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 double-blind comparison between bupropion XL and venlafaxine XR: sexual functioning, antidepressant efficacy, and tolerability

In this double-blind, multicenter study, bupropion XL, a norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor, and venlafaxine XR, a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, were compared with regard to sexual functioning, efficacy, and tolerability. A total of 348 sexually active adult outpatients with depression were randomized to receive bupropion XL (titrated to a target dose of 300-450 mg/d) or venlafaxine XR (titrated to a target dose of 150-225 mg/d) for 12 weeks. Total scores on the primary dependent variable, the Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (self-report), increased for subjects receiving bupropion XL and decreased for those treated with venlafaxine XR; the mean change scores differed significantly between groups from week 2 onward. Among subjects with normal pretreatment sexual functioning, Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire total scores remained essentially unchanged for the bupropion XL group but were decreased significantly for the venlafaxine XR group; mean change scores also differed between groups from week 2 onward. Although the therapies resulted in similar change on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, remission rates were significantly higher among those treated with bupropion XL (46%) versus venlafaxine XR (33%) (odds ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-3.46). Aside from adverse effects of venlafaxine XR on sexual function, both treatments were reasonably well tolerated. In conclusion, in this patient population (ie, relatively young, sexually active outpatients), bupropion XL was at least as effective as venlafaxine XR and had a significantly more favorable sexual side effect profile.     

Quetiapine extended release: adjunctive treatment in major depressive disorder

Quetiapine extended release (XR) is a once-daily oral formulation of the atypical antipsychotic quetiapine that is available for use as adjunctive therapy in major depressive disorder (MDD). Systemic quetiapine exposure after orally administered quetiapine XR is similar to that of quetiapine immediate release at the same dosage, although quetiapine XR is absorbed more slowly and plasma concentrations are more stable over time. In two 6-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational trials in patients with MDD with an inadequate response to antidepressants, quetiapine XR 300?mg/day adjunctive to antidepressant reduced depressive symptoms significantly more than antidepressant plus placebo, according to changes in Montgomery-?sberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores. In one trial, adjunctive quetiapine XR 150?mg/day also led to significantly greater reductions in MADRS total scores than antidepressant plus placebo. MDD response rates were significantly higher with adjunctive quetiapine XR 300?mg/day (but not 150?mg/day) than with antidepressant plus placebo. The numbers needed to treat to achieve an additional response over antidepressant plus placebo were 11-18 and 8-9 in the quetiapine XR 150 and 300?mg/day dosage groups, respectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly of mild to moderate severity; 1% of adjunctive quetiapine XR and 1.3% of antidepressant plus placebo recipients reported serious adverse events.     

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.     

A Randomized,Double-blind Study of the Efficacy and Tolerability of Extended Release Quetiapine Fumarate (Quetiapine XR) Monotherapy in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder

Objectives

Evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) monotherapy in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

Methods

10-week (8-week active-treatment/2-week post-treatment), randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled study (D1448C00004). Patients received quetiapine XR 150 mg/day, escitalopram 10 mg/day, or placebo; patients with an inadequate response (<20% improvement in MADRS total score) at Week 2 received double-treatment dose. Primary endpoint: Week 8 change from randomization in MADRS total score. Secondary endpoints included: MADRS response (≥50% improvement) and remission (score ≤8), HAM-D total and Item 1, HAM-A total, psychic and somatic, CGI-S total, PSQI global, and Q-LES-Q-SF% maximum total scores; tolerability was assessed throughout.

Results

471 patients were randomized. No significant improvements in MADRS total score were observed at Week 8 (LOCF) with either active treatment (quetiapine XR, −17.21 [p=0.174]; escitalopram, −16.73 [p=0.346]) versus placebo (−15.61). There were no significant differences in secondary endpoints versus placebo, with the exception of Week 8 change in PSQI global score (quetiapine XR, −4.96 [p < 0.01] versus placebo, −3.37). MMRM analysis of observed cases data suggested that the primary analysis may not be robust. Most commonly reported AEs included: dry mouth, somnolence, and dizziness for quetiapine XR; headache and nausea for escitalopram.

Conclusions

In this study, neither quetiapine XR (150/300 mg/day) nor escitalopram (10/20 mg/day) showed significant separation from placebo. Both compounds have been shown previously to be effective in the treatment of MDD; possible reasons for this failed study are discussed. Quetiapine XR was generally well tolerated with a profile similar to that reported previously.     

Escitalopram versus venlafaxine XR in the treatment of depression

This article reanalyses and reviews data from the two published randomized clinical trials comparing escitalopram and venlafaxine XR in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder. The aim was to further compare the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram and venlafaxine XR and to assess the impact of the two treatments on the patient's quality of life, as well as the benefit/risk of treatment. A total of 243 escitalopram-treated patients and 240 venlafaxine XR-treated patients were included in this analysis. Comparable treatment efficacy was achieved with respect to the prospectively defined primary efficacy endpoint (mean change from baseline in Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score at week 8). An analysis of the outcome at the end of study by baseline severity showed that the treatment difference became greater the more severely depressed the patients were at baseline. At the highest permitted doses, in the subgroup of patients who were severely depressed (baseline MADRS > or =30), patients treated with escitalopram had a statistically significantly greater improvement (P<0.05) in mean MADRS total scores than patients treated with venlafaxine XR at endpoint. For these patients, treatment with 20 mg/day escitalopram resulted in a statistically significantly (P<0.05) higher remission rate at week 8 (47%) than treatment with venlafaxine XR (29%). This difference was confirmed by the analysis of the pooled data, which showed that patients in the escitalopram group had a significantly (P<0.05) higher mean number of depression-free days (30.4 days) than those in the venlafaxine XR group (26.2 days) over the 8-week period. The relative benefit of escitalopram versus venlafaxine XR was 1.46, indicating that a patient was more likely to benefit from treatment with escitalopram. The proportions of patients who withdrew owing to adverse events were 7.5% in the escitalopram group and 11.2% in the venlafaxine XR group. The mean number of discontinuation emergent signs and symptoms in the venlafaxine XR group (mean: 5.0) was significantly (P<0.001) higher than for the escitalopram group (mean: 2.4).     

Efficacy and tolerability of extended release quetiapine fumarate monotherapy in the acute treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: a randomized, placebo controlled and active-controlled study

The main objective of this study was to evaluate efficacy and tolerability of once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) monotherapy in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). This was a 8 week randomized, 2-week follow-up, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and active-controlled study. Patients were randomized to quetiapine XR 150 (n=219) or 300 mg/day (n=207); escitalopram, 10 mg/day (n=213); or placebo (n=215). The primary endpoint was the change from randomization at week 8 in Hamilton Anxiety Rating (HAM-A) total score. Week 8 mean HAM-A total score was significantly reduced from randomization with quetiapine XR 150 mg/day (-13.9, P<0.001), 300 mg/day (-12.3, P<0.05) and escitalopram (-12.3, P<0.05) versus placebo (-10.7); significant improvements with quetiapine XR (150 and 300 mg/day) versus placebo (P<0.001) were also shown at day 4. At week 8, significant improvements versus placebo were observed in HAM-A psychic [quetiapine XR (both doses) and escitalopram] and somatic (quetiapine XR 150 mg/day and escitalopram) cluster scores and HAM-A response and remission rates (quetiapine XR 150 mg/day). Most common adverse events were dry mouth, somnolence and sedation (quetiapine XR), headache, and nausea (escitalopram). In patients with GAD, quetiapine XR (150 and 300 mg/day) demonstrated significant efficacy at week 8 with symptom improvement as early as day 4. We concluded that quetiapine XR safety and tolerability results were consistent with the known profile of quetiapine.     

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.     

A randomized, double-blind study of once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) monotherapy in patients with generalized anxiety disorder

This study evaluated once-daily, extended-release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) monotherapy in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). This was a 10-week (8-week active treatment/2-week posttreatment drug-discontinuation/tapering phase), double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study (D1448C00009). Primary end point was change from randomization at week 8 in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) total score. Overall, 951 patients with GAD were randomized (quetiapine XR: 50 mg/d, n = 234; 150 mg/d, n = 241; 300 mg/d, n = 241; placebo, n = 235). At week 8, HAM-A total scores significantly (P < 0.001) improved versus placebo (-11.10) with quetiapine XR 50 mg/d (-13.31) and 150 mg/d (-13.54), but not 300 mg/d (-11.87; P = 0.240). At week 1, HAM-A total scores significantly improved versus placebo (-5.94) with quetiapine XR 50 mg/d (-7.47; P < 0.01), 150 mg/d (-8.19; P < 0.001), and 300 mg/d (-7.23; P < 0.01). Versus placebo at week 8, quetiapine XR 50 and 150 mg/d significantly improved HAM-A psychic (P < 0.01 and P < 0.001, respectively) and somatic (P < 0.001; P < 0.01, respectively) cluster scores, HAM-A response (≥ 50% total score reduction; P < 0.05), and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement categorical changes (P < 0.05). For quetiapine XR 150 mg/d, significant (P < 0.05) improvements were seen for HAM-A remission (total score, ≤ 7) and Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness scores. For quetiapine XR 300 mg/d, improvements in these secondary variables were not significantly different versus placebo. Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index global scores improved with all 3 doses (quetiapine: XR 50 mg/d, -4.07 [P < 0.05]; 150 mg/d, -4.38 [P < 0.05]; 300 mg/d, -3.97 [P < 0.05], versus -3.31 with placebo). Adverse events (>10% with quetiapine XR) were dry mouth, somnolence, sedation, dizziness, headache, and fatigue. Quetiapine XR (50/150 mg/d) monotherapy was effective at week 8 in patients with GAD; symptom improvement was seen at week 1 for all doses (50/150/300 mg/d). Safety and tolerability were consistent with the known profile of quetiapine.     

Comparison of efficacy and tolerability of reboxetine and venlafaxine XR in major depression and major depression with anxiety features: an open label study

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of reboxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) and MDD with anxiety features to venlafaxine XR. METHOD: Patients with MDD, aging 18 between 65 years, were randomly allocated to two groups receiving either open-label venlafaxine XR capsules (n = 50) or reboxetine tablets (n = 43). Subjects were administered Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) at baseline and 2, 4, 7, 10 weeks after the baseline visit. RESULTS: Response rates to antidepressant treatment were significantly higher in the venlafaxine XR group at 10th week. When patients having anxious depression were analysed separately; response rate for anxiety of reboxetine group was significantly higher at 7th week only. Mean number of side effects were significantly higher in reboxetine group. Only one subject in each group was dropped out due to side effect. CONCLUSION: We may suggest that reboxetine is as effective and tolerable as venlafaxine XR in the treatment of MDD and MDD with anxiety features, and it may be considered a treatment option to venlafaxine XR.     

Increased remission rates with venlafaxine compared with fluoxetine in hospitalized patients with major depression and melancholia

This was a 6-week, double-blind, randomized trial of the efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine and fluoxetine in 109 patients with major depression and melancholia. Hospitalized and day care patients with DSM-IV major depression and melancholia and a baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of > or = 25 were eligible. The doses were venlafaxine 75 mg/day or fluoxetine 20 mg/day from days 1-4, venlafaxine 150 mg/day or fluoxetine 40 mg/day from days 5-10, and venlafaxine 225 mg/day or fluoxetine 60 mg/day from days 11-42. The intention-to-treat analyses included 55 patients on venlafaxine and 54 on fluoxetine. At the final evaluation, 70% of patients with venlafaxine and 66% with fluoxetine had > or = 50% reduction in the MADRS score, and 70% with venlafaxine and 62% with fluoxetine had a Clinical Global Impression (CGI) score of 1 or 2. A CGI improvement score of 1 was observed in 51% of patients with venlafaxine and 32% with fluoxetine (P = 0.018). A final Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score < 7 was attained in 41% of venlafaxine-treated and 36% of fluoxetine-treated patients. Overall, 22% of patients in each group discontinued therapy, but only 5% on venlafaxine and 9% on fluoxetine discontinued for adverse events. Nausea was reported in 5.5% of venlafaxine-treated patients and 14.8% of fluoxetine-treated patients. Venlafaxine was effective and well tolerated for treating inpatients with major depression and melancholia. Based on remission criteria (HAM-D < 7 or CGI of 1), venlafaxine was superior to fluoxetine.     

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fixed-dose desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg/day for major depressive disorder in a placebo-controlled trial

The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) 50 and 100 mg/day for major depressive disorder (MDD). A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in Europe and South Africa. Outpatients with MDD received fixed-dose desvenlafaxine (50 or 100 mg/day) or placebo for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score; secondary measures included Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scores. The intent-to-treat population included 483 patients: desvenlafaxine 50 mg (n=164), desvenlafaxine 100 mg (n=158), and placebo (n=161). At the last-observation-carried-forward analysis (final evaluation) using analysis of covariance, adjusted mean changes from baseline on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression were significantly greater for both desvenlafaxine 50 mg (-13.2; P=0.002) and 100 mg (-13.7; P<0.001) versus placebo (-10.7). Significant differences on the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scores were observed for desvenlafaxine 50 mg (P=0.002) and 100 mg (P<0.001) versus placebo. Both doses of desvenlafaxine were generally well tolerated. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea, dizziness, insomnia, constipation, fatigue, anxiety, and decreased appetite. Fixed doses of desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg/day are safe, generally well tolerated, and effective at a clinically relevant level for the treatment of MDD.     

Combining escitalopram with gaboxadol provides no additional benefit in the treatment of patients with severe major depressive disorder

The aim of this proof-of-concept study was to compare the efficacy of escitalopram (20 mg/d) in combination with fixed doses of gaboxadol to escitalopram (20 mg) in the treatment of patients with severe major depressive disorder (MDD). Adult patients were randomized to 8 wk of double-blind treatment with fixed doses of placebo (n=71), escitalopram (20 mg, n=140), escitalopram (20 mg)+gaboxadol (5 mg) (n=139), or escitalopram (20 mg)+gaboxadol (10 mg) (n=140). The pre-defined primary analysis of efficacy was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of change from baseline to endpoint (week 8) in Montgomery-?sberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score using last observation carried forward (LOCF). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean change from baseline in MADRS total score between the 20 mg escitalopram+10 mg gaboxadol group and the 20 mg escitalopram group [difference=-0.45 MADRS points (95% CI -2.5 to 1.6, p=0.6619, full analysis set (FAS), LOCF, ANCOVA)] at week 8. The mean treatment differences to placebo at week 8 were -5.6 (95% CI -8.0 to -3.1, p<0.0001) (20 mg escitalopram), -5.1 (95% CI -7.5 to -2.7, p<0.0001) (20 mg escitalopram+5 mg gaboxadol), and -6.0 (95% CI -8.4 to -3.6, p<0.0001) (20 mg escitalopram+10 mg gaboxadol). The most common adverse events reported in the active treatment groups for which the incidence was higher than that in the placebo group, comprised nausea, anxiety and insomnia. There were no clinically relevant efficacy differences between a combination of escitalopram and gaboxadol compared to escitalopram alone in the treatment of severe MDD. All active treatment groups were superior in efficacy to placebo and were well tolerated.     

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.     

Escitalopram 10 mg/day is effective and well tolerated in a placebo-controlled study in depression in primary care

Escitalopram, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), was compared to placebo in a study of patients with major depressive disorder (DSM-IV) who had baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores >or=22 and 相似文献   

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

Background: Duloxetine is a balanced and potent dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) that has previously been shown to be effective in the acute treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). This placebo-controlled study assesses the safety and efficacy of duloxetine (80 or 120 mg/day) and paroxetine (20 mg QD) during an initial 8-week acute phase and subsequent 6-month continuation phase treatment of MDD. Method: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adult outpatients (age ≥18 years) meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD received placebo (n=93), duloxetine 80 mg/day (40 mg BID; n=95), duloxetine 120 mg/day (60 mg BID; n=93), or paroxetine (20 mg QD; n=86) for 8 weeks. Patients who had a ≥30% reduction from baseline in HAMD₁₇ total score during the acute phase were allowed to continue on the same (blinded) treatment for a 6-month continuation phase. Efficacy measures included the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD₁₇) total score, HAMD₁₇ subscales, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for pain, the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scales, the 28-item Somatic Symptom Inventory (SSI), and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). Safety and tolerability were assessed using treatment-emergent adverse events, discontinuations due to adverse events, vital signs, ECGs, laboratory tests, and the Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale (ASEX). Results: During the acute phase, patients receiving duloxetine 80 mg/day, duloxetine 120 mg/day, or paroxetine 20 mg QD had significantly greater reductions in HAMD₁₇ total score compared with placebo. Both duloxetine (80 and 120 mg/day) and paroxetine treatment groups had significantly greater improvement, compared with placebo, in MADRS, HAMA, CGI-S, and PGI-I scales. Estimated probabilities of remission at week 8 for patients receiving duloxetine 80 mg/day (51%), duloxetine 120 mg/day (58%), and paroxetine (47%) were significantly greater compared with those receiving placebo (30%). The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events among duloxetine-treated patients (80 and 120 mg/day) did not differ significantly from the rate in the placebo group. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported significantly more frequently by duloxetine-treated patients than by patients receiving placebo were constipation (80 and 120 mg/day), increased sweating (120 mg/day), and somnolence (120 mg/day). The incidence of acute treatment-emergent sexual dysfunction in duloxetine- and paroxetine-treated patients was 46.5% and 62.8%, respectively. During the 6-month continuation phase, duloxetine (80 and 120 mg/day) and paroxetine treatment groups demonstrated significant improvement in HAMD₁₇ total score. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurring most frequently in each active treatment group during the continuation phase were viral infection (duloxetine 80 mg/day), diarrhea (duloxetine 120 mg/day), and headache (paroxetine 20 mg QD). Conclusion: These data support previous findings that duloxetine is safe, efficacious, and well tolerated in the acute treatment of MDD. Furthermore, these data provide the first demonstration under double-blind, placebo-controlled conditions that the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine are maintained during chronic treatment.     

Vilazodone: in major depressive disorder

Vilazodone, a novel antidepressant agent that combines selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) activity and serotonin 5-HT(1A) receptor partial agonist activity in a single molecule, is indicated for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in the US. It is administered orally, once daily, with food. At the recommended dosage of 40?mg/day, vilazodone was effective in the short-term treatment of MDD in adults, as evidenced by significant improvements versus placebo on multiple measures of depression, including the Montgomery-?sberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17), in two pivotal, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, phase III studies. Significant differences between vilazodone and placebo on the MADRS and HAM-D-17 were seen after 1 week of treatment (first efficacy timepoint) in one of the two studies. Long-term treatment with vilazodone 40?mg/day was associated with an improvement from baseline in depressive symptoms in a 52-week, noncompar-ative, phase III study. Vilazodone was generally well tolerated in the short- and long-term treatment of MDD, with diarrhoea and nausea being the most frequently occurring treatment-emergent adverse events. Vilazodone had a minimal impact on sexual functioning in the three phase III studies.     

Venlafaxine XR demonstrates higher rates of sustained remission compared to fluoxetine, paroxetine or placebo

The combined serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, venlafaxine XR, has demonstrated significant response and remission in patients diagnosed with depression when measured with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D). This pooled analysis of data from five studies compared the sustained remission of depressive symptoms in patients treated with venlafaxine XR, the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) fluoxetine or paroxetine, or placebo. Data from 1391 subjects enrolled in five active and placebo-controlled studies who met the DSM-III-R or DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder were analysed. Three treatment groups were compared: venlafaxine XR (n = 560), fluoxetine/paroxetine (n = 298) and placebo (n = 496). Mean treatment duration was 8 weeks. Responders were defined as those patients whose HAM-D-21 score decreased by > or = 50% from baseline. Remission was defined as a HAM-D-17 score < or = 7. Sustained remission was defined as maintenance of remission through week 8 or the end of treatment (if before week 8) and for > or = 2 weeks. Between-group rate comparisons in outcome measures were carried out using Fisher's exact and log-rank tests. Venlafaxine XR produced significantly higher rates of sustained remission in depressed patients compared to fluoxetine/paroxetine or placebo over this 8-week treatment period. As early as week 2, a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with venlafaxine achieved improved depression scores (remission and response). A significantly greater rate of remission and sustained remission occurred with venlafaxine compared to placebo. Remission was achieved earlier with venlafaxine and lasted throughout the remainder of the study. These results demonstrate that venlafaxine XR is more effective than fluoxetine/paroxetine for sustaining remission of depressive symptoms.     

A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group comparison of venlafaxine and clomipramine in outpatients with major depression

A multicentre, randomized, double-blind study was conducted to compare the safety and antidepressant efficacy of venlafaxine and clomipramine in 102 outpatients with major depression. The patients received either venlafaxine or clomipramine at a dose titrated from 50 mg to a maximum of 150 mg/day during the first 2 weeks of treatment. Treatment was continued for up to 43 days. Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) scores decreased significantly (p < or = 0.05) from baseline in each treatment group but were not significantly different between groups. Response rates on the MADRS and HAM-D were 62% and 59%, respectively, with venlafaxine and 54% and 43%, respectively, with clomipramine. Treatment-emergent study events were the primary reason for withdrawal in only 13% of venlafaxine-treated patients and 20% of clomipramine-treated patients. On questionnaires, the incidence of anticholinergic-type events was 60% with venlafaxine and 68% with clomipramine. However, significantly (p = 0.043) more patients in the clomipramine group reported multiple anticholinergic events than in the venlafaxine group. In the clomipramine group, mean ventricular heart rate increased significantly (p = 0.003) and mean systolic blood pressure decreased significantly (p = 0.028) from baseline, but no clinically significant electrocardiographic changes were observed. These results confirm the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine in the treatment of outpatients suffering from major depression.     

Extended Release Quetiapine Fumarate (Quetiapine XR) as Adjunct Therapy in Patients with Generalized Anxiety Disorder and a History of Inadequate Treatment Response: A Randomized,Double-Blind Study

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of adjunct extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and inadequate response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors/ serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SSRI/SNRIs).

Methods

11-week (1-week single-blind placebo run-in; 8-week randomized treatment; 2-week post-treatment period), double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients were randomized to quetiapine XR or placebo adjunct to SSRI/SNRI. 50 mg initial dose; 150 mg/day, Day 3; 300 mg/day, Weeks × and 4 if indicated (Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness [CGI-S] ≥ 4; 150 mg/day tolerated). Primary endpoint: change from randomization to Week 8 in HAM-A total score. Secondary variables: Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) psychic/somatic clusters, response and remission; and CGI-S.

Results

409 patients were randomized to quetiapine XR (n = 209) or placebo (n = 200); 41% and 55% of patients, respectively, had dose increases (300 mg/day). Week 8 mean change in HAM-A total score was not statistically significant for quetiapine XR (–10.74; p = 0.079) versus placebo (–9.61). Secondary variables were generally consistent with the primary analysis, except a significant reduction in HAM-A total score at Week 1 (–6.45, quetiapine XR versus –4.47, placebo; p < 0.001); significant improvements in HAM-A psychic cluster (p < 0.05) and CGI-S total (p < 0.05) scores at Week 8. Adverse events (.10% either group) were dry mouth, somnolence, sedation, headache, and dizziness.

Conclusions

In patients with GAD and inadequate response to SSRI/SNRI, adjunct quetiapine XR did not show a statistically significant effect for the primary endpoint at Week 8, although some secondary endpoints were statistically significant versus placebo. Quetiapine XR was generally well tolerated.