A randomised study comparing escitalopram with venlafaxine XR in primary care patients with major depressive disorder

Escitalopram versus other antidepressive agents for major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Escitalopram is selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and one of the most commonly prescribed newer antidepressants (ADs) worldwide. We aimed to explore the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of escitalopram in comparison with other ADs in the acute-phase treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Clinical Trials.gov were searched from inception to July 10, 2023. Trial databases of drug-approving agencies were hand-searched for published, unpublished and ongoing controlled trials. All randomized controlled trials comparing escitalopram against any other antidepressant for patients with MDD. Responders and remitters to treatment were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. For dichotomous data, risk ratios (RRs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Continuous data were analyzed using standardized mean differences (with 95% CI) using the random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies were included in this meta‑analysis, among which sixteen trials compared escitalopram with another SSRI and 14 compared escitalopram with a newer AD. Escitalopram was shown to be significantly more effective than citalopram in achieving acute response (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50-0.87). Escitalopram was also more effective than citalopram in terms of remission (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30-0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

Escitalopram was superior to other ADs for the acute phase treatment of MDD in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability. However, no significant difference was found between escitalopram and other ADs in early response or follow-up response to treatment of MDD.

Significant Differences and Experimental Designs Do Not Necessarily Imply Clinical Relevance: Effect Sizes and Causality Claims in Antidepressant Treatments

Clinical trials are the backbone of medical scientific research. However, this experimental strategy has some drawbacks. We focused on two issues: (a) The internal validity ensured by clinical trial procedures does not necessarily allow for generalization of efficacy results to causal claims about effectiveness in the population. (b) Statistical significance does not imply clinical or practical significance; p-values should be supplemented with effect size (ES) estimators and an interpretation of the magnitude of the effects found. We conducted a systematic review (from 2000 to 2020) on Scopus, PubMed, and four ProQuest databases, including PsycINFO. We searched for experimental studies with significant effects of pharmacological treatments on depressive symptoms, measured with a specific scale for depression. We assessed the claims of effectiveness, and reporting and interpreting of effect sizes in a small, unbiased sample of clinical trials (n = 10). Only 30% of the studies acknowledged that efficacy does not necessarily translate to effectiveness. Only 20% reported ES indices, and only 40% interpreted the magnitude of their findings. We encourage reflection on the applicability of results derived from clinical trials about the efficacy of antidepressant treatments, which often influence daily clinical decision-making. Comparing experimental results of antidepressants with supplementary observational studies can provide clinicians with greater flexibility in prescribing medication based on patient characteristics. Furthermore, the ES of a treatment should be considered, as treatments with a small effect may be worthwhile in certain circumstances, while treatments with a large effect may be justified despite additional costs or complications. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to report and interpret ES and explicitly discuss the suitability of their sample for the clinical population to which the antidepressant treatment will be applied.

A Review of Clinical Studies Assessing the Therapeutic Efficacy of Escitalopram: A Step Towards Development

BACKGROUND

Major depression is a debilitating, sometimes fatal disorder, deteriorating the quality of life and well-being. Escitalopram showed highly selective and dose-dependent inhibitory activity on human serotonin transport. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the first-line drugs to manage major depressive disorder (MDD).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to explore the therapeutic potential of escitalopram, a clinically approved drug to manage MDD and panic disorders.

METHODS

It emphasizes comparative and clinical trial studies with several pharmacological targets reviewed from the data available on PubMed, Science Direct, Clinicaltrails.gov, and from many reputed foundations.

RESULTS

To highlight the clinical efficacy, safety, recent development, and stable formulation of escitalopram with an increased bioavailability profile. Evidence-based on the available clinical and pharmacoeconomic data, escitalopram represents an effective first-line treatment option for MDD patients.

CONCLUSION

The present review highlights the placebo-controlled clinical studies and the recent development that can be helpful for further research perspectives.

An Oppositional Tolerance Account for Potential Cognitive Deficits Caused by the Discontinuation of Antidepressant Drugs

Depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide, making antidepressant drugs the most used psychiatric drugs in the USA. Withdrawal effects and rebound symptoms frequently occur after the reduction and/or discontinuation of these drugs. Although these phenomena have been investigated with respect to the clinical symptomatology, no studies have systematically investigated the effects of withdrawal/rebound on general cognition. We present a novel framework based on the idea of allostatic adaptation, which allows to predict how different antidepressants likely impair different cognitive processes as a result of withdrawal and rebound effects. This framework relies on the assumptions that the type of cognitive impairments evoked by an antidepressant is determined by the targeted neurotransmitter systems, while the severity of deficits depends on its half-life. Our model predicts that the severity of detrimental cognitive withdrawal and rebound effects increases with a shorter half-life of the discontinued antidepressant drug. It further proposes drug-specific effects: antidepressants mainly targeting serotonin should primarily impair aversive and emotional processing, those targeting norepinephrine should impair the processing of alerting signals, those targeting dopamine should impair motivational processes and reward processing, and those targeting acetylcholine should impair spatial learning and memory. We hope that this framework will motivate further research to better understand and explain cognitive changes as a consequence of antidepressant discontinuation.

The association between placebo arm inclusion and adverse event rates in antidepressant randomized controlled trials: An examination of the Nocebo Effect

BACKGROUND

Antidepressant efficacy is influenced by patient expectations and, in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the probability of receiving a placebo. It is unclear whether tolerability demonstrates a similar pattern. This study aimed to determine whether study design influences adverse event (AE) rates in antidepressant trials for subjects receiving active treatment or placebo.

METHODS

RCTs comparing one antidepressant to another antidepressant, placebo, or both in major depressive disorder (MDD) (1996-2018) were retrieved from Medline and PsycINFO. Clinicaltrials.gov was searched for unpublished trials. Of 1,997 studies screened, 77 trials were included. Studies were classified as drug-drug, drug-drug-placebo, or drug-placebo based on design and overall number of subjects experiencing any AE was recorded. Subgroup meta-analysis of proportions and meta-regression techniques were used to compare AE rates across study designs in patients receiving active antidepressant treatment and placebo.

RESULTS

Among the actively treated, AE rates were lower in drug-drug trials (58.5%) compared to drug-drug-placebo (75.7%) and drug-placebo (76.4%) (the model reported coefficients for percent differences between AE rates of different study designs were B=17.0, p<0.001 and B=17.8, p<0.001, respectively). AE rates in patients receiving placebo were not different between study designs.

LIMITATIONS

The present study is limited by the diverse range of study populations, variability in reporting of AEs, and specific antidepressants employed in the included trials.

CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of a placebo arm in the study design was unexpectedly associated with higher rates of AEs among patients receiving active medication in antidepressant trials. This observation has important implications for interpretation of trial tolerability findings.

Antidepressant Withdrawal and Rebound Phenomena

BACKGROUND

Antidepressants are among the most commonly prescribed drugs worldwide. They are often discontinued, frequently without the knowledge of the prescribing physician. It is, therefore, important for physicians to be aware of the withdrawal and rebound phenomena that may arise, in order to prevent these phenomena, treat them when necessary, and counsel patients appropriately.

METHODS

This review is based on a comprehensive, structured literature search on antidepressant withdrawal phenomena that we carried out in the CENTRAL, PubMed (Medline), and Embase databases. We classified the relevant publications and reports by their methodological quality.

RESULTS

Out of a total of 2287 hits, there were 40 controlled trials, 38 cohort studies and retrospective analyses, and 271 case reports that met the inclusion criteria. Withdrawal manifestations are usually mild and self-limiting; common ones include dizziness, headache, sleep disturbances, and mood swings. More serious or pro- longed manifestations rarely arise. There is an increased risk with MAO inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, venlafaxine, and paroxetine; on the other hand, for agome- latine and fluoxetine, abrupt discontinuation seems to be unproblematic. There is also some evidence of rebound phenomena, i.e., of higher relapse rates or especially severe relapses of depression after the discontinuation of an anti- depressant.

CONCLUSION

A robust evidence base now indicates that there can be acute with- drawal phenomena when antidepressants are discontinued. Putative rebound phenomena have not been adequately studied to date. It is recommended that antidepressants should be tapered off over a period of more than four weeks.

Development of Obsessive-Compulsive Symptoms Following Abrupt Discontinuation of Venlafaxine

Withdrawal symptoms after discontinuation of antidepressants are common and have long been known. Typical symptoms after dose reduction or discontinuation of antidepressants are dizziness, drowsiness, headache, flu-like symptoms, hyperarousal, imbalance, insomnia, irritability, and nausea. Rebound, relapse, or recurrence associated with the underlying mental disorder may also occur. The occurrence of obsessive-compulsive symptoms (OCS) following abrupt discontinuation of antidepressants have not yet been reported. Here we report the development of OCS (obsessional suicidal thoughts) in a patient with major depressive disorder and absence of a previous obsessive-compulsive disorder following abrupt discontinuation of venlafaxine. Treatment with escitalopram facilitated remission of OCS. We discuss a possible causal link between abrupt discontinuation of venlafaxine and development of OCS under consideration of pathophysiologic aspects regarding obsessive compulsive disorders, the chronological sequence of symptoms in the present case, and pharmacodynamic and -kinetic aspects. Our case report suggests the possibility of the occurrence of obsessive-compulsive symptoms following abrupt discontinuation of venlafaxine.

Changes in alcohol consumption after treatment for depression: a secondary analysis of the Swedish randomised controlled study REGASSA

OBJECTIVES

Mental health problems and hazardous alcohol consumption often co-exist. Hazardous drinking could have a negative impact on different aspects of health and also negatively influence the effect of mental health treatment. The aims of this study were to examine if alcohol consumption patterns changed after treatment for depression and if the changes differed by treatment arm and patient sex.

METHODS

This study of 540 participants was conducted in a large randomised controlled trial (RCT) that aimed to compare the effect of internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy, physical exercise and treatment as usual on 945 participants with mild-to-moderate depression. Treatment lasted for 12 weeks; alcohol consumption (Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT)) and depression (Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)) were assessed at baseline and 12-month follow-up. Changes in alcohol consumption were examined in relation to depression severity, treatment arm and patient sex.

RESULTS

The AUDIT distribution for the entire group remained unchanged after treatment for depression. Hazardous drinkers exhibit decreases in AUDIT scores, although they remained hazardous drinkers according to the cut-off scores. Hazardous drinkers experienced similar improvements in symptoms of depression compared with non-hazardous drinkers, and there was no significant relation between changes in AUDIT score and changes in depression. No differences between treatment arm and patient sex were found.

CONCLUSION

The alcohol consumption did not change, despite treatment effects on depression. Patients with depression should be screened for hazardous drinking habits and offered evidence-based treatment for hazardous alcohol use where this is indicated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS00008745.

A systematic review into the incidence, severity and duration of antidepressant withdrawal effects: Are guidelines evidence-based?

INTRODUCTION

The U.K.'s current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the American Psychiatric Association's depression guidelines state that withdrawal reactions from antidepressants are 'self-limiting' (i.e. typically resolving between 1 and 2weeks). This systematic review assesses that claim.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was undertaken to ascertain the incidence, severity and duration of antidepressant withdrawal reactions. We identified 24 relevant studies, with diverse methodologies and sample sizes.

RESULTS

Withdrawal incidence rates from 14 studies ranged from 27% to 86% with a weighted average of 56%. Four large studies of severity produced a weighted average of 46% of those experiencing antidepressant withdrawal effects endorsing the most extreme severity rating on offer. Seven of the ten very diverse studies providing data on duration contradict the U.K. and U.S.A. withdrawal guidelines in that they found that a significant proportion of people who experience withdrawal do so for more than two weeks, and that it is not uncommon for people to experience withdrawal for several months. The findings of the only four studies calculating mean duration were, for quite heterogeneous populations, 5days, 10days, 43days and 79weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend that U.K. and U.S.A. guidelines on antidepressant withdrawal be urgently updated as they are clearly at variance with the evidence on the incidence, severity and duration of antidepressant withdrawal, and are probably leading to the widespread misdiagnosing of withdrawal, the consequent lengthening of antidepressant use, much unnecessary antidepressant prescribing and higher rates of antidepressant prescriptions overall. We also recommend that prescribers fully inform patients about the possibility of withdrawal effects.

Raising the Minimum Effective Dose of Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Antidepressants: Adverse Drug Events

This review focuses on the dose-response of serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) antidepressants for efficacy and for adverse drug events (ADEs). Dose-response is identified by placebo-controlled, double-blind, fixed-dose clinical trials comparing various doses for efficacy and for ADEs. Reports from the great majority of clinical trials have consistently found that the minimum SRI effective dose is usually optimal for efficacy in the treatment of depression disorders, even though most American medical practitioners raise the dose when early antidepressant treatment results are negative or partial. To better understand this issue, the medical literature was comprehensively reviewed to ascertain the degree to which SRI medications resulted in a flat dose response for efficacy and then to identify specific ADEs that are dose-dependent. Strong evidence from fixed-dose trial data for the efficacy of nonascendant, minimum effective doses of SRIs was found for the treatment of both major depression and anxiety disorders. Particularly important was the finding that most SRI ADEs have an ascending dose-response curve. These ADEs include sexual dysfunction, hypertension, cardiac conduction risks, hyperglycemia, decreased bone density, sweating, withdrawal symptoms, and agitation. Thus, routinely raising the SRI dose above the minimum effective dose for efficacy can be counter-productive.

A Qualitative Review of Recent Economic Evaluations of Escitalopram

Objective:

To review published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of escitalopram.

Data Sources:

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Health Star, and Ovid Journals databases were searched using escitalopram, cost, cost-effectiveness, and economics as search terms. All articles and abstracts published from January 2003 to April 2006 were reviewed and cross-referenced for possible exclusions or duplications. Searches were not limited to English-language publications.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

One prospective economic study and 10 studies using decision analytical models assessing the cost-effectiveness of escitalopram compared with citalopram and/or venlafaxine were identified and reviewed.

Data Synthesis:

Pharmacoeconomic studies using country-specific currency economic analysis from Europe and Canada have been conducted assessing the cost-effectiveness of escitalopram in major depression. Several studies have shown escitalopram to be more cost-effective compared with citalopram, with cost savings identified in societal and healthcare system perspectives. However, the cost-effectiveness of escitalopram was less significant when compared with venlafaxine.

Conclusions:

Economic studies suggest that escitalopram is cost-effective compared with citalopram in treatment of major depression, but has marginal advantage compared with venlafaxine.

Changes in the regional cerebral blood flow detected by arterial spin labeling after 6-week escitalopram treatment for major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

A few studies have used pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling (pCASL) to assess the regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). However, rCBF changes during treatment with escitalopram have not been studied in detail. We used pCASL to investigate the effect of 6-week escitalopram treatment on the rCBF in MDD patients.

METHODS

We subjected 53 MDD patients and 36 controls to pCASL (T1, baseline). The patients then received treatment with escitalopram for 6 weeks and 27 were scanned again (T2). We used selected regions of interest that exhibited differences between the controls and patients at T1 and compared the T2 rCBF in the patients with the T1 rCBF of the controls. We also compared the T1 and T2 rCBF in the patients to assess their response to escitalopram.

RESULTS

After 6-week treatment with escitalopram, the rCBF in the patients' left inferior temporal gyri, the middle- and inferior frontal gyri, and the subgenual anterior cingulate, which had been higher at T1 than in the controls, was decreased. Their rCBF in the right lingual gyrus remained significantly lower at T2.

LIMITATION

We did not have a placebo-control group and the number of patients available at T2 was small.

CONCLUSION

In MDD patients, 6-week escitalopram treatment elicited significant rCBF changes toward normalization in most of the areas that had shown significant differences between the patients and the controls at T1. The persistence of rCBF anomalies in the right lingual gyrus may be a trait marker of MDD.

Duloxetine and escitalopram for hot flushes: efficacy and compliance in breast cancer survivors

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) might be an effective treatment for hot flushes (HFs) in breast cancer survivors (BCSs). This study aims to compare the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine (SNRI) versus escitalopram (SSRI) in reducing frequency and severity of HFs in BCSs and to assess the effect on depression. Thirty-four symptomatic BCSs with emotional impairment received randomly duloxetine 60 mg daily or escitalopram 20 mg daily for 12 weeks. Patients were asked to record in a diary HF frequency and severity at baseline and after 4 and 12 weeks of treatment. Depression was evaluated through validated questionnaires (Beck Depression Inventory and Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale) at baseline and after 4 and 12 weeks of treatment. Both drugs showed a significant reduction of HF frequency and severity after 12 weeks of treatment with no significant difference between the two groups. A significant improvement in depression symptoms was observed at the end of the study period within both the groups, without difference between the two drugs. In conclusion, escitalopram and duloxetine are both effective treatment for the relief of HFs in BCSs, with similar beneficial effect. A significant improvement of depression was obtained with no major side effects.

Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of New Generation Antidepressants

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) impacts health, quality of life and workplace productivity. Antidepressant treatment is the primary therapeutic intervention. This study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of new generation antidepressants and their cost-effectiveness in the Singapore healthcare system.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search for head-to-head randomised controlled trials on ten antidepressants (agomelatine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, fluoxetine, mirtazapine, paroxetine, sertraline, trazodone and venlafaxine) employed as monotherapy in acute MDD management. We performed a network meta-analysis to compare their relative efficacy. The outcome measures for efficacy were response and remission rate, and mean change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score; and for tolerability, study withdrawal rates due to adverse events. To evaluate their relative cost effectiveness, a decision tree simulating a cohort of MDD patients using antidepressant as monotherapy was constructed from a societal perspective over 6 months. We used effectiveness data from our network meta-analysis and local data on resource use for depression in Singapore. The incremental cost expected for each additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was calculated and presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

We identified 76 relevant articles for the network meta-analysis. Of the ten agents included in the analysis, mirtazapine and agomelatine were most efficacious in achieving response and remission, respectively. Mirtazapine and duloxetine resulted in the greatest magnitude of change in the HDRS score. Agomelatine, escitalopram and sertraline were the best tolerated of the drugs analysed, while duloxetine was the least well tolerated drug. Using a composite outcome of efficacy (response and remission rates) and tolerability, agomelatine, escitalopram and mirtazapine were the favoured treatments. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, apart from agomelatine, all the treatments were dominated by mirtazapine. Against mirtazapine, agomelatine was not cost effective given that its ICER exceeded the threshold value.

CONCLUSION

Agomelatine, escitalopram and mirtazapine had favourable balance between efficacy and tolerability. In addition, mirtazapine was a cost-effective option in the Singapore healthcare system.

Withdrawal Symptoms after Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Discontinuation: A Systematic Review

Background: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) are widely used in medical practice. They have been associated with a broad range of symptoms, whose clinical meaning has not been fully appreciated. Methods: The PRISMA guidelines were followed to conduct a systematic review of the literature. Titles, abstracts, and topics were searched using the following terms: 'withdrawal symptoms' OR 'withdrawal syndrome' OR 'discontinuation syndrome' OR 'discontinuation symptoms', AND 'SSRI' OR 'serotonin' OR 'antidepressant' OR 'paroxetine' OR 'fluoxetine' OR 'sertraline' OR 'fluvoxamine' OR 'citalopram' OR 'escitalopram'. The electronic research literature databases included CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PubMed and Web-of-Science from inception of each database to July 2014. Results: There were 15 randomized controlled studies, 4 open trials, 4 retrospective investigations, and 38 case reports. The prevalence of the syndrome was variable, and its estimation was hindered by a lack of case identification in many studies. Symptoms typically occur within a few days from drug discontinuation and last a few weeks, also with gradual tapering. However, many variations are possible, including late onset and/or longer persistence of disturbances. Symptoms may be easily misidentified as signs of impending relapse. Conclusions: Clinicians need to add SSRI to the list of drugs potentially inducing withdrawal symptoms upon discontinuation, together with benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and other psychotropic drugs. The term 'discontinuation syndrome' that is currently used minimizes the potential vulnerabilities induced by SSRI and should be replaced by 'withdrawal syndrome'. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Incidence and Timing of Taper/Posttherapy-Emergent Adverse Events Following Discontinuation of Desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this post hoc analysis was to evaluate the incidence and timing of taper/posttherapy-emergent adverse events (TPAEs) following discontinuation of long-term treatment with desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate).

METHOD

This was a phase 4, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted at 38 research centers within the United States between March 2010 and February 2011. Adult outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD; DSM-IV-TR criteria) who completed 24 weeks of open-label treatment with desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups for the double-blind taper phase: desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d for 4 weeks (no discontinuation), desvenlafaxine 25 mg/d for 1 week followed by placebo for 3 weeks (taper), or placebo for 4 weeks (abrupt discontinuation). The primary endpoint, Discontinuation-Emergent Signs and Symptoms Scale (DESS) score over the first 2 weeks of the taper phase, was described previously. Secondary assessments included incidence and timing of TPAEs (any adverse event that started or increased in severity during the double-blind phase) and the percentage of patients who could not continue the taper phase due to discontinuation symptoms. The Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (QIDS-SR16) assessed MDD status.

RESULTS

A total of 480 patients enrolled in the open-label phase; the full analysis set included 357 patients (taper, n = 139; abrupt discontinuation, n = 146; no discontinuation, n = 72). TPAEs occurred in all groups through week 4. The incidence of any TPAE was lower for taper versus abrupt discontinuation at week 1 (P < .001), similar at week 2, and lower for taper versus abrupt discontinuation at weeks 3 and 4 (P ≤ .034). The most common TPAEs (incidence ≥ 3%) in the taper group were nausea and headache (3% each) at week 1 and dizziness (5%) and headache (4%) at week 2. The most common TPAEs in the abrupt discontinuation group were dizziness (8%), headache (8%), nausea (4%), irritability (3%), and diarrhea (3%) at week 1 and headache (3%) at weeks 2 and 3. The most common TPAE in the no discontinuation group was nausea (6%) at week 2.

CONCLUSION

The overall incidence of any TPAE was lower in the taper versus abrupt discontinuation groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01056289.

Sexual dysfunction associated with second-generation antidepressants in patients with major depressive disorder: results from a systematic review with network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sexual dysfunction (SD) is prevalent in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and is also associated with second-generation antidepressants (SGADs) that are commonly used to treat the condition. Evidence indicates under-reporting of SD in efficacy studies. SD associated with antidepressant treatment is a serious side effect that may lead to early termination of treatment and worsening of quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to systematically assess the harms of SD associated with SGADs in adult patients with MDD by drug type.

METHODS

We retrieved English-language abstracts from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 1980 to October 2012 as well as from reference lists of pertinent review articles and grey literature searches. Two independent reviewers identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 6 weeks' duration and observational studies with at least 1,000 participants.

STUDY SELECTION

Reviewers abstracted data on study design, conduct, participants, interventions, outcomes and method of SD ascertainment, and rated risk of bias. A senior reviewer checked and confirmed extracted data and risk-of-bias ratings.

ANALYSES

Random effects network meta-analysis using Bayesian methods for data from head-to-head trials and placebo-controlled comparisons; descriptive analyses calculating weighted mean rates from individual trials and observational studies.

RESULTS/SYNTHESIS

Data from 63 studies of low and moderate risk of bias (58 RCTs, five observational studies) with more than 26,000 patients treated with SGADs were included. Based on network meta-analyses of 66 pairwise comparisons from 37 RCTs, most comparisons showed a similar risk of SD among included SGADs. However, credible intervals were wide and included differences that would be considered clinically relevant. We observed three main patterns: bupropion had a statistically significantly lower risk of SD than some other SGADs, and both escitalopram and paroxetine showed a statistically significantly higher risk of SD than some other SGADs. We found reporting of harms related to SD inconsistent and insufficient in some trials.

LIMITATIONS

Most trials were conducted in highly selected populations. Search was restricted to English-language only.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Because of the indirect nature of the comparisons, the often wide credible intervals, and the high variation in magnitude of outcome, we rated the overall strength of evidence with respect to our findings as low. The current degree of evidence does not allow a precise estimate of comparative risk of SD associated with a specific antidepressant. In the absence of such evidence, clinicians need to be aware of SD as a common adverse event and should discuss patients' preferences before initiating antidepressant therapy.

Does adding noradrenaline reuptake inhibition to selective serotonin reuptake inhibition improve efficacy in patients with depression? A systematic review of meta-analyses and large randomised pragmatic trials

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are recommended as first-line pharmacological treatment for depression and are the most commonly prescribed class of antidepressants. However, there is substantial evidence that noradrenaline has a role in the pathogenesis and treatment of depression. This review aims to examine the evidence of including noradrenaline reuptake inhibition with serotonin reuptake inhibition with respect to increasing efficacy in the treatment of depression. Evidence from meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and randomised pragmatic trials was found in support of greater efficacy of the serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), venlafaxine and duloxetine, in moderate to severe depression compared to SSRIs but no evidence was found for superiority of milnacipran. There is sufficient current evidence that demonstrates an increase in efficacy, when noradrenaline reuptake is added to serotonin (5-HT) reuptake, to suggest that patients with severe depression or those who have failed to reach remission with a SSRI may benefit from treatment with a SNRI. However, as these conclusions are drawn from the evidence derived from meta-analyses and pragmatic trials, large adequately powered RCTs using optimal dosing regimens and clinically relevant outcome measures in severe depression and SSRI treatment failures are still required to confirm these findings.

A review of the adverse effects and safety of noradrenergic antidepressants

There are a variety of noradrenergic antidepressants available, most of which act by inhibiting neuronal noradrenaline re-uptake, although few drugs are specific for this action. Where drugs have numerous actions the adverse effects of noradrenaline reuptake may be difficult to isolate, although in this respect the adverse effects of reboxetine, a specific noradrenaline re-uptake inhibitor, are illuminating. Noradrenergic antidepressants typically cause minor changes in blood and heart rate, sweating and insomnia. Other pharmacological actions shown by non-specific antidepressants may act to worsen or mitigate these adverse effects. Noradrenergic drugs are less likely than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) to cause sexual dysfunction but more likely to cause urinary hesitancy. Doubts remain over the relative propensity for antidepressants with different modes of action to cause diabetes and hyponatraemia. Noradrenergic actions do not seem to confer a risk of death in overdose.

Less is more in antidepressant clinical trials: a meta-analysis of the effect of visit frequency on treatment response and dropout

OBJECTIVE

We investigated how the number of follow-up visits affects response rates and dropout among patients in antidepressant trials for major depressive disorder (MDD).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and PubMed were searched to identify trials contrasting antidepressants to placebo or active comparator in adults with depression. The index terms depression-drug therapy, depressive disorder-drug therapy, and antidepressant agents, in addition to the classes and individual generic names of all antidepressants, were combined using the "or" operator. Results were limited to (1) English-language articles, (2) publication year 1985 or later, (3) age group ≥ 18 years, and (4) publication types including clinical trials, controlled clinical trials, meta-analysis, multicenter study, randomized controlled trial, or review.

STUDY SELECTION

Included articles reported trials of approved antidepressant medications for MDD in outpatients aged 18-65 years, were 6-12 weeks in duration, and had response rates specified using a standardized measure. Trials were excluded for enrolling inpatients, pregnant women, psychotic subjects, or those with treatment-resistant depression. These criteria allowed 9,189 articles identified in the literature review to be narrowed to 111 reports.

DATA EXTRACTION

Demographic characteristics, the number of study visits planned in each treatment cell, duration of active treatment, attrition rates, and response rates to medication and placebo were entered into a database.

RESULTS

In a multilevel meta-analysis, active medication versus placebo (OR = 1.96, P < .001), active comparator versus placebo-controlled study design (OR = 1.82, P < .001), and longer versus shorter duration (OR = 1.87, P < .001) were associated with significantly increased odds of treatment response. After controlling for these variables, the number of study visits did not significantly influence response rates (OR = 0.97, P = .877). The odds of dropout were significantly decreased for active comparator versus placebo-controlled trials (OR = 0.67, P = .002) and longer versus shorter duration trials (OR = 0.54, P = .035), while increasing numbers of study visits significantly increased the odds of participant dropout (OR = 2.77, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Visit schedules that are much more frequent than are commonly practiced in the community treatment of depression may increase the expense of clinical trials and make them less generalizable to standard clinical treatment.

Combining a dopamine agonist and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor for the treatment of depression: a double-blind, randomized pilot study

BACKGROUND

Antidepressants that act on two or more amine neurotransmitters may confer higher remission rates when first-line agents affecting a single neurotransmitter have failed. Pramipexole, a dopamine agonist, has antidepressant effects in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). This pilot study examined the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with pramipexole and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) escitalopram in MDD.

METHODS

In this double-blind, controlled, pilot study, 39 patients with DSM-IV MDD who had failed to respond to a standard antidepressant treatment trial were randomized to receive pramipexole (n=13), escitalopram (n=13), or their combination (n=13) for six weeks. Pramipexole was started at 0.375 mg/day and titrated weekly up to 2.25 mg/day; escitalopram dosage remained at 10 mg/day. The primary outcome measure was the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

RESULTS

Subjects receiving pramipexole monotherapy had significantly lower MADRS scores than the combination group (p=0.01); no other primary drug comparisons were significant. The combination group had a substantially higher dropout rate than the escitalopram and pramipexole groups (69%, 15%, 15%, respectively). Only 15% of patients in the combination group tolerated regularly scheduled increases of pramipexole throughout the study, compared with 46% of patients in the pramipexole group.

LIMITATIONS

Group size was small and the treatment phase lasted for only six weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of an SSRI and a dopamine agonist was not more effective than either agent alone, nor did it produce a more rapid onset of antidepressant action. Combination therapy with escitalopram and pramipexole may not be well-tolerated.

Antidepressant monotherapy compared with combinations of antidepressants in the treatment of resistant depressive patients: a randomized, open-label study

OBJECTIVE

This randomized, 6-week, open-label study compared efficacy of CAD and antidepressant monotherapies (ADM) that had been chosen according to clinical judgment of the attending psychiatrist.

METHODS

A total of 60 inpatients (intent-to-treat analysis) with depressive disorder (≥ 1 unsuccessful antidepressant treatment) were randomly assigned to the interventions. The responders who completed the acute phase of study, were evaluated for relapse within 2 months of follow-up treatment. The primary outcome measure was change in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and response was defined as a ≥ 50% reduction of MADRS score.

RESULTS

Mean changes in total MADRS score from baseline to week 6 for patients in both treatment modalities were not different (ADM = 13.2 ± 8.6 points; CAD = 14.5 ± 9.5 points; P = 0.58). The analysis of covariance performed for significantly higher value of imipramine equivalent dose in CAD group showed only a non-significant between-group difference for total MADRS change (P = 0.17). There were also no differences between groups in response rate (ADM = 48%; CAD = 58%) and number of drop-outs in acute treatment as well as proportion of responders' relapses in the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Both treatment modalities produced clinically relevant reduction of depressive symptomatology in acute treatment of patients with resistant depression and their effect was comparable.

Remission with venlafaxine extended release or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in depressed patients: a randomized, open-label study

BACKGROUND

This randomized, open-label, rater-blinded, multicenter study compared treatment outcomes with the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) venlafaxine extended release (ER) with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in primary care patients with major depressive disorder.

METHOD

Study data were collected from November 29, 2000, to March 4, 2003. Outpatients who met diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder according to the Mental Health Screener, a computer-administered telephone interview program that screens for the most common mental disorders, and had a total score on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS(17)) ≥ 20 were randomly assigned to receive up to 6 months of open-label venlafaxine ER 75-225 mg/d (n = 688) or an SSRI (n = 697): fluoxetine 20-80 mg/d, paroxetine 20-50 mg/d, citalopram 20-40 mg/d, and sertraline 50-200 mg/d. The primary outcome was remission (HDRS(17) score ≤ 7) at study end point using the last-observation-carried-forward method to account for early termination. A mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis evaluated secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

Fifty-one percent of patients completed the study. Month 6 remission rates did not differ significantly for venlafaxine ER and the SSRIs (35.5% vs 32.0%, respectively; P = .195). The MMRM analysis of HDRS(17) scores also did not differ significantly (P = .0538). Significant treatment effects favoring the venlafaxine ER group were observed for remission rates at days 30, 60, 90, and 135 and a survival analysis of time to remission (P = .006), as well as Clinical Global Impressions-severity of illness scale (P = .0002); Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety subscale (P = .03); 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Bech version (P = .009); and Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (P = .0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Remission rates for patients treated with venlafaxine ER or an SSRI did not differ significantly after 6 months of treatment. Results of most secondary analyses suggested that SNRI treatment had a greater antidepressant effect versus the SSRIs studied.

Efficacy, effectiveness and efficiency of escitalopram in the treatment of major depressive and anxiety disorders

In addition to the large personal challenge that depression and anxiety present, these disorders are associated with a substantial burden of disability and lost productivity, and are responsible for considerable strain on healthcare resources and on society. Escitalopram is recommended as first-line therapy for the treatment of major depressive disorder and severe depression, and is indicated in anxiety disorders. Compared with other antidepressants, escitalopram has equal or superior efficacy, as proven in clinical trial settings, equal or superior real-life effectiveness, established in both clinical and observational studies, and a better tolerability profile. While drug acquisition costs are higher for escitalopram than for generic drugs such as fluoxetine and citalopram, numerous prospective and modeled economic analyses show that associated direct and indirect costs of treatment are lower with escitalopram than with citalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline and venlafaxine. Thus, escitalopram appears to be more economically efficient than many antidepressants currently available. Escitalopram has a prominent role in the treatment of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders, and may also prove to be important in the treatment of mixed depressive anxiety disorder.

Does differential drop-out explain the influence of study design on antidepressant response? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Response to antidepressants is higher in active comparator relative to placebo-controlled clinical trials. Increased patient expectancy in comparator trials has been hypothesized to explain this finding, but previous analyses have not accounted for the increased drop-out observed in placebo-controlled trials.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify published antidepressant clinical trials reporting data on intent-to-treat (ITT) as well as completer patient populations. The influence of participant drop-out on observed antidepressant response was investigated by comparing the ITT and completer data sets in separate multilevel meta-analyses of antidepressant response in placebo-controlled and comparator trials.

RESULTS

18 placebo-controlled and 18 active comparator studies were available for analysis. Using the intent-to-treat data, the odds of responding to medication in comparator trials were 1.9 times the odds in placebo-controlled trials (95% CI=1.3-2.7, p=0.001). The same pattern was obtained among study completers, in whom the odds of responding to antidepressant medication were 1.9 times higher in comparator as opposed to placebo-controlled study designs (95% CI=1.2-3.0, p=0.009).

LIMITATIONS

Publication bias, the use of trial-level summary data, and unreported clinical or demographic differences between the ITT and completer patient populations may have influenced the study results.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased drop-out in placebo-controlled vs. active comparator studies of antidepressant medications does not appear to explain the difference in response rates between these study types. Rather, increased patient expectancy resulting from the certainty of receiving active medication in comparator trials may lead to improved response rates.

A critical review of model-based economic studies of depression: modelling techniques, model structure and data sources

Depression is the most common mental health disorder and is recognized as a chronic disease characterized by multiple acute episodes/relapses. Although modelling techniques play an increasingly important role in the economic evaluation of depression interventions, comparatively little attention has been paid to issues around modelling studies with a focus on potential biases. This, however, is important as different modelling approaches, variations in model structure and input parameters may produce different results, and hence different policy decisions. This paper presents a critical review of literature on recently published model-based cost-utility studies of depression. Taking depression as an illustrative example, through this review, we discuss a number of specific issues in relation to the use of decision-analytic models including the type of modelling techniques, structure of models and data sources. The potential benefits and limitations of each modelling technique are discussed and factors influencing the choice of modelling techniques are addressed. This review found that model-based studies of depression used various simulation techniques. We note that a discrete-event simulation may be the preferred technique for the economic evaluation of depression due to the greater flexibility with respect to handling time compared with other individual-based modelling techniques. Considering prognosis and management of depression, the structure of the reviewed models are discussed. We argue that a few reviewed models did not include some important structural aspects such as the possibility of relapse or the increased risk of suicide in patients with depression. Finally, the appropriateness of data sources used to estimate input parameters with a focus on transition probabilities is addressed. We argue that the above issues can potentially bias results and reduce the comparability of economic evaluations.

Rapid improvement of depression and quality of life with escitalopram treatment in outpatients with breast cancer: a 12-week, open-label prospective trial

BACKGROUND

Among patients with cancer, the management of depression is very important to improve quality of life as well as distress. Because the efficacy of escitalopram, a potent serotonin reuptake inhibitor, has not been well evaluated in cancer patients, we investigated its effects on depression and quality of life in outpatients with breast cancer.

METHODS

A 12-week, open-label, prospective study with escitalopram (5-20mg/day) was performed in 79 breast cancer outpatients with depression. The primary outcome was measured using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), which was administered at baseline, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks after treatment. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B), MD Anderson Symptoms Inventory (MDASI), Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S), and Distress Thermometer (DT) were also used to measure improvement in symptoms, distress, and quality of life.

RESULTS

Compared to baseline, HAMD, DT, and CGI-S scores were significantly decreased at week 1 and onwards, and FACT-B and MDSAI were improved at week 2 and onwards. At the end point (week 12), all FACT-B subscales including the physical, emotional, social/family, functional well-being, and the breast cancer subscales were improved. Improvement in distress and quality of life was associated with a reduction in depressive symptoms. Of all participants, 45.1% met the response criterion (at least a 50% decrease in HAMD total score), and 30.6% met the remission criterion (HAMD total score ≤ 7) at week 12.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, escitalopram improved quality of life and reduced depression in breast cancer patients. Symptoms rapidly improved within 1 week, influencing quality of life. Escitalopram may be an effective treatment of depressive symptoms in breast cancer patients.

Cost-effectiveness evaluation in Sweden of escitalopram compared with venlafaxine extended-release as first-line treatment in major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVES

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a major public health concern associated with a high burden to society, the health-care system, and patients and an estimated cost of €3.5 billion in Sweden. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of escitalopram versus generic venlafaxine extended-release (XR) in MDD, accounting for the full clinical profile of each, adopting the Swedish societal perspective, and identifying major cost drivers.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness of escitalopram versus venlafaxine XR was analyzed over a 6-month time frame, on the basis of a decision tree, for patients with MDD seeking primary care treatment in Sweden. Effectiveness outcomes for the model were quality-adjusted life-years and probability of sustained remission after acute treatment (first 8 weeks) and sustained for 6 months. Cost outcomes included direct treatment costs and indirect costs associated with sick leave.

RESULTS

Compared with generic venlafaxine XR, escitalopram was less costly and more effective in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (expected gain 0.00865) and expected 6-month sustained remission probability (incremental gain 0.0374). The better tolerability profile of escitalopram contributed to higher expected quality-adjusted life-years and lower health-care resource utilization in terms of pharmacological treatment of adverse events (though only a minor component of treatment costs). Expected per-patient saving was €169.15 for escitalopram versus venlafaxine. Cost from sick leave constituted about 85% of total costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Escitalopram was estimated as more effective and cost saving than generic venlafaxine XR in first-line MDD treatment in Sweden, driven by the effectiveness and tolerability advantages of escitalopram. The study findings are robust and in line with similar pharmacoeconomic analyses.

Escitalopram for the management of major depressive disorder: a review of its efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability

Escitalopram (escitalopram oxalate; Cipralex(®), Lexapro(®)) is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) used for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) and anxiety disorder. This drug exerts a highly selective, potent, and dose-dependent inhibitory effect on the human serotonin transport. By inhibiting the reuptake of serotonin into presynaptic nerve endings, this drug enhances the activity of serotonin in the central nervous system. Escitalopram also has allosteric activity. Moreover, the possibility of interacting with other drugs is considered low. This review covers randomized, controlled studies that enrolled adult patients with MDD to evaluate the efficacy of escitalopram based on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. The results showed that escitalopram was superior to placebo, and nearly equal or superior to other SSRIs (eg, citalopram, paroxetine, fluoxetine, sertraline) and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (eg, duloxetine, sustained-release venlafaxine). In addition, with long-term administration, escitalopram has shown a preventive effect on MDD relapse and recurrence. Escitalopram also showed favorable tolerability, and associated adverse events were generally mild and temporary. Discontinuation symptoms were milder with escitalopram than with paroxetine. In view of the patient acceptability of escitalopram, based on both a meta-analysis and a pooled analysis, this drug was more favorable than other new antidepressants. The findings indicate that escitalopram achieved high continuity in antidepressant drug therapy.

The early improvement of depressive symptoms as a potential predictor of response to antidepressants in depressive patients who failed to respond to previous antidepressant treatments. Analysis of naturalistic data

INTRODUCTION

Current studies suggest that improvement of depressive symptoms after 2 weeks of treatment could predict the subsequent response. The aim of our study was to compare the predictive effect of early improvement (EI) after 1 and 2 weeks of treatment in patients who had failed to respond to previous antidepressant treatments (≥1 unsuccessful antidepressant trial).

METHOD

Seventy-one subjects were treated (≥4 weeks) with various antidepressants chosen according to the judgment of attending psychiatrists. We used three definitions of EI (MADRS reduction ≥20, 25, 30%) at both time points. Areas under curve (AUC) were calculated to compare predictive effect of EI.

RESULTS

We found lower MADRS scores in weeks 1 and 2 in responders (≥50% reduction of MADRS, n=35) compared to nonresponders. AUCs of MADRS reduction for response prediction at week 1 and 2 were not significantly different (0.73 vs 0.8; p=0.24).

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that improvement of depressive symptoms in the treatment of resistant patients may occur after the first week of treatment. The predictive potential might be comparable to that found after the second week of antidepressant intervention and be clinically meaningful.

Effects of escitalopram on sleep problems in patients with major depression or generalized anxiety disorder

INTRODUCTION

Disturbed sleep is a key symptom in major depressive disorder (MDD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). First-line antidepressants, including the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), may have different effects on sleep.

METHODS

Data from 22 randomized, controlled trials comparing escitalopram with SSRIs, SNRIs, or placebo in the treatment of adult MDD or GAD were included. Both last observation carried forward (LOCF) and repeated measurements (MMRM) were used to analyze the sleep item of the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) or Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) after 8 weeks of treatment. Sleep-related treatment-emergent adverse events were also compared across groups.

RESULTS

For patients with MDD (n = 5133), the treatment difference on MADRS item 4 ("reduced sleep") was significantly in favor of escitalopram versus placebo (LOCF [P = 0.0017] and MMRM [P = 0.0002]), versus SSRIs (LOCF [P = 0.0020] and MMRM [P < 0.0031]), and versus SNRIs (LOCF [P = 0.0002] and MMRM [P = 0.0352]). For the 53% of patients with MDD who suffered from sleep problems at baseline (baseline MADRS item 4 score ≥ 4), the improvement in sleep symptoms was significantly in favor of escitalopram versus placebo (LOCF [P = 0.0022] and MMRM [P < 0.0005]), versus SSRIs (LOCF [P = 0.0001] and MMRM [P = 0.0002]), and versus SNRIs (LOCF [P < 0.0067] but not MMRM [P > 0.0787]). For patients with GAD (n = 2052) the treatment difference in sleep symptoms measured by HAM-A item 4 ("insomnia") was significantly in favor of escitalopram versus placebo (LOCF [P = 0.0005] and MMRM [P < 0.0001]), but not different to paroxetine or venlafaxine. The same pattern was seen for the large proportion (67%-82%) of GAD patients reporting sleep problems at baseline (baseline HAM-A item 4 score ≥ 2). In MDD, the rate of insomnia as an adverse event after escitalopram was higher than placebo, similar to SSRIs, and lower than SNRIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional research assessing the comparative effects of antidepressants with polysomnography is needed. In the interim, from a clinical perspective, escitalopram appears to be beneficial for the treatment of sleep problems in MDD and GAD.

The mechanisms of tolerance in antidepressant action

There is increasing awareness that, in some cases, long-term use of antidepressant drugs (AD) may enhance the biochemical vulnerability to depression and worsen its long-term outcome and symptomatic expression, decreasing both the likelihood of subsequent response to pharmacological treatment and the duration of symptom-free periods. A review of literature suggesting potential side effects during long treatment with antidepressant drugs was performed. Studies were identified electronically using the following databases: Medline, Cinahl, PsychInfo, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Each database was searched from its inception date to April 2010 using "tolerance", "withdrawal", "sensitization", "antidepressants" and "switching" as key words. Further, a manual search of the psychiatric literature has been performed looking for articles pointing to paradoxical effects of antidepressant medications. Clinical evidence has been found indicating that even though antidepressant drugs are effective in treating depressive episodes, they are less efficacious in recurrent depression and in preventing relapse. In some cases, antidepressants have been described inducing adverse events such as withdrawal symptoms at discontinuation, onset of tolerance and resistance phenomena and switch and cycle acceleration in bipolar patients. Unfavorable long-term outcomes and paradoxical effects (depression inducing and symptomatic worsening) have also been reported. All these phenomena may be explained on the basis of the oppositional model of tolerance. Continued drug treatment may recruit processes that oppose the initial acute effect of a drug. When drug treatment ends, these processes may operate unopposed, at least for some time and increase vulnerability to relapse. Antidepressant drugs are crucial in the treatment of major depressive episodes. However, appraisal and testing of the oppositional model of tolerance may yield important insights as to long-term treatment and achievement of enduring effects.

Remission of major depressive disorder without adverse events: a comparison of escitalopram versus serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors

OBJECTIVE

An antidepressant's tolerability, generally captured as the frequency and severity of adverse events (AEs), is often as important as its efficacy in determining treatment success. This study used a composite outcome - remission of major depressive disorder (MDD) without AEs - to compare the benefit-risk profiles of escitalopram versus the norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) duloxetine and venlafaxine extended release (XR).

METHODS

Pooled data from three randomized, double-blind, multicenter trials were analyzed, in which patients with MDD were treated for 8 weeks with either escitalopram (n = 462) or an SNRI (n = 467).

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT00108979; NCT00384436.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The composite outcome was defined as remission (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] score ≤10) and concurrent absence of an AE. The proportions of remitted patients free of (1) any AEs, (2) moderate-to-severe AEs, and (3) study drug-related AEs were compared between treatment groups at each study visit and longitudinally across study visits common to all trials during the first 8 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

At endpoint (week 8), escitalopram-treated patients were more likely than SNRI-treated patients to experience remission free of any AEs (28.4 vs. 21.6%; p = 0.0179) and remission free of study drug-related AEs (45.2 vs. 36.8%; p = 0.0092). Compared to SNRI-treated patients, escitalopram-treated patients had 38% greater odds of remission free of any AEs, 28% greater odds of remission free of moderate-to-severe AEs, and 34% greater odds of remission free of study drug-related AEs (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Treatment of adult MDD patients with escitalopram was significantly more likely to result in remission without concurrent AEs compared to treatment with current SNRIs. Study limitations include focus on only the initial 8 weeks of treatment and exclusion of trials for which individual patient data were not obtained.

Testing anxious depression as a predictor and moderator of symptom improvement in major depressive disorder during treatment with escitalopram

The purpose of this analysis was to explore the potential role of anxious MDD as a treatment predictor and moderator in major depressive disorder (MDD) using a large escitalopram clinical trial dataset. Individual patient-level data from 13 double-blinded, randomized, controlled trials in patients with MDD were pooled. Both univariate, last observation carried forward (LOCF) analyses and repeated measurements analyses without imputation (MMRM) were carried out for change in symptom scores, response and remission rates. Of 3,919 patients, 48.0% were classified as having anxious MDD depression (HAMD) somatization/anxiety subscale score ≥7 at baseline. Patients with anxious MDD were less likely to report symptom improvement on some outcome measures than patients without anxious MDD (predictor analysis). Specifically, the difference in response rates for patients with vs. patients without anxious MDD according to the MADRS (55.6% vs. 57.7%, respectively) was not statistically different. However, the difference in remission rates for patients with versus without anxious MDD according to the MADRS (37.6% vs. 44.1%, respectively) was statistically significant. Escitalopram was more effective than placebo, and as effective as the SSRIs and SNRIs, in the treatment of anxious MDD. The present analysis provides some evidence that the presence of an anxious MDD subtype is a predictor of poor response. There was no difference in the response to treatment of patients with or without anxious MDD to escitalopram, SSRIs, or SNRIs. The present analysis did not support the notion that SNRIs are more effective than escitalopram in the treatment of anxious MDD, nor was there evidence to support treatment moderating effects for anxious MDD.

A systematic review of duloxetine and venlafaxine in major depression, including unpublished data

OBJECTIVE

To determine the short-term antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine and venlafaxine vs. each other, placebo, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and tri- and tetracyclic antidepressants (TCAs) in adults with major depression.

METHOD

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials identified through bibliographical databases and other sources, including unpublished manufacturer reports.

RESULTS

Fifty-four studies including venlafaxine arms (n = 12,816), 14 including duloxetine arms (n = 4,528), and two direct comparisons (n = 836) were analysed. Twenty-three studies were previously unpublished. In the meta-analysis, both duloxetine and venlafaxine showed superior efficacy (higher remission and response rates) and inferior tolerability (higher discontinuation rates due to adverse events) to placebo. Venlafaxine had superior efficacy in response rates but inferior tolerability to SSRIs (OR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.07-1.35 and 1.38, 95% CI 1.15-1.66, respectively), and no differences in efficacy and tolerability to TCAs. Duloxetine did not show any advantages over other antidepressants and was less well tolerated than SSRIs and venlafaxine (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.10-2.13 and OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.16-2.78, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Rather than being a first-line option, venlafaxine appears to be a valid alternative in patients who do not tolerate or respond to SSRIs or TCAs. Duloxetine does not seem to be indicated as a first-line treatment.

Getting the balance right: Established and emerging therapies for major depressive disorders

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common and serious illness of our times, associated with monoamine deficiency in the brain. Moreover, increased levels of cortisol, possibly caused by stress, may be related to depression. In the treatment of MDD, the use of older antidepressants such as monoamine oxidase inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants is decreasing rapidly, mainly due to their adverse effect profiles. In contrast, the use of serotonin reuptake inhibitors and newer antidepressants, which have dual modes of action such as inhibition of the serotonin and noradrenaline or dopamine reuptake, is increasing. Novel antidepressants have additive modes of action such as agomelatine, a potent agonist of melatonin receptors. Drugs in development for treatment of MDD include triple reuptake inhibitors, dual-acting serotonin reuptake inhibitors and histamine antagonists, and many more. Newer antidepressants have similar efficacy and in general good tolerability profiles. Nevertheless, compliance with treatment for MDD is poor and may contribute to treatment failure. Despite the broad spectrum of available antidepressants, there are still at least 30% of depressive patients who do not benefit from treatment. Therefore, new approaches in drug development are necessary and, according to current research developments, the future of antidepressant treatment may be promising.

Escitalopram: a review of its use in the management of major depressive disorder in adults

Escitalopram (escitalopram oxalate; Cipralex, Lexapro), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) indicated for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), demonstrates a highly selective and potent, dose-dependent inhibition of the human serotonin transporter, inhibiting serotonin reuptake into presynaptic nerve terminals and thus increasing serotonergic activity in the CNS. With regard to primary endpoints (such as improved scores on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D]), escitalopram was generally more effective than placebo, at least as effective as citalopram, and generally at least as effective as other comparator drugs, including the SSRIs fluoxetine, paroxetine and sertraline, the serotonin-noradrenaline (norepinephrine) reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) venlafaxine extended release and duloxetine, and the aminoketone bupropion in adult patients with MDD in short-term, well designed trials. Moreover, it demonstrated a rapid onset of antidepressant action. Escitalopram was also found to be cost effective in several studies, dominating other SSRIs and venlafaxine extended release. Maintenance therapy is commonly required to prevent recurrence of depression. Long-term trials corroborated short-term results, with escitalopram demonstrating greater efficacy than placebo in relapse prevention. Additionally, escitalopram was at least as effective as citalopram, paroxetine and duloxetine in long-term comparative trials. Escitalopram has a predictable tolerability profile with generally mild to moderate and transient adverse events, and a low propensity for drug interactions. Sexual dysfunction with escitalopram treatment appeared to occur to a similar or lower extent to that with paroxetine (another SSRI), to a similar or greater extent to that with the SNRI duloxetine, and to a greater extent than that with the aminoketone bupropion. Thus, escitalopram is an effective and generally well tolerated treatment for moderate to severe MDD. Escitalopram, like other SSRIs, is an effective first-line option in the management of patients with MDD.

Escitalopram--translating molecular properties into clinical benefit: reviewing the evidence in major depression

The majority of currently marketed drugs contain a mixture of enantiomers; however, recent evidence suggests that individual enantiomers can have pharmacological properties that differ importantly from enantiomer mixtures. Escitalopram, the S-enantiomer of citalopram, displays markedly different pharmacological activity to the R-enantiomer. This review aims to evaluate whether these differences confer any significant clinical advantage for escitalopram over either citalopram or other frequently used antidepressants. Searches were conducted using PubMed and EMBASE (up to January 2009). Abstracts of the retrieved studies were reviewed independently by both authors for inclusion. Only those studies relating to depression or major depressive disorder were included. The search identified over 250 citations, of which 21 studies and 18 pooled or meta-analyses studies were deemed suitable for inclusion. These studies reveal that escitalopram has some efficacy advantage over citalopram and paroxetine, but no consistent advantage over other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Escitalopram has at least comparable efficacy to available serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, venlafaxine XR and duloxetine, and may offer some tolerability advantages over these agents. This review suggests that the mechanistic advantages of escitalopram over citalopram translate into clinical efficacy advantages. Escitalopram may have a favourable benefit-risk ratio compared with citalopram and possibly with several other antidepressant agents.

Escitalopram versus serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors as second step treatment for patients with major depressive disorder: a pooled analysis

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram versus serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) as second step treatment (defined operationally as poor response or intolerability to an antidepressant) for major depressive disorder (MDD). Results from all eligible head-to-head clinical trials of MDD (which excluded patients who earlier failed two or more antidepressants) sponsored by Lundbeck or Forest comparing escitalopram and SNRIs (venlafaxine and duloxetine) were pooled. A second step treatment subgroup was identified, defined as patients treated earlier with any antidepressant in the 6-month period before baseline. Data from three clinical trials were included in the analysis; 132 patients were identified in the second step treatment subgroup (66 in each of the escitalopram and SNRI groups). The primary efficacy analysis showed that the patients subsequently treated with escitalopram had significantly lower Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale total scores after 8 weeks compared with those subsequently treated with SNRIs (difference = -6.4, P<0.0001). Escitalopram treatment was also associated with higher clinical response (73 vs. 44%, P=0.0004) and remission rates (62 vs. 41%, P=0.0083) compared with subsequent treatment with SNRIs. Escitalopram showed a better tolerability profile with lower all-cause withdrawals from study (9 vs. 23%, P<0.04) and lower withdrawals because of adverse events (2 vs. 17%, P<0.003). In conclusion, escitalopram is associated with a better efficacy and tolerability profile than SNRIs (duloxetine and venlafaxine) when used as a second step treatment in patients with MDD. These results should be confirmed in prospective randomized clinical trials.

Desvenlafaxine in major depressive disorder: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy

INTRODUCTION

Desvenlafaxine, the active metabolite of venlafaxine, is a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) recently approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder. It is one of only three medications in this class available in the United States.

AIMS

The objective of this article is to review the published evidence for the safety and efficacy of desvenlafaxine, and to compare it to other antidepressants to delineate its role in the treatment of depression.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

At the recommended dose of 50 mg per day the rate of response and remission was similar to other SNRIs, as was the adverse effect profile. The rate of discontinuation was no greater than placebo, and a discontinuation syndrome was not observed at this dose. Higher doses were not associated with greater efficacy, but they did lead to more side effects, and the use of a taper prior to discontinuation. The most common side effects reported were insomnia, somnolence, dizziness, and nausea. Some subjects experienced clinically significant blood pressure elevation.

PLACE IN THERAPY

Like duloxetine, desvenlafaxine inhibits the reuptake of both norepinephrine and serotonin at the starting dose. Dual reuptake inhibitors have been shown to have small but statistically significantly greater rates of response and remission compared to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and they have also shown early promise in the treatment of neuropathic pain. Desvenlafaxine may prove to be a valuable treatment option by expanding the limited number of available dual reuptake inhibitors.

Healthcare expenditure in severely depressed patients treated with escitalopram, generic SSRIs or venlafaxine in the UK

OBJECTIVE

To retrospectively compare the 12-month healthcare utilisation and direct medical costs associated with the use of escitalopram, generic SSRIs, and venlafaxine in patients with severe depression in the United Kingdom (UK).

METHODS

Data for this retrospective cohort study were extracted from the GPRD, a large primary care database in the UK. Data from adults with an incident prescription of escitalopram, venlafaxine, or generic SSRI were extracted. The initial prescription had to fall within 3 months of a physician visit when severe depression according to the GPRD definition was mentioned. Frequency of antidepressant treatment, GP consultations, referrals, hospitalisations, and concomitant psychiatric medication was assessed on the 12-months after initial prescription and 2006 unit costs for healthcare services obtained from published literature were applied, and then compared between treatment cohorts using a propensity score-adjusted generalised linear model.

RESULTS

The total annual healthcare expenditure per patient was similar with escitalopram and generic SSRIs (916 pounds vs. 974 pounds, adjusted p = 0.48) and significantly lower than venlafaxine (916 pounds vs. 1367 pounds, adjusted p < 0.0001), a pattern repeated when antidepressant costs were excluded from the analysis (escitalopram vs. SSRIs, 831 pounds vs. 957 pounds, adjusted p = 0.10; escitalopram vs. venlafaxine, 831 pounds vs. 1156 pounds, adjusted p = 0.006). Over the 12-month analysis period, there were significantly fewer hospitalisations per patient in the escitalopram vs. venlafaxine (0.12 vs. 0.27; adjusted p = 0.01) or generic SSRI (0.12 vs. 0.19; adjusted p = 0.046) groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite some limitations associated with the system of data collection in the GPRD (need to apply proxies for severity assessment and external unit costs to resource consumption), the results of this real-life study brings additional evidence of escitalopram appearing to be a cost-effective treatment for patients suffering from severe depression as diagnosed in routine practice and could be considered for first-line treatment in these patients.

Why do some promising brain-stimulation devices fail the next steps of clinical development?

Interest in techniques of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has been growing exponentially in the last decade. Recent studies have shown that some of these techniques induce significant neurophysiological and clinical effects. Although recent results are promising, there are several techniques that have been abandoned despite positive initial results. In this study, we performed a systematic review to identify NIBS methods with promising preliminary clinical results that were not fully developed and adopted into clinical practice, and discuss its clinical, research and device characteristics. We identified five devices (transmeatal cochlear laser stimulation, transcranial micropolarization, transcranial electrostimulation, cranial electric stimulation and stimulation with weak electromagnetic fields) and compared them with two established NIBS devices (transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation) and with well-known drugs used in neuropsychiatry (pramipexole and escitalopram) in order to understand the reasons why they failed to reach clinical practice and further steps of research development. Finally, we also discuss novel NIBS devices that have recently showed promising results: brain ultrasound and transcranial high-frequency random noise stimulation. Our results show that some of the reasons for the failure of NIBS devices with promising clinical findings are the difficulty to disseminate results, lack of controlled studies, duration of research development, mixed results and lack of standardization.

Effect of age, weight, and CYP2C19 genotype on escitalopram exposure

The purpose of this study was to characterize escitalopram population pharmacokinetics (PK) in patients treated for major depression in a cross-national, US-Italian clinical trial. Data from the 2 sites participating in this trial, conducted at Pittsburgh (United States) and Pisa (Italy), were used. Patients received 5, 10, 15, or 20 mg of escitalopram daily for a minimum of 32 weeks. Nonlinear mixed effects modeling was used to model the PK characteristics of escitalopram. One- and 2-compartment models with various random effect implementations were evaluated during model development. Objective function values and goodness-of-fit plots were used as model selection criteria. CYP2C19 genotype, age, weight, body mass index, sex, race, and clinical site were evaluated as possible covariates. In total, 320 plasma concentrations from 105 Pittsburgh patients and 153 plasma concentrations from 67 Pisa patients were available for the PK model development. A 1-compartmental model with linear elimination and proportional error best described the data. Apparent clearance (CL/F) and volume of distribution (V/F) for escitalopram without including any covariates in the patient population were 23.5 L/h and 884 L, respectively. CYP2C19 genotype, weight, and age had a significant effect on CL/F, and patient body mass index affected estimated V/F. Patients from Pisa, Italy, had significantly lower clearances than patients from Pittsburgh that disappeared after controlling for patient CYP2C19 genotype, age, and weight. Postprocessed individual empirical Bayes estimates on clearance for the 172 patients show that patients without allele CYP2C19(*)2 or (*)3 (n = 82) cleared escitalopram 33.7% faster than patients with heterogeneous or homogeneous (*)2 or (*)3 ((*)17/(*)2, (*)17/(*)3, (*)1/(*)2, (*)1/(*)3, (*)2/(*)2, (*)2/(*)3, and (*)3/(*)3, n = 46). CL/F significantly decreased with increasing patient age. Patients younger than 30 years (n = 45) cleared escitalopram 20.7% and 42.7% faster than patients aged 30 to 50 years (n = 84) and older than 50 years of age (n = 43), respectively. CYP2C19 genotype, age, and weight strongly influenced the CL/F of escitalopram. These variables may affect patient tolerance of this antidepressant and may provide important information in the effort to tailor treatments to patients' individual needs.

Cost effectiveness of escitalopram versus SNRIs in second-step treatment of major depressive disorder in Sweden

OBJECTIVES

Escitalopram is the S-enantiomer of citalopram and is the most discriminating of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI). The aim of the current analysis was to assess the cost effectiveness of escitalopram versus the serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) duloxetine and generic venlafaxine as second-step treatment of major depressive disorder.

METHODS

The analysis was based on a decision analytic model. Effectiveness outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and remission rates; cost outcomes were direct medical costs, including impact of treating adverse events, and indirect costs associated with lost productivity. The analysis was performed from the societal perspective in Sweden over a 6-month timeframe.

RESULTS

Estimated remission rates showed an incremental effectiveness in favour of escitalopram of 16.4 percentage points compared with both SNRI comparators. The escitalopram strategy was associated with a 0.025 increase in QALYs. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the model is robust and that escitalopram remains a cost-effective option when considering future predicted price reductions of generic venlafaxine.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitation in this study was the lack of data available for second-step treatment. The remission rates, which are a key input to the model, were obtained from a relatively small sample of patients on second-step treatment and there are no published relapse rates for second-step treatment. The model also assumed that there was no difference in the adverse event (AE) rates between treatments after the first 8 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

This cost-effectiveness analysis indicates that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000, escitalopram is the most cost-effective second-step treatment option for MDD in Sweden in over 85% cases compared with both venlafaxine and with duloxetine. Benefits for escitalopram included both increased effectiveness and reduced overall costs. The major contributing costs were those associated with productivity loss. The model was shown to have internal validity and robustness through the use of stochastic simulations and sensitivity analyses, which were conducted around the key efficacy parameters.

Discontinuation symptoms and taper/poststudy-emergent adverse events with desvenlafaxine treatment for major depressive disorder

The objective of this study was to assess discontinuation symptoms with desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) treatment for major depressive disorder. Data were analyzed from nine 8-week, double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled studies of desvenlafaxine (50, 100, 200, or 400 mg/day; placebo, n = 319; desvenlafaxine, n = 578) and a relapse-prevention study [12-week, open-label (OL) 200 or 400 mg/day desvenlafaxine (n = 373); 6-month DB placebo (n = 73) or desvenlafaxine (n = 118)]. Rates of taper/poststudy-emergent adverse events were summarized. Discontinuation-Emergent Signs and Symptoms (DESS) checklist scores were analyzed in treatment completers at the end of OL and DB treatment. The most common (> or = 5%) taper/poststudy-emergent adverse events among desvenlafaxine patients were dizziness, nausea, headache, irritability, diarrhea, anxiety, abnormal dreams, fatigue, and hyperhidrosis. In the short-term studies, the highest DESS scores observed for desvenlafaxine groups occurred at first assessment after discontinuation of all active treatment (1.9-5.7). Desvenlafaxine 50- and 100-mg/day groups had significantly increased scores versus placebo (P values < or = 0.028). DESS scores increased significantly for patients discontinuing 12-week, OL desvenlafaxine 200 and 400 mg/day doses compared with those continuing desvenlafaxine (P values < or = 0.022). After the 6-month DB phase, DESS scores increased significantly compared with placebo for patients discontinuing 400 mg/day only (P = 0.029). In conclusion, cessation of desvenlafaxine use is associated with discontinuation symptoms after both short-term and long-term treatment.

Screening for anxiety and depression after stroke: comparison of the hospital anxiety and depression scale and the Montgomery and Asberg depression rating scale

OBJECTIVE

Anxiety and depression after stroke are frequent, but are often overlooked and not assessed. The aims of the study were to (1) assess the prevalence of anxiety and depression and (2) compare the performance of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) as screening instruments for anxiety and depression disorders 4 months after stroke.

METHODS

Stroke patients, consecutively admitted to a stroke unit, were assessed with HADS and MADRS 4 months after stroke (n=104). Depression and anxiety disorders were diagnosed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID). Measures were compared in terms of correlations, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, overall agreement, kappa, and ROC curves, using DSM-IV diagnoses of "at least one current significant anxiety disorder" (Anxiety) and "any current depression" (Depression), as the clinical criteria.

RESULTS

Anxiety occurred in 23% of patients and Depression in 19% (13% major depression, 3% minor depression, 4% dysthymia). For Anxiety, the optimal screening cut-off was 4 for HADS-A and 6 for HADS-total; for Depression, optimal cut-offs were 4 for HADS-D, 11 for HADS-total, and 8 for MADRS. At cut-offs commonly used in clinical practice for depression screening (HADS-D: 8, MADRS: 12), the MADRS performed marginally better than the HADS.

CONCLUSION

Anxiety is as prevalent as depression 4 months after stroke. MADRS and HADS-D perform acceptably as screening instruments for depression, and HADS-A for anxiety after stroke. However, lower HADS cut-offs than recommended for the general population should be considered for stroke patients.