAMD17 total score in one of the two studies (Study 4, p=.034). Probabilities of remission among patients receiving duloxetine 60 mg QD were 44.2% in Study 1 (p<.001 vs. placebo) and 43.0% in Study 2 (NS), while for patients receiving duloxetine 20 mg BID the probabilities of remission were 27.2% in Study 3 (NS) and 36.1% in Study 4 (NS). Across the six assessed VAS measures of pain severity and interference, the main effect of treatment for duloxetine 60 mg QD was significantly superior to placebo on 7 of the 12 outcomes in Studies 1 and 2, while duloxetine 20 mg BID was not superior to placebo on any of the 12 outcomes in Studies 3 and 4. The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was 13.1% among patients receiving duloxetine 60 mg QD, and 11.9% at a dose of 20 mg BID. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events at both doses included nausea, headache, dry mouth, dizziness, and insomnia. The incidence of treatment-emergent nausea among patients receiving duloxetine 60 mg QD was 37.8%, compared with 16.4% among patients receiving 20 mg BID. CONCLUSION: Duloxetine provides safe and effective acute phase treatment of MDD at doses of 40-60 mg/day. Compared with placebo, the 60 mg QD dose was more consistently effective than the 20 mg BID dose. However, the incidence of certain treatment-emergent adverse events is likely to be lower at the 40 mg dose.     

Duloxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder: comparisons of safety and efficacy in U.S. Hispanic and majority Caucasian patients

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate new pharmacotherapies for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in Hispanic Americans, the largest ethnic minority group in the United States. METHOD: Efficacy and safety data were pooled from 7 double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of duloxetine conducted from February 1999 through November 2002. English-speaking patients (aged > or = 18 years) meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD received duloxetine (40-120 mg/ day; Hispanic, N = 58; Caucasian, N = 748) or placebo (Hispanic, N = 62; Caucasian, N = 594) for up to 9 weeks. Efficacy measures included the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) total score, HAM-D-17 subscales, the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale, the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale, and the Visual Analog Scales for pain. Safety was assessed using discontinuation rates, treatment-emergent adverse events, vital signs, and laboratory analyses. Three sets of data were analyzed using different pooling strategies, including exploratory analyses with 470 subjects (Hispanic, N = 51; Caucasian, N = 419) receiving the recommended dose of 60 mg. RESULTS: No evidence for a differential effect of duloxetine in Hispanic and Caucasian patients was found in efficacy outcomes. Discontinuation rates due to adverse events among duloxetine-treated patients were 14.0% for Hispanics and 17.0% for Caucasians, compared with 3.2% and 5.7%, respectively, for placebo-treated patients (p = .671). The type of adverse events and their individual rate of occurrence did not differ significantly between Hispanic and Caucasian patients. Mean changes from baseline for pulse, blood pressure, weight, and laboratory analytes were small and showed no significant differences between Hispanic and Caucasian patients. CONCLUSION: In this analysis of pooled data, no evidence for a differential effect of duloxetine in Hispanic and majority Caucasian patients was found in efficacy or safety outcomes.     

Duloxetine for the treatment of major depressive disorder in older patients.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and safety of duloxetine, a dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE), were evaluated in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) and associated pain symptoms in patients age 55 and older. METHODS: Efficacy data were obtained from patients age > or =55 who participated in two identical, multicenter, double-blind studies in which patients with MDD were randomized to receive placebo (N=43) or duloxetine (60 mg/day; N=47) for 9 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was the mean change in Ham-D-17 total score. Pain symptoms were assessed with visual-analog scales. Safety data for patients age > or =55 were pooled from six randomized, 8- or 9-week, double-blind studies of duloxetine in which patients with MDD were randomized to receive placebo (N=90) or duloxetine (40 mg/day-120 mg/day; N=119). RESULTS: The combined results of these two investigations found that duloxetine was significantly superior to placebo for mean change in Ham-D-17 total score. The estimated probability of remission for duloxetine-treated patients (44.1%) was also significantly higher than that for placebo (16.1%). Reductions in overall pain, back pain, and pain while awake were also significantly greater for duloxetine than placebo. The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was significantly higher for duloxetine-treated patients (21.0%) than placebo (6.7%). Abnormal elevations in vital signs at endpoint were not significantly different from placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In these two investigations, duloxetine 60 mg/day was an efficacious treatment for MDD and also alleviated pain symptoms in depression patients age 55 and older.     

The safety and tolerability of duloxetine compared with paroxetine and placebo: a pooled analysis of 4 clinical trials

Background: To compare the safety and tolerability of duloxetine with paroxetine and placebo in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Method: Data from four 8-week randomized, double-blind, placebo- and paroxetine-controlled studies of duloxetine for MDD (DSM-IV criteria) were pooled to compare the safety and tolerability of duloxetine 40 to 120 mg/day with paroxetine 20 mg q.d. Two of the 4 trials included a 26-week extension. Results: The pooled database included 1466 patients (duloxetine, N = 736; paroxetine, N = 359; placebo, N = 371). No deaths occurred in the acute phase trials. Discontinuation rates for adverse events did not differ significantly for duloxetine, 8.0%, and paroxetine, 6.1%. Nausea was the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event for duloxetine (duloxetine, 14.4%; paroxetine, 12.0%; placebo, 3.8%). Blood pressure and corrected QT (QTc) interval changes were modest and did not differ significantly for the 3 groups. Mean heart rate increased slightly in the duloxetine group, 1.0 beat/minute, and did differ significantly (p < .001) from that in the paroxetine group, but the change is of doubtful importance. Mean changes in laboratory analytes remained within the reference range. Emergent sexual dysfunction was significantly greater among duloxetine- and paroxetine-treated patients than placebo-treated patients (p = .007 vs. duloxetine and p < .001 vs. paroxetine); however, it was significantly lower in duloxetine-treated patients than in paroxetine-treated patients (46.4% vs. 61.4%; p = .015). During the extension phase, weight gain (≥ 7% of initial body weight) was greater in both active-treatment groups than in the placebo group (duloxetine, 10.8%; paroxetine, 13.8%; placebo, 3.1%), but the active-treatment groups did not differ. Conclusions: Duloxetine is safe and well tolerated in patients with MDD, with safety and tolerability comparable to that of paroxetine.     

Efficacy of duloxetine on cognition, depression, and pain in elderly patients with major depressive disorder: an 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the effects of duloxetine, 60 mg/day, versus placebo on cognition, depression, and pain in elderly patients with recurrent major depressive disorder. METHOD: Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to duloxetine, 60 mg/day (N=207), or placebo (N=104) for 8 weeks in a double-blind study. The primary outcome measure was a prespecified composite cognitive score composed of four individual tests. Secondary measures included the Geriatric Depression Scale, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Visual Analogue Scale assessing pain, and standard safety and tolerability assessments. RESULTS: Patients had a median age of 72 years (range=65-90). Duloxetine demonstrated significantly greater improvement in the composite cognitive score versus placebo (least-squares mean change from baseline to endpoint: 1.95 versus 0.76), driven by improved verbal learning and memory. Duloxetine treatment showed significantly greater baseline-to-endpoint reductions in both Hamilton depression scale (-6.49 versus -3.72) and Geriatric Depression Scale (-4.07 versus -1.34) total scores compared with placebo. Hamilton depression scale response (37.3% versus 18.6%) and remission (27.4% versus 14.7%) rates at endpoint were significantly higher for duloxetine than for placebo. Duloxetine significantly improved Visual Analogue Scale scores for back pain and time in pain while awake versus placebo. Significantly fewer patients receiving duloxetine withdrew from the study because of lack of efficacy (2.9% versus 9.6%); the incidences of discontinuation due to adverse events were similar for duloxetine and placebo (9.7% versus 8.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine improved cognition, depression, and some pain measures and was safe and well tolerated in elderly patients with recurrent major depressive disorder.     

Duloxetine in treatment of anxiety symptoms associated with depression

Most patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) have symptoms of anxiety associated with their depression. Duloxetine, a potent and balanced dual serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, is effective in the treatmentof depression. We investigated its effects in treating the symptoms of anxiety in depressed patients. This investigation includes all the placebo-controlled studies of duloxetine in MDD but focuses on four trials in which duloxetine was superior to placebo on the primary outcome measure of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD(17)) total score. Studies 1 and 2 included duloxetine at 60 mg/d (the recommended starting and therapeutic dose) and placebo. Study 3 included duloxetine 120 mg/d (administered as 60 mg b.i.d.), fluoxetine 20 mg/d, and placebo. Study 4 included duloxetine 40 mg/d (administered as 20 mg b.i.d.), duloxetine 80 mg/d (administered as 40 mg b.i.d.), paroxetine 20 mg/d, and placebo. Anxiety was assessed in all studies using the HAMD anxiety/somatization subfactor and the anxiety-psychic item (HAMD Item 10). Studies 3 and 4 also included the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA). Across the four studies, duloxetine at doses of >/=60 mg was compared with placebo on 10 outcomes and with either paroxetine or fluoxetine on 6 outcomes. In 8 comparisons, mean improvement for duloxetine was significantly greater than placebo at the last study visit and/or across all study visits. In 3 comparisons, the mean improvement for duloxetine was significantly greater than paroxetine or fluoxetine. In these studies, duloxetine provided rapid relief of anxiety symptoms associated with depression. Previous reports have summarized duloxetine's efficacy in treating the core emotional symptoms and painful physical symptoms associated with depression. Duloxetine's efficacy in treating a broad spectrum of symptoms associated with depression, including mood, anxiety, and painful physical symptoms, may be attributed to dual reuptake inhibition of both serotonin and norepinephrine. Efficacy in these three key symptom domains may in turn explain the high probabilities of remission (43-57%) observed in these studies.     

The effect of duloxetine on painful physical symptoms in depressed patients: do improvements in these symptoms result in higher remission rates?

BACKGROUND: Depression is a chronic disease consisting of emotional/psychological and physical symptoms. Emotional symptoms have been shown to respond to currently available antidepressants; however, physical symptoms may not be as responsive. It was hypothesized that resolution of both psychological and physical symptoms of depression would predict a higher percentage of patients achieving remission. METHOD: Efficacy data were pooled from 2 identical, but independent, 9-week randomized, double-blind clinical trials of duloxetine 60 mg q.d. (N = 251) and placebo (N = 261). All patients met diagnostic criteria for DSM-IV major depressive disorder, which was confirmed by the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Efficacy measures included the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) total score, the HAM-D-17 Maier subscale, the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) scale, the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale, the Somatic Symptom Inventory, the Quality of Life in Depression Scale, and Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for pain (overall pain, headaches, back pain, shoulder pain, interference with daily activities, and time in pain while awake). RESULTS: Duloxetine-treated patients demonstrated significantly greater improvement in overall pain (p =.016), back pain (p =.002), and shoulder pain (p =.021) at week 9 compared with patients receiving placebo. When treatment effects were pooled over all visits, patients receiving duloxetine, 60 mg q.d., exhibited significantly greater improvement than placebo-treated patients in 5 of the 6 assessed VAS pain measures. Approximately 50% of the improvement in overall pain was independent of improvement in HAM-D-17 total score. Assuming the same level of improvement in core emotional symptoms of depression (Maier subscale), improvement in overall pain severity was associated with higher estimated probabilities of remission (p <.001). The week 9 means for VAS overall pain severity were 13.0 for remitters (last observed value for HAM-D-17 was < or = 7) compared with 22.7 for nonremitters (p <.001), respectively, representing a greater than 3-fold improvement from baseline in remitters. The remission rate for pain responders (improvement in VAS overall pain from baseline to last observation > or = 50%) was twice that observed for pain nonresponders (36.2% vs. 17.8%, p <.001). Greater improvements in pain outcomes were associated with more favorable endpoint outcomes on the CGI-S and PGI-I scales. In addition, early favorable responses in VAS overall pain severity were associated with favorable endpoint outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with duloxetine, 60 mg q.d., significantly reduced pain compared with placebo. Improvements in pain severity were attributable equally to the direct effect of duloxetine and to associated changes in depression severity. Improvement in painful physical symptoms was associated with higher remission rates even after accounting for improvement in core emotional symptoms.     

Time course of depression-symptom improvement during treatment with duloxetine

The aim of this study was to examine the longitudinal response for overall and individual symptoms during the treatment of major depressive disorder. Data were pooled from two 9-week trials, which compared duloxetine 60-mg QD (n=251) with placebo (n=261) in the treatment of MDD. Changes from baseline in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD17) and in the Visual Analog Scales for pain were analyzed. Compared to placebo-treated patients, duloxetine-treated patients experienced greater improvement (P<.05) in the HAMD17 total score at Week 2. The individual symptoms showing the most rapid improvements (Week 1) were depressed mood, guilt, suicidal ideation, work/activities, and psychic anxiety as well as VAS back pain and shoulder pain. At subsequent visits, significant improvements were observed in retardation (Week 2); hypochondriasis (Week 3); general somatic symptoms (Week 5); middle and late insomnia (Week 7); and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, genital symptoms (level of sexual interest or ease of sexual arousal), insight, and early insomnia (Week 9). Significant advantages for duloxetine were not achieved at any visit for agitation, somatic anxiety, or weight loss. At Weeks 1 and 2, placebo-treated patients had significantly lower GI symptoms and reported less weight loss compared with duloxetine-treated patients; however, differences were not significant at subsequent visits. Furthermore, duloxetine was superior to placebo on GI symptoms at endpoint compared to placebo-treated patients; duloxetine-treated patients had a significantly higher response rate at Week 2 and a higher remission rate at Week 5. These results may help clinicians establish more accurate expectations regarding treatment with duloxetine.     

Use of effect size to determine optimal dose of duloxetine in major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE: At effective doses, patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with duloxetine have been found to experience significant symptom improvement as measured by HAMD(17) total score. In addition, duloxetine-treated patients have significantly higher remission and response rates compared with placebo. The objective of this analysis is to determine the optimal dose of duloxetine in MDD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Effect size for duloxetine 40mg, 60mg, 80mg, and 120mg per day were estimated using all 6 acute phase III clinical trials in patients with MDD. The tolerability of duloxetine 40mg, 60mg, 80mg, and 120mg were evaluated using pooled data from the 6 studies. The primary efficacy measure in all trials was the HAMD(17) total score, from which were determined the effect size for HAMD(17) change scores, response rates (50% reduction from baseline to endpoint), and remission rates (HAMD(17) total score < or =7). RESULTS: A total of 1619 randomized patients were included in these studies, of which 632 were treated with placebo; 177 with duloxetine 40mg/day; 251 with 60mg/day; 363 with 80mg/day; and 196 with 120mg/day. An evaluation of increments in effect size between doses consistently showed that the most notable gain in effect size for efficacy was the 40-60mg/day dosage range. All dosages from 60 to 120mg were effective. The tolerability assessment indicated duloxetine at 40-120mg/day is well tolerated. Furthermore, the initial doses of 40-80mg/day were found to have comparable tolerability. CONCLUSIONS: The effect size analyses demonstrate that duloxetine 40mg has minimum efficacy, and that duloxetine 60-120mg/day is effective in the treatment of patients with MDD. An initial dose less than 60mg/day might provide better tolerability for some patients diagnosed with MDD.     

A randomized, double-blind comparison of duloxetine and venlafaxine in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials assessing antidepressant therapies typically include separate assessments of efficacy (benefit) and adverse events (risk). Global benefit-risk (GBR) assessment allows the simultaneous evaluation of both efficacy and adverse events. The objective was to compare the serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) duloxetine and venlafaxine using GBR assessment. METHODS: Data were combined from two similarly designed, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group studies in which patients with major depressive disorder were randomized to either duloxetine 60 mg/day or venlafaxine extended release (XR) 150 mg/day (75 mg/day for the first 2 weeks) for a 6-week fixed dosing period followed by an additional 6 weeks of treatment in which the dose could be increased up to 120 mg/day for duloxetine and 225 mg/day for venlafaxine. Patients completing the study (or receiving study drug for 2 weeks or more) were eligible to enter a taper period where the dose of study drug was gradually reduced over 1-2 weeks prior to drug discontinuation. The primary outcome measure (defined a priori) was the GBR comparison of duloxetine 60 mg/day and venlafaxine XR 150 mg/day after 6 weeks of treatment. In the GBR analysis, benefit was defined as remission at endpoint [17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD17) 7]. Risk was defined by four categories: patients having either no adverse events (AEs), AEs with no severity rating greater than moderate, AEs with at least one severity rating of severe, or having discontinued with a reason of self-reported adverse event (regardless of any AE severity). Additional efficacy measures included HAMD17 total score and subscales, HAMA, CGI-S, and PGI-I. Safety and tolerability were assessed via analysis of reasons for discontinuation, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), discontinuation-emergent adverse events, and changes in vital signs, weight, and laboratory analytes. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between duloxetine 60 mg/day and venlafaxine 150 mg/day as measured by GBR assessment at the end of 6 weeks (-1.418 vs. -1.079, P = 0.217) or 12 weeks (-0.349 vs. -0.121, P = 0.440), nor were there significant differences between treatment groups on the majority of efficacy measures. Significantly more venlafaxine-treated patients (74.5%) completed 12 weeks of treatment compared with duloxetine-treated patients (64.8%, P =.006). Nausea was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) for both drugs, and was significantly higher with duloxetine 60 mg/day compared to venlafaxine 150 mg/day during the first 6 weeks of treatment (43.6% vs. 35.0%, P0.05). During the taper period, significantly more venlafaxine-treated patients reported discontinuation-emergent adverse events (DEAEs) than duloxetine-treated patients. From a safety perspective, significantly more venlafaxine-treated patients (n = 4) than duloxetine-treated patients (n=0, P =.047) experienced sustained elevations of systolic blood pressure during the fixed dosing period. Otherwise, there were few significant differences in safety measures found between treatment groups during 6 and 12 weeks of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine 60 mg/day and venlafaxine XR 150 mg/day have similar benefit-risk profiles on the basis of a comparison utilizing GBR assessment. The implications of the more subtle differences between these drugs, as well as for interpreting the GBR assessment, are discussed.     

Quality of life in patients with personality disorders seen at an ordinary psychiatric outpatient clinic

Background

The most prominent feature of melancholic depression is a near-total loss of the capacity to derive pleasure from activities or other positive stimuli. Additional symptoms can include psychomotor disturbances, anorexia, excessive guilt, and early awakening from sleep. Melancholic patients may exhibit treatment responses and outcomes that differ from those of non-melancholic patients. Pooled data from double-blind, placebo-controlled studies were utilized to compare the efficacy of duloxetine in depressed patients with and without melancholic features.

Methods

Efficacy data were pooled from 8 double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of duloxetine. The presence of melancholic features (DSM-IV criteria) was determined using results from the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). Patients (aged ≥ 18 years) meeting DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD) received duloxetine (40–120 mg/d; melancholic, N = 759; non-melancholic, N = 379) or placebo (melancholic, N = 519; non-melancholic, N = 256) for up to 9 weeks. Efficacy measures included the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD₁₇) total score, HAMD₁₇ subscales (Maier, anxiety, retardation, sleep), the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scales, and Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for pain.

Results

In data from all 8 studies, duloxetine's advantage over placebo did not differ significantly between melancholic and non-melancholic patients (treatment-by-melancholic status interactions were not statistically significant). Duloxetine demonstrated significantly greater improvement in depressive symptom severity, compared with placebo, within both melancholic and non-melancholic cohorts (p ≤.001 for HAMD₁₇ total score, CGI-S and PGI-I). When analyzed by gender, the magnitude of improvement in efficacy outcomes did not differ significantly between duloxetine-treated male and female melancholic patients. In the two studies that assessed duloxetine 60 mg once-daily dosing, duloxetine-treated melancholic patients had significantly greater improvement compared with placebo on HAMD₁₇ total score, CGI-S, PGI-I, 3 of 4 subscales of the HAMD₁₇, and VAS overall pain severity (p <.01). Estimated probabilities of response and remission were significantly greater for melancholic patients receiving duloxetine 60 mg QD compared with placebo (response 74.7% vs. 42.2%, respectively, p <.001; remission 44.4% vs. 24.7%, respectively, p =.002

Conclusions

In this analysis of pooled data, the efficacy of duloxetine in patients with melancholic features did not differ significantly from that observed in non-melancholic patients.     

Time to response for duloxetine 60 mg once daily versus placebo in elderly patients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND: Rapid response to antidepressant therapy is desirable and may be particularly critical in elderly patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).METHODS: Findings are based on post-hoc analyses from a double-blind trial of elderly patients with MDD > or = 65 years, randomly assigned 2:1 to duloxetine 60 mg QD (N = 207) or placebo (N = 104) for 8 weeks. Depression and pain measures included the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), 17-item Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD17), CGI-Severity, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for overall pain. The time to response and remission for duloxetine compared with placebo was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards (PH) modeling, Kaplan-Meier estimation, and categorical repeated measures analysis.RESULTS: Significant improvements of estimated HAMD17 response and remission rates for duloxetine started at week 2 (P = 0.022 and P = 0.033, respectively). Time to HAMD17 response and remission were significantly shorter for duloxetine versus placebo (P 0.10 for all PH treatment-by-age interactions). The placebo-referenced duloxetine HR for time to 50% reduction in overall pain was 1.75 (P = 0.024) for patients with moderate to severe pain.CONCLUSION: Duloxetine demonstrated a faster time to antidepressant response and improvement in self-reported pain as compared with placebo.CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER FOR THIS STUDY: NCT00062673, at www.clinicaltrials.gov.     

Duloxetine efficacy for major depressive disorder in male vs. female patients: data from 7 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials

OBJECTIVE: A number of studies have suggested potential gender differences in the efficacy of antidepressant medications. Pooled data from double-blind, placebo-controlled studies were utilized to compare the efficacy of duloxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in male and female patients. METHOD: Efficacy data were pooled from 7 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of duloxetine. These studies represent all available data from U.S. acute-phase, placebo-controlled studies of duloxetine for the treatment of MDD. Patients (aged > or = 18 years) meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD received duloxetine (40-120 mg/day; men, N = 318; women, N = 578) or placebo (men, N = 242; women, N = 484) for up to 9 weeks. Efficacy measures included the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17) total score, HAM-D17 subscales (core, Maier, anxiety, retardation, sleep), the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale (PGI-I), the Quality of Life in Depression Scale (QLDS), and Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for pain. The first patient visit was February 1, 1999, and the last patient visit was November 27, 2002. RESULTS: In both male and female patients, duloxetine produced significantly greater improvement in HAM-D17, CGI-S, and PGI-I when compared with placebo (p < .05). Treatment-by-gender interactions did not reach statistical significance, indicating that the magnitude of duloxetine's treatment effects did not differ significantly between male and female patients. However, there was a trend for female patients to show a more robust response than male patients to both duloxetine and placebo. On the basis of VAS assessments of pain severity, duloxetine-treated female patients appeared to exhibit greater improvement than male patients, while women receiving placebo had smaller responses than placebo-treated men. Improvements in quality of life were significantly greater for both men (p = .006) and women (p = .001) receiving duloxetine than placebo and showed no significant difference by gender. CONCLUSION: In this analysis of pooled data, the efficacy of duloxetine did not differ significantly in male and female patients.     

Duloxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder: a placebo- and paroxetine-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Duloxetine doses of 80 and 120 mg/day were assessed for efficacy and safety in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial, patients age > or =18 meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD were randomized to placebo (N=99), duloxetine 80 mg/day (N=93), duloxetine 120 mg/day (N=103), or paroxetine 20 mg/day (N=97). The primary outcome measure was mean change from baseline in the 17-item Hamilton rating scale for depression (HAMD(17)) total score after 8 weeks of treatment; a number of secondary efficacy measures also were assessed. Safety and tolerability were assessed via collection and analysis of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs, and weight. The Arizona sexual experiences scale was used to assess sexual functioning. Patients who had a > or =30% reduction from baseline in the HAMD(17) total score at the end of the acute phase entered a 6-month continuation phase where they remained on the same treatment as they had taken during the acute phase; efficacy and safety/tolerability outcomes were assessed during continuation treatment. RESULTS: More than 87% of patients completed the acute phase in each treatment group. Duloxetine-treated patients (both doses) showed significantly greater improvement (P<0.05) in the HAMD(17) total score at week 8 compared with placebo. Paroxetine was not significantly different from placebo (P=0.089) on mean change on the HAMD(17). Duloxetine 120 mg/day also showed significant improvement on most secondary efficacy measures (six of nine) compared with placebo while duloxetine 80 mg/day (three of nine) and paroxetine (three of nine) were significantly superior to placebo on fewer secondary measures. HAMD(17) mean change data from this study and an identical sister study were pooled as defined a priori for the purposes of performing a non-inferiority test versus paroxetine. Both duloxetine doses met statistical criteria for non-inferiority to paroxetine. TEAE reporting rates were low in all treatment groups and no deaths occurred in the acute or continuation phases. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of duloxetine at doses of 80 and 120 mg/day in the treatment of MDD was demonstrated. Tolerability, as measured by TEAEs, and safety were similar to paroxetine 20 mg/day and consistent with previous published data on duloxetine in the treatment of MDD.     

Duloxetine for the treatment of major depressive disorder: safety and tolerability associated with dose escalation

Duloxetine has demonstrated efficacy for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) at a dose of 60 mg/day (given once daily). Whereas the target dose for the majority of patients is 60 mg/day, higher duloxetine doses (up to 120 mg/day) have been studied using a twice-daily dosing schedule. To further investigate the pharmacological profile of duloxetine within a once-daily dosing regimen at doses above 60 mg, we examined the safety and tolerability of duloxetine during a dose escalation from 60 mg/day to 120 mg/day. This single-arm, non-placebo-controlled study incorporated a 7-week dose escalation phase, in which patients and investigators were blinded as to timing of dose increases, followed by an open-label extension phase of up to 2 years duration. Patients (age >or=18 years) meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD (n=128) received placebo for 1 week, followed by duloxetine (60 mg/day) titrated after 1 week to 90 mg/day, and after a further week to 120 mg/day. The dose of 120 mg/day was then maintained for 4 weeks. The extension phase comprised an initial 6-week dose stabilization period, during which duloxetine was tapered to the lowest effective dose, followed by continuation therapy at the stabilized dose. We assessed safety using spontaneously reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), changes in vital signs, electrocardiograms (ECGs), laboratory analytes, and visual analogue scales (VAS) for gastrointestinal (GI) disturbance. Efficacy measures included the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) total score, the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scales, and VAS assessments of pain severity and interference. The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events during the acute phase of the study was 15.6%. The most frequently reported TEAEs were nausea, headache, dry mouth, dizziness, and decreased appetite. The majority of TEAEs were associated with initial duloxetine dosing; further escalations in dose produced few additional adverse events. VAS measures of GI disturbance worsened significantly compared with baseline values after 1 week of duloxetine treatment. Subsequent assessments of GI disturbance, following dose escalation to 90 mg/day and 120 mg/day, showed either no significant difference or a significant improvement from baseline. Significant improvements (P<.001) were observed in all assessed depression efficacy measures, and in five of six VAS pain outcomes, during acute phase treatment. During 2 years of extension phase therapy, the rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was 11.9%, and the only TEAEs reported by >10% of patients were upper respiratory tract infection (13.1%), headache (10.7%), and insomnia (10.7%). Mean changes from baseline to the end of the extension phase in supine systolic and diastolic blood pressure were 3.8 and 0.5 mm Hg, respectively, and there were no reports of sustained hypertension. Mean increase in heart rate was 5.9 bpm, while patients exhibited a mean weight increase of 3.1 kg over 2 years of treatment. Results from this study suggest that rapid dose escalation of duloxetine (60 mg/day --> 90 mg/day --> 120 mg/day) is safe and tolerable. Despite weekly escalation, the majority of adverse events were mild and transient and occurred in the first week of duloxetine dosing (at 60 mg once daily). Long-term treatment at a stabilized duloxetine dose was associated with a relatively low incidence of TEAEs and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. Time course profiles of body weight and heart rate showed modest increases during 2 years of treatment [ClinicalTrials.gov number, NC T000 42575].     

Gepirone extended-release treatment of anxious depression: evidence from a retrospective subgroup analysis in patients with major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gepirone extended-release (ER) tablets in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and high ratings of anxiety (anxious depression). METHOD: This subgroup analysis was derived from an 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of gepirone ER in patients with MDD. Male and female patients 18 to 69 years of age who met DSM-IV criteria for MDD and had high ratings of anxiety (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D-17] total score > or = 20 and HAM-D-17 factor I [anxiety/somatization] score > 6) were included in this subgroup analysis. Eligible patients with anxious depression were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or gepirone ER, 20 mg to 80 mg daily. Patient assessments were performed at weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8. Treatment efficacy was evaluated by mean HAM-D-17 total scores and mean changes from baseline in (1) HAM-D-17 total scores, (2) HAM-D-17 factor I (anxiety/somatization) scores, and (3) HAM-D-17 item 12 (anxiety, psychic) scores. All statistical tests were 2-sided and considered statistically significant if the p value was <.05. Between-group comparisons were analyzed using least-squares analysis of variance on the change from baseline at each visit with the last observation carried forward (LOCF). The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for center was also performed on the percentage of patients in each treatment group at each visit (LOCF) who met the response criterion on the HAM-D-17 (> or = 50% decrease from baseline) or remission criterion (HAM-D-17 total score < or = 7). RESULTS: Gepirone ER-treated patients (N = 58) experienced a statistically significant (p <.05) reduction in mean HAM-D-17 total score at week 3, 6, and 8 compared with placebo-treated patients (N = 75). A statistically significant effect (p <.05) in favor of gepirone ER was observed in mean change from baseline in HAM-D-17 total scores and for HAM-D factor I (anxiety/somatization) scores from week 2 onward. A statistically significant (p < or =.01) effect in favor of gepirone ER was observed in HAM-D-17 item 12 (anxiety, psychic) scores throughout the 8-week trial. There were significantly more patients in the gepirone ER group compared with the placebo group who were HAM-D-17 responders (p <.05) at endpoint and who met the criteria for HAM-D-17 remission at week 3 (p <.05) and weeks 6 and 8 (p <.01). Overall, gepirone ER was well tolerated, with rates of weight gain and sexual dysfunction comparable to placebo. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate. The most commonly reported adverse events were dizziness and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Gepirone ER is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for patients with anxious depression.