Real-world outcomes in patients with depression treated with duloxetine or a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor in East Asia

A Taiwanese study on real-world evidence with vortioxetine in patients with major depression in Asia (TREVIDA)

OBJECTIVE

The TREVIDA study aimed to evaluate vortioxetine for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in Taiwanese adults.

METHODS

Patients with active depressive episode were recruited in this non-interventional, prospective, multi-site study conducted between June 2019 and August 2020 in Taiwan. Patient eligibility was independent of the physician's decision to prescribe vortioxetine for an MDD episode. Vortioxetine was initiated on the first visit. Depression severity, cognitive function, work productivity, functioning and safety were evaluated over 3 months.

RESULTS

Overall, 242 patients were analyzed. At baseline, 70.7% and 90.4% of patients had moderately severe-to-severe depression based on PHQ-9 (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) and TDQ (Taiwanese Depression Questionnaire), respectively. By Month 3, significant improvements from baseline in depression severity (mean [SD] changes in PHQ-9, TDQ and CGI-S [Clinical Global Impression-Severity]: -6.3 [7.3]; -13.2 [14.0]; -1.5 [1.3], respectively), cognitive function (mean [SD] change in PDQ-D: -8.0 [17.5]), functioning (mean [SD] change in SDS: -5.4 [7.6]), and presenteeism (38.9% from 56.3%), work productivity loss (40.9% from 58.7%) and activity impairment (43.2% from 61.0%) were observed (p < .001 for all). By month 3, patient-reported (PHQ-9) response and remission rates were 43.4% and 52.9%, respectively; physician-reported (CGI-S) response and remission rates were 29.0% and 31.6%, respectively. Vortioxetine was well-tolerated and no unexpected side effects were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Vortioxetine reduced depression severity and improved cognitive function, work productivity, and functioning in Taiwanese patients with MDD in the real-world setting. Vortioxetine was well-tolerated in this Taiwanese population.

Health state utility values in major depressive disorder treated with pharmacological interventions: a systematic literature review

Background

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is associated with decreased patient well-being and symptoms that can cause substantial impairments in patient functioning and even lead to suicide. Worldwide, MDD currently causes the second-most years lived with disability and is predicted to become the leading cause of disability by 2030. Utility values, capturing patient quality of life, are required in economic evaluations for new treatments undergoing reimbursement submissions. We aimed to identify health state utility values (HSUVs) and disutilities in MDD for use in future economic evaluations of pharmacological treatments.

Methods

Embase, PubMed, Econlit, and Cochrane databases, plus gray literature, were searched from January 1998 to December 21, 2018, with no language or geographical restrictions, for relevant studies that reported HSUVs and disutilities for patients with MDD receiving pharmacological interventions.

Results

443 studies were identified; 79 met the inclusion criteria. We focused on a subgroup of 28 articles that reported primary utility data from 16 unique studies of MDD treated with pharmacological interventions. HSUVs were elicited using EQ-5D (13/16, 81%; EQ-5D-3L: 11/16, 69%; EQ-5D-3L or EQ-5D-5L not specified: 2/16), EQ-VAS (5/16, 31%), and standard gamble (1/16, 6%). Most studies reported baseline HSUVs defined by study entry criteria. HSUVs for a first or recurrent major depressive episode (MDE) ranged from 0.33 to 0.544 and expanded from 0.2 to 0.61 for patients with and without painful physical symptoms, respectively. HSUVs for an MDE with inadequate treatment response ranged from 0.337 to 0.449. Three studies reported HSUVs defined by MADRS or HAMD-17 clinical thresholds. There was a large amount of heterogeneity in patient characteristics between the studies. One study reported disutility estimates associated with treatment side effects.

Conclusions

Published HSUVs in MDD, elicited using methods accepted by health technology assessment bodies, are available for future economic evaluations. However, the evidence base is limited, and it is important to select appropriate HSUVs for the intervention being evaluated and that align with clinical health state definitions used within an economic model. Future studies are recommended to elicit HSUVs for new treatments and their side effects and add to the existing evidence where data are lacking.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12955-021-01723-x.

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.

Functional Impairment and Painful Physical Symptoms in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder Treated with Antidepressants: Real-World Evidence from the Middle East

Background

The Global Burden of Disease 2010 study reported the relative size of major depressive disorder (MDD) burden to be greater in the Middle East and North Africa than anywhere else. However, little research has been carried out to examine the comparative effectiveness of antidepressants in this region.

Objective

To assess and compare functioning levels in Middle Eastern patients with MDD treated with either duloxetine or a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), and to examine the impacts of depression-related pain on functioning by the type of treatment.

Method

This post-hoc analysis, which focused on Middle Eastern patients, used data from a 6-month prospective observational study that included 1,549 MDD patients without sexual dysfunction. Levels of functional impairment and depression-related pain were assessed using the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) and the modified Somatic Symptom Inventory, respectively. A mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) was employed.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 37.3 (SD=8.4) years, and 34.6% were female. Patient functioning was, on average, moderately impaired at baseline, but improved substantially during follow-up in both the duloxetine (n=152) and the SSRI (n=123) cohorts. The MMRM results showed a lower level of functional impairment at 24 weeks in the duloxetine cohort than in the SSRI cohort (p<0.001). Pain severity at baseline was positively associated with functional impairment during follow-up only in the SSRI cohort (p=0.003).

Conclusion

Duloxetine-treated MDD patients achieved better functioning than SSRI-treated patients. This treatment difference was partly driven by depression-related pain.

Factors associated with and impact of pain persistence in Asian patients with depression: a 3-month, prospective observational study

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the depression outcomes and the factors associated with pain persistence in Asian patients treated for major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

This observational study enrolled 909 Asian adult inpatients and outpatients. The presence or absence of painful physical symptoms and severity of depression were assessed at baseline and after three months of treatment. Factors associated with pain persistence and outcome of depression were investigated using regression methods.

RESULTS

Of the 909 patients enrolled, 684 were included in the analysis and evaluated at three months. Of them, 335 (49%) had no pain at baseline nor follow up, 198 (29%) at baseline but not at follow up and 151 (22%) in both assessments. Pain more frequently persisted in patients who were divorced/widowed/separated, with >1 comorbidity, aged <40 years, with previous MDD episodes, taking pain medications, and with greater depression severity. At three months, response/remission were 84%/73% in the no pain group, 83%/63% in the remitted pain group and 46%/25% in the persistent pain group (differences all p < .0001; all bivariate comparisons were statistically significant with p < .05 except response between no pain and remitted pain). Persistent pain was also associated with less improvement in quality of life and health state.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain should be taken into account when diagnosing MDD and when tailoring therapy.

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.

Recovery in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD): results of a 6-month, multinational, observational study

Not all individuals treated for major depressive disorder (MDD) achieve recovery. This observational study examined the recovery rates in MDD patients and the patient characteristics associated with achieving recovery in a naturalistic clinical setting. Recovery was defined as having both clinical and functional remission. Data for this post hoc analysis were taken from a 24-week prospective, observational study that involved 1,549 MDD patients. Clinical remission was assessed using the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report and functional remission through the Sheehan Disability Scale and no days of reduced productivity in the previous week. Generalized estimating equation regression models were used to examine the baseline factors associated with recovery during follow-up. Clinical and functional remission was achieved in 70.6% and 56.1% of the MDD patients, respectively. MDD patients who achieved recovery (52.1%) were significantly less likely to have impaired levels of functioning, concurrent medical or psychiatric conditions, low levels of education, or nonadherence to therapy at follow-up. The level of functioning during the index episode seems to be a better predictor of recovery than symptom severity. Therefore, the level of functioning should be considered while determining recovery from depression.

Relationships between Sleep Problems and Psychiatric Comorbidities among China's Wenchuan Earthquake Survivors Remaining in Temporary Housing Camps

Earthquake survivors are a diverse population. This study focused on a special group of earthquake survivors, who had still stayed in temporary housing camps for about 2 years after China's Wenchuan Earthquake rather than those who moved back to rebuild their lives or immigrated to large cities to seek new lives. The research goals were to (1) assess their sleep problems as well as their PTSD, depression and anxiety and (2) examine the relationship between different dimensions of sleep quality and PTSD, depression, and anxiety among these survivors. Three-hundred and eighty seven earthquake survivors who remained in temporary housing camps and had sleep problems were recruited 17-27 months after Wenchuan Earthquake. Four standardized instruments-The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version, Self-rating Depression Scale, Self-rating Anxiety Scale, and face-to-face one-on-one structured interviews were used to assess these survivors' sleep quality, PTSD, depression, and anxiety. It was found that (1) 83.20% of these survivors reported having sleep problems, and 79.33% of them considered insomnia as the most common sleep problem; (2) 12.14% suffered PTSD, 36.43% experienced depression, and 38.24% had anxiety; (3) sleep disturbance, sleep medication use, and subjective sleep quality were significantly related to PTSD; (4) habitual sleep efficiency, sleep disturbance, sleep medication use, and daytime dysfunction were significantly related to depression; and (5) sleep disturbance, sleep medication use, and daytime dysfunction were significantly related to anxiety. Clinic implications of the study are discussed.

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.

Health-related quality of life in patients with depression treated with duloxetine or a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor in a naturalistic outpatient setting

PURPOSE

To assess the levels of quality of life (QoL) in major depressive disorder (MDD) patients treated with either duloxetine or a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) as monotherapy for up to 6 months in a naturalistic clinical setting mostly in the Middle East, East Asia, and Mexico.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data for this post hoc analysis were taken from a 6-month prospective observational study involving 1,549 MDD patients without sexual dysfunction. QoL was measured using the EQ-5D instrument. Depression severity was measured using the Clinical Global Impression of Severity and the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (QIDS-SR16), while pain severity was measured using the pain items of the Somatic Symptom Inventory. Regression analyses were performed to compare the levels of QoL between duloxetine-treated (n=556) and SSRI-treated (n=776) patients, adjusting for baseline patient characteristics.

RESULTS

These MDD patients, on average, had moderately impaired QoL at baseline, and the level of QoL impairment was similar between the duloxetine and SSRI groups (EQ-5D score of 0.46 [SD =0.32] in the former and 0.47 [SD =0.33] in the latter, P=0.066). Both descriptive and regression analyses confirmed QoL improvements in both groups during follow-up, but duloxetine-treated patients achieved higher QoL. At 24 weeks, the estimated mean EQ-5D score was 0.90 in the duloxetine cohort, which was statistically significantly higher than that of 0.83 in the SSRI cohort (P<0.001). Notably, pain severity at baseline was also statistically significantly associated with poorer QoL during follow-up (P<0.001). In addition, this association was observed in the subgroup of SSRI-treated patients (P<0.001), but not in that of duloxetine-treated patients (P=0.479).

CONCLUSION

Depressed patients treated with duloxetine achieved higher QoL, compared to those treated with SSRIs, possibly in part due to its moderating effect on the link between pain and poorer QoL.