A randomized, double-blind comparison of duloxetine and venlafaxine in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder - PubMed
Clinical Trial
A randomized, double-blind comparison of duloxetine and venlafaxine in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder
David G S Perahia et al. J Psychiatr Res. 2008 Jan.
Abstract
Background: Clinical trials assessing antidepressant therapies typically include separate assessments of efficacy (benefit) and adverse events (risk). Global benefit-risk (GBR) assessment allows the simultaneous evaluation of both efficacy and adverse events. The objective was to compare the serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) duloxetine and venlafaxine using GBR assessment.
Methods: Data were combined from two similarly designed, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group studies in which patients with major depressive disorder were randomized to either duloxetine 60 mg/day or venlafaxine extended release (XR) 150 mg/day (75 mg/day for the first 2 weeks) for a 6-week fixed dosing period followed by an additional 6 weeks of treatment in which the dose could be increased up to 120 mg/day for duloxetine and 225 mg/day for venlafaxine. Patients completing the study (or receiving study drug for 2 weeks or more) were eligible to enter a taper period where the dose of study drug was gradually reduced over 1-2 weeks prior to drug discontinuation. The primary outcome measure (defined a priori) was the GBR comparison of duloxetine 60 mg/day and venlafaxine XR 150 mg/day after 6 weeks of treatment. In the GBR analysis, benefit was defined as remission at endpoint [17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD17) 7]. Risk was defined by four categories: patients having either no adverse events (AEs), AEs with no severity rating greater than moderate, AEs with at least one severity rating of severe, or having discontinued with a reason of self-reported adverse event (regardless of any AE severity). Additional efficacy measures included HAMD17 total score and subscales, HAMA, CGI-S, and PGI-I. Safety and tolerability were assessed via analysis of reasons for discontinuation, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), discontinuation-emergent adverse events, and changes in vital signs, weight, and laboratory analytes.
Results: There were no significant differences between duloxetine 60 mg/day and venlafaxine 150 mg/day as measured by GBR assessment at the end of 6 weeks (-1.418 vs. -1.079, P = 0.217) or 12 weeks (-0.349 vs. -0.121, P = 0.440), nor were there significant differences between treatment groups on the majority of efficacy measures. Significantly more venlafaxine-treated patients (74.5%) completed 12 weeks of treatment compared with duloxetine-treated patients (64.8%, P =.006). Nausea was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) for both drugs, and was significantly higher with duloxetine 60 mg/day compared to venlafaxine 150 mg/day during the first 6 weeks of treatment (43.6% vs. 35.0%, P0.05). During the taper period, significantly more venlafaxine-treated patients reported discontinuation-emergent adverse events (DEAEs) than duloxetine-treated patients. From a safety perspective, significantly more venlafaxine-treated patients (n = 4) than duloxetine-treated patients (n=0, P =.047) experienced sustained elevations of systolic blood pressure during the fixed dosing period. Otherwise, there were few significant differences in safety measures found between treatment groups during 6 and 12 weeks of therapy.
Conclusions: Duloxetine 60 mg/day and venlafaxine XR 150 mg/day have similar benefit-risk profiles on the basis of a comparison utilizing GBR assessment. The implications of the more subtle differences between these drugs, as well as for interpreting the GBR assessment, are discussed.
Similar articles
-
Wohlreich MM, Mallinckrodt CH, Prakash A, Watkin JG, Carter WP. Wohlreich MM, et al. Depress Anxiety. 2007;24(1):41-52. doi: 10.1002/da.20209. Depress Anxiety. 2007. PMID: 16845641 Clinical Trial.
-
Detke MJ, Wiltse CG, Mallinckrodt CH, McNamara RK, Demitrack MA, Bitter I. Detke MJ, et al. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2004 Dec;14(6):457-70. doi: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2004.01.002. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2004. PMID: 15589385 Clinical Trial.
-
Pigott TA, Prakash A, Arnold LM, Aaronson ST, Mallinckrodt CH, Wohlreich MM. Pigott TA, et al. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007 Jun;23(6):1303-18. doi: 10.1185/030079907X188107. Epub 2007 Apr 27. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007. PMID: 17559729 Clinical Trial.
-
Shelton RC, Prakash A, Mallinckrodt CH, Wohlreich MM, Raskin J, Robinson MJ, Detke MJ. Shelton RC, et al. Int J Clin Pract. 2007 Aug;61(8):1337-48. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01444.x. Int J Clin Pract. 2007. PMID: 17627710 Review.
-
Hudson JI, Wohlreich MM, Kajdasz DK, Mallinckrodt CH, Watkin JG, Martynov OV. Hudson JI, et al. Hum Psychopharmacol. 2005 Jul;20(5):327-41. doi: 10.1002/hup.696. Hum Psychopharmacol. 2005. PMID: 15912562 Review.
Cited by
-
Shi N, Durden E, Torres A, Cao Z, Happich M. Shi N, et al. Depress Res Treat. 2012;2012:815363. doi: 10.1155/2012/815363. Epub 2012 Jun 7. Depress Res Treat. 2012. PMID: 22720149 Free PMC article.
-
Getting the balance right: Established and emerging therapies for major depressive disorders.
Perović B, Jovanović M, Miljković B, Vezmar S. Perović B, et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2010 Sep 7;6:343-64. doi: 10.2147/ndt.s10485. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2010. PMID: 20856599 Free PMC article.
-
Gartlehner G, Thaler K, Hansen RA, Gaynes BN. Gartlehner G, et al. Drug Saf. 2009;32(12):1159-73. doi: 10.2165/11318930-000000000-00000. Drug Saf. 2009. PMID: 19916583 Review.
-
Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of New Generation Antidepressants.
Khoo AL, Zhou HJ, Teng M, Lin L, Zhao YJ, Soh LB, Mok YM, Lim BP, Gwee KP. Khoo AL, et al. CNS Drugs. 2015 Aug;29(8):695-712. doi: 10.1007/s40263-015-0267-6. CNS Drugs. 2015. PMID: 26293743 Review.
-
Ahmadian E, Babaei H, Mohajjel Nayebi A, Eftekhari A, Eghbal MA. Ahmadian E, et al. Adv Pharm Bull. 2016 Dec;6(4):521-530. doi: 10.15171/apb.2016.066. Epub 2016 Dec 22. Adv Pharm Bull. 2016. PMID: 28101459 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical