Escitalopram Versus SNRI Antidepressants in the Acute Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: Integrative Analysis of Four Double-Blind, Randomized Clinical Trials

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 326-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan G. Kornstein ◽  
Dayong Li ◽  
Yongcai Mao ◽  
Sara Larsson ◽  
Henning F. Andersen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Severe Depression ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Madrs Score ◽  
Treatment Difference

AbstractIntroduction: Recent data suggest that escitalopram may be more effective in severe depression than other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.Methods: Individual patient data from four randomized, double-blind comparative trials of escitalopram versus a serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) (two trials with duloxetine and two with venlafaxine extended release) in outpatients (18–85 years of age) with moderate-to-severe major depressive disorder were pooled. The primary efficacy parameter in all four trials was mean change in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score.Results: Significantly fewer escitalopram (82/524) than SNRI (114/527) patients prematurely withdrew from treatment due to all causes (15.6% vs. 21.6%, Fisher Exact: P=.014) and adverse events (5.3% vs. 12.0%, Fisher Exact: P <.0001). Mean reduction in MADRS score from baseline to Week 8 was significantly greater for the escitalopram group versus the SNRI group using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach [mean treatment difference at Week 8 of 1.7 points (P <.01)]. Similar results were observed in the severely depressed (baseline MADRS score ≥30) patient subset (mean treatment difference at Week 8 of 2.9 points [P <.001, LOCF]). Observed cases analyses yielded no significant differences in efficacy parameters.Conclusion: This pooled analysis indicates that escitalopram is at least as effective as the SNRIs (venlafaxine XR and duloxetine), even in severe depression, and escitalopram treatment was better tolerated.

scholarly journals Efficacy of levomilnacipran extended-release in major depressive disorder: pooled analysis of 5 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart A. Montgomery ◽  
Carl P. Gommoll ◽  
Changzheng Chen ◽  
William M. Greenberg
Keyword(s):  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Extended Release ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Madrs Score ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Remission Rates

Introduction/ObjectivePost hoc analyses were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of levomilnacipran extended-release (ER) in subgroups of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).MethodsData were pooled from 5 completed Phase II/III studies. Patients were categorized by sex, age, MDD duration, recurrence of MDD, current episode duration, number of prior episodes, and baseline Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score. Efficacy was evaluated by MADRS least squares (LS) mean change from baseline, response (MADRS improvement ≥50%), and remission (MADRS ≤10).ResultsIn the pooled population, treatment with levomilnacipran ER versus placebo resulted in greater improvement in MADRS score (−15.8 versus −12.9; LS mean difference, −2.9; P < .001) and higher response rates (44.7% versus 34.5%; P < .001). Comparable treatment effects were found in most subgroups. Remission rates in the overall population were higher for levomilnacipran ER versus placebo (27.7% versus 21.5%; P < .05); notably high remission rates were seen in patients with baseline MADRS score < 30 (48.8% versus 28.9%; P < .001).DiscussionClinically meaningful improvements in depressive symptoms were found across subgroups, including statistically significant outcomes for both response and remission.ConclusionLevomilnacipran ER was efficacious across a wide range of MDD patients, including men and women, ages 18–78, with varying histories and symptom severity.

scholarly journals Citalopram plus low-dose pipamperone versus citalopram plus placebo in patients with major depressive disorder: an 8-week, double-blind, randomized study on magnitude and timing of clinical response

2011 ◽  
Vol 41 (10) ◽  
pp. 2089-2097 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. G. Wade ◽  
G. M. Crawford ◽  
C. B. Nemeroff ◽  
A. F. Schatzberg ◽  
T. Schlaepfer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Therapeutic Effect ◽  
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽  
Receptor Activation ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Madrs Score ◽  
Antidepressant Effects

BackgroundSelective serotonin reuptake inhibitors take several weeks to achieve their full antidepressant effects. Post-synaptic 5-HT2A receptor activation is thought to be involved in this delayed therapeutic effect. Pipamperone acts as a highly selective 5-HT2A/D4 antagonist when administered in low doses. The purpose of this study was to compare citalopram 40 mg once daily plus pipamperone 5 mg twice daily (PipCit) versus citalopram plus placebo twice daily for magnitude and onset of therapeutic effect.MethodAn 8-week, randomized, double-blind study in patients with major depressive disorder was carried out.ResultsThe study population comprised 165 patients (citalopram and placebo, n=82; PipCit, n=83) with a mean baseline Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of 32.6 (s.d.=5.5). In the first 4 weeks, more citalopram and placebo than PipCit patients discontinued treatment (18% v. 4%, respectively, p=0.003). PipCit patients had significantly greater improvement in MADRS score at week 1 [observed cases (OC), p=0.021; last observation carried forward (LOCF), p=0.007] and week 4 (LOCF, p=0.025) but not at week 8 compared with citalopram and placebo patients. Significant differences in MADRS scores favoured PipCit in reduced sleep, reduced appetite, concentration difficulties and pessimistic thoughts. Mean Clinical Global Impression–Improvement scores were significantly improved after 1 week of PipCit compared with citalopram and placebo (OC and LOCF, p=0.002).ConclusionsAlthough the MADRS score from baseline to 8 weeks did not differ between groups, PipCit provided superior antidepressant effects and fewer discontinuations compared with citalopram and placebo during the first 4 weeks of treatment, especially in the first week.

L-methylfolate augmentation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIS) for major depressive disorder: Results of two randomized, double-blind trials

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (S2) ◽  
pp. 592-592 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Papakostas ◽  
R. Shelton ◽  
J. Zajecka ◽  
K. Rickels ◽  
A. Clain ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Double Blind

IntroductionTwo randomized, controlled trials of L-methylfolate augmentation of SSRIs for major depressive disorder (MDD) were conducted using a novel study design (sequential parallel comparison design- SPCD).Objectives/aimsTo evaluate the efficacy of L-methylfolate augmentation using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.MethodsIn study one (TRD-1), 148 outpatients with SSRI-resistant MDD were enrolled in a 60-day, SPCD study, divided into two 30-day periods (phases 1 and 2). Patients were randomized 2:3:3 to receive L-methylfolate (7.5mg/d in phase 1, 15mg/d in phase 2), placebo in phase 1 followed by L-methylfolate 7.5mg/d in phase 2, or placebo for both phases. Study two (TRD-2) involved 75 patients and was identical in design to TRD-1 except for the dose of L-methylfolate (15mg only).ResultsIn the TRD-1 Study, L-methylfolate 7.5 mg/d was not found to be more effective than placebo. In phase 1 of the TRD-2 Study, 37% of patients on L-methylfolate 15mg/d responded and 18% of placebo patients responded, while in phase 2 among placebo non-responders, the response rates were 28% on L-methylfolate 15mg/d and 9.5% on placebo. When phases 1 and 2 were pooled according to the SPCD model, the difference in response rates was statistically significant in favor of L-methylfolate (p = 0.0399). The rates of spontaneously reported AEs and rates of study discontinuation appear r comparable between L-methylfolate and placebo in both studies. Rates of study discontinuation were also comparableConclusionsThese studies suggest that L-methylfolate 15 mg/d may be a safe and effective augmentation strategy for inadequate response to SSRIs.

Use of midazolam for ECT anesthesia: effects on antidepressive efficacy and seizure duration. Preliminary findings

1995 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 312-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Auriacombe ◽  
D Grabot ◽  
PM Lincheneau ◽  
D Zeiter ◽  
J Tignol
Keyword(s):  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Electroconvulsive Therapy ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Random Assignment ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Seizure Duration ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Madrs Score ◽  
Short Acting

SummaryMidazolam is a short acting benzodiazepine that has been used for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) anesthesia. The purpose of this study was to determine whether midazolam used for this purpose would impair the antidepressive efficacy of ECT. In a double-blind random-assignment study midazolam was compared to methohexital on the antidepressive efficacy of bilateral ECT as measured by the reduction in the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores and seizure duration. Sixteen DSM-III-R major depressive disorder patients with melancholia were included. Midazolam and methohexital did not differ in their effects on the MADRS score or seizure duration; no correlation was found between seizure duration and outcome of depression for either group. Our preliminary findings do not support the claim that benzodiazepines should not be used during bilateral ECT.

scholarly journals Predictors of Suicidal Ideation and Attempt among Patients with Major Depressive Disorder at a Tertiary Care Hospital, Puducherry

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (01) ◽  
pp. 122-128
Author(s):  
Ralte Lalthankimi ◽  
Padmavathi Nagarajan ◽  
Vikas Menon ◽  
Jeby Jose Olickal
Keyword(s):  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Suicidal Ideation ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Severe Depression ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Suicidal Behaviors ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Severity Of Depression

Abstract Objectives Mental disorders have a large impact on death by suicide. Hence, this study aims to determine the prevalence of suicidal behaviors among major depressive disorder (MDD) patients and the associated factors. Materials and Methods This cross-sectional analytical study was conducted among individuals aged 18 to 65 years, diagnosed with MDD in the Psychiatry Outpatient Department of a Tertiary Care Center, Puducherry during March to October 2019. Severity of depression was assessed using Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale was used to find the suicidal behaviors. Results For 166 participants in the study, mean (standard deviation) age was 40 (11) years and majority were females (76%). More than one-third (37%) had severe or very severe depression, and the prevalence of suicidal ideation, plan, and attempts were 83, 24, and 35%, respectively. After adjusting the covariates, the severity of depression and unemployment were significantly associated with suicidal attempts (adjusted prevalence ratios [aPR] = 11.4 and 1.9), and very severe depression was associated with suicidal ideation (aPR = 1.6). Among 140 individuals with suicidal ideation, 45 (32%) had an ideation frequency of 2 to 3 times/week, 69 (50%) had ideation for 1 hour, 36 (26%) could control ideation with little difficulty, and 12% had suicidal ideation mostly to end or stop their pain. Conclusion Suicidal ideation and attempts were significantly high in MDD patients, and the severity of depression was significantly associated with it. Early identification of high-risk suicidal behavior and implementation of effective preventive interventions are necessary to reduce death by suicide in these groups.

Propofol Anaesthesia in Electroconvulsive Therapy

1994 ◽  
Vol 165 (4) ◽  
pp. 506-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher F. Fear ◽  
Carl S. Littlejohns ◽  
Eryl Rouse ◽  
Paul McQuail
Keyword(s):  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Electroconvulsive Therapy ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Induction Agent ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Seizure Duration ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Induction Agents

BackgroundThe induction agent propofol is known to reduce electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) seizure duration. It is assumed that outcome from depression is adversely affected by this agent. This study compares propofol and methohexitone as induction agents for ECT.MethodIn a prospective, randomised, double-blind study 20 subjects with major depressive disorder (DSM-III-R criteria) received propofol or methohexitone anaesthesia. The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and Beck Depression Inventory were used to assess depression before therapy, at every third treatment, and at the end of therapy. Seizure duration was measured using the cuff technique.ResultsMean seizure durations (P < 0.01) and mean total seizure duration (P < 0.01) were shorter in the propofol group. There was no difference in outcome.ConclusionsUse of propofol may not adversely affect outcome from depression and it is not necessarily contraindicated as an induction agent for ECT. Our results should be interpreted cautiously, and larger studies are needed.

EEG Synchronized TMS for Individualized Therapy in Major Depressive Disorder

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (S2) ◽  
pp. 1144-1144
Author(s):  
Y. Jin ◽  
J. Phillips ◽  
Yueqin Huang ◽  
Steven Heurta
Keyword(s):  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Active Treatment ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Stimulus Frequency ◽  
List Type ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Double Blind

IntroductionEfficacy of conventional repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in major depressive disorder (MDD) is limited. The authors report here on an alternative treatment using low energy synchronized TMS (sTMS) at the intrinsic frequency of subjects’ alpha electroencephalogram (EEG).ObjectivesEstablish efficacy and safety profile of sTMS in MDD.Aim(1)Examine the clinical effectiveness of sTMS.(2)Identify adverse effects associated with sTMS.MethodsFifty-two MDD subjects with 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD17) scores >17 were enrolled into a randomized, sham controlled, double-blind trial. Current medication remained unchanged during the trial. Depressive symptoms were evaluated by HAMD17 administered weekly.EEGs were recorded at baseline to determine the stimulus frequency and at week 4 to evaluate the physiological effect. sTMS was delivered through three 6000-G cylindrical neodymium magnets synchronously rotating at a rate equal to the subject's intrinsic alpha frequency.ResultsForty-five subjects completed at least 1 week of treatment and were evaluable. Those who received active treatment had superior clinical response to sham (t = 2.54, P = 0.01), where 55.2% in the active treatment group were clinical responders versus 12.5% in sham (X2 = 7.82, P = 0.005). No significant side effects were reported. The clinical improvement was correlated with the degree of EEG improvement (r = .46, P = 0.009).ConclusionsA therapeutic effect in MDD subjects can be achieved through administration of sTMS at the subject's alpha EEG frequency. Because of minimal side effects, this appears to be a safe and effective treatment option.

scholarly journals Sexual Function during Bupropion or Paroxetine Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder

2006 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 234-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sidney H Kennedy ◽  
Kari A Fulton ◽  
R Michael Bagby ◽  
Andrea L Greene ◽  
Nicole L Cohen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Sexual Function ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Over Time

Objective: The primary objective was to evaluate sexual function (SF) separately in men and women with major depressive disorder (MDD) before and during treatment with bupropion sustained release (SR) or paroxetine. The secondary objectives involved a comparative evaluation of the Sex Effects Scale (Sex FX) and the Investigator-Rated Sexual Desire and Functioning Scale (IRSD-F), as well as a comparison of antidepressant outcomes and an examination of the relation between level of depression and SF over time. Method: There were 141 patients (68 women and 73 men) who met DSM-IV criteria for a current major depressive episode. They were randomly assigned to receive bupropion SR (150 to 300 mg daily) or paroxetine (20 to 40 mg daily) under double-blind trial conditions. Patients were assessed at baseline and at 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks with the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS17), Sex FX, and IRSD-F. Results: Prior to treatment, women reported significantly lower SF on both the Sex FX and IRSD-F scales, compared with men. During treatment, there were no significant drug differences on measures of SF over time for women; however, men who were treated with paroxetine reported a worsening of SF, whereas bupropion SR did not significantly alter SF. Both bupropion SR and paroxetine produced clinically and statistically significant reductions in HDRS17 scores as well as comparable rates of response and remission. There was a statistically significant correlation between the 2 measures of SF at all visits. There was also a significant inverse relation between depression and SF in women, but not in men, irrespective of drug. Conclusion: According to the Sex FX scale, a significant difference in antidepressant-related sexual dysfunction was detected in men, but not women, during treatment with bupropion SR or paroxetine.

Effectiveness of mirtazapine as add-on to paroxetine v. paroxetine or mirtazapine monotherapy in patients with major depressive disorder with early non-response to paroxetine: a two-phase, multicentre, randomized, double-blind clinical trial

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Le Xiao ◽  
Xuequan Zhu ◽  
Amy Gillespie ◽  
Yuan Feng ◽  
Jingjing Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Antidepressant Treatment ◽  
Additional Treatment ◽  
Combination Group ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Early Improvement

Abstract Background This study aimed to examine the efficacy of combining paroxetine and mirtazapine v. switching to mirtazapine, for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who have had an insufficient response to SSRI monotherapy (paroxetine) after the first 2 weeks of treatment. Methods This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, three-arm study recruited participants from five hospitals in China. Eligible participants were aged 18–60 years with MDD of at least moderate severity. Participants received paroxetine during a 2-week open-label phase and patients who had not achieved early improvement were randomized to paroxetine, mirtazapine or paroxetine combined with mirtazapine for 6 weeks. The primary outcome was improvement on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression 17-item (HAMD-17) scores 6 weeks after randomization. Results A total of 204 patients who showed early non-response to paroxetine monotherapy were randomly assigned to receive either mirtazapine and placebo (n = 68), paroxetine and placebo (n = 68) or mirtazapine and paroxetine (n = 68), with 164 patients completing the outcome assessment. At week 8, the least squares (LS) mean change of HAMD-17 scores did not significantly differ among the three groups, (12.98 points) in the mirtazapine group, (12.50 points) in the paroxetine group and (13.27 points) in the mirtazapine plus paroxetine combination group. Participants in the paroxetine monotherapy group were least likely to experience adverse effects. Conclusions After 8 weeks follow-up, paroxetine monotherapy, mirtazapine monotherapy and paroxetine/mirtazapine combination therapy were equally effective in non-improvers at 2 weeks. The results of this trial do not support a recommendation to routinely offer additional treatment or a switch in treatment strategies for MDD patients who do not show early improvement after 2 weeks of antidepressant treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document