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

Lilly Research Centre, Erl Wood, Sunninghill Road, Windlesham, Surrey GU20 6PH, UK.
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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 05/2014; 167C:312-321. · 3.71 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Randomised, placebo-controlled trials of treatments for depression typically collect outcomes data but traditionally only analyse data to demonstrate efficacy and safety. Additional post-hoc statistical techniques may reveal important insights about treatment variables useful when considering inter-individual differences amongst depressed patients. This paper aims to examine the Gradient Boosted Model (GBM), a statistical technique that uses regression tree analyses and can be applied to clinical trial data to identify and measure variables that may influence treatment outcomes. Methods GBM was applied to pooled data from 12 randomised clinical trials of 4987 participants experiencing an acute depressive episode who were treated with duloxetine, an SSRI or placebo to predict treatment remission. Additional analyses were conducted on the same dataset using the logistic regression model for comparison between these two methods. Results With GBM, there were noticeable differences between treatments when identifying which and to what extent variables were associated with remission. A single logistic regression only revealed a decreasing or increasing relationship between predictors and remission while GBM was able to reveal a complex relationship between predictors and remission. Limitations These analyses were conducted post-hoc utilising clinical trials databases. The criteria for constructing the analyses data were based on the characteristics of the clinical trials. Conclusions GBM can be used to identify and quantify patient variables that predict remission with specific treatments and has greater flexibility than the logistic regression model. GBM may provide new insights into inter-individual differences in treatment response that may be useful for selecting individualised treatments. Trial registration IMPACT clinical trial number 3327; IMPACT clinical trial number 4091; IMPACT clinical trial number 4689; IMPACT clinical trial number 4298; NCT00071695; NCT00062673; NCT00036335; NCT00067912; NCT00073411; NCT00489775; NCT00536471; NCT00666757 (note that trials with IMPACT numbers predate mandatory clinical trial registration requirements)
    Journal of Affective Disorders 10/2014; 168:284–293. · 3.71 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is a common complication of diabetes mellitus, affecting, by some estimates, up to one quarter of diabetic patients. Since 2010, no fewer than 5 major international treatment guidelines for painful DPN have been issued, and there are meaningful differences among them. Duloxetine, pregabalin, gabapentin, and tricyclic antidepressants are the mainstays of treatment, but the choice of which class or agent to use in any given patient should be informed by patient characteristics. This review seeks to describe the differences among the recently issued guidelines, to assess the evidence on which they are based, and to offer insight into the most appropriate treatment choices based on patient characteristics.
    Journal of Diabetes and its Complications 08/2014; · 1.93 Impact Factor