Article

A randomized, double-blind comparison of duloxetine and venlafaxine in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Journal of Psychiatric Research (Impact Factor: 4.09). 02/2008; 42(1):22-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2007.01.008
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Clinical trials assessing antidepressant therapies typically include separate assessments of efficacy (benefit) and adverse events (risk). Global benefit-risk (GBR) assessment allows the simultaneous evaluation of both efficacy and adverse events. The objective was to compare the serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) duloxetine and venlafaxine using GBR assessment.
Data were combined from two similarly designed, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group studies in which patients with major depressive disorder were randomized to either duloxetine 60 mg/day or venlafaxine extended release (XR) 150 mg/day (75 mg/day for the first 2 weeks) for a 6-week fixed dosing period followed by an additional 6 weeks of treatment in which the dose could be increased up to 120 mg/day for duloxetine and 225 mg/day for venlafaxine. Patients completing the study (or receiving study drug for 2 weeks or more) were eligible to enter a taper period where the dose of study drug was gradually reduced over 1-2 weeks prior to drug discontinuation. The primary outcome measure (defined a priori) was the GBR comparison of duloxetine 60 mg/day and venlafaxine XR 150 mg/day after 6 weeks of treatment. In the GBR analysis, benefit was defined as remission at endpoint [17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD17) 7]. Risk was defined by four categories: patients having either no adverse events (AEs), AEs with no severity rating greater than moderate, AEs with at least one severity rating of severe, or having discontinued with a reason of self-reported adverse event (regardless of any AE severity). Additional efficacy measures included HAMD17 total score and subscales, HAMA, CGI-S, and PGI-I. Safety and tolerability were assessed via analysis of reasons for discontinuation, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), discontinuation-emergent adverse events, and changes in vital signs, weight, and laboratory analytes.
There were no significant differences between duloxetine 60 mg/day and venlafaxine 150 mg/day as measured by GBR assessment at the end of 6 weeks (-1.418 vs. -1.079, P = 0.217) or 12 weeks (-0.349 vs. -0.121, P = 0.440), nor were there significant differences between treatment groups on the majority of efficacy measures. Significantly more venlafaxine-treated patients (74.5%) completed 12 weeks of treatment compared with duloxetine-treated patients (64.8%, P =.006). Nausea was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) for both drugs, and was significantly higher with duloxetine 60 mg/day compared to venlafaxine 150 mg/day during the first 6 weeks of treatment (43.6% vs. 35.0%, P0.05). During the taper period, significantly more venlafaxine-treated patients reported discontinuation-emergent adverse events (DEAEs) than duloxetine-treated patients. From a safety perspective, significantly more venlafaxine-treated patients (n = 4) than duloxetine-treated patients (n=0, P =.047) experienced sustained elevations of systolic blood pressure during the fixed dosing period. Otherwise, there were few significant differences in safety measures found between treatment groups during 6 and 12 weeks of therapy.
Duloxetine 60 mg/day and venlafaxine XR 150 mg/day have similar benefit-risk profiles on the basis of a comparison utilizing GBR assessment. The implications of the more subtle differences between these drugs, as well as for interpreting the GBR assessment, are discussed.

1 Follower
 · 
188 Views
 · 
0 Downloads
  • Source
    • "Recent positive clinical trials for new drugs or new indications for existing drugs have led to the approval of duloxetine (Perahia et al., 2008) as a treatment of MDD, and extended-release quetiapine (Bauer et al., 2009) and of aripiprazole (Berman et al., 2007) as adjunct therapy for MDD. Thus, we have undertaken a second revision of the KMAP-DD to reflect the changes in expert opinion about the treatment of MDD that have occurred between 2006 and 2012. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim: This study constitutes a revision of the guidelines for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) issued by the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Depressive Disorder (KMAP-DD) 2006. In incorporates changes in the experts' consensus that occurred between 2006 and 2012 as well as information regarding newly developed and recently published clinical trials. Methods: Using a 44-item questionnaire, an expert consensus was obtained on pharmacological treatment strategies for (1) non-psychotic MDD, (2) psychotic MDD, (3) dysthymia and depression subtypes, (4) continuous and maintenance treatment, and (5) special populations; consensus was also obtained regarding (6) the choice of an antidepressant (AD) in the context of safety and adverse effects, and (7) non-pharmacological biological therapies. Results: AD monotherapy was recommended as the first-line strategy for nonpsychotic depression in adults, children and adolescents, elderly adults, and patients with postpartum depression or premenstrual dysphoric disorder. The combination of AD and atypical antipsychotics (AAP) was recommended for psychotic depression. The duration of the initial AD treatment for psychotic depression depends on the number of depressive episodes. Most experts recommended stopping the initial AD and AAP therapy after a certain period in patients with one or two depressive episodes. However, for those with three or more episodes, maintenance of the initial treatment was recommended for as long as possible. Monotherapy with various selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) was recommended for dysthymic disorder and melancholic type MDD. Conclusion: The pharmacological treatment strategy of KMAP-DD 2012 is similar to that of KMAP-DD 2006; however, the preference for the first-line use of AAPs was stronger in 2012 than in 2006.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 05/2014; 167C:312-321. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2014.05.031 · 3.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The CANMAT guideline described venlafaxine to be superior to duloxetine, fluoxetine, and pooled SSRIs, and duloxetine to be superior to paroxetine and pooled SSRIs (17). The APA guideline reported venlafaxine and duloxetine to be as effective as SSRIs (16, 52, 53). A few studies have recommended SNRIs as more beneficial than SSRIs (51). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper aims to introduce, summarize, and emphasize the importance of the 'Evidence-Based, Pharmacological Treatment Guideline for Depression in Korea, Revised Edition'. The guideline broadly covers most aspects of the pharmacological treatment of patients in Korea diagnosed with moderate to severe major depression according to the DSM-IV TR. The guideline establishment process involved determining and answering a number of key questions, searching and selecting publications, evaluating recommendations, preparing guideline drafts, undergoing external expert reviews, and obtaining approval. A guideline adaptation process was conducted for the revised edition. The guideline strongly recommends pharmacological treatment considered appropriate to the current clinical situation in Korea, and should be considered helpful when selecting the appropriate pharmacological treatment of patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder. Therefore, the wide distribution of this guideline is recommended.
    Journal of Korean Medical Science 04/2014; 29(4):468-484. DOI:10.3346/jkms.2014.29.4.468 · 1.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Recent positive clinical trials for new drugs or new indications for existing drugs have led to the approval of duloxetine (Perahia et al., 2008) as a treatment of MDD, and extended-release quetiapine (Bauer et al., 2009) and of aripiprazole (Berman et al., 2007) as adjunct therapy for MDD. Thus, we have undertaken a second revision of the KMAP-DD to reflect the changes in expert opinion about the treatment of MDD that have occurred between 2006 and 2012. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim This study constitutes a revision of the guidelines for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) issued by the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Depressive Disorder (KMAP-DD) 2006. In incorporates changes in the experts׳ consensus that occurred between 2006 and 2012 as well as information regarding newly developed and recently published clinical trials. Methods Using a 44-item questionnaire, an expert consensus was obtained on pharmacological treatment strategies for (1) non-psychotic MDD, (2) psychotic MDD, (3) dysthymia and depression subtypes, (4) continuous and maintenance treatment, and (5) special populations; consensus was also obtained regarding (6) the choice of an antidepressant (AD) in the context of safety and adverse effects, and (7) non-pharmacological biological therapies. Results AD monotherapy was recommended as the first-line strategy for nonpsychotic depression in adults, children and adolescents, elderly adults, and patients with postpartum depression or premenstrual dysphoric disorder. The combination of AD and atypical antipsychotics (AAP) was recommended for psychotic depression. The duration of the initial AD treatment for psychotic depression depends on the number of depressive episodes. Most experts recommended stopping the initial AD and AAP therapy after a certain period in patients with one or two depressive episodes. However, for those with three or more episodes, maintenance of the initial treatment was recommended for as long as possible. Monotherapy with various selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) was recommended for dysthymic disorder and melancholic type MDD. Conclusion The pharmacological treatment strategy of KMAP-DD 2012 is similar to that of KMAP-DD 2006; however, the preference for the first-line use of AAPs was stronger in 2012 than in 2006.
Show more