Article

Absence of discontinuation symptoms with agomelatine and occurrence of discontinuation symptoms with paroxetine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled discontinuation study.

Imperial College University of London, London, UK.
International Clinical Psychopharmacology (Impact Factor: 3.1). 10/2004; 19(5):271-80. DOI: 10.1097/01.yic.0000137184.64610.c8
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The effects of an abrupt interruption of agomelatine, a new melatonergic/serotonergic antidepressant, were explored in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Paroxetine was used as active control. After 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with agomelatine 25 mg/day or paroxetine 20 mg/day, sustained remitted depressed patients were randomized for 2 weeks, under double-blind conditions, to placebo or to their initial antidepressant treatment. Discontinuation symptoms were assessed at the end of the first and second week of discontinuation with the Discontinuation Emergent Signs and Symptoms (DESS) checklist. One hundred and ninety-two sustained remitted patients were randomized to the 2-week discontinuation period. Patients who discontinued agomelatine did not experience more discontinuation symptoms than those who continued on agomelatine. Patients who discontinued paroxetine for placebo experienced significantly more DESS discontinuation symptoms, during the first week, compared to those who continued with paroxetine (respective mean number of emergent symptoms: 7.3+/-7.1 and 3.5+/-4.1, P<0.001). No significant difference was shown between the continuing and interrupting groups in the second week of discontinuation. By contrast to paroxetine, abrupt cessation of agomelatine is not associated with discontinuation symptoms.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
92 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective This randomised, double-blind, 12-week study compared efficacy and tolerability of flexible-dose treatment with vortioxetine (10–20 mg/day) versus agomelatine (25–50 mg/day) in major depressive disorder patients with inadequate response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)/serotonin–noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) monotherapy.Methods Patients were switched directly from SSRI/SNRI to vortioxetine or agomelatine. Primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 8 in the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score analysed by mixed model for repeated measurements, using a noninferiority test followed by a superiority test. Secondary endpoints included response and remission rates, anxiety symptoms (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale), Clinical Global Impression, overall functioning (Sheehan Disability Scale), health-related quality of life (EuroQol 5 Dimensions), productivity (work limitation questionnaire) and family functioning (Depression and Family Functioning Scale).ResultsPrimary endpoint noninferiority was established and vortioxetine (n = 252) was superior to agomelatine (n = 241) by 2.2 MADRS points (p < 0.01). Vortioxetine was also significantly superior in response and remission rates at weeks 8 and 12; MADRS, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impression, Sheehan Disability Scale and EuroQol 5 Dimensions scores at week 4 onwards; work limitation questionnaire at week 8 and Depression and Family Functioning Scale at weeks 8 and 12. Fewer patients withdrew because of adverse events with vortioxetine (5.9% vs 9.5%). Adverse events (incidence ≥5%) were nausea, headache, dizziness and somnolence.Conclusions Vortioxetine was noninferior and significantly superior to agomelatine in major depressive disorder patients with previous inadequate response to a single course of SSRI/SNRI monotherapy. Vortioxetine was safe and well tolerated. © 2014 The Authors. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    Human Psychopharmacology Clinical and Experimental 08/2014; · 2.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Agomelatine, a melatonergic antidepressant with a rapid onset of action, is one of the most recent drugs in the antidepressant category. Agomelatine’s antidepressant actions are attributed to its sleep-promoting and chronobiotic actions mediated by MT1 and MT2 receptors present in the suprachiasmatic nucleus, as well as to its effects on the blockade of 5-HT2c receptors. Blockade of 5-HT2c receptors causes release of both noradrenaline and dopamine at the fronto-cortical dopaminergic and noradrenergic pathways. The combined actions of agomelatine on MT1/MT2 and 5-HT2c receptors facilitate the resynchronization of altered circadian rhythms and abnormal sleep patterns. Agomelatine appeared to be effective in treating major depression. Moreover, evidence exists that points out a possible efficacy of such drug in the treatment of bipolar depression, anxiety disorders, alcohol dependence, migraines etc. Thus, the aim of this narrative review was to elucidate current evidences on the role of agomelatine in disorders other than major depression.
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences 01/2015; 16(1):1111-1130. · 2.34 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract BACKGROUND: Paroxetine is the most potent inhibitor of the reuptake of serotonin of all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and has been studied in many randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, these comparative studies provided contrasting findings and systematic reviews of RCTs have always considered the SSRIs as a group, and evidence applicable to this group of drugs might not be applicable to paroxetine alone. The present systematic review assessed the efficacy and tolerability profile of paroxetine in comparison with tricyclics (TCAs), SSRIs and newer or non-conventional agents. OBJECTIVES: 1. To determine the efficacy of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents in alleviating the acute symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder.2. To review acceptability of treatment with paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.3. To investigate the adverse effects of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialized Register (CCDANCTR, to 30 September 2012), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were handsearched. Pharmaceutical companies marketing paroxetine and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials allocating participants with major depression to paroxetine versus any other antidepressants (ADs), both conventional (such as TCAs, SSRIs) and newer or non-conventional (such as hypericum). For trials which had a cross-over design, only results from the first randomisation period were considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a standard form. Data were then entered in RevMan 5.2 with a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, settings and efficacy, acceptability and tolerability measures. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 115 randomised controlled trials (26,134 participants) were included. In 54 studies paroxetine was compared with older ADs, in 21 studies with another SSRI, and in 40 studies with a newer or non-conventional antidepressant other than SSRIs. For the primary outcome (patients who responded to treatment), paroxetine was more effective than reboxetine at increasing patients who responded early to treatment (Odds Ratio (OR): 0.66, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.87, number needed to treat to provide benefit (NNTb) = 16, 95% CI 10 to 50, at one to four weeks, 3 RCTs, 1375 participants, moderate quality of evidence), and less effective than mirtazapine (OR: 2.39, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.02, NNTb = 8, 95% CI 5 to 14, at one to four weeks, 3 RCTs, 726 participants, moderate quality of evidence). Paroxetine was less effective than citalopram in improving response to treatment (OR: 1.54, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.28, NNTb = 9, 95% CI 5 to 102, at six to 12 weeks, 1 RCT, 406 participants, moderate quality of evidence). We found no clear evidence that paroxetine was more or less effective compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at acute (six to 12 weeks), early (one to four weeks), or longer term follow-up (four to six months). Paroxetine was associated with a lower rate of adverse events than amitriptyline, imipramine and older ADs as a class, but was less well tolerated than agomelatine and hypericum. Included studies were generally at unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting of allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessment, and incomplete reporting of outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some possibly clinically meaningful differences between paroxetine and other ADs exist, but no definitive conclusions can be drawn from these findings. In terms of response, there was a moderate quality of evidence that citalopram was better than paroxetine in the acute phase (six to 12 weeks), although only one study contributed data. In terms of early response to treatment (one to four weeks) there was moderate quality of evidence that mirtazapine was better than paroxetine and that paroxetine was better than reboxetine. However there was no clear evidence that paroxetine was better or worse compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at any time point. Even if some differences were identified, the findings from this review are better thought as hypothesis forming rather than hypothesis testing and it would be reassuring to see the conclusions replicated in future trials. Finally, most of included studies were at unclear or high risk of bias, and were sponsored by the drug industry. The potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should be borne in mind.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 04/2014; 2014. · 5.70 Impact Factor