Apurva Prakash

Duloxetine versus escitalopram and placebo in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder: onset of antidepressant action, a non-inferiority study

ABSTRACT Objective: The goal of a non-inferiority study is to test whether a new treatment has at least as much efficacy as an established treatment1. The purpose of this non-inferiority study was to compare the speed of onset of antidepressant efficacy for duloxetine (a dual serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor) and escitalopram (a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor). Research design and methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active comparator-controlled study, in which patients (≥ 18 years) meeting DSM‑IV criteria for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) received duloxetine 60 mg once daily (QD; N = 273), escitalopram 10 mg QD (N = 274), or placebo (N = 137) for 8 weeks. The primary objective was to compare the onset of antidepressant efficacy, by testing the hypothesis that the percentage of duloxetine-treated patients achieving onset criteria at Week 2 was not inferior to that in the escitalopram group. Main outcome measures: Onset of efficacy was defined as a 20% decrease from baseline on the 17‑item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD17) Maier subscale that was maintained or exceeded at all subsequent visits. Results: Probabilities of meeting onset criteria at Week 2 for duloxetine- and escitalopram-treated patients were 42.6% versus 35.2%, respectively (treatment difference = 7.4%; 95% confidence interval, –1.3% to 16.2%; p = 0.097). Both drugs showed significant improvement compared with placebo ( p ≤ 0.05) on the primary efficacy measure (Maier subscale) at Week 1 and endpoint (Week 8). No differences were found between duloxetine, escitalopram, and placebo rates of remission or response at 8 weeks. Adverse events that occurred significantly more frequently among duloxetine-treated patients when compared with those receiving escitalopram were nausea, dry mouth, vomiting, yawning, and irritability. The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Limitations: Given the difficulties in constructing appropriate dose comparisons, the results of this study should be interpreted specific to the doses tested and not extrapolated to the drug as a whole. This study employed a fixed-dose design; flexible-dose designs are more likely to find a difference between antidepressants and placebo. Conclusion: In this study, both duloxetine and escitalopram showed significantly greater improvement on the primary efficacy measure than placebo over the 8‑week acute treatment period, while no differences were observed between drugs or between drugs and placebo on response and remission rates at 8 weeks. Escitalopram at a starting dose of 10 mg QD was better tolerated than duloxetine at a starting dose of 60 mg QD. This study met its pre-defined primary objective of assessing if duloxetine was non-inferior to escitalopram in antidepressant onset efficacy, and the results show that duloxetine is at least as fast as (non-inferior to) escitalopram. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00073411.

Duloxetine versus escitalopram and placebo: an 8-month, double-blind trial in patients with major depressive disorder*

ABSTRACT Background: Duloxetine and escitalopram were compared in an 8-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adult outpatients meeting DSM‑IV criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD). The results regarding the primary objective of the study (onset of antidepressant action) have been previously published. The current paper focuses on the longer-term (8-month) comparisons of efficacy and safety between duloxetine and escitalopram. Research design and methods: Upon completion of the 8-week, fixed-dose, placebo-controlled, acute-treatment phase (duloxetine 60 mg/day (n = 273), escitalopram 10 mg/day (n = 274), placebo (n = 137)), patients remaining in the duloxetine (n = 188) and escitalopram (n = 208) groups were eligible for double-blind dose increases (duloxetine to 120 mg/day, escitalopram to 20 mg/day), and placebo non-responders were eligible for double-blind rescue to active drug. Main outcome measures: Efficacy was primarily assessed using the HAMD17. Safety/tolerability assessments included spontaneously reported adverse events (AEs), overall rates and reasons for discontinuation, laboratory analyses, and vital signs. Results: Both drugs demonstrated similar remission rates over the course of the study, with the probability of remission reaching 70% (duloxetine) and 75% (escitalopram) at 8 months ( p = 0.44). Similar improvement was observed for both duloxetine and escitalopram on efficacy measures with the exception of the sleep subscale of the HAMD17, wherein escitalopram had a statistically significant advantage over duloxetine in improving sleep. Over the entire 8-month study, discontinuation rates differed significantly for duloxetine (62%) compared with escitalopram (55%; p = 0.02). Rates of discontinuation due to AEs did not differ significantly between duloxetine (12.8%), escitalopram (12.0%), and placebo (10.2%) ( p > 0.05 all pairwise comparisons). AEs associated with duloxetine tended to emerge early in treatment (e.g., nausea, dry mouth), whereas AEs associated with escitalopram tended to emerge later in treatment (e.g., diarrhea, weight increase). The incidence of sustained hypertension was similar between drugs (1.5 vs. 1.1% patients for duloxetine and escitalopram, respectively). Statistically significant drug differences were identified in the mean changes from baseline to study endpoint for pulse (+3.05 beats per minute (bpm), duloxetine; –0.89 bpm, escitalopram; p < 0.001) and systolic blood pressure (+3.73 mmHg, duloxetine; +0.31 mmHg, escitalopram; p < 0.05), but not diastolic blood pressure (+0.81 mmHg, duloxetine; –0.24 mmHg, escitalopram; p = 0.27). At 8 months, mean change in weight was significantly higher for escitalopram compared with duloxetine (+0.61 kg, duloxetine; +1.83 kg, escitalopram; p < 0.05), however, the incidence of treatment-emergent abnormal weight gain (≥ 7% increase in weight from baseline) was similar between drugs and was significantly greater for both duloxetine and escitalopram compared with placebo. Limitations: Because so few patients on placebo (n = 15), in comparison to duloxetine (n = 104) or escitalopram (n = 123), completed the entire 8-month study, the power to detect a difference between the active treatments and placebo after 8 weeks was significantly decreased and very likely insufficient. Conclusion: Throughout the 8-month study, similar improvement was observed for both duloxetine and escitalopram on most efficacy measures with the exception of the sleep subscale of the HAMD17. Drug differences were identified in safety/tolerability measures.

Differential Antidepressant Symptom Efficacy: Placebo-Controlled Comparisons of Duloxetine and SSRIs (Fluoxetine, Paroxetine, Escitalopram)

Objective: To test the hypothesis that in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), the response for specific Hamilton Depression Rating Scale items will differ for duloxetine compared with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and that patterns of response will differ based on symptom severity at baseline. Method: Data were pooled from all Lilly-sponsored clinical trials where duloxetine was compared with placebo and an SSRI in patients with MDD: 7 randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose, 8-week studies of duloxetine (n = 1,133) versus SSRI (n = 689) versus placebo (n = 641). Duloxetine doses were 40, 60, 80 and 120 mg/day. SSRI doses were 10 mg/day (escitalopram) and 20 mg/day (fluoxetine and paroxetine). Results: Compared to SSRI-treated patients, duloxetine-treated patients had a significantly greater (p ≤ 0.05) reduction in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD17) total score and HAMD17 items of work and activities, psychomotor retardation, genital symptoms and hypochondriasis. Differences favoring the SSRIs approached significance for middle insomnia (p = 0.057) and late insomnia (p = 0.06), with effect sizes at least twice the magnitude of the corresponding effect sizes for duloxetine. Similarly, the advantage for duloxetine versus the SSRIs approached significance for general somatic symptoms (p = 0.056), with an effect size twice that observed for the SSRIs. The HAMD17 total score difference was driven mostly by patients with lower baseline MDD severity (HAMD17 total score ≤19), where the HAMD17 effect size advantage for duloxetine over combined SSRIs was statistically significant (p = 0.031). Conclusion: Potentially important differences in symptom response patterns were found between duloxetine and the combined SSRIs depending on symptom severity, and different HAMD17 items responded differently to duloxetine compared with SSRIs. Understanding these differences may be useful in tailoring antidepressant therapy for individual patients.

Assessing remission in major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder clinical trials with the discan metric of the Sheehan disability scale.

Relatively little research has focused on the relationship between functional remission and symptomatic remission in mood and anxiety disorders. This study investigates the relationship and synchrony between symptomatic and functional remission in outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Using data from three MDD (N=1419) and four GAD (N=1847) randomized, placebo-controlled duloxetine studies, we calculated the percentages of patients meeting symptomatic, functional, and combined functional-symptomatic remission criteria for each disorder. We also calculated mean depression [17-item Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD17), Montgomery–Asberg depression rating scale] scores and mean anxiety (Hamilton anxiety rating scale) scores for patients meeting Sheehan disability scale (SDS) functional remission and the mean SDS scores for patients with symptomatic remission. Among the patients with MDD, 38% achieved symptomatic remission (HAMD17⩽7), 32% achieved functional remission (SDS⩽6), and 23% achieved combined functional–symptomatic remission. Mean HAMD17 and Montgomery–Asberg depression rating scale scores for patients with functional remission were approximately 6. Mean SDS total scores for patients with symptomatic remission were 7.1 (patients with HAMD17 ⩽7) and 8.6 (patients with Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale⩽10). Among the patients with GAD, 30% achieved symptomatic remission (Hamilton anxiety rating scale⩽7), 45% achieved functional remission (SDS⩽6), and 25% achieved combined symptomatic–functional remission. The mean Hamilton anxiety rating scale score in GAD was approximately 8 for patients with functional remission and the mean SDS total score was approximately 4 in patients with symptomatic remission. The study shows that functional remission does not always move in tandem with symptom remission and provides useful anchor points or rules of thumb for evaluating symptomatic and functional remission in MDD and GAD.

The impact of analytic method on interpretation of outcomes in longitudinal clinical trials.

Aims:  Various analytical strategies for addressing missing data in clinical trials are utilised in reporting study results. The most commonly used analytical methods include the last observation carried forward (LOCF), observed case (OC) and the mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Each method requires certain assumptions regarding the characteristics of the missing data. If the assumptions for any particular method are not valid, results from that method can be biased. Results based on these different analytical methods can, therefore, be inconsistent, thereby making interpretation of clinical study results confusing. In this investigation, we compare results from MMRM, LOCF and OC in order to illustrate the potential biases and problems in interpretation.

A double-blind efficacy and safety study of duloxetine fixed doses in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of duloxetine fixed dose in the treatment of children (7-11 years) and adolescents (12-17 years) with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS Patients (n=463) in this 36 week study (10 week acute and 26 week extension treatment) received duloxetine 60 mg QD (n=108), duloxetine 30 mg QD (n=116), fluoxetine 20 mg QD (n=117, active control), or placebo (n=122). Measures included: Childrens Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R), treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS). RESULTS Neither active drug (duloxetine or fluoxetine) separated significantly (p<0.05) from placebo on mean change from baseline to end-point (10 weeks) on the CDRS-R total score. Total TEAEs and discontinuation for AEs were significantly (p<0.05) higher only for the duloxetine 60 mg group versus the placebo group during acute treatment. No clinically significant electrocardiogram (ECG) or laboratory abnormalities were observed, and no completed suicides or deaths occurred during the study. A total of 7 (6.7%) duloxetine 60 mg, 6 (5.2%) duloxetine 30 mg, 9 (8.0%) fluoxetine, and 11 (9.4%) placebo patients had worsening of suicidal ideation from baseline during acute treatment. Of the patients with suicidal ideation at baseline, 13/16 (81%) duloxetine 60 mg, 16/17 (94%) duloxetine 30 mg, 11/16 (69%) fluoxetine, and 13/15 (87%) placebo had improvement in suicidal ideation at end-point during acute treatment. One fluoxetine, one placebo, and six duloxetine patients had treatment-emergent suicidal behavior during the 36 week study. CONCLUSIONS Trial results were inconclusive, as neither the investigational drug (duloxetine) nor the active control (fluoxetine) separated from placebo on the CDRS-R at 10 weeks. No new duloxetine safety signals were identified relative to those seen in adults. Clinical Trial Registry Number ( www.ClinicalTrials.gov ): NCT00849693.

Patterns of depressive symptom response in duloxetine‐treated outpatients with mild, moderate or more severe depression

Aims:  This was a post hoc analysis to determine whether baseline severity of depression influenced the efficacy of duloxetine in treating major depressive disorder (MDD) and to better characterise the symptom response profile for duloxetine in patients with mild, moderate or more severe depression.

Assessment of depressive symptoms and functional outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder treated with duloxetine versus placebo: primary outcomes from two trials conducted under the same protocol

Return of functional ability is a central goal in the treatment of major depressive disorder. We conducted two trials with the same protocol that was designed to assess functioning after 8 Weeks of treatment with duloxetine.

Comparisons of the efficacy and safety of duloxetine for the treatment of fibromyalgia in patients with versus without major depressive disorder.

ObjectivesTo investigate whether comorbid major depressive disorder (MDD) influenced the efficacy and safety of duloxetine in treating fibromyalgia (FM). MethodsThis was a post-hoc analysis using pooled data from 4 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of patients with American College of Rheumatology-defined primary FM with or without MDD. Patients were randomized to duloxetine [60 or 120 mg/d (N=797)] or placebo (N=535) for approximately 3 months. Efficacy measures included the Brief Pain Inventory average pain score, 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, and Patients/Clinicians Global Impressions of Improvement/Severity scales. ResultsAt baseline, 26% of patients met diagnostic criteria for MDD. At endpoint (3 mo or last observation), duloxetine showed significantly (P<0.05) greater improvement versus placebo on the Brief Pain Inventory, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, Patients Global Impressions of Improvement scale, and Clinicians Global Impressions of Severity scale in patients with and without comorbid MDD. The effect of duloxetine on these efficacy measures was consistent across FM patients with or without MDD (P>0.1 for treatment-by-strata interaction). On the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, duloxetine showed significantly (P<0.05) greater improvement versus placebo in patients with comorbid MDD. The safety profile of duloxetine versus placebo with respect to serious adverse events and discontinuation owing to adverse events was similar for FM patients with versus without MDD (P>0.1 treatment-by-strata interaction). DiscussionDuloxetine was effective in reducing pain and other symptoms in FM patients with and without MDD and demonstrated a similar safety profile for both groups.

The relationship between functional outcomes and the treatment of anxious and painful somatic symptoms in patients with generalized anxiety disorder

ABSTRACT Objective: To examine the relationship between global functional impairment and the treatment of anxious symptoms and painful somatic symptoms (PSS) in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Research design and methods: Data from two double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in adult outpatients meeting DSM-IV criteria for GAD were pooled. In the first trial (9-week, fixed-dose treatment period), patients were randomized to duloxetine 60 mg QD (n = 168), duloxetine 120 mg QD (n = 170), or placebo (n = 175). In the second trial (10-week, flexible-dose treatment period), patients were randomized to 60–120 mg QD of duloxetine (n = 168) or placebo (n = 159). Path analysis was used to assess the relative contributions of changes in psychic and somatic anxiety and PSS on improved functional outcomes. Clinical trial registration information: Study 1: NCT00122824; Study 2: study completed before registration required. Main outcome measures: Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), and Visual Analog Scale for overall pain (VAS). Results: There was a moderate correlation (0.45, p < 0.05) at endpoint between changes in global functional impairment and changes in psychic anxiety (controlling for somatic anxiety and PSS); whereas the correlation between changes in global functional impairment and changes in somatic anxiety (controlling for psychic anxiety and PSS) was weak (0.09, p < 0.05). The correlation between changes in global functional impairment and changes in PSS (controlling for psychic and somatic anxiety) was weak (0.27, p < 0.05). Path analysis revealed that 37% of the total improvement in functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale total score) due to duloxetine treatment was independent of improvement in the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) psychic and somatic anxiety subscale scores or Visual Analog Scale for overall pain (VAS) score. Improvement in psychic anxiety accounted for 47% of the total treatment effect on improvement of functional impairment, whereas 7% and 9% of the improvement in functional impairment was accounted for by improvements in somatic anxiety and overall pain, respectively. Limitations: This was a post-hoc exploratory analysis. Patients with co-morbid Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) or significant depressive symptoms were excluded from these GAD studies. Conclusions: In patients with GAD, there was a moderate correlation between improvement in psychic anxiety symptoms and improvement in global functional impairment, whereas the correlation between improvements in somatic anxiety or PSS and improvement in global functional impairment was low. Most of the treatment effect of duloxetine in improvement of functional impairment was mediated through improvement in psychic anxiety, with smaller contributions through improvement in somatic anxiety and PSS. Some of the improvement in functional impairment for duloxetine-treated patients was independent of improvement through any of these domains.