Escitalopram prevents relapse in older patients with major depressive disorder

From INSERM U675, Paris, France.
American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 3.52). 08/2007; 15(7):581-93. DOI: 10.1097/01.JGP.0000240823.94522.4c
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The present study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram in the prevention of relapse of major depressive disorder (MDD) in older patients who had responded to acute treatment with escitalopram.
A total of 405 patients who were aged 65 years or older with a primary diagnosis of MDD (according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria) and a Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score of 22 or more received 12-week, open-label escitalopram 10 or 20 mg per day treatment. Remitters (MADRS </=12) were randomized to 24-week double-blind treatment with escitalopram or placebo. The primary efficacy parameter was the time to relapse, defined as either an increase in MADRS total score to 22 or more or lack of efficacy as judged by the investigator.
Three hundred five patients achieved remission and were randomly assigned to treatment with escitalopram (N = 152) or placebo (N = 153). The primary analysis showed a clear beneficial effect of escitalopram relative to placebo on the time to relapse (log-rank test, chi(2) = 27.6, df = 1, p <0.001). The risk of relapse was 4.4 times higher for placebo- than for escitalopram-treated patients (chi(2) test, chi(2) = 22.9, df = 1, p <0.001). Significantly fewer escitalopram-treated patients relapsed (9%) compared with placebo (33%) (chi(2) test, chi(2) = 27.1, df = 1, p <0.001). Escitalopram was well tolerated with 53 patients (13%) withdrawn as a result of adverse events during the open-label period and three (2%) escitalopram-treated patients and six (4%) placebo-treated patients during double-blind treatment (not significant). The overall withdrawal rate, excluding relapses, was 7.2% for escitalopram and 8.5% for placebo during the double-blind period (not significant).
Escitalopram was effective in preventing relapse of MDD in older patients and was well tolerated as continuation treatment.

Download full-text


Available from: Philip Gorwood, Aug 23, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    • "The model also assumed no additional resource use for AEs beyond drugs to treat the AEs; however, this assumption is justified with generally mild-level severity of the AEs associated with SSRIs, typically not associated with other health-care resource use. Another assumption was a similar probability of relapse between the treatment arms, justified by the observations in clinical studies of the two drugs [17] [18] [19] [20]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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. 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. 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. 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.
    Value in Health 03/2012; 15(2):231-9. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2011.09.011 · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Forty-six papers met inclusion criteria, constituting 49 samples and 3,454 patients (Klerman et al., 1974; Coppen et al., 1978; Stein et al., 1980; van Praag and de Haan, 1980; Davidson and Raft, 1984; Harrison et al., 1986; Montgomery et al., 1988, 1993, 1998, 2004; Georgotas et al., 1989; Robinson et al., 1991; Doogan and Caillard, 1992; Claghorn and Feighner, 1993; Montgomery and Dunbar, 1993; Anton et al., 1994; Robert and Montgomery, 1995; Bremner and Smith, 1996; Entsuah et al., 1996; Kocsis et al., 1996, 2007; Stewart et al., 1997; Keller et al., 1998; Reimherr et al., 1998; Terra and Montgomery, 1998; Reynolds et al., 1999; Alexopoulos et al., 2000; Rouillon et al., 2000; Schmidt et al., 2000; Gilaberte et al., 2001; Hochstrasser et al., 2001; Klysner et al., 2002; Wilson et al., 2003; Detke et al., 2004; Simon et al., 2004; Amsterdam and Bodkin, 2006; Kamijima et al., 2006; Lustman et al., 2006; McGrath et al., 2006; Perahia et al., 2006, 2009; Gorwood et al., 2007; Cheung et al., 2008; Dobson et al., 2008; Emslie et al., 2008; Rickels et al., 2010). The information extracted from each study is listed in Table A1 in the Appendix. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Some evolutionary researchers have argued that current diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD) may not accurately distinguish true instances of disorder from a normal, adaptive stress response. According to disorder advocates, neurochemicals like the monoamine neurotransmitters (serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine) are dysregulated in major depression. Monoamines are normally under homeostatic control, so the monoamine disorder hypothesis implies a breakdown in homeostatic mechanisms. In contrast, adaptationist hypotheses propose that homeostatic mechanisms are properly functioning in most patients meeting current criteria for MDD. If the homeostatic mechanisms regulating monoamines are functioning properly in these patients, then oppositional tolerance should develop with prolonged antidepressant medication (ADM) therapy. Oppositional tolerance refers to the forces that develop when a homeostatic mechanism has been subject to prolonged pharmacological perturbation that attempt to bring the system back to equilibrium. When pharmacological intervention is discontinued, the oppositional forces cause monoamine levels to overshoot their equilibrium levels. Since depressive symptoms are under monoaminergic control, this overshoot should cause a resurgence of depressive symptoms that is proportional to the perturbational effect of the ADM. We test this prediction by conducting a meta-analysis of ADM discontinuation studies. We find that the risk of relapse after ADM discontinuation is positively associated with the degree to which ADMs enhance serotonin and norepinephrine in prefrontal cortex, after controlling for covariates. The results are consistent with oppositional tolerance, and provide no evidence of malfunction in the monoaminergic regulatory mechanisms in patients meeting current diagnostic criteria for MDD. We discuss the evolutionary and clinical implications of our findings.
    Frontiers in Psychology 07/2011; 2:159. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00159 · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Normal François et al, 2003 (19) Relapse rate OR escitalopram vs. real practice 0.36 0.23-0.58 Exp (Normal) Rapaport et al, 2004; Gorwood et al, 2007 (20) (21) "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A decision analytical model was used to compare expected health outcomes and costs of treating patients with major depression using new selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) escitalopram versus the other SSRI fluoxetine and the serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) venlafaxine. The primary health outcome measure was an overall treatment success, defined as a remission (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) < or = 12), achieved over the 6 months of treatment. Estimated costs consisted of those directly related to treatment (drug acquisition costs, costs of psychiatric visits, hospital outpatient visits, hospitalization, and electroconvulsive therapy) and indirect costs associated with productivity lost due to depression. Clinical input parameters for the economic analyses were derived from published literatures. Resource utilization estimates were obtained from a survey of psychiatrists, while medical treatment patterns were determined from focus groups participated consisting from both general and family practitioners and psychiatrists. Unit costs (including daily cost of patient's absence from work due to depression) were obtained from the standard sources. The unit cost of hospitalization was derived based on the average of factual service rates charged by the local hospital. The results show that escitalopram is more effective and less costly compared to fluoxetine and venlafaxine. Treatment using escitalopram produced the best-expected success rate and the lowest expected per patient cost. Escitalopram earned a savings of Baht 2,002 and Baht 1,768 compared to fluoxetine and venlafaxine respectively over a six-month period.
    Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet 07/2008; 91(7):1117-28.
Show more