17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy and Safety of Olanzapine/Fluoxetine Combination vs Fluoxetine Monotherapy Following Successful Combination Therapy of Treatment-Resistant Major Depressive Disorder

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This study assessed prevention of relapse in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) taking olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC). Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who failed to satisfactorily respond to ⩾2 different antidepressants for ⩾6 weeks within the current MDD episode were acutely treated for 6–8 weeks, followed by stabilization (12 weeks) on OFC. Those who remained stable were randomized to OFC or fluoxetine for up to 27 weeks. Time-to-relapse was the primary efficacy outcome defined as 50% increase in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score with Clinical Global Impressions−Severity of Depression score of ⩾4; hospitalization for depression or suicidality; or discontinuation for lack of efficacy or worsening of depression or suicidality. A total of 444 patients were randomized 1:1 to OFC ( N=221) or fluoxetine ( N=223). Time-to-relapse was significantly longer in OFC-treated patients compared with fluoxetine-treated patients ( p<0.001). Treatment-emergent weight gain and some mean and categorical fasting metabolic changes were significantly greater in OFC-treated patients. Clinically significant weight gain (⩾7%) was observed in 55.7% of patients who remained on OFC throughout the study, including the relapse-prevention phase (up to 47 weeks). There were no significant differences between patients treated with OFC and fluoxetine in extrapyramidal symptoms or serious adverse events. We believe this is the first controlled relapse-prevention study in subjects with TRD that supports continued use of a second-generation antipsychotic beyond stabilization. A thorough assessment of benefits and risks (in particular metabolic changes) associated with continuing treatment with OFC or fluoxetine must be done based on individual patient needs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Acute and longer-term outcomes in depressed outpatients requiring one or several treatment steps: a STAR*D report.

          This report describes the participants and compares the acute and longer-term treatment outcomes associated with each of four successive steps in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial. A broadly representative adult outpatient sample with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder received one (N=3,671) to four (N=123) successive acute treatment steps. Those not achieving remission with or unable to tolerate a treatment step were encouraged to move to the next step. Those with an acceptable benefit, preferably symptom remission, from any particular step could enter a 12-month naturalistic follow-up phase. A score of or=11 (HRSD(17)>or=14) defined relapse. The QIDS-SR(16) remission rates were 36.8%, 30.6%, 13.7%, and 13.0% for the first, second, third, and fourth acute treatment steps, respectively. The overall cumulative remission rate was 67%. Overall, those who required more treatment steps had higher relapse rates during the naturalistic follow-up phase. In addition, lower relapse rates were found among participants who were in remission at follow-up entry than for those who were not after the first three treatment steps. When more treatment steps are required, lower acute remission rates (especially in the third and fourth treatment steps) and higher relapse rates during the follow-up phase are to be expected. Studies to identify the best multistep treatment sequences for individual patients and the development of more broadly effective treatments are needed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            A rating scale for extrapyramidal side effects.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The impact of treatment-resistant depression on health care utilization and costs.

              Approximately 50% of patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder will experience a recurrent or chronic course of illness for which long-term treatment is recommended. Moreover, at least 20% of patients diagnosed with depression do not respond satisfactorily to several traditional antidepressant medication treatment trials. Very little is known about the health care costs of patients with treatment-resistant depression. Based on medical claims data (MarketScan Research Database, The MEDSTAT Group, Cambridge, Mass.) from January 1, 1995, to June 30, 2000, a naturalistic, retrospective analysis was conducted to study the characteristics and health care utilization of patients with treatment-resistant depression. All patients having an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), diagnosis code for unipolar or bipolar depression with specified antidepressant dosing and treatment durations were initially selected. Patients were then classified as "treatment resistant" if either they switched from or augmented initial antidepressant medication with other antidepressants at least twice (outpatient treatment-resistant group) or they switched from or augmented their initial antidepressant medication and also had a claim for either a depression-related hospitalization or suicide attempt (hospitalized treatment-resistant group). Those meeting the initial medication and diagnosis selection criteria but not meeting the treatment-resistance criteria constituted the comparison group. Members of the comparison group had comparatively stable antidepressant medication use patterns, consistent with an acceptable response to treatment. Patients were followed for a minimum of 9 months. Resource utilization was calculated from index date to last available claims data point and then annualized. Treatment-resistant patients were more likely to be diagnosed with bipolar disorder or concurrent substance abuse or anxiety disorders than the comparison group (p <.001). Treatment-resistant patients were at least twice as likely to be hospitalized (general medical and depression related) and had at least 12% more outpatient visits (p <.02). Treatment resistance was also associated with use of 1.4 to 3 times more psychotropic medications (including antidepressants) (p <.001). Patients in the hospitalized treatment-resistant group had over 6 times the mean total medical costs of non-treatment-resistant depressed patients ($42,344 vs. $6512) (p <.001) and their total depression-related costs were 19 times greater than those of patients in the comparison group ($28,001 vs. $1455) (p <.001). Treatment-resistant depression is costly and associated with extensive use of depression-related and general medical services. These findings underscore the need for early identification and effective long-term maintenance treatment for treatment-resistant depression.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Neuropsychopharmacology
                Neuropsychopharmacology
                Neuropsychopharmacology
                Nature Publishing Group
                0893-133X
                1740-634X
                October 2014
                07 May 2014
                28 May 2014
                1 October 2014
                : 39
                : 11
                : 2549-2559
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Eli Lilly and Company , Indianapolis, IN, USA
                [2 ]Department of Psychiatry, Health Sciences Center, University of New Mexico , Albuquerque, NM, USA
                [3 ]Eli Lilly Canada , Toronto, ON, USA
                [4 ]Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center , Pittsburgh, PA, USA
                Author notes
                [* ]Global Product Safety, Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center , Indianapolis, IN 46285, USA, Tel: +1 317 276 5366, Fax: +1 317 276 6445, E-mail: brunner_elizabeth@ 123456lilly.com
                Article
                npp2014101
                10.1038/npp.2014.101
                4207330
                24801768
                c8bce790-fdef-49c6-85c4-1458b9247c8d
                Copyright © 2014 American College of Neuropsychopharmacology

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

                History
                : 18 December 2013
                : 14 March 2014
                : 31 March 2014
                Categories
                Original Article

                Pharmacology & Pharmaceutical medicine
                Pharmacology & Pharmaceutical medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article