Efficacy of low and higher dose extended-release venlafaxine in generalized social anxiety disorder: a 6-month randomized controlled trial

Rationale There is a need for new pharmacological treatments for generalized social anxiety disorder (GSAD), which is a common, often disabling condition.Objective To compare the efficacy and safety over 6 months duration of two dose ranges of venlafaxine extended-release (ER) with placebo in patients with GSAD.Method Twenty-eight-week, double-blind, multi-center study in 386 adult outpatients with DSM-IV GSAD. Patients were randomized to placebo, venlafaxine ER fixed low dose (75 mg/day), or venlafaxine ER flexible higher dose (150–225 mg/day). Primary efficacy variable was change on the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS). Secondary efficacy variables included, among others, the proportion of responders on the CGI Global Improvement Item (score 1 or 2), and the proportion of remitters (defined as an LSAS score of 30).Results Improvement on the LSAS was greater with venlafaxine ER (at 75 mg/day or 150–225 mg/day) than placebo, and was sustained throughout the 6-month trial. Of patients receiving venlafaxine ER (at any dose), 58% responded to treatment compared to 33% of those receiving placebo (P<0.001); corresponding remission rates were 31% and 16% (P<0.01). There were no differences in outcome according to venlafaxine ER dosage.Conclusions Venlafaxine ER was effective in the treatment of GSAD. The comparable efficacy at low and higher doses may indicate that norepinephrine reuptake blockade does not contribute to therapeutic effect in GSAD. This hypothesis should be tested using agents with specific actions on norepinephrine reuptake blockade.     

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of a flexible dose of venlafaxine ER in adult outpatients with generalized social anxiety disorder

Venlafaxine extended release (ER) is a dual serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor previously shown to be effective in the treatment of major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. This placebo-controlled, multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial examined the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine ER in outpatients with generalized social anxiety disorder. Two hundred seventy-two outpatients were randomly assigned to receive either a flexible dose of venlafaxine ER (75 to 225 mg/d) or placebo for 12 weeks. Venlafaxine ER was statistically significantly more effective than placebo as demonstrated by the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale total scores at weeks 4 to 12. Scores of both the Clinical Global Impression-Severity and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scales showed that venlafaxine ER was significantly more effective than placebo at weeks 4 to 12. In addition, more venlafaxine ER-treated patients achieved CGI-Improvement scores of 1 or 2 than placebo-treated patients at weeks 4 to 12, demonstrating a greater percentage of responders to venlafaxine ER treatment. Assessment using the fear/anxiety and avoidance subscales of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Inventory Scale also showed venlafaxine ER to be more effective than placebo at weeks 4 to 12 and 6 to 12, respectively. The Sheehan Disability Inventory showed that patients in the venlafaxine ER-treated group had significantly better outcomes in social life at weeks 4 and 12, and in work at week 12. Adverse events were similar to those reported in studies of venlafaxine ER in depression and generalized anxiety disorder. Venlafaxine ER was safe, well tolerated, and efficacious in the short-term treatment of generalized social anxiety disorder.     

Duloxetine as an SNRI treatment for generalized anxiety disorder: results from a placebo and active-controlled trial

This study examined the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine 60-120 mg/day for the treatment of patients with generalized anxiety disorder. This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose, placebo and active-controlled (venlafaxine extended-release 75-225 mg/day) trial designed to assess duloxetine 60-120 mg/day during 10 weeks of treatment in adults with Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders-IV-defined generalized anxiety disorder. The primary efficacy outcome measure was mean change from baseline to endpoint in the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale total score assessed using analysis of covariance. A total of 487 patients were randomly assigned to duloxetine (n=162), venlafaxine XR (n=164), or placebo (n=161). Significantly greater improvement on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale total score occurred in the duloxetine (P=0.007) and venlafaxine XR (P<0.001) groups compared with the placebo group. Overall discontinuation rates did not differ among the three groups, but adverse event-related discontinuation was significantly higher in the duloxetine (14.2%, P<0.001) and venlafaxine XR (11.0%, P=0.001) groups than in the placebo group (1.9%). During the 2-week drug-tapering phase, discontinuation-emergent adverse events were significantly greater in the venlafaxine XR group (26.9%, P=0.04), but not in the duloxetine group (19.4%, P=0.448) compared with placebo (15.8%). Duloxetine 60-120 mg/day and venlafaxine XR 75-225 mg/day were each efficacious treatments for patients with generalized anxiety disorder.     

Remission rates with venlafaxine extended release in Greek outpatients with generalized anxiety disorder. A double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled study

The primary endpoints in this study were the remission rates [final Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) total score < or =7] and reduction from baseline in the HAM-A total score in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and no associated depression. Patients with GAD (DSM-IV and HAM-A total score >18) were randomly assigned to treatment with venlafaxine XR or placebo for 8 weeks. A 1-week placebo run-in period preceded the double-blind phase. Patients with a >20% drop in their total HAM-A score during the run-in period, were excluded from the double-blind phase. All patients started therapy with 75 mg/day venlafaxine XR or matched placebo. Patients with less than 30% decrease in their HAM-A total score at the end of the second week, doubled their dose. Patients on the 150 mg/day dose underwent a 1-week taper period. Of the 24 patients in the venlafaxine XR group, 62.5% achieved remission versus 9.1% in the placebo group (P=0.0006). The mean decrease from baseline in HAM-A total score was 19.2 points for the venlafaxine XR group and 10.8 points for the placebo group (P<0.001). Eleven placebo-treated patients and seven venlafaxine XR treated patients doubled their dose at the end of the second week of double-blind treatment. No patient interrupted therapy because of side-effects. No changes in systolic or diastolic blood pressure were observed. Venlafaxine XR 75-150 mg/day was well tolerated. The remission rates achieved with venlafaxine 75-150 mg/day in non-depressed GAD patients were high with good tolerability.     

Efficacy of pregabalin in preventing relapse in patients with generalized social anxiety disorder: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled 26-week study

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pregabalin in preventing relapse in generalized social anxiety disorder (SAD). Patients with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) generalized SAD, who met responder criteria after 10 weeks of open-label treatment with fixed-dose pregabalin (450 mg/day; n=153), were randomly assigned to 26 weeks of double-blind treatment with pregabalin (450 mg/day) or placebo. The primary a-priori outcome of time to relapse was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test. Double-blind treatment with pregabalin was associated with significant delay in time to relapse versus placebo (P=0.035), and with significantly greater maintenance of symptomatic improvement over 26 weeks on the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale total (P=0.012) and subscale scores and on the Marks Fear Questionnaire total phobia (P=0.010) and social phobia (P=0.014) subscales. Pregabalin was generally well tolerated. During the double-blind phase, the adverse events that occurred more frequently with pregabalin compared with placebo were dizziness (11.3 vs. 4.1%) and infection (21.3 vs. 16.4%). The results of this study suggest that pregabalin (450 mg/day) is safe, well tolerated, and has significant relapse-prevention efficacy over 26 weeks in patients with SAD who responded to an initial course of the pregabalin treatment.     

Discontinuation symptoms in depression and anxiety disorders

The present overview investigates whether different antidepressants have differing discontinuation symptoms upon treatment cessation, if these symptoms vary between depression and anxiety disorders, and with length of treatment. Data came from two comparative studies of escitalopram in major depressive disorder (MDD) (one vs. venlafaxine XR and one vs. paroxetine), two studies in social anxiety disorder (SAD) (one of which used paroxetine as the active reference), and one study in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), using paroxetine as an active reference [total number of patients: escitalopram (n=1051); paroxetine (n=336); venlafaxine XR (n=124); placebo (n=239)]. All studies included a defined discontinuation period and used the Discontinuation Emergent Signs and Symptoms (DESS) checklist to record the number of discontinuation symptoms. All three antidepressants showed more discontinuation symptoms compared with placebo (p<0.001). Patients reported significantly fewer discontinuation symptoms with escitalopram than with paroxetine and venlafaxine XR in MDD (p<0.05). Escitalopram showed significantly fewer discontinuation symptoms than paroxetine in SAD (p<0.05) and GAD (p<0.001). For each antidepressant, no differences in discontinuation symptoms were observed between the three indications and there was no evidence for increased symptom incidence with increased length of treatment. Thus, discontinuation profiles differ between antidepressants of the same class and are broadly similar in different disorders. No evidence was seen for a higher discontinuation burden with longer treatment.     

Efficacy of pregabalin in generalized social anxiety disorder: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose study

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin for the treatment of generalized social anxiety disorder (SAD). Patients with generalized SAD, who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (fourth edition) criteria (total N=329), were randomly assigned to 11 weeks of double-blind treatment with fixed daily doses of either pregabalin (300, 450, and 600(mg) or placebo. The treatment with pregabalin (600(mg) was associated with a significantly greater mean reduction in the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale total score, from baseline to endpoint, compared with placebo (-29.8 vs. -19.7; P= 0.0099), whereas reduction on pregabalin (300(mg, -20.2) and pregabalin (450(mg, -25.5) was not significant Treatment with pregabalin (600(mg) was also associated with a significantly greater improvement than placebo on the fear and avoidance subscales of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, as well as the majority of other secondary measures. Onset of improvement occurred by week 1 in the pregabalin 600-mg dose group. The most common adverse events on all three doses of pregabalin were somnolence and dizziness. Consistent with a previous study, the results of this study suggest that the 600-mg dose of pregabalin per day may be efficacious in the treatment of SAD.     

Venlafaxine extended release versus citalopram in patients with depression unresponsive to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor

Findings from the National Institute of Mental Health's Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression trial indicate that approximately 50% of patients with major depressive disorder do not experience a treatment response after adequate first-line treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). This study was designed to test the hypothesis that, after treatment failure with an SSRI, switching to venlafaxine extended release (ER) would offer advantages over switching to another SSRI, citalopram. The objectives of this trial were to compare the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine ER and citalopram in the treatment of moderate-to-severe depression in patients who did not experience a treatment response to an SSRI other than citalopram and to investigate the effects of severity of depression by categorizing treatment groups according to baseline severity. This was a 12-week, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study. Participants were adult outpatients who, following 8 weeks of monotherapy with an adequate dosing regimen of an SSRI other than citalopram and had not responded, met the diagnostic criteria for depression as described in the Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition, and had a score > or =20 on the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D21). After a 7-day screening period, patients were randomly assigned to receive venlafaxine ER 75 mg/day or citalopram 20 mg/day for the first 2 weeks. Doses could be increased every 2 weeks through week 6. Treatment lasted 12 weeks and was followed by a 1-week tapering period. Maximum dosages were venlafaxine ER 300 mg/day or citalopram 60 mg/day. The primary end point was the final on-therapy total HAM-D21 score. To investigate the treatment effects of the severity of depression on efficacy, a subgroup analysis was performed for baseline HAM-D21 total score < or =31 and >31. The analyses for HAM-D21, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impressions - Severity (CGI-S), and Clinical Global Impressions - Improvement scores were based on intent-to-treat (ITT) population, for both the primary analysis and subgroup analysis according to baseline HAM-D21 total scores < or =31 or >31. Safety assessments included the recording of adverse events (AEs). A total of 406 patients (200 venlafaxine ER, 206 citalopram) were randomly assigned and 396 patients were included in the ITT population (194 venlafaxine ER, 202 citalopram). Treatment groups were similar in terms of demographics and baseline psychiatric assessments. Two hundred and eighty-four patients (137 venlafaxine ER, 147 citalopram) were present in the ITT population with a baseline HAM-D21 total score < or =31 and 112 patients (57 venlafaxine ER, 55 citalopram) in the >31 group. In the primary analysis, there was no statistical difference between groups. The group with a baseline HAM-D21 total score of 20-31 did not differ significantly in any efficacy parameters. In the group with a baseline HAM-D21 total score >31, the venlafaxine ER group differed significantly from the citalopram group on the primary end point HAM-D21 total score (P=0.0121). The secondary end point CGI-S score was statistically significant (P=0.0359), although the MADRS total score (P=0.0930) was not. AEs were reported by 57.8 and 63.4% of venlafaxine ER and citalopram patients, respectively. Overall discontinuation rates were 24.5% for venlafaxine ER and 20.9% for citalopram. Discontinuation rates owing to an AE as a primary or secondary reason were 5.5% for venlafaxine ER and 5.3% for citalopram. Overall, venlafaxine ER and citalopram showed similar efficacy in patients who had an inadequate response to an SSRI. In the subset of more severely depressed patients, venlafaxine ER was significantly more effective on a number of efficacy measures. Patients who remain severely depressed following treatment with an SSRI may gain more benefit from the dual-action drug venlafaxine, rather than switching to another SSRI.     

Escitalopram versus paroxetine for social anxiety disorder: an analysis of efficacy for different symptom dimensions.

BACKGROUND: A previous factor analysis of pooled data demonstrated that the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) can be divided into six subscales. This paper examines data from a fixed-dose trial of escitalopram versus paroxetine, in order to determine the differential effects of these agents on symptom dimensions in social anxiety disorder (SAD). METHODS: Data from a 24-week randomised, placebo-controlled, comparative study of fixed doses of escitalopram (5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg) versus paroxetine (20 mg) in SAD were examined. The six factors identified in a previous factor analysis of baseline data from escitalopram studies on the primary efficacy scale, the LSAS, were used to compute subscale scores. These were analysed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and standardised effect sizes were calculated. RESULTS: The combined escitalopram data and the paroxetine data both demonstrated significant superiority to placebo on each of the 6 LSAS factors at week 24 (OC analysis). Escitalopram doses of 5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg were generally more effective than placebo for each of the factors. Escitalopram 20 mg was significantly more effective than paroxetine 20 mg on 5 of the 6 symptom dimensions. CONCLUSION: Factor analysis of the LSAS allows for useful secondary analyses that support and extend the primary efficacy analysis of this instrument. The analysis here indicates that different escitalopram doses are effective across the various symptom dimensions of SAD.     

Assessing the efficacy of 2 years of maintenance treatment with venlafaxine extended release 75-225 mg/day in patients with recurrent major depression: a secondary analysis of data from the PREVENT study

The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy of venlafaxine extended release (ER) < or =225 mg/day in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder (MDD). In this double-blind trial, outpatients with recurrent MDD (N=1096) were randomized to 10 weeks of acute-phase treatment with venlafaxine ER (75-300 mg/day) or fluoxetine (20-60 mg/day) followed by a 6-month continuation phase and two consecutive 12-month maintenance phases. At the start of each maintenance period, venlafaxine ER responders were randomized to double-blind venlafaxine ER or placebo. In this analysis, data from responders to acute and continuation treatment were analyzed during the combined maintenance phases while receiving venlafaxine ER < or =225 mg/day. Failure to maintain response was defined as an increase in maintenance dose to 300 mg/day or recurrence. Differences were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared using log-rank tests. Continuation-phase responders (n=114) receiving venlafaxine ER < or =225 mg/day comprised the analysis population (venlafaxine ER: n=55; placebo: n=59). The estimated probability for remaining well across 24 months of maintenance treatment was 67% for venlafaxine ER and 41% for placebo (P=0.007). Venlafaxine ER effectively maintained response at doses < or =225 mg/day for up to 2.5 years in patients with recurrent MDD. The findings are consistent with those of the full data set.     

Eight-week, placebo-controlled, double-blind comparison of the antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of bupropion XR and venlafaxine XR

The efficacy, safety and tolerability of bupropion XR and venlafaxine XR was assessed and compared with placebo in adult outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Adults meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD with a minimum Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) 17-Item total score of > or =18 were randomized to eight weeks of double-blind treatment with either bupropion XR (150 mg/day), venlafaxine XR (75 mg/day) or placebo. At the end of the fourth week of treatment, a dosage increase to bupropion XR 300 mg/day or venlafaxine XR 150 mg/day was allowed if, in the opinion of the investigator, response was inadequate. The primary efficacy endpoint was mean change from baseline at week 8 in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score last observation carried forward (LOCF). Mean changes from baseline at week 8 (LOCF) in MADRS total score were statistically significant for bupropion XR and venlafaxine XR patients compared to the placebo group: -16.0 for bupropion XR (P = 0.006 vs placebo), -17.1 for venlafaxine XR (P < 0.001 vs placebo) and -13.5 for placebo. Secondary outcomes (including CGI-S, HAM-A, MEI, Q-LES-Q-SF, responder and remitter analyses) also improved significantly for both active treatment groups compared with placebo. The most frequently reported adverse events were dry mouth and insomnia for bupropion XR, and nausea, hyperhidrosis, fatigue, and insomnia for venlafaxine XR. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, bupropion XR at doses up to 300 mg/day and venlafaxine XR at doses up to 150 mg/day demonstrated comparable antidepressant efficacy.     

Fluvoxamine treatment of generalized social anxiety disorder in Japan: a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study

The efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for the treatment of social anxiety disorder (SAD) has been reported in the USA and Europe. However, no clinical investigation has been done with SSRIs in Japanese patients with SAD. This study was performed to determine the effectiveness and safety of fluvoxamine for generalized SAD (GSAD) in Japanese patients. In this double-blind study, patients meeting DSM-IV criteria for GSAD were randomized to receive treatment with fluvoxamine or placebo for 10 wk. Fluvoxamine treatment was initiated at 50 mg/d, and increased by 50 mg weekly to a maximum of 150 or 300 mg/d. The primary efficacy outcome was mean change from baseline on the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale - Japanese Version (LSAS-J) total score. The secondary outcomes were response according to the Clinical Global Impressions - Global Improvement (CGI-I) score and three domains of the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS; used to assess psychosocial impairment). A total of 176 fluvoxamine-treated patients and 89 placebo-treated patients were eligible for the efficacy analysis. At week 10, the fluvoxamine-treated patients had a significantly greater reduction in the LSAS-J total score compared with placebo-treated patients (p=0.0197), with significantly more fluvoxamine recipients being at least much improved on the CGI-I scale compared with placebo-treated patients (p=0.024). Fluvoxamine-treated patients also had better responses on the SDS compared with placebo-treated patients (p=0.0208). Fluvoxamine was safe and well tolerated. These results suggest that fluvoxamine is effective for the treatment of Japanese patients with GSAD.     

The efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine and paroxetine in outpatients with depressive disorder or dysthymia

A 24-week, double-blind, randomized trial was performed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine and paroxetine in patients with major depression or dysthymia. Outpatients aged 18-70 years with a baseline score of 17 on the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to venlafaxine, 37.5 mg, in the morning and evening or paroxetine, 20 mg, in the morning and placebo in the evening, which could be increased to venlafaxine, 75 mg twice daily, or paroxetine, 20 mg twice daily, after 4 weeks. Efficacy was assessed with the 21-item HAM-D, the Montgomery-Asberg Rating Scale, the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, and the Clinical Global Impressions Scale. Forty-one patients were randomized to venlafaxine and 43 to paroxetine. At week 6, a response was observed in 55% of patients on venlafaxine and 29% on paroxetine (P = 0.03). At week 12, significantly (P = 0.011) more patients in the venlafaxine group had a HAM-D remission score of 8 or less (59% versus 31%). Discontinuation for any reason occurred in 16 (39%) patients on venlafaxine and 11 (26%) on paroxetine. The most common adverse events were nausea (28%), headache (18%) and dry mouth (15%) with venlafaxine and headache (40%) and constipation (16%) with paroxetine. Venlafaxine was effective and well tolerated for the treatment of patients with mild to moderate depression or dysthymia. A consistently higher proportion of patients had a response or remission on venlafaxine than on paroxetine.     

Venlafaxine extended release in posttraumatic stress disorder: a sertraline- and placebo-controlled study

This 12-week, double-blind, multicenter trial evaluated the efficacy of venlafaxine extended release (ER), sertraline, and placebo in adult outpatients (N = 538) with a primary diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, symptoms for 6 months or more and 17-item Clinician-administered PTSD Scale (CAPS-SX17) score of 60 or more. Patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo or flexible doses of venlafaxine ER (37.5-300 mg/d) or sertraline (25-200 mg/d) for 12 weeks or less. The primary outcome was the baseline-to-end point change in total CAPS-SX17 score (last observation carried forward). Secondary measures included CAPS-SX17 symptom cluster scores for reexperiencing/intrusion, avoidance/numbing, and hyperarousal; frequency of remission (CAPS-SX17 < or =20); and changes in Davidson Trauma Scale total score and symptom cluster scores for avoidance/numbing, hyperarousal, and reexperiencing/intrusion. Mean changes in CAPS-SX17 scores were -41.8, -39.4, and -33.9 for venlafaxine ER (P < 0.05 vs. placebo), sertraline, and placebo, respectively. Mean changes for venlafaxine ER, sertraline, and placebo in CAPS-SX17 cluster scores were -13.0, -11.7, and -11.0 for reexperiencing; -17.1, -16.8, and -13.7 (P < 0.05 both active treatments vs. placebo) for avoidance/numbing; and -11.8, -10.9, and -9.2 (P < 0.05 venlafaxine vs. placebo) for hyperarousal. Week 12 remission rates were venlafaxine ER 30.2% (P < 0.05 vs. placebo), sertraline 24.3%, and placebo 19.6%. The venlafaxine ER group had significantly better Davidson Trauma Scale total and cluster scores than placebo. Mean maximum daily doses were 225-mg venlafaxine ER and 151-mg sertraline. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. Study results suggest that venlafaxine ER is effective and well tolerated in the short-term treatment of PTSD.     

A randomized,double-blind,placebo-controlled study of escitalopram in patients with social anxiety disorder in Japan

Objective This randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study compared the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram (10 and 20?mg/day) in Japanese patients with social anxiety disorder (SAD).

Research design and methods Patients aged 18–64 years with a primary diagnosis of DSM-IV-TR defined SAD, a Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale Japanese version (LSAS-J) total score ≥60 and a Clinical Global Impression–Severity (CGI-S) score ≥4 at baseline were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to placebo, escitalopram 10?mg or escitalopram 20?mg. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to Week 12 in the LSAS-J total score for both escitalopram 10?mg and 20?mg versus placebo (ANCOVA, FAS, LOCF), using a hierarchical testing procedure. Pre-specified secondary endpoints included LSAS-J sensitivity analyses.

Clinical trial registration This study has the www.japic.or.jp identifier: JapicCTI-121842.

Results For the primary efficacy endpoint, the difference from placebo in the LSAS-J was ?3.9 (p?=?0.089) for escitalopram 10?mg. Since the superiority of escitalopram 10?mg over placebo was not confirmed, an analysis without multiplicity adjustment was made, which showed a difference for escitalopram 20?mg versus placebo of ?9.8 (p?<?0.001). In pre-specified sensitivity analyses, the difference versus placebo was ?4.9 (p?=?0.035) (ANCOVA, FAS, OC) and ?5.0 (p?=?0.028) (MMRM, FAS) (escitalopram 10?mg) and ?10.1 (p?<?0.001) (ANCOVA, FAS, OC) and ?10.6 (p?<?0.001) (MMRM, FAS) (escitalopram 20?mg). Common adverse events (incidence ≥5% and significantly different from placebo) were somnolence, nausea and ejaculation disorder.

Conclusion Escitalopram was efficacious, safe and well tolerated by patients with SAD in Japan. Study limitations are discussed including patient characteristics.     

Efficacy and tolerability of second-generation antidepressants in social anxiety disorder

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the comparative efficacy and tolerability of second-generation antidepressants in social anxiety disorder. Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, PsychLit, and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from January 1980 through October 2006. Comparative evidence was summarized and indirect comparisons were made using network meta-analysis. Only three head-to-head trials were identified; comparative trials found only minimal differences in efficacy between escitalopram and paroxetine, and no statistically significant differences in efficacy between extended-release venlafaxine and paroxetine. Pooled evidence from 15 placebo-controlled trials suggests that escitalopram [relative benefit (RB) 1.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-1.5], paroxetine (RB 1.9; 95% CI 1.5-2.3), sertraline (RB 1.8; 95% CI 1.5-2.2), and venlafaxine (RB 1.7; 95% CI 1.5-1.9) all produce significantly more responders than placebo; evidence favored fluvoxamine over placebo but was not significant (RB 1.5; 95% CI 0.9-2.4). Network meta-analysis did not reveal differences in efficacy among drugs. Overall, a fair amount of evidence supports the efficacy of escitalopram, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine in social anxiety disorder. The drugs do not differ in efficacy, although their adverse event profiles do.     

Vortioxetine (Lu AA21004) in generalized anxiety disorder: Results of an 8-week,multinational, randomized,double-blind,placebo-controlled clinical trial

Vortioxetine is a multimodal antidepressant, with anxiolytic properties observed in preclinical studies. The goal of the current study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of vortioxetine 5 mg vs placebo in adults with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Adults with a primary diagnosis of GAD (HAM-A total score ≥20 and MADRS score ≤16) received vortioxetine 5 mg or placebo for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was reduction in HAM-A total scores from baseline after 8 weeks of treatment compared with placebo. Key secondary measurements were HAD anxiety subscore, CGI-I, SDS total score, HAM-A response rates, HAM-A total score for subjects whose baseline HAM-A total score was ≥25, and SF-36 social functioning subscore. HAM-A remission rates were also measured. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed throughout the study. In total, 301 subjects (mean age, 45.2 years; 31% male) were randomized (1:1) to receive vortioxetine 5 mg (n=150) or placebo (n=151). After 8 weeks of treatment, there was a statistically significant difference in reduction from baseline in HAM-A total score for the vortioxetine group (?14.30) compared with placebo recipients (?10.49) (P<0.001). Statistically significant differences were observed for all key secondary outcomes favoring vortioxetine treatment (vs placebo), using a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) analysis. Active treatment resulted in a significantly higher rate of remission. Vortioxetine was well tolerated. The most common treatment-related AEs were nausea, headache, dizziness, and dry mouth. In sum, vortioxetine was safe and effective in treating adults with GAD in this multinational population.     

Spotlight on paroxetine in psychiatric disorders in adults

Paroxetine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), with antidepressant and anxiolytic activity. In 6- to 24-week well designed trials, oral paroxetine 10 to 50 mg/day was significantly more effective than placebo, at least as effective as tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and as effective as other SSRIs and other antidepressants in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Relapse or recurrence over 1 year after the initial response was significantly lower with paroxetine 10 to 50 mg/day than with placebo and similar to that with imipramine 50 to 275 mg/day. The efficacy of paroxetine 10 to 40 mg/day was similar to that of TCAs and fluoxetine 20 to 60 mg/day in 6- to 12-week trials in patients aged > or = 60 years with major depression. Paroxetine 10 to 40 mg/day improved depressive symptoms to an extent similar to that of TCAs in patients with comorbid illness, and was more effective than placebo in the treatment of dysthymia and minor depression. Paroxetine 20 to 60 mg/day was more effective than placebo after 8 to 12 weeks' treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), panic disorder, social anxiety disorder (social phobia), generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Improvement was maintained or relapse was prevented for 24 weeks to 1 year in patients with OCD, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder or GAD. The efficacy of paroxetine was similar to that of other SSRIs in patients with OCD and panic disorder and similar to that of imipramine but greater than that of 2'chlordesmethyldiazepam in patients with GAD. Paroxetine is generally well tolerated in adults, elderly individuals and patients with comorbid illness, with a tolerability profile similar to that of other SSRIs. The most common adverse events with paroxetine were nausea, sexual dysfunction, somnolence, asthenia, headache, constipation, dizziness, sweating, tremor and decreased appetite. In conclusion, paroxetine, in common with other SSRIs, is generally better tolerated than TCAs and is a first-line treatment option for major depressive disorder, dysthymia or minor depression. Like other SSRIs, paroxetine is also an appropriate first-line therapy for OCD, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, GAD and PTSD. Notably, paroxetine is the only SSRI currently approved for the treatment of social anxiety disorder and GAD, which makes it the only drug of its class indicated for all five anxiety disorders in addition to major depressive disorder. Thus, given the high degree of psychiatric comorbidity of depression and anxiety, paroxetine is an important first-line option for the treatment of major depressive disorder, OCD, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, GAD and PTSD.     

Paroxetine: an update of its use in psychiatric disorders in adults

Paroxetine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), with antidepressant and anxiolytic activity. In 6- to 24-week well designed trials, oral paroxetine 10 to 50 mg/day was significantly more effective than placebo, at least as effective as tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and as effective as other SSRIs and other antidepressants in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Relapse or recurrence over 1 year after the initial response was significantly lower with paroxetine 10 to 50 mg/day than with placebo and similar to that with imipramine 50 to 275 mg/day. The efficacy of paroxetine 10 to 40 mg/day was similar to that of TCAs and fluoxetine 20 to 60 mg/day in 6- to 12-week trials in patients aged > or =60 years with major depression. Paroxetine 10 to 40 mg/day improved depressive symptoms to an extent similar to that of TCAs in patients with comorbid illness, and was more effective than placebo in the treatment of dysthymia and minor depression. Paroxetine 20 to 60 mg/day was more effective than placebo after 8 to 12 weeks' treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), panic disorder, social anxiety disorder (social phobia), generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Improvement was maintained or relapse was prevented for 24 weeks to 1 year in patients with OCD, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder or GAD. The efficacy of paroxetine was similar to that of other SSRIs in patients with OCD and panic disorder and similar to that of imipramine but greater than that of 2'chlordesmethyldiazepam in patients with GAD. Paroxetine is generally well tolerated in adults, elderly individuals and patients with comorbid illness, with a tolerability profile similar to that of other SSRIs. The most common adverse events with paroxetine were nausea, sexual dysfunction, somnolence, asthenia, headache, constipation, dizziness, sweating, tremor and decreased appetite. In conclusion, paroxetine, in common with other SSRIs, is generally better tolerated than TCAs and is a first-line treatment option for major depressive disorder, dysthymia or minor depression. Like other SSRIs, paroxetine is also an appropriate first-line therapy for OCD, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, GAD and PTSD. Notably, paroxetine is the only SSRI currently approved for the treatment of social anxiety disorder and GAD, which makes it the only drug of its class indicated for all five anxiety disorders in addition to major depressive disorder. Thus, given the high degree of psychiatric comorbidity of depression and anxiety, paroxetine is an important first-line option for the treatment of major depressive disorder, OCD, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, GAD and PTSD.     

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a triple reuptake inhibitor GSK372475 in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder: two randomized, placebo- and active-controlled clinical trials

GSK372475 is a triple reuptake inhibitor with approximately equipotent inhibition of serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine transporters. Two randomized, placebo- and active-controlled, double-blind studies examined the efficacy and safety of GSK372475 in outpatients (aged 18-64 years) with a diagnosis of major depressive episode associated with major depressive disorder (MDD). Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo, GSK372475 (1-2 mg/d), or active control (Study 1: venlafaxine XR 150-225 mg/d; Study 2: paroxetine 20-30 mg/d). GSK372475 did not significantly differ from placebo on any of the key efficacy endpoints (six-item Bech scale, IDS-Clinician Rated, MADRS) in either study. Both active controls demonstrated significant antidepressant activity compared with placebo on both primary and secondary endpoints. The most common adverse effects (AEs) with GSK372475 were dry mouth, headache, insomnia, and nausea. AEs were more frequent for GSK372475 versus placebo for sleep, anxiety-related, gastrointestinal, and tachycardia events. Increases in mean change from baseline in heart rate and sitting blood pressure were greater for GSK372475 than observed for either placebo or active control groups. Completion rates were lower for GSK372475 (49%, 58%) compared with placebo (67%, 74%), venlafaxine XR (63%), or paroxetine (77%). GSK372475 was neither efficacious nor well tolerated in patients with MDD in two 10-week studies.