Assessment of depressive symptoms and functional outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder treated with duloxetine versus placebo: primary outcomes from two trials conducted under the same protocol

Antidepressants and Social Functioning in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled RCTs

INTRODUCTION

Social functioning (SF) is the ability to fulfil one's social obligations and a key outcome in treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to estimate the effects of antidepressants on SF in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

This meta-analysis and its reporting are based on Cochrane Collaboration's Handbook of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and PRISMA guidelines (protocol registration at OSF). We systematically searched CENTRAL, Medline, PubMed Central, and PsycINFO for double-blind RCTs comparing antidepressants with placebo and reporting on SF. We computed standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs and prediction intervals.

RESULTS

We selected 40 RCTs out of 1,188 records screened, including 16,586 patients (mean age 46.8 years, 64.2% women). In 27 studies investigating patients with MDD (primary depression), antidepressants resulted in a SMD of 0.25 compared to placebo ([95% CI: 0.21; 0.30] I2: 39%). In 13 trials with patients suffering from MDD comorbid with physical conditions or disorders, the summary estimate was 0.24 ([0.10; 0.37] I2: 75%). In comorbid depression, studies with high/uncertain risk of bias had higher SMDs than low-risk studies: 0.29 [0.13; 0.44] versus 0.04 [-0.16; 0.24]; no such effect was evident in primary depression. There was no indication of sizeable reporting bias. SF efficacy correlated with efficacy on depression scores, Spearman's rho 0.67 (p < 0.001), and QoL, 0.63 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of antidepressants on SF is small, similar to its effect on depressive symptoms in primary MDD, and doubtful in comorbid depression. Strong correlations with both antidepressive and QoL effects suggest overlap among domains.

Practical pathway for the management of depression in the workplace: a Canadian perspective

Major depressive disorder (MDD) and other mental health issues pose a substantial burden on the workforce. Approximately half a million Canadians will not be at work in any week because of a mental health disorder, and more than twice that number will work at a reduced level of productivity (presenteeism). Although it is important to determine whether work plays a role in a mental health condition, at initial presentation, patients should be diagnosed and treated per appropriate clinical guidelines. However, it is also important for patient care to determine the various causes or triggers including work-related factors. Clearly identifying the stressors associated with the mental health disorder can help clinicians to assess functional limitations, develop an appropriate care plan, and interact more effectively with worker's compensation and disability programs, as well as employers. There is currently no widely accepted tool to definitively identify MDD as work-related, but the presence of certain patient and work characteristics may help. This paper seeks to review the evidence specific to depression in the workplace, and provide practical tips to help clinicians to identify and treat work-related MDD, as well as navigate disability issues.

Antipsychotic Monotherapy for Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Although several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the effectiveness, efficacy, and safety of antipsychotic monotherapy (APM) versus placebo in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), no meta-analysis has examined this topic. We conducted a systematic literature search using MEDLINE and Embase to identify relevant RCTs and performed a meta-analysis to compare the following outcomes between APM and placebo: response and remission rates, study discontinuation due to all causes, lack of efficacy, and adverse events, changes in total scores on depression severity scales, and individual adverse event rates. A total of 13 studies were identified, with 14 comparisons involving 3,197 participants that met the eligibility criteria. There were significant differences between APM and placebo in response and remission rates and changes in the primary depression severity scale in favor of APM, and study discontinuation due to adverse events and several individual adverse events in favor of placebo. No significant difference was observed in discontinuation due to all causes. APM could have antidepressant effects in the acute phase of MDD, although clinicians should be aware of an increased risk of some adverse events.

Interventions to improve return to work in depressed people

BACKGROUND

Work disability such as sickness absence is common in people with depression.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing work disability in employees with depressive disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO until April 4th 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of work-directed and clinical interventions for depressed people that included days of sickness absence or being off work as an outcome. We also analysed the effects on depression and work functioning.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data and rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) or risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to pool study results in studies we judged to be sufficiently similar.  MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we added 23 new studies. In total, we included 45 studies with 88 study arms, involving 12,109 participants with either a major depressive disorder or a high level of depressive symptoms. Risk of bias The most common types of bias risk were detection bias (27 studies) and attrition bias (22 studies), both for the outcome of sickness absence. Work-directed interventions Work-directed interventions combined with clinical interventions A combination of a work-directed intervention and a clinical intervention probably reduces days of sickness absence within the first year of follow-up (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.12; 9 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). This translates back to 0.5 fewer (95% CI -0.7 to -0.2) sick leave days in the past two weeks or 25 fewer days during one year (95% CI -37.5 to -11.8). The intervention does not lead to fewer persons being off work beyond one year follow-up (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09; 2 studies, high-certainty evidence). The intervention may reduce depressive symptoms (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.01; 8 studies, low-certainty evidence) and probably has a small effect on work functioning (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.06; 5 studies, moderate-certainty evidence) within the first year of follow-up.  Stand alone work-directed interventions A specific work-directed intervention alone may increase the number of sickness absence days compared with work-directed care as usual (SMD 0.39, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.74; 2 studies, low-certainty evidence) but probably does not lead to more people being off work within the first year of follow-up (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence) or beyond (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.22; 2 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably no effect on depressive symptoms (SMD -0.10, 95% -0.30 CI to 0.10; 4 studies, moderate-certainty evidence) within the first year of follow-up and there may be no effect on depressive symptoms beyond that time (SMD 0.18, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.49; 1 study, low-certainty evidence). The intervention may also not lead to better work functioning (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.90 to 0.26; 1 study, low-certainty evidence) within the first year of follow-up.   Psychological interventions A psychological intervention, either face-to-face, or an E-mental health intervention, with or without professional guidance, may reduce the number of sickness absence days, compared with care as usual (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.03; 9 studies, low-certainty evidence). It may also reduce depressive symptoms (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.15, 8 studies, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether these psychological interventions improve work ability (SMD -0.15 95% CI -0.46 to 0.57; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Psychological intervention combined with antidepressant medication Two studies compared the effect of a psychological intervention combined with antidepressants to antidepressants alone. One study combined psychodynamic therapy with tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) medication and another combined telephone-administered cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). We are uncertain if this intervention reduces the number of sickness absence days (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.24; 2 studies, very low-certainty evidence) but found that there may be no effect on depressive symptoms (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.12; 2 studies, low-certainty evidence). Antidepressant medication only Three studies compared the effectiveness of SSRI to selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) medication on reducing sickness absence and yielded highly inconsistent results. Improved care Overall, interventions to improve care did not lead to fewer days of sickness absence, compared to care as usual (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.06; 7 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). However, in studies with a low risk of bias, the intervention probably leads to fewer days of sickness absence in the first year of follow-up (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.05; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Improved care probably leads to fewer depressive symptoms (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.07; 7 studies, moderate-certainty evidence) but may possibly lead to a decrease in work-functioning (SMD 0.5, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.66; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Exercise Supervised strength exercise may reduce sickness absence, compared to relaxation (SMD -1.11; 95% CI -1.68 to -0.54; one study, low-certainty evidence). However, aerobic exercise probably is not more effective than relaxation or stretching (SMD -0.06; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.24; 2 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). Both studies found no differences between the two conditions in depressive symptoms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A combination of a work-directed intervention and a clinical intervention probably reduces the number of sickness absence days, but at the end of one year or longer follow-up, this does not lead to more people in the intervention group being at work. The intervention may also reduce depressive symptoms and probably increases work functioning more than care as usual. Specific work-directed interventions may not be more effective than usual work-directed care alone. Psychological interventions may reduce the number of sickness absence days, compared with care as usual. Interventions to improve clinical care probably lead to lower sickness absence and lower levels of depression, compared with care as usual. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on sickness absence of one antidepressant medication compared to another. Further research is needed to assess which combination of work-directed and clinical interventions works best.

Chronic restraint stress increases social interaction in C57BL/6J mice monitoring through MiceProfiler analysis

The social deficit is a prevailing symptom in stress-induced depression. Although social interaction behavior has been widely studied in humans and rodents, it is imprecise to record the social behavior between two free-moving mice via perusal. In the present study, we applied an approach to analyze the social behavior in mice using a software named "MiceProfiler." C57BL/6J mice were stressed via chronic restraint stress (CRS) and housed in three populations of different sizes as follows: single, three in a cage, and six in a cage. The MiceProfiler was used to analyze the video of behavioral repertoire and, the result showed that stressed and single housed mice exhibited more social interaction both in the contact time and contact activities. Furthermore, we investigated the effect of CRS on social behavior when the mice were housed in larger populations size (three or six in a cage) and found that, the CRS procedure promoted social interaction. However, the larger population size resulted in the less total contact time, less time of head-tail, and moving in an opposite way. Besides, the CRS mice showed less social avoidance while the mice from a larger population presented less active contact. And the CRS mice also exhibited a higher social hierarchy compared with the control. Our data indicated that mild restraint stress might increase the intercommunication between mice. Collectively, our findings provided a new evidence for social behavior study and the MiceProfiler could be a new tool to measure the social behaviors of rodents.

A Systematic Review of Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Duloxetine

Duloxetine is a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients affected by major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), neuropathic pain (NP), fibromyalgia (FMS), and stress incontinence urinary (SUI). These conditions share parallel pathophysiological pathways, and duloxetine treatment might be an effective and safe alternative. Thus, a systematic review was conducted following the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items (PRISMA) recommendations and Joanna Briggs Institute Critical (JBI) Appraisals guidelines. Eighty-five studies focused on efficacy, safety, and tolerability of duloxetine were included in our systematic review. Studies were subdivided by clinical condition and evaluated individually. Thus, 32 studies of MDD, 11 studies of GAD, 19 studies of NP, 9 studies of FMS, and 14 studies of SUI demonstrated that the measured outcomes indicate the suitability of duloxetine in the treatment of these clinical conditions. This systematic review confirms that the dual mechanism of duloxetine benefits the treatment of comorbid clinical conditions, and supports the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of duloxetine in short- and long-term treatments.

Categorical improvement in functional impairment in depressed patients treated with desvenlafaxine

OBJECTIVE

This post-hoc pooled analysis evaluated categorical change in functional impairment in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with desvenlafaxine versus placebo and examined whether early improvement in functioning predicted functional outcomes at study endpoint.

METHODS

Data were pooled from eight randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of desvenlafaxine for the treatment of MDD, including adults who were randomly assigned to receive desvenlafaxine 50 or 100 mg/d or placebo (N=3,384). Shift tables were generated for categorical changes in functional impairment from baseline based on Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) subscale scores. The categories were none/mild (0-3), moderate (4-6), and marked/extreme (7-10). Treatment comparisons for prespecified shifts of interest and predictive value of week 2 or 4 improvement in SDS subscale scores for functional outcome at week 8 were assessed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Greater proportions of patients receiving desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg achieved improvement from baseline to week 8 for each prespecified shift endpoint versus placebo (all p ≤ 0.02). Early improvement in SDS subscale scores was a statistically significant predictor of functional outcome at week 8, both overall and for each treatment group (all p&lt;0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with desvenlafaxine 50 or 100 mg/d led to significantly greater categorical improvement in functional impairment versus placebo, and improvement in SDS subscale scores significantly predicted functional outcome. Monitoring patient progress early in the course of antidepressant treatment using a functional assessment such as the SDS may help clinicians determine whether or not treatment adjustments are needed.

Clinical outcomes of patients with major depressive disorder treated with either duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, or sertraline

PURPOSE

To compare treatment outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder treated with duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, or sertraline for up to 6 months.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were taken from a 6-month prospective, observational study that included 1,549 major depressive disorder patients without sexual dysfunction in 12 countries. We report the overall results and those from Asian countries. Depression severity was measured using the Clinical Global Impression and the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (QIDS-SR16). Clinical and functional remissions were defined as having a QIDS-SR16 <6, and as having a rating of <3 on all three Sheehan Disability Scale items and no reduced productivity, respectively. Mixed effects modeling with repeated measures analysis and generalized estimating equation models were used. Propensity scores were included in the models.

RESULTS

The mixed effects modeling with repeated measures regression models showed that the Clinical Global Impression rating during follow-up was significantly lower in those patients treated with duloxetine compared with escitalopram (0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.56); fluoxetine (0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.38); paroxetine (0.38, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.54); and sertraline (0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.49). The QIDS-SR16 of duloxetine-treated patients was significantly lower than those treated with escitalopram (1.58, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.12); fluoxetine (1.48, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.06); paroxetine (1.53, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.07); and sertraline (1.19, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.78). The probability of clinical remission of the patients treated with escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, and sertraline was lower than those treated with duloxetine (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.64; OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.61; OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.56; OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.71; respectively). The regression analysis of functional remission also showed more favorable results for duloxetine, with OR ranging from 0.43, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.60 for paroxetine to 0.49, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.70 for sertraline. The results for the Asian countries were generally consistent.

CONCLUSION

Duloxetine-treated patients had better 6-month outcomes in terms of depression severity and clinical and functional remission, compared with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor-treated patients.

Use of Placebo in Supplementation Studies-Vitamin D Research Illustrates an Ethical Quandary

History has shown that without explicit and enforced guidelines, even well-intentioned researchers can fail to adequately examine the ethical pros and cons of study design choices. One area in which consensus does not yet exist is the use of placebo groups in vitamin supplementation studies. As a prime example, we focus on vitamin D research. We aim to provide an overview of the ethical issues in placebo-controlled studies and guide future discussion about the ethical use of placebo groups. Research in the field of vitamin D shows variation in how placebo groups are used. We outline four types of control groups in use: active-control, placebo-control with restrictions on supplementation, placebo-control without supplementation restrictions, and placebo-control with rescue repletion therapy. The first two types highlight discrete ethical issues: active-control trials limit the ability to detect a difference; placebo-control trials that restrict supplementation potentially place subjects at risk of undue harm. The final two, placebo-control without supplementation restrictions or with rescue repletion therapy, offer potential solutions to these ethical challenges. Building on this, guidelines should be established and enforced on the use of placebo in supplementation studies. Furthermore, the field of vitamin D research has the potential to set an example worthy of emulation.

Restoring function in major depressive disorder: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Functional impairment contributes to significant disability and economic burden in major depressive disorder (MDD). Treatment response is measured by improvement in depressive symptoms, but functional improvement often lags behind symptomatic improvement. Residual deficits are associated with relapse of depressive symptoms.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using the following terms: "major depressive disorder," "functional impairment," "functional outcomes," "recovery of function," "treatment outcome," "outcome assessment," "social functioning," "presenteeism," "absenteeism," "psychiatric status rating scales," and "quality of life." Search limits included publication date (January 1, 1995 to August 31, 2016), English language, and human clinical trials. Controlled, acute-phase, nonrecurrent MDD treatment studies in adults were included if a functional outcome was measured at baseline and endpoint.

RESULTS

The qualitative analysis included 35 controlled studies. The Sheehan Disability Scale was the most commonly used functional assessment. Antidepressant treatments significantly improved functional outcomes. Early treatment response predicted functional improvement, while baseline disease severity did not.

LIMITATIONS

Clinical studies utilized various methodologies and assessments for functional impairment, and were not standardized or adequately powered.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of synchronicity between symptomatic and functional improvement highlights an unmet need for MDD. Treatment guided by routine monitoring of symptoms and functionality may minimize residual functional impairments.

The effect of vortioxetine on overall patient functioning in patients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

The objectives of this meta-analysis of data from randomized, placebo-controlled studies were to assess the effect of vortioxetine on overall functioning (primary) and functional remission (secondary) using the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

Data from nine short-term (6/8 weeks) pivotal studies that included patient functioning assessments were included in this random-effects meta-analysis, which used aggregated study-level data for all therapeutic vortioxetine doses and a mixed-effect model for repeated measures using the full analysis set.

RESULTS

A total of 4,216 patients received ≥1 dose of study treatment (1,522 placebo, 2,694 vortioxetine 5-20 mg/day). At study end, the meta-analysis showed improvement for vortioxetine versus placebo (n = 911) in SDS total score (vortioxetine 5 mg, n = 564, change from baseline versus placebo [Δ] -0.24, p = NS; 10 mg, n = 445, Δ -1.68, p ≤ .001; 15 mg, n = 204, Δ -0.91, p = NS; 20 mg, n = 340, Δ -1.94, p ≤ .01). Functional remission (SDS total score ≤6) was observed with vortioxetine 10 mg (n = 170/573; odds ratio [OR] relative to placebo 1.7, p < .001) and 20 mg (n = 144/447; OR 1.6, p < .05), but not 5 mg (n = 207/757; OR 1.1, p = NS) or 15 mg (n = 92/295; OR 1.3, p = NS).

CONCLUSION

Vortioxetine 5-20 mg for 6/8 weeks improved overall patient functioning in patients with MDD. Relative to placebo, vortioxetine 10 and 20 mg demonstrated significant improvement in SDS total score and functional remission.

An observational study of duloxetine versus SSRI monotherapy for the treatment of painful physical symptoms in Japanese patients with major depressive disorder: primary analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of duloxetine monotherapy, in comparison with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) monotherapy, in the treatment of painful physical symptoms (PPS) in Japanese patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) in real-world clinical settings.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, 12-week prospective, observational study. This study enrolled MDD patients with at least moderate PPS, defined as a Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) average pain score (item 5) ≥3. Patients were treated with duloxetine or SSRIs (escitalopram, sertraline, paroxetine, or fluvoxamine) for 12 weeks, and PPS were assessed by BPI-SF average pain score. The primary outcome was early improvement in the BPI-SF average pain score at 4 weeks post-baseline.

RESULTS

A total of 523 patients were evaluated for treatment effectiveness (duloxetine N=273, SSRIs N=250). The difference in BPI-SF average pain score between the two groups was not statistically significant at 4 weeks post-baseline, the primary endpoint (least-squares mean change from baseline [95% confidence interval]: duloxetine, -2.8 [-3.1, -2.6]; SSRIs, -2.5 [-2.8, -2.3]; P=0.166). There was a numerical advantage for duloxetine in improvement from 4 to 12 weeks post-baseline, and the difference was statistically significant at 8 weeks post-baseline (least-squares mean change from baseline [95% confidence interval]: duloxetine, -3.6 [-3.9, -3.3]; SSRIs, -3.1 [-3.4, -2.8]; P=0.023). The 30% and 50% responder rates were significantly higher in patients treated with duloxetine at 4 and 8 weeks post-baseline. There were no serious adverse events experienced by duloxetine-treated patients. The rate of discontinuations due to adverse events was similar for duloxetine and the SSRIs (1.0% and 0.8% of patients, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In this observational study, BPI-SF improvement was not significantly different at 4 weeks, the primary endpoint; however, patients treated with duloxetine tended to show better improvement in PPS compared to those treated with SSRIs.

The Effects of Newer Antidepressants on Occupational Impairment in Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

A substantial proportion of the disease burden of major depressive disorder (MDD) results from impairments in occupational functioning, including disability and reduced productivity. Accumulating evidence suggests that antidepressants can improve functional as well as symptomatic outcomes in patients with MDD. We examined the treatment effects of newer antidepressants on occupational impairment in MDD, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov for the period 1 January 1992 to 15 June 2015 to identify RCTs of newer antidepressants (excluding tricyclic antidepressants and monoamine oxidase inhibitors), with or without a placebo condition, that included a validated measure of occupational functioning in patients with MDD. Abstracts were scanned for eligibility by two independent reviewers and investigators of unpublished studies were contacted to obtain data. Study data were extracted and double-entered for accuracy. We selected the Sheehan Disability Scale Work/School subscale (SDS-Work) for the meta-analysis because it was the most consistently used assessment of occupational impairment. Analysis employed a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The systematic review initially identified 42 RCTs but only 28 (67 %) had data on occupational outcomes that were published or obtained from investigators. The SDS-Work subscale was used in 25 of 28 trials; five other assessments of occupational functioning were used in seven trials. Data were synthesized from 17 placebo-controlled studies (n = 7031) that used the SDS-Work subscale. Antidepressants (n = 4722) were significantly superior to placebo (n = 2309) in improving SDS-Work scores at 8 weeks, with a mean difference of 0.73 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.86] and a standardized mean difference of 0.28 (95 % CI 0.23-0.33), representing small effects.

LIMITATIONS

Few included trials reported on the employment status of their samples, and most trials were of short-term treatment duration (8-12 weeks). Several RCTs that collected data on occupational outcomes were also excluded from the review and meta-analysis because their data were unpublished and unobtainable.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that newer antidepressants have a small, positive impact on occupational impairment in the short-term, but the clinical significance of this impact is questionable. To improve assessment of this important outcome, future research studies should use more comprehensive measures of occupational functioning, productivity and impairment, and longer treatment durations.

Functioning in patients with major depression treated with duloxetine or a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor in East Asia

PURPOSE

To assess and compare the levels of functioning in patients with major depressive disorder treated with either duloxetine with a daily dose of ≤60 mg or a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) as monotherapy for up to 6 months in a naturalistic setting in East Asia. In addition, this study examined the impact of painful physical symptoms (PPS) on the effects of these treatments.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data for this post hoc analysis were taken from a 6-month prospective observational study involving 1,549 patients with major depressive disorder without sexual dysfunction. The present analysis focused on a subgroup of patients from East Asia (n=587). Functioning was measured using the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). Depression severity was assessed using the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self Report. PPS were rated using the modified Somatic Symptom Inventory. A mixed model with repeated measures was fitted to compare the levels of functioning between duloxetine-treated (n=227) and SSRI-treated (n=225) patients, adjusting for baseline patient characteristics.

RESULTS

The mean SDS total score was similar between the two treatment cohorts (15.46 [standard deviation =6.11] in the duloxetine cohort and 16.36 [standard deviation =6.53] in the SSRI cohort, P=0.077) at baseline. Both descriptive and regression analyses confirmed improvement in functioning in both groups during follow-up, but duloxetine-treated patients achieved better functioning. At 24 weeks, the estimated mean SDS total score was 4.48 (standard error =0.80) in the duloxetine cohort, which was statistically significantly lower (ie, better functioning) than that of 6.76 (standard error =0.77) in the SSRI cohort (P<0.001). This treatment difference was more apparent in the subgroup of patients with PPS at baseline. Similar patterns were also observed for SDS subscores (work, social life, and family life).

CONCLUSION

Depressed patients treated with duloxetine achieved better functioning compared to those treated with SSRIs. This treatment difference was mostly driven by patients with PPS at baseline.

Assessment of functional outcomes by Sheehan Disability Scale in patients with major depressive disorder treated with duloxetine versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors

OBJECTIVE

We compared functional impairment outcomes assessed with Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) after treatment with duloxetine versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in patients with major depressive disorder.

METHODS

Data were pooled from four randomized studies comparing treatment with duloxetine and SSRIs (three double blind and one open label). Analysis of covariance, with last-observation-carried-forward approach for missing data, explored treatment differences between duloxetine and SSRIs on SDS changes during 8 to 12 weeks of acute treatment for the intent-to-treat population. Logistic regression analysis examined the predictive capacity of baseline patient characteristics for remission in functional impairment (SDS total score ≤ 6 and SDS item scores ≤ 2) at endpoint.

RESULTS

Included were 2193 patients (duloxetine n = 1029; SSRIs n = 835; placebo n = 329). Treatment with duloxetine and SSRIs resulted in significantly (p < 0.01) greater improvements in the SDS total score versus treatment with placebo. Higher SDS (p < 0.0001) or 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale baseline scores (p < 0.01) predicted lower probability of functional improvement after treatment with duloxetine or SSRIs. Female gender (p ≤ 0.05) predicted higher probability of functional improvement after treatment with duloxetine or SSRIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with SSRIs and duloxetine improved functional impairment in patients with major depressive disorder. Higher SDS or 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale baseline scores predicted less probability of SDS improvement; female gender predicted better improvement in functional impairment at endpoint.

Changes in energy during treatment of depression: an analysis of duloxetine in double-blind placebo-controlled trials

AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess how quickly and effectively duloxetine improves energy compared with placebo in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

Data from 10 randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials examining duloxetine (40-60 mg/day) vs. placebo in patients diagnosed with MDD were analysed. Change from baseline at Week 1 through Week 8 in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) retardation subscale score (Item 1 - depressed mood, Item 7 - work and activities, Item 8 - retardation and Item 14 - genital symptoms) was assessed with mixed model repeated measures analysis. Positive predictive values and negative predictive values were calculated for predictor analysis.

RESULTS

Patients treated with duloxetine (N = 1522) experienced statistically significantly (p ≤ 0.05) greater reductions in HAM-D retardation subscale scores vs. placebo (N = 1180) starting at Week 1 throughout Week 8 of treatment. Of the patients with early energy improvement (≥ 20% reduction in HAM-D retardation subscale scores) at Week 1, 48% achieved remission (HAM-D total score ≤ 7) at Week 8; 48% and 46% of patients who experienced early energy improvement at Weeks 2 and 4, respectively, achieved remission at Week 8.

DISCUSSION

We demonstrated that treatment with duloxetine, quickly and with increasing magnitude over treatment time, improves low energy symptoms. As early as 1 week after starting treatment with duloxetine, improvement of low energy may serve as a predictor of remission at end-point.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with duloxetine improves energy in patients with MDD and early response in retardation may serve as a modest predictor of remission at end-point.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov. Study Identifiers: NCT00036335; NCT00073411; NCT00406848 and NCT00536471. Studies HMAQa, HMAQb, HMATa, HMATb, HMBHa and HMBHb predate the registration requirement.

DATA POSTING

ClinicalTrials.gov. Study Identifiers: NCT00406848; NCT00536471.

Early effects of duloxetine on emotion recognition in healthy volunteers

The serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) duloxetine is an effective treatment for major depression and generalised anxiety disorder. Neuropsychological models of antidepressant drug action suggest therapeutic effects might be mediated by the early correction of maladaptive biases in emotion processing, including the recognition of emotional expressions. Sub-chronic administration of duloxetine (for two weeks) produces adaptive changes in neural circuitry implicated in emotion processing; however, its effects on emotional expression recognition are unknown. Forty healthy participants were randomised to receive either 14 days of duloxetine (60 mg/day, titrated from 30 mg after three days) or matched placebo (with sham titration) in a double-blind, between-groups, repeated-measures design. On day 0 and day 14 participants completed a computerised emotional expression recognition task that measured sensitivity to the six primary emotions. Thirty-eight participants (19 per group) completed their course of tablets and were included in the analysis. Results provide evidence that duloxetine, compared to placebo, may reduce the accurate recognition of sadness. Drug effects were driven by changes in participants' ability to correctly detect subtle expressions of sadness, with greater change observed in the placebo relative to the duloxetine group. These effects occurred in the absence of changes in mood. Our preliminary findings require replication, but complement recent evidence that sadness recognition is a therapeutic target in major depression, and a mechanism through which SNRIs could resolve negative biases in emotion processing to achieve therapeutic effects.

Impact of pretreatment with antidepressants on the efficacy of duloxetine in terms of mood symptoms and functioning: an analysis of 15 pooled major depressive disorder studies

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc analysis aimed to determine whether patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) in duloxetine trials who were antidepressant naive or who were previously exposed to antidepressants exhibited differences in efficacy and functioning.

METHOD

Data were pooled from 15 double-blind, placebo- and/or active-controlled duloxetine trials of adult patients with MDD conducted by Eli Lilly and Company. The individual studies took place between March 2000 and November 2009. Data were analyzed using 4 pretreatment subgroups: first-episode never treated, multiple-episode never treated, treated previously only with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and previously treated with antidepressants other than just SSRIs. Measures included the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) total and somatic symptom subscale scores, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score, and Sheehan Disability Scale total score. Response rates (50% and 30%) were based on the HDRS-17 total score and remission rates on either the HDRS-17 or MADRS total score.

RESULTS

Response and remission rates were significantly greater (P < .05 in 11 of 12 comparisons) for duloxetine versus placebo in the 4 subgroups. A trend of greater response and remission occurred for first-episode versus multiple-episode patients; both groups were generally higher than the antidepressant-treated groups. Mean changes in efficacy measures were mostly significantly greater (P < .05 in 13 of 16 comparisons) for duloxetine versus placebo within each pretreatment subgroup, with some (P < .05 in 2 of 24 comparisons) significant interaction effects between subgroups on HDRS-17 total and somatic symptoms scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Duloxetine was generally superior to placebo on response and remission rates and in mean change on efficacy measures. Response and remission rates were numerically greater for first-episode versus multiple-episode and drug-treated patients. Mean change differences on efficacy measures among the 4 subgroups were inconsistent. Duloxetine showed a similar therapeutic effect independent of episode frequency and antidepressant pretreatment.

Interventions to improve return to work in depressed people

BACKGROUND

Work disability such as sickness absence is common in people with depression.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing work disability in employees with depressive disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO until January 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs of work-directed and clinical interventions for depressed people that included sickness absence as an outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed trial quality. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to pool study results in the studies we judged to be sufficiently similar. We used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 studies with 26 study arms, involving 5996 participants with either a major depressive disorder or a high level of depressive symptoms. We judged 14 studies to have a high risk of bias and nine to have a low risk of bias. Work-directed interventions We identified five work-directed interventions. There was moderate quality evidence that a work-directed intervention added to a clinical intervention reduced sickness absence (SMD -0.40; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.14; 3 studies) compared to a clinical intervention alone.There was moderate quality evidence based on a single study that enhancing the clinical care in addition to regular work-directed care was not more effective than work-directed care alone (SMD -0.14; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.21).There was very low quality evidence based on one study that regular care by occupational physicians that was enhanced with an exposure-based return to work program did not reduce sickness absence compared to regular care by occupational physicians (non-significant finding: SMD 0.45; 95% CI -0.00 to 0.91). Clinical interventions, antidepressant medication Three studies compared the effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) to selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) medication on reducing sickness absence and yielded highly inconsistent results. Clinical interventions, psychological We found moderate quality evidence based on three studies that telephone or online cognitive behavioural therapy was more effective in reducing sick leave than usual primary or occupational care (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.45 to -0.01). Clinical interventions, psychological combined with antidepressant medication We found low quality evidence based on two studies that enhanced primary care did not substantially decrease sickness absence in the medium term (4 to 12 months) (SMD -0.02; 95% CI -0.15 to 0.12). A third study found no substantial effect on sickness absence in favour of this intervention in the long term (24 months).We found high quality evidence, based on one study, that a structured telephone outreach and care management program was more effective in reducing sickness absence than usual care (SMD - 0.21; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.05). Clinical interventions, exercise We found low quality evidence based on one study that supervised strength exercise reduced sickness absence compared to relaxation (SMD -1.11; 95% CI -1.68 to -0.54). We found moderate quality evidence based on two studies that aerobic exercise was no more effective in reducing sickness absence than relaxation or stretching (SMD -0.06; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.24).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate quality evidence that adding a work-directed intervention to a clinical intervention reduced the number of days on sick leave compared to a clinical intervention alone. We also found moderate quality evidence that enhancing primary or occupational care with cognitive behavioural therapy reduced sick leave compared to the usual care. A structured telephone outreach and care management program that included medication reduced sickness absence compared to usual care. However, enhancing primary care with a quality improvement program did not have a considerable effect on sickness absence. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on sickness absence of one antidepressant medication compared to another. More studies are needed on work-directed interventions. Clinical intervention studies should also include work outcomes to increase our knowledge on reducing sickness absence in depressed workers.

Comparison of physician-rating and self-rating scales for patients with major depressive disorder

Physician-rating scales remain the standard in antidepressant clinical trials. The current study aimed to examine the discrepancies between physician-rating scales and self-rating scales for symptoms and functioning, before and after treatment, in newly hospitalized patients. A total of 131 acutely ill inpatients with major depressive disorder were enrolled to receive 20 mg of fluoxetine daily for 6 weeks. Symptom severity and functioning were assessed at baseline and again at week 6. Symptom severity was rated using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) and the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale (ZDS). Functioning was measured by the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) and the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS). Pearson correlation coefficients (r) between HDRS-17 and ZDS and between GAF and WSAS were calculated at week 0 and week 6. Sensitivity to change was measured using effect sizes. One-hundred twelve patients completed the 6-week trial. After 6 weeks of treatment, correlations between HDRS-17 and ZDS or correlations between GAF and WSAS became larger from baseline to end point. All correlations were statistically significant (P < 0.001). Effect sizes measured by physician-rating scales (ie, HDRS-17 and GAF) were larger than by self-rating scales (ie, ZDS and WSAS). Correlations between baseline physician-rating scale scores and self-rating scale scores improved after 6 weeks of treatment. Physician-rating scales had larger effect sizes than self-rating scales. Physician-rating scales were more sensitive in detecting symptom or functional changes than self-rating scales.

Application of the Gradient Boosted method in randomised clinical trials: Participant variables that contribute to depression treatment efficacy of duloxetine, SSRIs or placebo

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).

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to improve cognitive dysfunction and functional ability in clinical depression--a systematic review

Cognitive dysfunction is of clinical significance and exerts longstanding implication on patients׳ function. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments of cognitive dysfunction are emerging. This review evaluates pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments of cognitive impairment primarily in the domains of memory, attention, processing speed and executive function in clinical depression. A total of 35 studies were retrieved from Pubmed, PsycInfo and Scopus after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results show that various classes of antidepressants exert improving effects on cognitive function across several cognitive domains. Specifically, studies suggest that SSRIs, the SSRE tianeptine, the SNRI duloxetine, vortioxetine and other antidepressants such as bupropion and moclobemide may exert certain improving effects on cognitive function in depression, such as in learning and memory and executive function. Class-specific cognitive domains or specific dose-response relationships were not identified yet. The few non-pharmacological studies conducted employing cognitive orientated treatments and cognitive remediation therapy show promising results for the improvement of cognitive impairment in depression. However, several methodological constraints of studies limit generalizability of the results and caution the interpretation. Future direction should consider the development of a neuropsychological consensus cognitive battery to support the discovery, clinical assessment, comparison of studies and registration of new agents in clinical depression.

Predictors of functional improvement in employed adults with major depressive disorder treated with desvenlafaxine

We carried out a secondary analysis of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of desvenlafaxine for major depressive disorder (MDD) to explore the associations between depressive symptoms and subtypes, and functional outcomes, including work functioning. Employed outpatients with MDD were assigned randomly in a 2 : 1 ratio to receive desvenlafaxine 50 mg/day or placebo for 12 weeks. Analyses were carried out post-hoc with the intent-to-treat (ITT) sample (N=427) and a prospectively defined modified ITT sample (N=310), composed of patients with baseline 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score of at least 20. Functional outcomes at week 12 included items and factors from the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Sheehan Disability Scale, and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire. In the modified ITT sample, but not in the ITT sample, desvenlafaxine-treated patients showed significantly greater improvement in several functional outcomes in the responder, nonanxious, and normal-energy patient subgroups. Improvement in the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score at week 2 predicted change at week 12 in several functional outcomes. Functional improvement at 12 weeks was greater in subgroups of patients and was also significantly predicted by early improvement in depressive symptoms in employed patients with MDD treated with desvenlafaxine.

Comparative efficacy and risk of harms of immediate- versus extended-release second-generation antidepressants: a systematic review with network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) has detrimental effects on an individual's personal life, leads to increased risk of comorbidities, and places an enormous economic burden on society. Several 'second-generation' antidepressants are available as both immediate-release (IR) and extended-release formulations. The advantage of extended-release formulations may be the potentially improved adherence and a lower risk of adverse events.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review to assess the comparative efficacy, risk of harms, and patients' adherence of IR and extended-release antidepressants for the treatment of MDD.

DATA SOURCE

English-language abstracts were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 1980 to October 2012, as well as from reference lists of pertinent review articles and grey literature searches.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 6 weeks' duration that compared an IR formulation with an extended-release formulation of the same antidepressant in adult patients with MDD. We also included placebo-controlled trials to conduct a network meta-analysis. To assess harms and adherence, in addition to RCTs, we searched for observational studies with ≥1,000 participants and a follow-up of ≥12 weeks.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

We dually reviewed abstracts and full texts and assessed quality ratings. Lacking head-to-head evidence for many comparisons of interest, we conducted network meta-analyses using Bayesian methods. Our outcome measure of choice was response on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

RESULTS

We located seven head-to-head trials and 94 placebo- and active-controlled trials for network meta-analysis. Overall, our analyses indicate that IR and extended-release formulations do not differ substantially with respect to efficacy and risk of harms. The evidence is mixed with respect to differences in adherence, indicating lower adherence for IR formulations.

LIMITATIONS

The lack of head-to-head comparisons for many drugs compromises our conclusions. Network meta-analyses have methodological limitations that need to be taken into consideration when interpreting findings.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence currently shows no clear differences between the two formulations and therefore we cannot recommend a first choice. However, if adherence or compliance with one medication is an issue, then clinicians and patients should consider the alternative medication. If adherence or costs are a problem with one formulation, consideration of the other formulation to provide an adequate treatment trial is reasonable.

Impact of patient selection and study characteristics on signal detection in placebo-controlled trials with antidepressants

An increasing rate of antidepressant trials fail due to large placebo responses. This analysis aimed to identify variables influencing signal detection in clinical trials of major depressive disorder. Patient-level data of randomized patients with a duloxetine dose ≥ 60 mg/day were obtained from Lilly. Total scores of the Hamilton Depression Rating scale (HAM-D) were used as efficacy endpoints. In total, 4661 patients from 14 studies were included in the analysis. The overall effect size (ES), based on the HAM-D total score at endpoint, between duloxetine and placebo was -0.272. Although no statistically significant interactions were found, the following results for factors influencing ES were seen: a very low ES (-0.157) in patients in the lowest baseline HAM-D category and in patients recruited in the last category of the recruitment period (-0.122). A higher ES in patients recruited in centers with a site-size at but not more than 2.5 times the average site-size for the study (-0.345). Study characteristics that resulted in low signal detection in our database were: <80% study completers, a HAM-D placebo response >5 points, a high variability of placebo response (SD > 7 points HAM-D), >6 post baseline visits per study, and use of an active control drug. Simpler trial designs, more homogeneous and mid-sized study sites, a primary analysis based on a higher cutoff blinded to investigators to avoid the influence of score inflation in mild patients and, if possible, studies without an active control group could lead to a better signal detection of antidepressive efficacy.

The risk of bleeding with duloxetine treatment in patients who use nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs): analysis of placebo-controlled trials and post-marketing adverse event reports

Purpose

To assess the safety of duloxetine with regards to bleeding-related events in patients who concomitantly did, versus did not, use nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including aspirin.

Methods

Safety data from all placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine conducted between December 1993 and December 2010, and post-marketing reports from duloxetine-treated patients in the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), were searched for bleeding-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). The percentage of patients with bleeding-related TEAEs was summarized and compared between treatment groups in all the placebo-controlled studies. Differences between NSAID user and non-user subgroups from clinical trial data were analyzed by a logistic regression model that included therapy, NSAID use, and therapy-by-NSAID subgroup interaction. In addition, to determine if higher duloxetine doses are associated with an increased incidence of bleeding-related TEAEs, and whether the use of concomitant NSAIDs might influence the dose effect if one exists, placebo-controlled clinical trials with duloxetine fixed doses of 60 mg, 120 mg, and placebo were analyzed. Also, the incidence of bleeding-related TEAEs reported for duloxetine alone was compared with the incidence in patients treated with duloxetine and concomitant NSAIDs. Finally, the number of bleeding-related cases reported for duloxetine in the FAERS database was compared with the numbers reported for all other drugs.

Results

Across duloxetine clinical trials, there was a significantly greater incidence of bleeding-related TEAEs in duloxetine- versus placebo-treated patients overall and also in those patients who did not take concomitant NSAIDS, but no significant difference was seen among those patients who did take concomitant NSAIDS. There was no significant difference in the incidence of bleeding-related TEAEs in the subset of patients treated with duloxetine 120 mg once daily versus those treated with 60 mg once daily regardless of concomitant NSAID use. The combination of duloxetine and NSAIDs was associated with a statistically significantly higher incidence of bleeding-related TEAEs compared with duloxetine alone. A similarly higher incidence of bleeding-related TEAEs was seen in patients treated with placebo and concomitant NSAIDs compared with placebo alone. Bleeding-related TEAEs reported in the FAERS database were disproportionally more frequent for duloxetine taken with NSAIDs compared with the full FAERS background, but there was no difference in the reporting of bleeding-related TEAEs when the cases reported for duloxetine taken with NSAIDs were compared against the cases reported for NSAIDs alone.

Conclusion

Concomitant use of NSAIDs was associated with a higher incidence of bleeding-related TEAEs in clinical trials regardless of whether patients were taking duloxetine or placebo; bleeding-related TEAEs did not appear to increase along with duloxetine dose regardless of NSAID use. In spontaneously reported post-marketing data, the combination of duloxetine and NSAID use was not associated with an increased reporting of bleeding-related events when compared to NSAID use alone.

Treatment response for acute depression is not associated with number of previous episodes: lack of evidence for a clinical staging model for major depressive disorder

Mental illness has been observed to follow a neuroprogressive course, commencing with prodrome, then onset, recurrence and finally chronic illness. In bipolar disorder and schizophrenia responsiveness to treatment mirrors these stages of illness progression, with greater response to treatment in the earlier stages of illness and greater treatment resistance in chronic late stage illness. Using data from 5627 participants in 15 controlled trials of duloxetine, comparator arm (paroxetine, venlafaxine, escitalopram) or placebo for the treatment of an acute depressive episode, the relationship between treatment response and number of previous depressive episodes was determined. Data was dichotomised for comparisons between participants who had >3 previous episodes (n=1697) or ≤3 previous episodes (n=3930), and additionally for no previous episodes (n=1381) or at least one previous episode (n=4246). Analyses were conducted by study arm for each clinical trial, and results were then pooled. There was no significant difference between treatment response and number of previous depressive episodes. This unexpected finding suggests that treatments to reduce symptoms of depression during acute illness do not lose efficacy for patients with a longer history of illness.

Efficacy and safety of duloxetine 60 mg once daily in major depressive disorder: a review with expert commentary

OBJECTIVE

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a significant public health concern and challenges health care providers to intervene with appropriate treatment. This article provides an overview of efficacy and safety information for duloxetine 60 mg/day in the treatment of MDD, including its effect on painful physical symptoms (PPS).

DESIGN

A literature search was conducted for articles and pooled analyses reporting information regarding the use of duloxetine 60 mg/day in placebo-controlled trials.

SETTING

Placebo-controlled, active-comparator, short- and long-term studies were reviewed.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult (≥18 years) patients with MDD.

MEASUREMENTS

Effect sizes for continuous outcome (change from baseline to endpoint) and categorical outcome (response and remission rates) were calculated using the primary measures of 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) or Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. The Brief Pain Inventory and Visual Analogue Scales were used to assess improvements in PPS. Glass estimation method was used to calculate effect sizes, and numbers needed to treat (NNT) were calculated based on HAMD-17 and MADRS total scores for remission and response rates. Safety data were examined via the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and by mean changes in vital-sign measures.

RESULTS

Treatment with duloxetine was associated with small-to-moderate effect sizes in the range of 0.12 to 0.72 for response rate and 0.07 to 0.65 for remission rate. NNTs were in the range of 3 to 16 for response and 3 to 29 for remission. Statistically significant improvements (p≤0.05) were observed in duloxetine-treated patients compared to placebo-treated patients in PPS and quality of life. The safety profile of the 60-mg dose was consistent with duloxetine labeling, with the most commonly observed significant adverse events being nausea, dry mouth, diarrhea, dizziness, constipation, fatigue, and decreased appetite.

CONCLUSION

These results reinforce the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine 60 mg/day as an effective short- and long-term treatment for adults with MDD. The evidence of the independent analgesic effect of duloxetine 60 mg/day supports its use as a treatment for patients with PPS associated with depression. This review is limited by the fact that it included randomized clinical trials with different study designs. Furthermore, data from randomized controlled trials may not generalize well to real clinical practice.