Duloxetine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression
ABSTRACT Although pharmacological and psychological interventions are both effective for major depression, in primary and secondary care settings antidepressant drugs remain the mainstay of treatment. Amongst antidepressants many different agents are available. Duloxetine hydrochloride is a dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin and norepinephrine and has been licensed by the Food and Drug Administration in the US for major depressive disorder (MDD), generalised anxiety disorder, diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia and chronic musculoskeletal pain.
To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of duloxetine in comparison with all other antidepressant agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression.
MEDLINE (1966 to 2012), EMBASE (1974 to 2012), the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2012. No language restriction was applied. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were hand-searched. Pharmaceutical company marketing duloxetine and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.
Randomised controlled trials allocating patients with major depression to duloxetine versus any other antidepressive agent.
Two review authors independently extracted data and a double-entry procedure was employed. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability.
A total of 16 randomised controlled trials (overall 5735 participants) were included in this systematic review. Of these, three trials were unpublished. We found 11 studies (overall 3304 participants) comparing duloxetine with one selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) (six studies versus paroxetine, three studies versus escitalopram and two versus fluoxetine), four studies (overall 1978 participants) comparing duloxetine with a newer antidepressants (three with venlafaxine and one with desvenlafaxine, respectively) and one study (overall 453 participants) comparing duloxetine with an antipsychotic drug which is also used as an antidepressive agent, quetiapine. No studies were found comparing duloxetine with tricyclic antidepressants. The pooled confidence intervals were rather wide and there were no statistically significant differences in efficacy when comparing duloxetine with other antidepressants. However, when compared with escitalopram or venlafaxine, there was a higher rate of drop out due to any cause in the patients randomised to duloxetine (odds ratio (OR) 1.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 2.62 and OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.15, respectively). There was also some weak evidence suggesting that patients taking duloxetine experienced more adverse events than paroxetine (OR 1.24; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.55).
Duloxetine did not seem to provide a significant advantage in efficacy over other antidepressive agents for the acute-phase treatment of major depression. No differences in terms of efficacy were found, even though duloxetine was worse than some SSRIs (most of all, escitalopram) and newer antidepressants (like venlafaxine) in terms of acceptability and tolerability. Unfortunately, we only found evidence comparing duloxetine with a handful of other active antidepressive agents and only a few trials per comparison were found (in some cases we retrieved just one trial). This limited the power of the review to detect moderate, but clinically meaningful differences between the drugs. As many statistical tests have been used in the review, the findings from this review are better thought of as hypothesis forming rather than hypothesis testing and it would be very comforting to see the conclusions replicated in future trials. Most of included studies were sponsored by the drug industry manufacturing duloxetine. As for all other new investigational compounds, the potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should be borne in mind. In the present review no trials reported economic outcomes. Given that several SSRIs and the great majority of antidepressants are now available as generic formulation (only escitalopram, desvenlafaxine and duloxetine are still on patent), more comprehensive economic estimates of antidepressant treatment effect should be considered to better inform healthcare policy.
SourceAvailable from: Bianca M Kuehler[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Recent research has confirmed that between 25% and 33% of all hospitalized patients experience unacceptable levels of pain. Studies further indicate that this reduces patient satisfaction levels, lengthens hospital stays, and increases cost. Hospitals are aiming to discharge patients earlier, and this can interfere with adequate pain management. Therefore, the pain service at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital has adapted to this changing model of care. An increasing body of evidence demonstrates that psychological factors are key components of patients' pain experiences in both acute and chronic pain. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest a clinical psychologist should be involved in inpatient pain management. This small study discusses three cases that highlight how patient care could be improved by including a clinical psychologist as part of the inpatient pain team. Two cases particularly highlight the active role of the psychologist in the diagnosis and management of common conditions such as fear and anxiety, along with other psychiatric comorbidities. The management therefore employed an eclectic approach adapted from chronic pain and comprising of behavioral, cognitive behavioral, and dialectical behavioral therapeutic techniques blended with brief counseling. The third case exemplifies the importance of nurse-patient interactions and the quality of nurse-patient relationships on patient outcomes. Here, the psychologist helped to optimize communication and to resolve a difficult and potentially risk-laden situation. This small case series discusses the benefits derived from the involvement of a clinical psychologist in the management of inpatient pain, and therefore illustrates the need for novel initiatives for inpatient pain services. However, future research is warranted to validate this approach.Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 01/2014; 10:2291-7. DOI:10.2147/NDT.S70555 · 2.15 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The use of antipsychotic drugs, particularly quetiapine, has increased at an unprecedented rate in the last decade, primarily in relation to nonpsychotic indications. This increased use is concerning because of the high rates of metabolic and extrapyramidal side effects and inadequate monitoring of these complications. The purpose of this study was to measure the use of quetiapine and other second-generation antipsychotics by primary care physicians and psychiatrists and the most common diagnoses associated with quetiapine recommendations. We analyzed data on antipsychotic use from the IMS Brogan Canadian CompuScript Database and the Canadian Disease and Treatment Index, with a focus on quetiapine. We looked at the number of dispensed prescriptions for second-generation antipsychotics written by primary care physicians and psychiatrists and the diagnoses associated with recommendations for quetiapine from 2005 to 2012. Between 2005 and 2012, there was a 300% increase in dispensed prescriptions for quetiapine ordered by family physicians: from 1.04 million in 2005 to 4.17 million in 2012. In comparison, dispensed prescriptions from family physicians for risperidone increased 37.4%: from 1.39 million in 2005 to 1.91 million in 2012; those for olanzapine increased 37.1%, from 0.97 million in 2005 to 1.33 million in 2012. Dispensed prescriptions for quetiapine ordered by psychiatrists increased 141.6%: from 0.87 million in 2005 to 2.11 million in 2012. The top 4 diagnoses associated with quetiapine in 2012 were mood disorders, psychotic disorders, anxiety disorders and sleep disturbances. A 10-fold increase in quetiapine recommendations for sleep disturbances was seen over the study period, with almost all coming from family physicians. These findings indicate a preferential increase in the use of quetiapine over other antipsychotic drugs and show that most of the increased use is a result of off-label prescribing by family physicians.10/2014; 2(4):E225-E232. DOI:10.9778/cmajo.20140009
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Modern neuropsychopharmacology commenced in the 1950s with the serendipitous discovery of first-generation antipsychotics and antidepressants which were therapeutically effective yet had marked adverse effects. Today, a broader palette of safer and better-tolerated agents is available for helping people that suffer from schizophrenia, depression and other psychiatric disorders, while complementary approaches like psychotherapy also have important roles to play in their treatment, both alone and in association with medication. Nonetheless, despite considerable efforts, current management is still only partially effective, and highly-prevalent psychiatric disorders of the brain continue to represent a huge personal and socio-economic burden. The lack of success in discovering more effective pharmacotherapy has contributed, together with many other factors, to a relative disengagement by pharmaceutical firms from neuropsychiatry. Nonetheless, interest remains high, and partnerships are proliferating with academic centres which are increasingly integrating drug discovery and translational research into their traditional activities. This is, then, a time of transition and an opportune moment to thoroughly survey the field. Accordingly, the present paper, first, chronicles the discovery and development of psychotropic agents, focusing in particular on their mechanisms of action and therapeutic utility, and how problems faced were eventually overcome. Second, it discusses the lessons learned from past successes and failures, and how they are being applied to promote future progress. Third, it comprehensively surveys emerging strategies that are (1), improving our understanding of the diagnosis and classification of psychiatric disorders; (2), deepening knowledge of their underlying risk factors and pathophysiological substrates; (3), refining cellular and animal models for discovery and validation of novel therapeutic agents; (4), improving the design and outcome of clinical trials; (5), moving towards reliable biomarkers of patient subpopulations and medication efficacy and (6), promoting collaborative approaches to innovation by uniting key partners from the regulators, industry and academia to patients. Notwithstanding the challenges ahead, the many changes and ideas articulated herein provide new hope and something of a framework for progress towards the improved prevention and relief of psychiatric and other CNS disorders, an urgent mission for our Century. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. and ECNP. All rights reserved.European Neuropsychopharmacology 02/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2015.01.016 · 5.40 Impact Factor