Duloxetine in the treatment of depression: a double-blind placebo-controlled comparison with paroxetine. Duloxetine versus escitalopram and placebo in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder: onset of antidepressant action, a non-inferiority study. Double-blind comparison of escitalopram and duloxetine in the acute treatment of major depressive disorder. A randomized, double-blind comparison of duloxetine and venlafaxine in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder. Desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg/d in the treatment of major depressive disorder: an 8-week, phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial and a post hoc pooled analysis of three studies. Once-daily duloxetine 60 mg in the treatment of major depressive disorder: multicenter, double-blind, randomized, paroxetine-controlled, non-inferiority trial in China, Korea, Taiwan and Brazil. Duloxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder: a placebo- and paroxetine-controlled trial. Duloxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder: a double-blind clinical trial. Extended release quetiapine fumarate monotherapy in major depressive disorder: a placebo- and duloxetine-controlled study. Duloxetine in the acute and long-term treatment of major depressive disorder: a placebo- and paroxetine-controlled trial. A comparative study of the efficacy of acute and continuation treatment with escitalopram versus duloxetine in patients with major depressive disorder.
Major depressive disorder causes significant morbidity and mortality. Current therapies fail to fully treat both emotional and physical symptoms of major depressive disorder.
                To evaluate duloxetine, a dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin and norepinephrine, on improvement of emotional and painful physical symptoms.
                Randomized, double-blind, evaluation of duloxetine at 40 mg/d (20 mg twice daily) and 80 mg/d (40 mg twice daily) versus placebo and paroxetine 20 mg/d in depressed outpatients.
                The primary efficacy measure was the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Visual Analog Scales for pain, Clinical Global Impression of Severity, Patient's Global Impression of Improvement, and Quality of Life in Depression Scale were also used. Safety was evaluated by assessing discontinuation rates, adverse event rates, vital signs, and laboratory tests.
                Duloxetine 80 mg/d was superior to placebo on mean 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total change by 3.62 points (95% CI 1.38, 5.86; P = 0.002). Duloxetine at 40 mg/d was also significantly superior to placebo by 2.43 points (95% CI 0.19, 4.66; P = 0.034), while paroxetine was not (1.51 points; 95% CI -0.55, 3.56; P = 0.150). Duloxetine 80 mg/d was superior to placebo for most other measures, including overall pain severity, and was superior to paroxetine on 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale improvement (by 2.39 points; 95% CI 0.14, 4.65; P = 0.037) and estimated probability of remission (57% for duloxetine 80 mg/d, 34% for paroxetine; P = 0.022). The only adverse event reported significantly more frequently for duloxetine 80 mg/d than for paroxetine was insomnia (19.8% for duloxetine 80 mg/d, 8.0% for paroxetine; P = 0.031). Hypertension incidence was not affected by any treatment.
                Duloxetine therapy was efficacious for emotional and physical symptoms of depression, with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor-like profile of side effects.
                Copyright 2004 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins 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. 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. 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.
                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.
                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.
                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. Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common, chronic illness associated with substantial disability and economic burden. Although a number of effective antidepressants are available, the need for new medications that are effective and well tolerated remains.
                The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of fixed-dose desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg/d with placebo for MDD. A post hoc pooled analysis was conducted to evaluate this study in the context of all similarly designed, completed studies with the 2 doses.
                This was an 8-week, Phase III, randomized, double-blind, duloxetine-referenced, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial conducted in 21 centers across the United States. Duloxetine was included for assay sensitivity as a positive control; the study was not designed or powered to compare desvenlafaxine with duloxetine. Participants were outpatients aged > or =18 years with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition-defined MDD and a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D(17)) score > or =20. Patients were randomly assigned at baseline to fixed-dose desvenlafaxine (50 or 100 mg/d), fixed-dose duloxetine (60 mg/d), or placebo. The primary outcome measure was HAM-D(17) total score at the final evaluation. Additional measures included the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) score, Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score, Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) score, and 6-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Bech version (HAM-D(6)). Tolerability assessments included discontinuation rates, adverse events (AEs), vital signs, and laboratory tests. The post hoc pooled analysis was performed using data from the current study and 2 previously published, positive studies that compared the efficacy and tolerability of desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg/d with placebo for MDD. The design and methodologies of the 2 studies were similar to the methodology of the current trial, other than not including a reference compound.
                Of the 925 patients who were screened, 287 did not meet entry criteria, and 638 patients enrolled in the study; the intent-to-treat (ITT) population included 615 patients who were evaluated for efficacy (mean [SD] age range, 38.8-40.7 [12.1-13.2] years; mean weight range, 83.3-87.0 [22.8-23.9] kg; female sex, 398 [64.7%]; white race, 458 [74.5%]). The primary end point did not reach significance based on the global F test for controlling multiplicity of the desvenlafaxine doses. Based on pairwise comparison, significantly greater improvements on the HAM-D(17) were observed in the desven-lafaxine 100 mg/d (-10.5; P = 0.028, unadjusted for multiple comparisons) and duloxetine 60 mg/d groups (-10.3; P = 0.047) compared with placebo (-8.7). Desvenlafaxine 100 mg/d and duloxetine 60 mg/d were associated with significantly better scores compared with placebo on the CGI-I, MADRS, CGI-S, and HAM-D(6). No significant differences were observed in any scale between the desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d and placebo groups. Discontinuation rates due to AEs were 5%, 7%, 13%, and 6% for the desvenlafaxine 50-mg/d, desvenlafaxine 100-mg/d, duloxetine 60-mg/d, and placebo groups, respectively. The ITT population from all 3 studies in the pooled analysis consisted of 1388 patients (mean [SD] age range, 38.8-45.7 [12.1-12.6] years; mean weight range, 73.1-87.0 [17.6-23.9] kg; female sex, 896 [64.6%]; white race, 1136 [81.8%]). Significantly greater improvements on the HAM-D(17) were observed for desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d (-11.5; P < 0.001) and 100 mg/d (-11.8; P < 0.001) versus placebo (-9.6). Both doses were significantly better than placebo on the CGI-I, MADRS, and HAM-D(6).
                The current study failed to meet its primary efficacy end point based on the a priori analysis plan. Desvenlafaxine was generally well tolerated. A post hoc pooled analysis of this trial and 2 previously published trials with both desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg/d found both doses to be effective for MDD compared with placebo. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: 00384033. The aim of the present paper was to compare the efficacy and safety of duloxetine with paroxetine in the acute treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). In a randomized, double-blind trial of 8 weeks active treatment, patients with non-psychotic MDD were randomized to duloxetine 60 mg (n = 238) or paroxetine 20 mg (n = 240) once daily. Efficacy was primarily measured on change in the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD(17)) using a non-inferiority test with a margin of 2.2. Secondary efficacy measures included the HAMD(17) subscales, Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety, Clinical Global Impressions-Severity, Patient Global Impressions-Improvement, Somatic Symptoms Inventory and Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for pain. Safety measures included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE), vital signs, weight, laboratory analyses and electrocardiograms. Non-inferiority of duloxetine to paroxetine was demonstrated because the upper bound of the confidence interval for mean difference in HAMD(17) change (0.71) was less than the non-inferiority margin. Secondary efficacy end-points did not differ significantly between treatments with the exception of VAS back pain, where the pooled mean was lower in the duloxetine group (17.1) compared with the paroxetine group (20.3, P = 0.048). No significant differences were observed in the number of early discontinuations and overall TEAE. However, significantly greater proportions of patients in the duloxetine group experienced nausea and palpitations. No clinically relevant changes in laboratory values, vital signs, weight or electrocardiograms were observed with either treatment. The present study verifies the utility of duloxetine as an efficacious and safe treatment for both emotional and physical symptoms of MDD in this predominantly Asian patient sample. Duloxetine doses of 80 and 120 mg/day were assessed for efficacy and safety in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD).
                In this randomized, double-blind trial, patients age > or =18 meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD were randomized to placebo (N=99), duloxetine 80 mg/day (N=93), duloxetine 120 mg/day (N=103), or paroxetine 20 mg/day (N=97). The primary outcome measure was mean change from baseline in the 17-item Hamilton rating scale for depression (HAMD(17)) total score after 8 weeks of treatment; a number of secondary efficacy measures also were assessed. Safety and tolerability were assessed via collection and analysis of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs, and weight. The Arizona sexual experiences scale was used to assess sexual functioning. Patients who had a > or =30% reduction from baseline in the HAMD(17) total score at the end of the acute phase entered a 6-month continuation phase where they remained on the same treatment as they had taken during the acute phase; efficacy and safety/tolerability outcomes were assessed during continuation treatment.
                More than 87% of patients completed the acute phase in each treatment group. Duloxetine-treated patients (both doses) showed significantly greater improvement (P<0.05) in the HAMD(17) total score at week 8 compared with placebo. Paroxetine was not significantly different from placebo (P=0.089) on mean change on the HAMD(17). Duloxetine 120 mg/day also showed significant improvement on most secondary efficacy measures (six of nine) compared with placebo while duloxetine 80 mg/day (three of nine) and paroxetine (three of nine) were significantly superior to placebo on fewer secondary measures. HAMD(17) mean change data from this study and an identical sister study were pooled as defined a priori for the purposes of performing a non-inferiority test versus paroxetine. Both duloxetine doses met statistical criteria for non-inferiority to paroxetine. TEAE reporting rates were low in all treatment groups and no deaths occurred in the acute or continuation phases.
                The efficacy of duloxetine at doses of 80 and 120 mg/day in the treatment of MDD was demonstrated. Tolerability, as measured by TEAEs, and safety were similar to paroxetine 20 mg/day and consistent with previous published data on duloxetine in the treatment of MDD. Duloxetine hydrochloride, a dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin and norepinephrine, was evaluated for therapeutic efficacy and safety/tolerability in the treatment of major depression.
                In an 8-week multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 173 patients (aged 18-65 years) with DSM-IV major depressive disorder were randomly allocated to receive placebo (N = 70), duloxetine (N = 70), or fluoxetine, 20 mg q.d. (N = 33). Duloxetine dose was titrated in the first 3 weeks in a forced-titration regimen from 40 mg (20 mg b.i.d.) to 120 mg/day (60 mg b.i.d.). Patients were required to have a Clinical Global Impressions (CGI)-Severity of Illness scale score of at least moderate severity (> or = 4) and a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) total score of at least 15. Patients could not have had any current primary DSM-IV Axis I diagnosis other than major depressive disorder, or any anxiety disorder as a primary diagnosis within the past year, excluding specific phobias. The primary efficacy measurement was the HAM-D-17 total score, and secondary measures included the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, CGI-Severity of Illness and CGI-Improvement, and Patient Global Impression of Improvement. Safety was evaluated by recording the occurrence of discontinuation rates and treatment-emergent adverse events and by measurement of vital signs and laboratory analytes.
                Duloxetine was superior to placebo in change on the HAM-D-17 (p = .009). Estimated probabilities of response and remission were 64% and 56%, respectively, for duloxetine, compared with 52% and 30% for fluoxetine and 48% and 32% for placebo. Duloxetine was numerically superior to fluoxetine on the primary and most of the secondary outcome measures. In general, duloxetine was well tolerated; 76% of patients achieved the maximum dose, and insomnia and asthenia were the only adverse events reported statistically significantly (p < .05) more frequently by duloxetine-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients.
                These data indicate that duloxetine is efficacious for the treatment of major depressive disorder and is well tolerated and safe. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) as monotherapy treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD).
                This 8-week (6-week active-treatment, randomized phase; 2-week posttreatment drug-discontinuation/tapering phase), multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo- and active-controlled, phase 3 study was conducted between April 2006 and May 2007. In total, 612 patients with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)-defined MDD were randomly assigned to quetiapine XR 150 mg/day or 300 mg/day, duloxetine 60 mg/day (active control), or placebo. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to week 6 in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score.
                At week 6, both doses of quetiapine XR (p < .001) and duloxetine (p < .01) significantly reduced mean MADRS total score versus placebo. A significant reduction was seen at week 1 with quetiapine XR 150 mg/day and 300 mg/day versus placebo (p < .01), but not with duloxetine. Response rates (>or= 50% reduction in MADRS total score) at week 6 were significantly higher for both doses of quetiapine XR (p < .01) and duloxetine (p < .05) versus placebo. Remission rates (MADRS score <or= 8) were significantly higher for quetiapine XR 300 mg/day and duloxetine versus placebo (p < .05), but not for quetiapine XR 150 mg/day. Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety, and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness total scores and the proportion of patients with Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scores of 1 or 2 ("much/very much improved") were significantly improved with both doses of quetiapine XR and duloxetine versus placebo. The most common adverse events reported were dry mouth, sedation, and somnolence for quetiapine XR and nausea, headache, dizziness, and dry mouth for duloxetine.
                Quetiapine XR monotherapy (150 mg/day and 300 mg/day) is effective, with safety and tolerability consistent with the known profile of quetiapine XR, in the treatment of patients with MDD, with onset of symptom improvement demonstrated at week 1.
                clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00321490.
                ©Copyright 2009 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc. Duloxetine is a balanced and potent dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) that has previously been shown to be effective in the acute treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). This placebo-controlled study assesses the safety and efficacy of duloxetine (80 or 120 mg/day) and paroxetine (20 mg QD) during an initial 8-week acute phase and subsequent 6-month continuation phase treatment of MDD.
                In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adult outpatients (age >or= 18 years) meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD received placebo (n = 93), duloxetine 80 mg/day (40 mg BID; n = 95), duloxetine 120 mg/day (60 mg BID; n = 93), or paroxetine (20 mg QD; n = 86) for 8 weeks. Patients who had a >or= 30% reduction from baseline in HAMD(17) total score during the acute phase were allowed to continue on the same (blinded) treatment for a 6-month continuation phase. Efficacy measures included the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD(17)) total score, HAMD(17) subscales, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for pain, the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scales, the 28-item Somatic Symptom Inventory (SSI), and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). Safety and tolerability were assessed using treatment-emergent adverse events, discontinuations due to adverse events, vital signs, ECGs, laboratory tests, and the Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale (ASEX).
                During the acute phase, patients receiving duloxetine 80 mg/day, duloxetine 120 mg/day, or paroxetine 20 mg QD had significantly greater reductions in HAMD(17) total score compared with placebo. Both duloxetine (80 and 120 mg/day) and paroxetine treatment groups had significantly greater improvement, compared with placebo, in MADRS, HAMA, CGI-S, and PGI-I scales. Estimated probabilities of remission at week 8 for patients receiving duloxetine 80 mg/day (51%), duloxetine 120 mg/day (58%), and paroxetine (47%) were significantly greater compared with those receiving placebo (30%). The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events among duloxetine-treated patients (80 and 120 mg/day) did not differ significantly from the rate in the placebo group. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported significantly more frequently by duloxetine-treated patients than by patients receiving placebo were constipation (80 and 120 mg/day), increased sweating (120 mg/day), and somnolence (120 mg/day). The incidence of acute treatment-emergent sexual dysfunction in duloxetine- and paroxetine-treated patients was 46.5% and 62.8%, respectively. During the 6-month continuation phase, duloxetine (80 and 120 mg/day) and paroxetine treatment groups demonstrated significant improvement in HAMD(17) total score. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurring most frequently in each active treatment group during the continuation phase were viral infection (duloxetine 80 mg/day), diarrhea (duloxetine 120 mg/day), and headache (paroxetine 20 mg QD).
                These data support previous findings that duloxetine is safe, efficacious, and well tolerated in the acute treatment of MDD. Furthermore, these data provide the first demonstration under double-blind, placebo-controlled conditions that the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine are maintained during chronic treatment. 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.