Dataset Information

An Analysis of Relapse Rates and Predictors of Relapse in 2 Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trials of Desvenlafaxine for Major Depressive Disorder.

ABSTRACT: To evaluate relapse rates and predictors of relapse in 2 randomized, placebo-controlled trials of desvenlafaxine for major depressive disorder (MDD).Study 1: week 8 responders to open-label desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d entered a 12-week open-label stability phase. Patients with a continuing, stable response at week 20 were randomly assigned to 6-month, double-blind treatment (desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d or placebo). Study 1 was conducted between June 2009 and March 2011 at 87 sites worldwide. Study 2: week 12 responders to open-label desvenlafaxine 200 or 400 mg/d were randomly assigned to 6-month, double-blind treatment (desvenlafaxine 200 mg/d, 400 mg/d, or placebo). Study 2 was conducted between June 2003 and August 2005 at 49 sites in Europe, the United States, and Taiwan. Relapse was assessed separately by study with log-rank test using protocol definitions of relapse and with 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) score ? 16 at any time during the double-blind phase. Kaplan-Meier estimates evaluated time to relapse, censoring data at months 1, 2, and 3 and overall; treatments were compared using hazard ratios. Cox proportional hazards models assessed relapse predictors.Overall relapse rates for all definitions were significantly lower for desvenlafaxine versus placebo for both studies (all P ? .002). In study 1, rates were significantly lower for desvenlafaxine versus placebo at month 2 (P = .016) and month 3 (P = .007) using the protocol definition. In study 2, relapse rates were significantly lower for desvenlafaxine versus placebo at months 1, 2, and 3 for both definitions (P < .0001-.002). Hazard ratios were similar at months 1, 2, and 3 and overall for both studies (0.382-0.639).Desvenlafaxine 50 to 400 mg/d effectively prevented relapse at 6 months. Desvenlafaxine significantly prevented relapse early (month 1) versus placebo only in study 2.ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers:NCT00887224 and NCT00075257.

SUBMITTER: McIntyre RS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4468882 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An Analysis of Relapse Rates and Predictors of Relapse in 2 Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trials of Desvenlafaxine for Major Depressive Disorder.

McIntyre Roger S RS Fayyad Rana S RS Guico-Pabia Christine J CJ Boucher Matthieu M

The primary care companion for CNS disorders 20150226 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate relapse rates and predictors of relapse in 2 randomized, placebo-controlled trials of desvenlafaxine for major depressive disorder (MDD).<h4>Method</h4>Study 1: week 8 responders to open-label desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d entered a 12-week open-label stability phase. Patients with a continuing, stable response at week 20 were randomly assigned to 6-month, double-blind treatment (desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d or placebo). Study 1 was conducted between June 2009 and March 2011 at ...[more]

PMID: 26137355

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine (25-50 mg/d) compared with placebo in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS:Outpatient children (7-11 years) and adolescents (12-17 years) who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for MDD and had screening and baseline Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) total scores >40 were randomly assigned to 8-week treatment with placebo, desvenlafaxine (25, 35, or 50 mg/d based on baseline weight), or fluoxetine (20 mg/d). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in CDRS-R total score at week 8, analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures. Secondary efficacy endpoints included week 8 Clinical Global Impressions-Severity, Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I), and response (CGI-I ≤ 2). Safety assessments included adverse events, physical and vital sign measurements, laboratory evaluations, electrocardiogram, and the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale. RESULTS:The safety population included 339 patients (children, n = 130; adolescents, n = 209). The primary endpoint, change from baseline in CDRS-R total score at week 8, did not statistically separate from placebo, for either desvenlafaxine (adjusted mean [standard error] change, -22.6 [1.17]) or fluoxetine (-24.8 [1.17]; placebo, -23.1 [1.18]). Week 8 CGI-I response rates were significantly greater for fluoxetine (78.2%; p = 0.017) than for placebo (62.6%); desvenlafaxine (68.7%) did not differ from placebo. Other secondary outcomes were consistent with those obtained with CDRS-R. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable among treatment groups (desvenlafaxine, 60.0%; placebo, 70.5%; and fluoxetine, 64.3%). CONCLUSION:Desvenlafaxine did not demonstrate efficacy for treating MDD in children and adolescents in this trial. Because neither desvenlafaxine nor the reference medication, fluoxetine, demonstrated a statistically significant difference from placebo on the primary endpoint, this was considered a failed trial and no efficacy conclusions can be drawn. Desvenlafaxine 25-50 mg/d was generally safe and well tolerated in children and adolescents in this study.

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding patterns of relapse in patients who respond to antidepressant treatment can inform strategies for prevention of relapse. We aimed to identify distinct trajectories of depression severity, assess whether similar or different trajectory classes exist for patients who continued or discontinued active treatment, and test whether clinical predictors of trajectory class membership exist using pooled data from clinical trials.MethodsWe analysed individual patient data from four double-blind discontinuation clinical trials of duloxetine or fluoxetine versus placebo in major depression from before 2012 (n=1462). We modelled trajectories of relapse up to 26 weeks during double-blind treatment. Trajectories of depression severity, as measured by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score, were identified in the entire sample, and separately in groups in which antidepressants had been continued or discontinued, using growth mixture models. Predictors of trajectory class membership were assessed with weighted logistic regression.FindingsWe identified similar relapse trajectories and two trajectories of stable depression scores in the normal range on active medication and on placebo. Active treatment significantly lowered the odds of membership in the relapse trajectory (odds ratio 0·47, 95% CI 0·37-0·61), whereas female sex (1·56, 1·23-2·06), shorter length of time with clinical response by 1 week (1·10, 1·06-1·15), and higher Clinical Global Impression score at baseline (1·28, 1·01-1·62) increased the odds. Overall, the protective effect of antidepressant medication relative to placebo on the risk of being classified as a relapser was about 13% (33% vs 46%).InterpretationThe existence of similar relapse trajectories on active medication and on placebo suggests that there is no specific relapse signature associated with antidepressant discontinuation. Furthermore, continued treatment offers only modest protection against relapse. These data highlight the need to incorporate treatment strategies that prevent relapse as part of the treatment of depression.FundingNational Institutes of Health, the US Department of Veterans Affairs Alcohol Research Center, and National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify predictors and moderators of relapse during continuation treatment among depressed youth randomly assigned to fluoxetine or placebo.MethodsPotential predictors and moderators of relapse that were identified by a literature review were examined in 102 youth (aged 7-18 years), diagnosed with major depressive disorder as defined by DSM-IV criteria, who were considered responders after 12 weeks of fluoxetine treatment (acute phase). This randomized controlled trial was conducted from June 2000 through October 2005. Each candidate predictor and moderator was evaluated with a multiple logistic regression model to examine the main and interaction effects of 12 weeks of continuation treatment on relapse status (at week 24) while controlling for age, sex, and depression severity. Relapse was defined as a Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised total score ≥ 40 with worsening of depressive symptoms for at least 2 weeks.ResultsYouth with comorbid dysthymia (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.88, P = .03) and low levels of family leadership (adjusted OR = 1.39, P = .006) at baseline are more likely to relapse than their counterparts. Higher levels of depression (OR = 1.21, P = .003) and higher levels of residual sleep disturbance (insomnia) (OR = 6.74, P = .006) and irritability (OR = 7.40, P = .01) at the end of acute treatment (12 weeks) increased the odds of relapse. Higher levels of depressive symptoms at baseline in youth who remained on fluoxetine for continuation treatment were associated with increased odds of relapse (adjusted OR = 1.14, P = .03). Females who remained on fluoxetine for the duration of continuation treatment were almost 9 times more likely to relapse than males (adjusted OR = 8.86, P = .007).ConclusionsThis is the first large continuation study for treatment of depression in youth to examine predictors and moderators of relapse. Youth with greater improvement by the end of 3 months of treatment were less likely to relapse than those with continued depressive symptoms. In addition, youth with comorbid dysthymia had 3 times greater risk of relapse that those without. Targeting residual symptoms, particularly sleep disturbance and irritability, earlier in treatment may reduce relapse rates.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00332787.

Project description:Vortioxetine was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in September 2013 for treating major depressive disorder (MDD). Thus far, a number of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of vortioxetine have been conducted in patients with MDD. We performed a meta-analysis to increase the statistical power of these studies and enhance our current understanding of the role of vortioxetine in the treatment of MDD.We performed an extensive search of databases and the clinical trial registry. The mean change in total scores on the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and the Montgomery- Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) from the baseline were the primary outcome measures. The secondary efficacy measures were the response and remission rates, as defined by a 50% or greater reduction in HAM-D/MADRS total scores and as a score of 10 or less in the MADRS and 7 or less in the HAM-D total scores at the end of treatment.We included 7 published and 5 unpublished short-term (6-12 wk) RCTs in our meta-analysis. Vortioxetine was significantly more effective than placebo, with an effect size (standardized mean difference [SMD]) of -0.217 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.313 to -0.122) and with odds ratios (ORs) for response and remission of 1.652 (95% CI 1.321 to 2.067) and 1.399 (95% CI 1.104 to 1.773), respectively. Those treated with vortioxetine did not differ significantly from those treated with selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors/agomelatine with regard to the SMD of the primary outcome measure (0.081, -0.062 to 0.223) or for response (OR 0.815, 95% CI 0.585 to 1.135) and remission (OR 0.843, 95% CI 0.575 to 1.238) rates. Discontinuation owing to lack of efficacy (OR 0.541, 95% CI 0.308 to 0.950) was significantly less common among those treated with vortioxetine than among those who received placebo, whereas discontinuation owing to adverse events (AEs; OR 1.530, 95% CI 1.144 to 2.047) was significantly more common among those treated with vortioxetine than among those receiving placebo. There was no significant difference in discontinuation rates between vortioxetine and comparators owing to inefficacy (OR 0.983, 95% CI 0.585 to 1.650), whereas discontinuation owing to AEs was significantly less common in the vortioxetine than in the comparator group (OR 0.728, 95% CI 0.554 to 0.957).Studies examining the role of vortioxetine in the treatment of MDD are limited.Although our results suggest that vortioxetine may be an effective treatment option for MDD, they should be interpreted and translated into clinical practice with caution, as the meta-analysis was based on a limited number of heterogeneous RCTs.

Project description:Objective To assess the effectiveness of citalopram for major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults, in a systematic review of all published, randomised, double-blind studies comparing it with a placebo. Data sources Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, PsychINFO and Embase. Study selection Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of citalopram in adults with MDD were included. Studies with medically ill or treatment resistant subjects were excluded, as were studies of relapse prevention. Remission of MDD was defined as a primary outcome, and response or change from baseline scores were defined as secondary. Data extraction Remission, response and symptom improvement scores on the Hamilton Depression Scale, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity scales were extracted. A random-effects meta-analysis was carried out on the response rates and symptom improvement scores. Included studies were examined for the presence of bias and small study effects. Results Eight studies (n=2025) met the inclusion criteria. Two studies provided data on remission, but only one of these showed a significant difference between citalopram and placebo (RR=1.59, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.31). Meta-analysis of response rates in five studies (n=1010) revealed significant superiority of citalopram (RR=1.42, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.73). Meta-analysis of change from baseline scores in five studies (n=1541) gave a standardised mean difference (Hedges' g) of -0.27 (95% CI -0.38 to to -0.16), showing a reduction in MDD symptoms to be significant for citalopram relative to placebo. There was no evidence of any significant small study effects. The overall quality of reporting was poor, with insufficient information on the methodology or outcomes. Seven studies received industry sponsorship. Conclusions Data concerning remission rates for citalopram, relative to placebo, are inconclusive. Response rates and symptom reduction scores in citalopram-treated patients with MDD are significantly better relative to placebo treatment, according to a meta-analysis of published reports. Evaluation of unpublished data is necessary to assess more definitively the effectiveness of citalopram for MDD.

Dataset Information

An Analysis of Relapse Rates and Predictors of Relapse in 2 Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trials of Desvenlafaxine for Major Depressive Disorder.

Publications

An Analysis of Relapse Rates and Predictors of Relapse in 2 Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trials of Desvenlafaxine for Major Depressive Disorder.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets