Duloxetine versus escitalopram and placebo in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder: onset of antidepressant action, a non-inferiority study. A randomized, double-blind, 24-week study of escitalopram (10 mg/day) versus citalopram (20 mg/day) in primary care patients with major depressive disorder. Escitalopram in major depressive disorder: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose, parallel trial in a Chinese population. Double-blind comparison of escitalopram and duloxetine in the acute treatment of major depressive disorder. Efficacy and safety of escitalopram versus citalopram in major depressive disorder: a 6-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose study. Prospective, multicentre, randomized, double-blind study of the efficacy of escitalopram versus citalopram in outpatient treatment of major depressive disorder. A comparative study of the efficacy of long-term treatment with escitalopram and paroxetine in severely depressed patients. Efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram versus citalopram in major depressive disorder: a 6-week, multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study in adult outpatients. A comparative study of the efficacy of acute and continuation treatment with escitalopram versus duloxetine in patients with major depressive disorder.
The goal of a non-inferiority study is to test whether a new treatment has at least as much efficacy as an established treatment. The purpose of this non-inferiority study was to compare the speed of onset of antidepressant efficacy for duloxetine (a dual serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor) and escitalopram (a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor).
                This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active comparator-controlled study, in which patients (> or = 18 years) meeting DSM-IV criteria for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) received duloxetine 60 mg once daily (QD; N = 273), escitalopram 10 mg QD (N = 274), or placebo (N = 137) for 8 weeks. The primary objective was to compare the onset of antidepressant efficacy, by testing the hypothesis that the percentage of duloxetine-treated patients achieving onset criteria at Week 2 was not inferior to that in the escitalopram group.
                Onset of efficacy was defined as a 20% decrease from baseline on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD(17)) Maier subscale that was maintained or exceeded at all subsequent visits.
                Probabilities of meeting onset criteria at Week 2 for duloxetine- and escitalopram-treated patients were 42.6% versus 35.2%, respectively (treatment difference = 7.4%; 95% confidence interval, -1.3% to 16.2%; p = 0.097). Both drugs showed significant improvement compared with placebo (p < or = 0.05) on the primary efficacy measure (Maier subscale) at Week 1 and endpoint (Week 8). No differences were found between duloxetine, escitalopram, and placebo rates of remission or response at 8 weeks. Adverse events that occurred significantly more frequently among duloxetine-treated patients when compared with those receiving escitalopram were nausea, dry mouth, vomiting, yawning, and irritability. The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events did not differ significantly between treatment groups.
                Given the difficulties in constructing appropriate dose comparisons, the results of this study should be interpreted specific to the doses tested and not extrapolated to the drug as a whole. This study employed a fixed-dose design; flexible-dose designs are more likely to find a difference between antidepressants and placebo.
                In this study, both duloxetine and escitalopram showed significantly greater improvement on the primary efficacy measure than placebo over the 8-week acute treatment period, while no differences were observed between drugs or between drugs and placebo on response and remission rates at 8 weeks. Escitalopram at a starting dose of 10 mg QD was better tolerated than duloxetine at a starting dose of 60 mg QD. This study met its pre-defined primary objective of assessing if duloxetine was non-inferior to escitalopram in antidepressant onset efficacy, and the results show that duloxetine is at least as fast as (non-inferior to) escitalopram. A randomized, double-blind, 24-week-fixed-dose study comparing the efficacy and safety of escitalopram to that of citalopram was safety was conducted in primary care patients with moderate to severe major depressive disorder (MDD).
                This was a randomized, double-blind, 24-week fixeddose study. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with escitalopram 10 mg/day (n = 175) or citalopram 20 mg/day (n = 182). Clinical response was evaluated using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scale. The prospectively defined primary parameter of antidepressant efficacy was the change from baseline in the mean MADRS total score during the 24 weeks of double-blind treatment, using a repeated measures analysis of variance to compare the treatment groups over all assessment points simultaneously.
                Based on the primary parameter, escitalopram was at least as efficacious as citalopram. Based on the prospectively defined secondary parameter, mean change from baseline in the CGI-S score, escitalopram was statistically significantly superior to citalopram at Week 24. The importance of long-term treatment could be demonstrated, in that more than half (55% and 51%) of the patients who had not responded by Week 8 achieved remission by Week 24. Both escitalopram and citalopram were safe and well tolerated in acute and long-term treatment, and the overall adverse event profiles for the two drugs were similar. For the intent-to-treat population, there were statistically significantly fewer withdrawals in the escitalopram group than in the citalopram group, particularly after Week 8.
                Patients with MDD responded well to long-term treatment with either escitalopram or citalopram. This study demonstrated the importance of extending treatment of depression beyond 8 weeks. Escitalopram, the S-enantiomer of citalopram and the most selective of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) has been shown to be efficacious in the treatment of major depression in white populations. Our aim in this study was to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram in Chinese patients with moderate to severe major depression. Patients who met DSM-IV criteria for a major depressive episode were enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose comparison trial. Patients were given escitalopram 10 mg/day or fluoxetine 20 mg/day for 8 weeks. All patients were assessed with the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-17) and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Tolerability was assessed on the basis of adverse effects (measured with a locally developed checklist), regular biochemical tests, and electrocardiograph (ECG) assessments. Two hundred forty patients were enrolled and randomized to escitalopram (123 patients) or fluoxetine (117 patients). The HAM-D-17 total scores of both groups decreased significantly from baseline, but there was no significant difference at week 8 between the two groups (15.8 for escitalopram and 14.7 for fluoxetine; P >.05). There were no significant differences in response rates at all visits after treatment based on either HAM-D-17 or MADRS. A post hoc analysis indicated that escitalopram was superior to fluoxetine on two items of the HAM-D-17: "depressed mood" (P =.023) and "work and interest" (P =.024). The adverse events reported in the escitalopram and fluoxetine groups were comparable, and most were mild to moderate. Both drugs showed good compliance profiles. Escitalopram 10 mg/day is at least as efficacious as fluoxetine 20 mg/day and well tolerated in Chinese patients with major depression, with possible superiority in some core symptoms such as "depressed mood" and "work and interest." Escitalopram is the most selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressant; in contrast, duloxetine inhibits both serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake. Double-blind comparison studies may help guide treatment decisions by revealing the relative benefits of different therapeutic approaches. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of escitalopram versus duloxetine in the acute treatment of patients with moderate to severe major depressive disorder.
                A 1-week, single-blind, placebo lead-in period followed by an 8-week, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel-group comparison was conducted from 20 April 2005 to 10 March 2006 in independent psychiatric research facilities with principal investigators who were board certified in psychiatry. A total of 278 outpatients of 382 patients screened with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition)-diagnosed major depressive disorder (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score > or =26) were randomised to the two treatment groups. Eight patients received no medication and were excluded from the safety group. Patients were treated with either escitalopram 10-20 mg/day (fixed at 10 mg/day for the first 4 weeks) or duloxetine 60 mg/day. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline at week 8 in MADRS total score using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach. Efficacy, safety and tolerability measures were prospectively defined in the statistical analysis plan prior to study initiation unless otherwise specifically noted as conducted post hoc.
                A significantly greater proportion of escitalopram-treated patients completed the 8-week study compared with duloxetine-treated patients (87% vs 69%, respectively; p < 0.01). Mean baseline MADRS total scores were 31.0 for the escitalopram group and 31.6 for the duloxetine group. At week 8, escitalopram treatment resulted in significantly greater improvement compared with duloxetine on the prospectively defined primary efficacy endpoint of mean change from baseline in MADRS total score using the LOCF approach (least-squares mean difference [LSMD] -2.42; 95% CI -4.73, -0.11; p < 0.05). There was no difference between treatment groups in the observed cases (OC) analysis (LSMD -0.32; 95% CI -2.71, 2.07; p = 0.79). Significantly fewer escitalopram-treated patients discontinued because of adverse events compared with duloxetine (2% vs 13%, respectively; p < 0.01).
                These findings suggest that escitalopram is better tolerated and at least as effective as the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor duloxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder. S-citalopram (escitalopram) is the very active moiety of citalopram. It has been shown in many studies to be an effective and safe antidepressant for treating major depressive disorder (MDD).
                The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy and safety of escitalopram vs citalopram in Chinese MDD patients.
                In the double-blind study, 240 MDD patients were randomly assigned to treatment for 6 weeks either with escitalopram (10-20 mg/d) or citalopram (20-40 mg/d). The primary efficacy measurement was the change of 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) total score from baseline to the end of study. The secondary efficacy measurements were response and remission rates. The adverse events (AEs) were recorded by the investigator.
                Two hundred and three (85%) patients completed the trial. The average dose was 13.9 mg/d in the escitalopram group and 27.6 mg/d in the citalopram group. No significant differences were found between the two groups in the change in HAMD-17 total score, response, and remission rate. These results were similar in severe MDD patients. No significant differences were found between the two groups in AEs. No serious AEs were observed in this study.
                The study suggests that escitalopram 10-20 mg/d are as effective and safe as citalopram 20-40 mg/d in the short-term treatment for Chinese MDD patients. Pre-clinical studies, active-control clinical trials and meta-analyses indicate that escitalopram (S-citalopram) might be more effective than citalopram, the racemic mixture of S- and R-citalopram. The present study aimed to confirm the superior efficacy of escitalopram over citalopram. A double-blind, randomized clinical trial was performed in which general practitioners and psychiatrists compared fixed doses of escitalopram (20 mg/day) with citalopram (40 mg/day) over 8 weeks in outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) [baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score > or =30]. Primary efficacy parameter was change from baseline to last assessment in the MADRS total score. Out of 138 (aged 44.1+/-10.9 years; initial MADRS score 36.3+/-4.8) and 142 (aged 46.2+/-11.1 years; initial MADRS score 35.7+/-4.4) evaluable patients who were randomized to escitalopram and citalopram, respectively, six and 15 withdrew prematurely (P=0.05). The MADRS score decreased more in the escitalopram than in the citalopram arm (-22.4+/-12.9 versus -20.3+/-12.7; P<0.05). There were more treatment responders with escitalopram (76.1%) than with citalopram (61.3%, P<0.01). Adjusted remitter rates were 56.1% and 43.6%, respectively (P<0.05). Tolerability was similar in both groups. This randomized double-blind trial confirms that escitalopram has a superior effect to citalopram in MDD. This randomised, double-blind, fixed-dose study evaluated the efficacy of escitalopram and paroxetine in the long-term treatment of severely depressed patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).
                Patients with a primary diagnosis of MDD and baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) >or= 30 were randomised to 24 weeks of double-blind treatment with fixed doses of either escitalopram (20 mg) (n = 232) or paroxetine (40 mg) (n = 227). The primary analysis of efficacy was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of change from baseline to endpoint (Week 24) in MADRS total score (last observation carried forward, LOCF). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES;
                At endpoint (24 weeks), the mean change from baseline in MADRS total score was -25.2 for patients treated with escitalopram (n = 228) and -23.1 for patients with paroxetine (n = 223), resulting in a difference of 2.1 points (p < 0.05). The difference in the change in the MADRS total score (LOCF) was significantly in favour of escitalopram from Week 8 onwards. The proportion of remitters (MADRS <or= 12) after 24 weeks was 75% for escitalopram and 67% for paroxetine (p < 0.05). The results on the primary efficacy scale were supported by significantly greater differences in favour of escitalopram on the Hamilton Anxiety, Hamilton Depression and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement and -Severity scales. For very severely depressed patients (baseline MADRS >or= 35), there was a difference of 3.4 points at endpoint in the MADRS total score in favour of escitalopram (p < 0.05). The overall withdrawal rate for patients treated with escitalopram (19%) was significantly lower than with paroxetine (32%) (p < 0.01). The withdrawal rate due to adverse events was significantly lower for escitalopram (8%) compared to paroxetine (16%) (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the incidence of individual adverse events during treatment.
                Escitalopram is significantly more effective than paroxetine in the long-term treatment of severely depressed patients. The S-enantiomer of citalopram (escitalopram) is the active moiety linked to the anti-depressant effects associated with citalopram (the racemate). For escitalopram to be approved for the treatment of depression in Europe, findings from clinical trials of escitalopram are required to match previous results from studies of the racemate, citalopram.
                The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram and citalopram in outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD).
                This prospective, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study was conducted at 8 psychiatric outpatient clinics in the Federation of Russia. Adult outpatients aged 25 to 45 years with MDD and a total score > or =25 on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 6 weeks of treatment with fixed daily doses of escitalopram 10 mg, citalopram 10 mg, or citalopram 20 mg. Efficacy assessments were made at weeks 0 (baseline), 1, 4, and 6 (study end or last observation carried forward). The primary efficacy parameter was the change from baseline in MADRS total score. Secondary measures were the change from baseline in MADRS total score in a subgroup of severely depressed patients (baseline MADRS total score, > or =35), MADRS core depression subscale score, and Clinical Global Impression-Severity and Improvement (CGI-S and CGI-I) scores; and the proportions of patients classified as responders and remitters at study end. Tolerability was assessed using adverse events (AEs) recorded by the investigator.
                Of 330 assessable randomized patients, 8 withdrew, including 7 who withdrew consent and 1 who withdrew due to recurrence of a preexisting event. Thus, 322 patients were included in the assessment (mean age, 35 years; 41.6% male; all white; escitalopram 10 mg, 108 patients; citalopram 10 mg, 106; citalopram 20 mg, 108). At study end, the mean (SE) change from baseline in MADRS total score was significantly greater in the escitalopram arm than in the 10- and 20-rag citalopram arms (-28.70 [0.78] vs -20.11 [0.80] and -25.19 [0.78]; both, P < 0.001). Improvements were more marked in the severely depressed subgroup (-30.33 [0.95] vs -20.87 [0.99] and -26.34 [0.91]). Changes in the CGI-S and CGI-I scores and the rates of response and remission were significantly greater in the escitalopram group compared with those in the citalopram 10- and 20-mg groups (CGI-S: -2.60 [0.10] vs -1.61 [0.10] and -2.05 [0.10]; CGI-I: +1.58 [0.09] vs +2.35 [0.10] and +1.80 [0.09]; response: 95.4% vs 44.3% and 83.3%; remission: 89.8% vs 25.5% and 50.9% [all, P < 0.001]). Mean (SE) changes from baseline in core depression subscale score were -19.00 (0.59), -13.00 (0.60), and -16.52 (0.58) with escitalopram, citalopram 10 mg, and citalopram 20 mg, respectively. The prevalence of AEs was significantly lower in the escitalopram group (7) compared with the citalopram groups (16 and 19 in the 10- and 20-mg groups, respectively; both, P < 0.05). Nausea (2 [1.9%], 5 [4.7%], and 7 [6.5%] patients in the escitalopram and citalopram 10- and 20-mg groups, respectively) and headache (1 [0.9%], 2 [1.9%], and 4 [3.7%]) were the most frequently reported AEs.
                The results from this study suggest that escitalopram 10 mg was more effective than citalopram 10 and 20 mg at 6 weeks in these adult outpatients with MDD. All treatments were well tolerated.
                Copyright (c) 2007 Excerpta Medica, Inc. This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram and duloxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD).
                Patients were randomised to 24 weeks of double-blind treatment with fixed doses of escitalopram (20 mg) (n = 143) or duloxetine (60 mg) (n = 151). The primary analysis of efficacy was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of change from baseline to endpoint (week 24) in MADRS total score (last observation carried forward). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES;
                At week 8, the mean change from baseline in total MADRS score was -19.5 for patients treated with escitalopram (n = 141) and -17.4 for patients treated with duloxetine (n = 146), a difference of 2.1 points (p < 0.05). At week 8, the proportion of responders (> or = 50% decrease in MADRS) was 69% (escitalopram) and 58% (duloxetine) (p < 0.05) and remission (MADRS < or = 12) rates were 56% (escitalopram) and 48% (duloxetine) (NS). For the primary endpoint, the mean change from baseline in total MADRS score at week 24 was -23.4 for patients treated with escitalopram and -21.7 for patients treated with duloxetine, a difference of 1.7 points (p = 0.055, one-sided). The difference in mean change from baseline in MADRS total score favoured escitalopram at weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12 and 16 (p < 0.05). The overall withdrawal rates were 22% (escitalopram) and 25% (duloxetine) (NS). The withdrawal rate due to adverse events was lower for escitalopram (9%) compared to duloxetine (17%) (p < 0.05) and significantly more patients treated with duloxetine reported insomnia (12.6% vs. 4.9%) and constipation (8.6% vs. 2.8%).
                Escitalopram was superior to duloxetine in acute treatment and at least as efficacious and better tolerated in long-term treatment of MDD.
Some statistically significant differences favouring escitalopram over other antidepressive agents for the acute phase treatment of major depression were found, in terms of efficacy (citalopram and fluoxetine) and acceptability (duloxetine). There is insufficient evidence to detect a difference between escitalopram and other antidepressants in early response to treatment (after two weeks of treatment). Cost-effectiveness information is also needed in the field of antidepressant trials. Furthermore, as with most standard systematic reviews, the findings rely on evidence from direct comparisons. The potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should also be borne in mind.