Measures of outcome for stimulant trials: ACTTION recommendations and research agenda.

BACKGROUND: The development and approval of an efficacious pharmacotherapy for stimulant use disorders has been limited by the lack of a meaningful indicator of treatment success, other than sustained abstinence. METHODS: In March, 2015, a meeting sponsored by Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) was convened to discuss the current state of the evidence regarding meaningful outcome measures in clinical trials for stimulant use disorders. Attendees included members of academia, funding and regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and healthcare organizations. The goal was to establish a research agenda for the development of a meaningful outcome measure that may be used as an endpoint in clinical trials for stimulant use disorders. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Based on guidelines for the selection of clinical trial endpoints, the lessons learned from prior addiction clinical trials, and the process that led to identification of a meaningful indicator of treatment success for alcohol use disorders, several recommendations for future research were generated. These include a focus on the validation of patient reported outcome measures of functioning, the exploration of patterns of stimulant abstinence that may be associated with physical and/or psychosocial benefits, the role of urine testing for validating self-reported measures of stimulant abstinence, and the operational definitions for reduction-based measures in terms of frequency rather than quantity of stimulant use. These recommendations may be useful for secondary analyses of clinical trial data, and in the design of future clinical trials that may help establish a meaningful indicator of treatment success.

Comparison of Site-Based Versus Central Ratings in a Study of Generalized Anxiety Disorder.

Lack of standardization across sites and raters, poor interrater reliability, and possible scoring bias affecting the primary outcome measure contribute to a high failure rate in anxiety trials. Remote centralized raters who are blinded to protocol inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as visit number may standardize assessments across raters and eliminate scoring bias, decreasing placebo response and thereby increasing signal detection. The purpose of the primary study was to test the safety and efficacy of an anxiolytic in a double-blind, placebo-controlled (no active comparator), multicenter trial. However, there was an additional prospective objective to explore site ratings compared with remote centralized ratings in the cohort of subjects on placebo. Site raters assessed subjects 6 times over an 8-week period. The primary outcome measure was the week 8 site-rated Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A). Remote centralized raters by telephone independently rated these subjects on the HAM-A at baseline and week 6. Of the 122 subjects selected by site raters and therefore randomized, remote centralized raters would have admitted 59 (48%) and excluded 63 (52%), based on their HAM-A ratings. The mean change from baseline in HAM-A total score in the placebo group admitted to the study by site raters was 9.3, significantly higher than the 5.9 point mean change on placebo as measured by the remote centralized raters.The data are consistent with the potential for qualification bias at baseline when rated by sites. The results make a strong case for using strategies to ensure that baseline scoring is truly independent of the pressure to enroll.

A 6-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, comparator referenced trial of vabicaserin in acute schizophrenia.

UNLABELLED: Vabicaserin, a potent 5-HT2C receptor agonist, decreases nucleus accumbens extracellular dopamine levels in rats, without affecting striatal dopamine, indicating mesolimbic selectivity. This is the first study of efficacy, safety and tolerability of vabicaserin in adults with acute schizophrenia. Three hundred fourteen hospitalized subjects were randomized to: Vabicaserin 200 or 400 mg/day, olanzapine 15 mg/day or placebo. Central raters assessed the PANSS and CGI-S. Site raters performed the BPRS and CGI-I. Central rated PANSS Positive (PANSS-PPS) was the primary endpoint. Two hundred eighty-nine subjects were included in the mITT efficacy analysis. Vabicaserin was well tolerated with no major safety concerns. Olanzapine, but not vabicaserin, caused weight gain. Vabicaserin 200 mg/day and olanzapine demonstrated significant improvement at week 6 vs. placebo on PANSS-PSS. A non-significant decrease vs. placebo was observed for 400 mg/day. Both vabicaserin groups demonstrated significant improvement over baseline on PANSS Negative while placebo worsened. Vabicaserin 200 mg/day and olanzapine demonstrated significantly greater improvement over placebo on PANSS Total whereas 400 mg/day showed a trend toward improvement. There was no significant improvement vs. placebo for either vabicaserin group on site-rated BPRS. Vabicaserin 200 mg/day and olanzapine demonstrated significant improvement vs. placebo on CGI-I and CGI-S but not 400 mg/day vabicaserin. Vabicaserin demonstrated efficacy on primary and secondary endpoints at 200 mg/day, but not at 400 mg/day which showed a trend for efficacy. The 200 mg/day vabicaserin group achieved proof of concept using central ratings. Both vabicaserin doses were well tolerated with no significant safety signals and no weight gain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT00265551.

Effects of duloxetine on norepinephrine and serotonin transporter activity in healthy subjects.

Duloxetine selectively inhibits the serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) transporters (5-HTT and NET, respectively), as demonstrated in vitro and in preclinical studies; however, transporter inhibition has not been fully assessed in vivo at the approved dose of 60 mg/d. Here, the in vivo effects of dosing with duloxetine 60 mg once daily for 11 days in healthy subjects were assessed in 2 studies: (1) centrally (n = 11), by measuring concentrations of 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid, 3,4-dihydroxyphenylglycol (DHPG), and NE in cerebrospinal fluid, and (2) versus escitalopram 20 mg/d (n = 32) in a 2-period crossover study by assessing the ΔDHPG/ΔNE ratio in plasma during orthostatic testing and by pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling of reuptake inhibition using subjects' serum in cell lines expressing cloned human 5-HTT or NET. At steady state, duloxetine significantly reduced concentrations of DHPG and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (P < 0.05), but not NE, in cerebrospinal fluid; DHPG was also decreased in plasma and urine. The ΔDHPG/ΔNE ratio in plasma decreased significantly more with duloxetine than escitalopram (65% and 21%, respectively; P < 0.0001). Ex vivo reuptake inhibition of 5-HTT was comparable (EC50 = 44.5 nM) for duloxetine and escitalopram, but duloxetine inhibited NET more potently (EC50 = 116 nM and 1044 nM, respectively). Maximal predicted reuptake inhibition for 5-HTT was 84% for duloxetine and 80% for escitalopram, and that for NET was 67% and 14%, respectively. In summary, duloxetine significantly affected 5-HT and NE turnover in the central nervous system and periphery; these effects presumably occurred via inhibition of reuptake by the 5-HTT and NET, as indicated by effects on functional reuptake inhibition ex vivo.

Sexual function during long-term duloxetine treatment in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Sexual dysfunction (SD) is frequently associated with major depressive disorder (MDD) in the untreated state and may be worsened by antidepressant treatment. AIM: We evaluated SD in duloxetine-treated patients during an MDD recurrence prevention study. METHOD: Patients (N = 514) received open-label duloxetine 60-120 mg/day for up to 34 weeks. Responders (N = 288) were randomly assigned to duloxetine or placebo during a further 52-week double-blind maintenance phase. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Arizona Sexual Experience Scale (ASEX) was used to assess sexual functioning. RESULTS: At study entry, 73.4% of patients met ASEX criteria for SD. After open-label duloxetine treatment, the probability of continued SD was 77.9% for nonresponders and 53.2% for responders. In patients without SD at study entry, the probability of emergent SD was 49.6% (nonresponders) and 33.2% (responders). In the double-blind maintenance phase, there was no significant difference (P = 0.105) in the probability of emergent SD between placebo-treated (49.2%) and duloxetine-treated (27.9%) patients without SD at baseline, with no significant treatment-by-gender interaction. In patients with a recurrence of MDD, the probability of emergent SD was similar between placebo- (71.3%) and duloxetine-treated (82.7%) patients. However, in patients with no recurrence of MDD, the probability of emergent SD in placebo patients (40.0%) was numerically higher than in duloxetine patients (12.9%). Spontaneous reports of adverse events related to sexual function were infrequent and no patients discontinued due to these events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with MDD, the probability of continued or emergent SD after up to 34 weeks of open-label duloxetine treatment was associated with the response status of the patients. In patients who responded to duloxetine treatment, after up to a further 52 weeks of double-blind treatment either with duloxetine or placebo, the probability of continued or emergent SD appeared to be more related to MDD itself than the treatments that the patients received.

Long-term safety of duloxetine during open-label compassionate use treatment of patients who completed previous duloxetine clinical trials.

PURPOSE: To provide duloxetine for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), fibromyalgia (FM) and diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) to patients who had previously completed a duloxetine clinical study and for whom, in the opinion of the investigator, no effective alternative therapy was available. METHODS: Adult outpatients who had previously completed a duloxetine study for the treatment of MDD, GAD, DPNP, or FM received duloxetine 30 mg to 120 mg daily up until its local commercial availability. Safety analyses included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), AEs reported as reason for discontinuation, and vital signs. No efficacy measures were collected. RESULTS: Of 667 patients enrolled, 282 (42.3%) were still participating at the time the drug was made commercially available in their countries. Most patients had previously participated in a duloxetine MDD study (76.2%); were female (68.1%) and Caucasian (94.9%). The median duration of exposure was 328 days (range 3-1718 days). The most common reasons for discontinuation were patient decision (25.3%), adverse event (8.4%), and lack of efficacy (8.4%). Of the 86 SAEs experienced by 46 patients, most (including one death) were judged by the investigator to be unrelated to duloxetine treatment. The most common TEAEs were in the System Organ Class of gastrointestinal (28.3%), nervous system (28.0%), and psychiatric (25.8%) and were predominantly mild to moderate in severity. Increases of systolic blood pressure (1.9 mm Hg) and pulse rate (2.2 bpm) at endpoint were reported. CONCLUSION: The safety data from this long-term compassionate use study of duloxetine were consistent with previous experience and revealed no new safety signals. LIMITATIONS: The limitations include: lack of a control arm, no efficacy data were collected to assess the long-term efficacy, the results may not necessarily generalize to other ethnic groups as most patients were Caucasians, and lack of consistency in regard to duration of exposure at study entry as patients came from different trials with different study designs. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY ID: www.clinicaltrials.gov--NCT00071708.

Efficacy and safety of duloxetine in patients with chronic low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of duloxetine in the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Imbalance of serotonin and norepinephrine within modulatory pain pathways has been implicated in the development and maintenance of chronic pain. Duloxetine, a selective reuptake inhibitor of serotonin and norepinephrine, has demonstrated clinical efficacy in 3 distinct chronic pain conditions: diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, and chronic pain because of osteoarthritis. METHODS: In this randomized double-blind trial, adult nondepressed patients with a non-neuropathic CLBP and a weekly mean of the 24-hour average pain score>or=4 at baseline (0-10 scale) were treated with either duloxetine or placebo for 13 weeks. The dose of duloxetine during first 7 weeks was 60 mg once daily. At week 7, patients reporting<30% pain reduction had their dose increased to 120 mg. The primary outcome measure was the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) 24-hour average pain rating. Secondary measures included Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire-24; Patient's Global Impressions of Improvement; Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S); BPI-Severity and -Interference (BPI-I); and weekly means of the 24-hour average pain, night pain, and worst pain scores from patient diaries. Quality-of-life, safety, and tolerability outcomes were also assessed. RESULTS: Compared with placebo-treated patients (least-squares mean change of -1.50), patients on duloxetine (least-squares mean change of -2.32) had a significantly greater reduction in the BPI 24-hour average pain from baseline to endpoint (P=0.004 at week 13). Additionally, the duloxetine group significantly improved on Patient's Global Impressions of Improvement; Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire-24; BPI-Severity and average BPI-Interference; weekly mean of the 24-hour average pain, night pain, and worst pain. Significantly more patients in the duloxetine group (13.9%) compared with placebo (5.8%) discontinued because of adverse events (P=0.047). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the duloxetine group included nausea, dry mouth, fatigue, diarrhea, hyperhidrosis, dizziness, and constipation. CONCLUSION: Duloxetine significantly reduced pain and improved functioning in patients with CLBP. The safety and tolerability were similar to those reported in earlier studies.

Long-term safety, tolerability, and efficacy of duloxetine in the treatment of fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term safety, tolerability, and efficacy of duloxetine in patients with fibromyalgia. METHODS: We report results from the 6-month extension phases of 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials having 6-month placebo-controlled phases. In Study 1, all patients received duloxetine 120 mg/d after 28 weeks on placebo or duloxetine 60 or 120 mg/d. In Study 2, patients taking placebo were titrated to duloxetine 60 mg/d after 27 weeks on treatment, while duloxetine-treated patients remained on their dosages of 60 or 120 mg/d. Safety and tolerability were assessed via discontinuation rates, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and changes in vital signs and laboratory measures. The primary efficacy measure was the Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity score. RESULTS: The percentage of patients entering and completing the extension phase was 56% (156/278) for Study 1 and 69% (140/204) for Study 2. Groups titrating from placebo to duloxetine showed the highest discontinuation rates due to an adverse event (Study 1, 25%; Study 2, 19%) and TEAE rates (Study 1, 82%; Study 2, 77%). The most common TEAEs were nausea and dry mouth. No significant within-group changes in blood pressure occurred in any group. Significant within-group mean increases in pulse (bpm) were observed in the placebo/duloxetine 120 mg group in Study 1 (3.7 [SD = 11.2], P

Evaluating the maintenance of effect of duloxetine in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the maintenance of effect of duloxetine 60 mg QD over 26 weeks in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). METHODS: Adult patients with DPNP and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) 24-h average pain >or=4 were treated in this open-label study with duloxetine 60 mg QD for 8 weeks. Responders (>or=30% pain reduction) continued on duloxetine 60 mg QD (maintenance arm) for 26 weeks while non-responders had duloxetine increased to 120 mg QD (rescue arm). The primary outcome measure was the mean change from baseline (Week 8) to endpoint (Week 34) in BPI average pain in the maintenance arm. A number of secondary efficacy measures, as well as safety and tolerability, were assessed. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixteen patients entered the study and their baseline BPI average pain was 5.9. Thirty-two patients (15%) discontinued during the acute phase. One hundred and fifteen (53%) patients were found to be responders to 60 mg dose and they entered the maintenance arm. During the maintenance period they reported a mean change of BPI average pain of 0.35, with 0.79 as the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI, which was less than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 (p < 0.001). Non-responders, upon dose increase to 120 mg QD, reported a statistically significant pain reduction. Total of 119 patients completed either arm of the study. Twenty patients experienced 27 serious adverse events including one death. CONCLUSION: In this open-label study, the effect of duloxetine 60 mg QD in patients with DPNP was maintained over 6-month period.

Duloxetine in the prevention of depressive recurrences: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of duloxetine 60-120 mg once daily in the prevention of depressive recurrence in outpatients with recurrent major depressive disorder (MDD). METHOD: Eligible patients with at least 3 episodes of MDD (DSM-IV diagnosis) in the past 5 years received open-label duloxetine 60-120 mg/day for up to 34 weeks. Patients meeting response criteria were then randomly assigned to either duloxetine or placebo for up to 52 weeks of double-blind maintenance treatment. The primary outcome measure was time to recurrence of a major depressive episode. Safety and tolerability were assessed via analysis of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs, weight, and laboratory measures. Patients were recruited from 43 study centers in 5 European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and Sweden) and the United States. The study was conducted from March 2005 to January 2008. RESULTS: A total of 288 patients were randomly assigned to duloxetine or placebo. Time to a depressive recurrence was significantly longer in duloxetine-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients (p < .001). During the double-blind maintenance phase, 33.1% of placebo-treated patients experienced a depressive recurrence compared with 14.4% of duloxetine-treated patients (p < .001). There were no significant differences between treatment groups in TEAEs, discontinuations due to adverse events, vital signs, or weight. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with duloxetine was associated with a longer time to depressive recurrence and a significantly lower recurrence rate compared with placebo. TRIALS REGISTRATION: (ClinicalTrials.gov) Identifier: NCT00105989.

The relationship between antidepressant and analgesic responses: findings from six placebo-controlled trials assessing the efficacy of duloxetine in patients with major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Debate continues regarding whether onset of analgesia is faster than antidepressant effect in antidepressants with both properties. Duloxetine hydrochloride (from here on referred to as duloxetine) is effective in both major depressive disorder and diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. This post-hoc analysis of six placebo-controlled duloxetine trials in patients with major depressive disorder was designed to compare onset of antidepressant activity to pain relief. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Duloxetine was administered at 40-120 mg/day versus placebo for up to 9 weeks in outpatient clinic settings. The primary depression measure was the HAMD(17) and pain severity was measured using visual analog scale (VAS) measuring overall pain, headache, back and shoulder pain, and pain while awake. The time course of improvement was profiled using repeated measures modeling and Kaplan-Meier product limit estimation. RESULTS: In all but one case, significant reductions in HAMD(17) and VAS scores were seen within 2 weeks of treatment. Median time to VAS response was consistently shorter across all VAS measures than that to HAMD(17) response in both placebo- and duloxetine-treated patients with at least modest levels of pain at study entry. Regression analyses consistently demonstrated little association between analgesic and antidepressant responses. Limitations of these findings include that the studies used in these analyses did not require the patients to enroll with any specific level of pain. Moreover, the type of pain exhibiting at presentation was not routinely identified; therefore, the impact of different pain types on these findings is unknown. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine's analgesic effect is independent of the drug's antidepressant effect. Additionally, faster onset of the analgesic effect appears to be a population-specific phenomenon that is unmodified in the presence of active agents.

Efficacy and safety of duloxetine for treatment of fibromyalgia in patients with or without major depressive disorder: Results from a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose trial.

The primary objectives of this study were to assess the efficacy and safety of duloxetine for reducing pain severity in fibromyalgia patients with or without current major depressive disorder. This was a 6-month, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. In total, 520 patients meeting American College of Rheumatology criteria for fibromyalgia were randomly assigned to duloxetine (20 mg/day, 60 mg/day, or 120 mg/day) or placebo, administered once daily, for 6 months (after 3 months, the duloxetine 20-mg/day group titrated to 60 mg/day). The co-primary outcome measures were the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain severity score and Patient Global Impressions of Improvement (PGI-I) score. Safety was assessed via treatment-emergent adverse events, and changes in vital sign, laboratory, and ECG measures. Compared with placebo-treated patients, those patients treated with duloxetine 120 mg/day improved significantly more on the co-primary outcome measures at 3 months (change in BPI score [-2.31 vs -1.39, P<0.001] and PGI-I [2.89 vs 3.39, P=0.004]) and at 6 months (change in BPI [-2.26 vs -1.43, P=0.003] and PGI-I [2.93 vs 3.37, P=0.012]). Compared with placebo, treatment with duloxetine 60 mg/day also significantly improved the co-primary measures at 3 months and BPI at 6 months. Duloxetine was efficacious in patients both with and without major depressive disorder. There were no clinically significant differences between treatment groups in changes in vital signs, laboratory measures, or ECG measures. Study results demonstrated that duloxetine at doses of 60 mg/day and 120 mg/day appears to be safe and efficacious in patients with fibromyalgia.

Clinical evidence for serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibition of duloxetine.

Most antidepressants in clinical use are believed to function by enhancing neurotransmission of serotonin [5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)] and/or norepinephrine (NE) via inhibition of neurotransmitter reuptake. Agents that affect reuptake of both 5-HT and NE (serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) have been postulated to offer greater efficacy for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). These dual-acting agents also display a broader spectrum of action, including efficacy for MDD and associated painful physical symptoms, diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, generalized anxiety disorder, and fibromyalgia syndrome. Substantial preclinical evidence shows that duloxetine, an approved drug for the treatment of MDD, generalized anxiety disorder, and the management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, inhibits reuptake of both 5-HT and NE. This paper reviews clinical and neurochemical evidence of duloxetine's effects on 5-HT and NE reuptake inhibition. The clinical evidence supporting duloxetine's effects on NE reuptake inhibition includes indirect measures such as altered excretion of NE metabolites, cardiovascular effects, and treatment-emergent adverse event profiles similar to those for other drugs believed to act through the inhibition of NE reuptake. In summary, the data presented in this report provide clinical evidence of a mechanism for duloxetine involving both 5-HT and NE reuptake inhibition in humans and are consistent with preclinical evidence for 5-HT/NE reuptake inhibition.

A randomized, double-blind study of increasing or maintaining duloxetine dose in patients without remission of major depressive disorder after initial duloxetine therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy of remaining on duloxetine 60 mg to increasing to 120 mg q.d. in patients without remission of major depressive disorder (MDD) after 6 weeks at 60 mg. METHOD: This double-blind, parallel study was conducted in adults with MDD (DSM-IV-TR criteria). Patients initially randomly assigned to duloxetine 60 mg for 6 weeks with a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) score > 7 (nonremitters) were randomly reassigned to 60 mg or 120 mg duloxetine for 8 weeks. Patients with a HAM-D-17 score < or =7 (remitters) continued on duloxetine 60 mg. The primary objective was to compare time to remission (HAM-D-17 score < or =7) between rerandomized groups. Secondary objectives included evaluation of HAM-D-17 and Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology assessments and safety and tolerability evaluations in nonremitters and remitters. Patients were enrolled from November 2004 to January 2006. RESULTS: Nonremitters randomly reassigned to 60 mg and 120 mg achieved similar time to remission and similar improvements on efficacy measures. Remission was achieved in 30.0% and 30.5% in the 60-mg and 120-mg groups, respectively. Of the remitters, 85.5% continued to be in remission at study end. Other than a greater incidence of hyperhidrosis and chest pain in the 120-mg group, adverse events were similar between groups, as were discontinuations due to adverse events. CONCLUSION: Nonremitters to 60 mg of duloxetine for 6 weeks randomly reassigned to 60 mg or 120 mg of duloxetine demonstrated continued symptom improvement in the 8-week extension. Patients randomly reassigned to 120 mg showed no advantage over those who continued on 60 mg. Duloxetine was well tolerated at both doses and had similar safety profiles.

A six-month double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial of duloxetine for the treatment of fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the efficacy of duloxetine 60/120 mg (N = 162) once daily compared with placebo (N = 168) in the treatment of patients with fibromyalgia, during six months of treatment. METHODS: This was a phase-III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study assessing the efficacy and safety of duloxetine. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between treatment groups on the co-primary efficacy outcome measures, change in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain severity from baseline to endpoint (P = 0.053) and the Patient's Global Impressions of Improvement (PGI-I) at endpoint (P = 0.073). Duloxetine-treated patients improved significantly more than placebo-treated patients on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire pain score, BPI least pain score and average interference score, Clinical Global Impressions of Severity scale, area under the curve of pain relief, Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory mental fatigue dimension, Beck Depression Inventory-II total score, and 36-item Short Form Health Survey mental component summary and mental health score. Nausea was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event in the duloxetine group. Overall discontinuation rates were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although duloxetine 60/120 mg/day failed to demonstrate significant improvement over placebo on the co-primary outcome measures, in this supportive study, duloxetine demonstrated significant improvement compared with placebo on numerous secondary measures.

Efficacy and safety of duloxetine in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: a flexible-dose, progressive-titration, placebo-controlled trial.

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), a prevalent and chronic illness, is associated with dysregulation in both serotonergic and noradrenergic neurotransmission. Our study examined the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of duloxetine hydrochloride, a dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin and norepinephrine, for short-term treatment of adults with GAD. In a 10-week, double-blind, progressive-titration, flexible-dose trial, 327 adult outpatients with a DSM-IV-defined GAD diagnosis were randomized to duloxetine 60-120 mg (DLX, N=168) or placebo (PLA, N=159) treatment. The primary efficacy measure was mean change from baseline to endpoint in Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) total score. Secondary outcome measures included response rate (HAMA total score reduction > or =50% from baseline), Clinician Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scores, and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) scores. Patients who received duloxetine treatment demonstrated significantly greater improvement in HAMA total scores (P=.02); a higher response rate (P=.03), and greater improvement (P=.04) than patients who received placebo. Duloxetine-treated patients were also significantly more improved than placebo-treated patients on SDS global functional (P<.01) and work, social, and family/home impairment scores (P<.05). The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) was higher for the duloxetine group compared with the placebo group (P=.002). The AEs most frequently associated with duloxetine were nausea, dizziness, and somnolence. Duloxetine was an efficacious, safe, and well-tolerated treatment that resulted in clinically significant improvements in symptom severity and functioning for patients with GAD.

Efficacy of duloxetine and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: comparisons as assessed by remission rates in patients with major depressive disorder.

It has been proposed that serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) may result in higher remission rates of major depressive disorder than therapy with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). To test this hypothesis, a meta-analysis of individual patient data (N = 1833) was performed for the complete set of 6 phase II/III studies that compared duloxetine (fixed doses; range, 40-120 mg/d) with 2 SSRIs (paroxetine or fluoxetine; 20 mg/d) in outpatients with major depressive disorder. Remission was defined as an end point score of less than or equal to 7 on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD17); alternate outcome criteria were also examined, as were remission rates among the 1044 patients with moderate-to-severe depression (HAMD17 total score greater than or equal to 19). The HAMD17 remission rates were 40.3% (351/871), 38.3% (162/423), and 28.4% (144/507) for duloxetine, the 2 SSRIs, and placebo, respectively. Both active treatments were superior to placebo; the difference between duloxetine and SSRIs was not statistically significant. Similar findings were observed for alternate outcomes. Duloxetine therapy was significantly more effective than therapy with the 2 SSRIs for patients with more severe depression, with remission rates of 35.9% (183/510) versus 28.6% (70/245) (P = 0.046). A secondary analysis of dose-response relationships indicated that this advantage was not attributable to the studies using higher doses of duloxetine. Thus, whereas duloxetine and the 2 SSRIs were comparably efficacious overall, therapy with the serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor resulted in a significantly higher remission rate among patients with moderate-to-severe depression.

Differential antidepressant symptom efficacy: placebo-controlled comparisons of duloxetine and SSRIs (fluoxetine, paroxetine, escitalopram).

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), the response for specific Hamilton Depression Rating Scale items will differ for duloxetine compared with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and that patterns of response will differ based on symptom severity at baseline. METHOD: Data were pooled from all Lilly-sponsored clinical trials where duloxetine was compared with placebo and an SSRI in patients with MDD: 7 randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose, 8-week studies of duloxetine (n = 1,133) versus SSRI (n = 689) versus placebo (n = 641). Duloxetine doses were 40, 60, 80 and 120 mg/day. SSRI doses were 10 mg/day (escitalopram) and 20 mg/day (fluoxetine and paroxetine). RESULTS: Compared to SSRI-treated patients, duloxetine-treated patients had a significantly greater (p < or = 0.05) reduction in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD17) total score and HAMD17 items of work and activities, psychomotor retardation, genital symptoms and hypochondriasis. Differences favoring the SSRIs approached significance for middle insomnia (p = 0.057) and late insomnia (p = 0.06), with effect sizes at least twice the magnitude of the corresponding effect sizes for duloxetine. Similarly, the advantage for duloxetine versus the SSRIs approached significance for general somatic symptoms (p = 0.056), with an effect size twice that observed for the SSRIs. The HAMD17 total score difference was driven mostly by patients with lower baseline MDD severity (HAMD17 total score < or = 19), where the HAMD17 effect size advantage for duloxetine over combined SSRIs was statistically significant (p = 0.031). CONCLUSION: Potentially important differences in symptom response patterns were found between duloxetine and the combined SSRIs depending on symptom severity, and different HAMD17 items responded differently to duloxetine compared with SSRIs. Understanding these differences may be useful in tailoring antidepressant therapy for individual patients.

Evidence for the efficacy of duloxetine in treating mild, moderate, and severe depression.

Clinicians need to know whether duloxetine is effective in patients across a broad range of depressive symptoms and depression severity. Data were pooled from nine randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in major depressive disorder (total N=2227) comparing duloxetine (40-120 mg/day) with placebo for 8-9 weeks. Patients were retrospectively stratified by baseline score on the HAMD17 into mild (< or =19; n=682), moderate (n=1099), or severe (> or =25; n=446) groups. Duloxetine produced significantly greater baseline-to-endpoint mean change than placebo in HAMD17 total score, Maier and retardation subscales, and the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale in all three cohorts. Significant improvement was seen in HAMD17 items 1 (depressed mood), 3 (suicide), 7 (work and activities), and 10 (psychic anxiety) regardless of severity. The HAMD17 anxiety subscale and items 13 (somatic symptoms-general) and 15 (hypochondriasis) showed significant improvement only in moderately and severely ill patients. Significant improvement in the HAMD17 Maier subscale was seen in all groups by week 1. In all three groups, placebo was significantly superior to duloxetine at early visits on HAMD17 item 12 (somatic symptoms-GI). Mildly and severely ill patients exhibited significant reduction in visual analog scale overall pain severity at the study endpoint. The studies contained fewer patients with very mild or very severe illness, limiting our ability to draw conclusions in these patient populations. Duloxetine demonstrated superior efficacy in the treatment of major depressive disorder, when compared with placebo, regardless of the baseline severity of depressive symptoms, although effect sizes were largest in the most severely depressed patients.

Duloxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder: an open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a chronic and highly disabling condition. Existing pharmacotherapies produce full remission in only 30% to 40% of treated patients. Antidepressants exhibiting dual reuptake inhibition of both serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) may achieve higher rates of remission compared with those acting upon a single neurotransmitter. In this study, the safety and efficacy of duloxetine, a potent dual reuptake inhibitor of 5-HT and NE, were examined. METHODS: Patients (N = 533) meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD received open-label duloxetine (60 mg once a day [QD]) for 12 weeks during the initial phase of a relapse prevention trial. Patients were required to have a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD17) total score >or=18 and a Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) score >or=4 at baseline. Efficacy measures included the HAMD17 total score, HAMD17 subscales, the CGI-S, the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale, Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for pain, and the Symptom Questionnaire, Somatic Subscale (SQ-SS). Quality of life was assessed using the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) and the Quality of Life in Depression Scale (QLDS). Safety was evaluated by recording spontaneously-reported treatment-emergent adverse events, changes in vital signs and laboratory analytes, and the Patient Global Impression of Sexual Function (PGI-SF) scale. RESULTS: The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was 11.3%. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported by >or=10% duloxetine-treated patients were nausea, headache, dry mouth, somnolence, insomnia, and dizziness. Following 12 weeks of open-label duloxetine therapy, significant improvements were observed in all assessed efficacy and quality of life measures. In assessments of depression severity (HAMD17, CGI-S) the magnitude of symptom improvement continued to increase at each study visit, while for painful physical symptoms the onset of improvement was rapid and reached a maximum after 2 to 3 weeks of treatment. CONCLUSION: In this open-label phase of a relapse prevention study, duloxetine (60 mg QD) was shown to be safe and effective in the treatment of MDD.