35
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A randomised, double-blind study in adults with major depressive disorder with an inadequate response to a single course of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or serotonin–noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor treatment switched to vortioxetine or agomelatine†

      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

          Objective

          This randomised, double-blind, 12-week study compared efficacy and tolerability of flexible-dose treatment with vortioxetine (10–20 mg/day) versus agomelatine (25–50 mg/day) in major depressive disorder patients with inadequate response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)/serotonin–noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) monotherapy.

          Methods

          Patients were switched directly from SSRI/SNRI to vortioxetine or agomelatine. Primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 8 in the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score analysed by mixed model for repeated measurements, using a noninferiority test followed by a superiority test. Secondary endpoints included response and remission rates, anxiety symptoms (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale), Clinical Global Impression, overall functioning (Sheehan Disability Scale), health-related quality of life (EuroQol 5 Dimensions), productivity (work limitation questionnaire) and family functioning (Depression and Family Functioning Scale).

          Results

          Primary endpoint noninferiority was established and vortioxetine ( n = 252) was superior to agomelatine ( n = 241) by 2.2 MADRS points ( p < 0.01). Vortioxetine was also significantly superior in response and remission rates at weeks 8 and 12; MADRS, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impression, Sheehan Disability Scale and EuroQol 5 Dimensions scores at week 4 onwards; work limitation questionnaire at week 8 and Depression and Family Functioning Scale at weeks 8 and 12. Fewer patients withdrew because of adverse events with vortioxetine (5.9% vs 9.5%). Adverse events (incidence ≥5%) were nausea, headache, dizziness and somnolence.

          Conclusions

          Vortioxetine was noninferior and significantly superior to agomelatine in major depressive disorder patients with previous inadequate response to a single course of SSRI/SNRI monotherapy. Vortioxetine was safe and well tolerated.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

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

          Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders.

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

            Assessing treatment effects in clinical trials with the discan metric of the Sheehan Disability Scale.

            The Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) is a patient-rated, discretized analog measure of functional disability in work, social, and family life. Its increasing use in clinical trials in psychiatry suggests a need to assess its responsiveness and interpretability. In this paper we identify and review studies in which the SDS was used as a treatment outcome measure. Our objectives are (i) to evaluate the sensitivity of the SDS to treatment effects and (ii) to examine potential thresholds or cutoff scores for remission and response. Studies for the review were retrieved from the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database (1966 to 21 March 2007) and other sources. All studies had to use the SDS, be double-blind, controlled or large open-label trials in English. Studies assessing nonpharmacological treatments, long-term trials (>12 weeks), small n trials (less than 20 patients per treatment arm) and trials for conditions other than one of the anxiety disorders, depression, or premenstrual dysphoric disorder were excluded. Extracted data included the diagnostic target of treatment, n, study design, and method of analysis. Initial, endpoint and/or mean change scores were extracted from tables, text, or extrapolated from figures. In all, 37 studies meeting the inclusion criteria were retrieved and reviewed. All of the studies treated the SDS as a numeric scale and analyzed mean change or endpoint differences with parametric statistics. Three provided additional outcome data using nonparametric response or remission criteria. Overall, the SDS performed well in discriminating between active and inactive treatments. The results indicate that the SDS is sensitive to treatment effects. To establish reliable and valid cutoff scores for remission and response, there is a need to supplement parametric analyses using mean change and endpoint differences with nonparametric analyses showing the percentage meeting specified response and remission criteria. In addition, the percentages with endpoint scores of zero should be reported.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Work Limitations Questionnaire.

              The objective of this work was to develop a psychometrically sound questionnaire for measuring the on-the-job impact of chronic health problems and/or treatment ("work limitations"). Three pilot studies (focus groups, cognitive interviews, and an alternate forms test) generated candidate items, dimensions, and response scales. Two field trials tested the psychometric performance of the questionnaire (studies 1 and 2). To test recall error, study 1 subjects were randomly assigned to 2 different questionnaire groups, a questionnaire with a 4-week reporting period completed once or a 2-week version completed twice. Responses were compared with data from concurrent work limitation diaries (the gold standard). To test construct validity, we compared questionnaire scores of patients with those of healthy job-matched control subjects. Study 2 was a cross-sectional mail survey testing scale reliability and construct validity. The study subjects were employed individuals (18-64 years of age) from several chronic condition groups (study 1, n = 48; study 2, n = 121) and, in study 1, 17 healthy matched control subjects. Study 1 included the assigned questionnaires and weekly diaries. Study 2 included the new questionnaire, SF-36, and work productivity loss items. In study 1, questionnaire responses were consistent with diary data but were most highly correlated with the most recent week. Patients had significantly higher (worse) limitation scores than control subjects. In study 2, 4 scales from a 25-item questionnaire achieved Cronbach alphas of > or = 0.90 and correlated with health status and self-reported work productivity in the hypothesized manner (P < or = 0.05). With 25 items, 4 dimensions (limitations handling time, physical, mental-interpersonal, and output demands), and a 2-week reporting period, the Work Limitations Questionnaire demonstrated high reliability and validity.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Hum Psychopharmacol
                Hum Psychopharmacol
                hup
                Human Psychopharmacology
                BlackWell Publishing Ltd (Oxford, UK )
                0885-6222
                1099-1077
                September 2014
                04 August 2014
                : 29
                : 5
                : 470-482
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Imperial College London London, United Kingdom
                [2 ]H. Lundbeck A/S Copenhagen, Denmark
                [3 ]Affecta Psychiatric Clinic Halmstad, Sweden
                Author notes
                *Correspondence to: Professor S. A. Montgomery MD, FRCPsych, Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry, Imperial College London, UK, PO Box 8751, London W13 8WH, UK; Fax: +44 (0)20 8566 7986 E-mail: stuart@ 123456samontgomery.co.uk
                [†]

                Trial Registration: This study (REVIVE) has the ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01488071.

                Article
                10.1002/hup.2424
                4265248
                25087600
                ffafd699-14b2-482c-a19e-e166282ffc30
                © 2014 The Authors. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                : 23 December 2013
                : 11 June 2014
                Categories
                Research Articles

                Pharmacology & Pharmaceutical medicine
                agomelatine,inadequate response,major depressive disorder,switch,vortioxetine

                Comments

                Comment on this article