Efficacy and safety of aripiprazole lauroxil in schizophrenic patients presenting with severe psychotic symptoms during an acute exacerbation.

Aripiprazole lauroxil (AL), a new long-acting injectable antipsychotic, demonstrated safety and efficacy in treating acute exacerbation symptoms of schizophrenia in a 12-week placebo-controlled trial of two doses of AL (441mg and 882mg) administered every 4weeks. We performed a post hoc analysis of this trial to evaluate the efficacy of AL in the subgroup of patients with severe psychotic symptoms, defined as those with baseline Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Total score above the median score of 92 (n=309). Change from baseline to Day 85 in PANSS Total score; Positive, Negative, and General Psychopathology subscale scores; and overall response rate were assessed. Statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PANSS Total score were demonstrated with AL 441mg and AL 882mg, with placebo-adjusted differences of -14.7 (p<0.0001) and -16.6 (p<0.0001), respectively. Significant and clinically meaningful findings with both doses of AL were also demonstrated for the PANSS subscales and responder rates. Overall responder rates at Day 85 were significantly greater for AL 441mg (49%; p<0.001) and 882 mg (61%; p<0.001) groups vs. placebo (18%). Common adverse events (>5%) were schizophrenia, akathisia, headache, insomnia, and anxiety. AL demonstrated robust efficacy in treatment of the subgroup of patients experiencing severe psychotic symptoms. Both doses (441mg and 882mg) were effective, with numerically greater improvement in symptoms and proportion of responders favoring the higher dose arm. Both doses had a side effect profile consistent with the known safety profile of aripiprazole.

Effect of Aripiprazole Lauroxil on Metabolic and Endocrine Profiles and Related Safety Considerations Among Patients With Acute Schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Aripiprazole lauroxil, a long-acting injectable antipsychotic, demonstrated safety and efficacy in treating symptoms of schizophrenia in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Because the metabolic profile of antipsychotics is an important safety feature, the effects of aripiprazole lauroxil on body weight, endocrine and metabolic profiles, and safety were examined in a secondary analysis. METHODS: Patients with schizophrenia (DSM-IV-TR criteria) were randomly assigned to aripiprazole lauroxil 441 mg, aripiprazole lauroxil 882 mg, or placebo intramuscularly once monthly between December 2011 and March 2014. Changes in body weight, body mass index, fasting blood glucose and serum lipids, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and prolactin over 12 weeks were assessed. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was evaluated. RESULTS: Among 622 randomized patients, no clinically relevant changes from baseline to week 12 were observed for any serum lipid, lipoprotein, plasma glucose, or HbA1c value with placebo or either dose of aripiprazole lauroxil. Both doses of aripiprazole lauroxil were associated with reductions in mean prolactin levels, whereas placebo treatment was not. The mean (standard deviation) change from baseline for body weight was 0.74 (3.9) kg, 0.86 (3.7) kg, and 0.01 (3.6) kg for aripiprazole lauroxil 441 mg, aripiprazole lauroxil 882 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. AEs related to metabolic parameters were reported in 2.4%, 1.4%, and 2.4% of patients in the aripiprazole lauroxil 441 mg, aripiprazole lauroxil 882 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Aripiprazole lauroxil was well tolerated, with a low-risk metabolic profile relative to published data for other antipsychotics. Changes similar to those observed with placebo were observed in the aripiprazole lauroxil groups for metabolic parameters, with modest weight gain in the active treatment groups over the 12-week course. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01469039.

Effect of aripiprazole lauroxil on agitation and hostility in patients with schizophrenia.

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of aripiprazole lauroxil on hostility and aggressive behavior in patients with schizophrenia. Patients aged 18-70 years with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and currently experiencing an acute exacerbation or relapse were randomized to intramuscular (IM) aripiprazole lauroxil 441 mg (n=207), 882 mg (n=208), or placebo (n=207) for 12 weeks. In post-hoc analyses, hostility and aggression were assessed by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Hostility item (P7) and a specific antihostility effect was assessed by adjusting for positive symptoms of schizophrenia, somnolence, and akathisia. The PANSS excited component score [P4 (Excitement), P7 (Hostility), G4 (Tension), G8 (Uncooperativeness), and G14 (Poor impulse control)], and the Personal and Social Performance scale disturbing and aggressive behavior domain were also assessed. Of the 147 patients who received aripiprazole lauroxil 882 mg and with a baseline PANSS Hostility item P7 more than 1, there was a significant (P<0.05) improvement versus placebo on the PANSS Hostility item P7 score by mixed-model repeated-measures at the end of the study, which remained significant when PANSS-positive symptoms and somnolence or akathisia were included as additional covariates. The proportion with PANSS Hostility item P7 more than 1 at endpoint was significantly (P<0.05) lower with aripiprazole lauroxil versus placebo (53.6, 46.1, and 66.3% for 441, 882 mg, and placebo). A significant (P<0.05) improvement was found with aripiprazole lauroxil versus placebo for change from baseline in the PANSS excited component score. The proportion of patients with aggressive behavior on the Personal and Social Performance scale was significantly (P<0.05) lower for aripiprazole lauroxil: 30.0% for 441 mg versus 44.1% for placebo (P=0.006) and 22.2% for 881 mg (P<0.001 versus placebo). Treatment with aripiprazole lauroxil resulted in decreases in agitation and hostility in patients with schizophrenia and this antihostility effect appears to be independent of a general antipsychotic effect.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of aripiprazole lauroxil in acute exacerbation of schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of aripiprazole lauroxil, a novel long-acting injectable atypical antipsychotic, for the treatment of schizophrenia. METHOD: An international multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted between December 2011 and March 2014. Patients (N = 623) aged 18 to 70 years with schizophrenia (DSM-IV-TR criteria), experiencing an acute exacerbation, were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive gluteal intramuscular injection of aripiprazole lauroxil 441 mg, aripiprazole lauroxil 882 mg, or matching placebo once monthly for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome was change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score from baseline to day 85. The Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale (CGI-I) score at day 85 was the secondary efficacy outcome. Safety and tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: The PANSS total score (mean ± standard error [SE]) improved significantly from baseline to day 85 in the aripiprazole lauroxil 441 mg and 882 mg groups, with placebo-adjusted differences of -10.9 ± 1.8 (P < .001) and -11.9 ± 1.8 (P < .001), respectively. Significant (P ≤ .004) improvements in both active treatment groups were demonstrated as early as day 8 and continued throughout the treatment period. The proportion of patients who were very much or much improved on the CGI-I was significantly greater with aripiprazole lauroxil 441 mg and 882 mg treatment versus placebo (P < .001). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were insomnia, akathisia, headache, and anxiety. The incidence of injection site reactions was low, predominantly described as injection site pain, and was associated with the first injection. CONCLUSIONS: Aripiprazole lauroxil demonstrated robust efficacy for treatment of patients experiencing acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. The improvement in psychotic symptoms was statistically significant and clinically meaningful. Symptom improvement occurred rapidly after initiation of aripiprazole lauroxil treatment and was maintained throughout the study. Both aripiprazole lauroxil 441 mg and 882 mg doses were well tolerated. These results support aripiprazole lauroxil as an important new treatment option for schizophrenia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01469039; Clinicaltrialsregister.eu identifier: 2012-003445-15.

A phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose study of levomilnacipran extended-release in patients with major depressive disorder.

Levomilnacipran (1S, 2R-milnacipran) is a potent and selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor; an extended-release (ER) formulation allows for once-daily dosing. This phase III study (NCT01034462) evaluated the efficacy, the safety, and the tolerability of 40 to 120 mg/d of levomilnacipran ER versus placebo in the treatment of patients (18-80 y) with major depressive disorder. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, flexible-dose study comprised a 1-week single-blind, placebo run-in period; an 8-week double-blind treatment; and a 2-week double-blind down-taper period. The primary efficacy parameter was total score change from baseline to week 8 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS); the secondary efficacy was the Sheehan Disability Scale. Analysis was performed using the mixed-effects model for repeated measures on a modified intent-to-treat population. A total of 434 patients received at least 1 dose of double-blind treatment (safety population); 429 patients also had 1 or more postbaseline MADRS assessments (modified intent-to-treat population). The least squares mean differences and 95% confidence interval were statistically significant in favor of levomilnacipran ER versus placebo for the MADRS total score (-3.095 [-5.256, -0.935]; P = 0.0051) and the SDS total score (-2.632 [-4.193, -1.070]; P = 0.0010) change from baseline to week 8. Adverse events were reported in 61.8% of the placebo patients and in 81.6% of the levomilnacipran ER patients. Frequently reported adverse events (≥ 5% in levomilnacipran ER and twice the rate of placebo) were nausea, dizziness, constipation, tachycardia, urinary hesitation, hyperhidrosis, insomnia, vomiting, hypertension, and ejaculation disorder. In conclusion, there was a statistically significant difference in the score change from baseline to week 8 between levomilnacipran ER and placebo on several depression rating scales, reflecting symptomatic and functional improvement; treatment was generally well tolerated.

Levomilnacipran ER 40 mg and 80 mg in patients with major depressive disorder: a phase III, randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a global health concern. This study examined the efficacy, safety and tolerability of an extended-release (ER) formulation of levomilnacipran, an antidepressant approved for the treatment of MDD in adults. METHODS: This 10-week (1-week placebo run-in period, 8-week double-blind treatment, 1-week down-taper), multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, fixed-dose study was conducted between June 2011 and March 2012. Adult outpatients (age 18-75 yr) with MDD were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to placebo or to levomilnacipran ER 40 mg/day or 80 mg/day. For primary efficacy, we analyzed the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) change from baseline to week 8 using a mixed-effects model for repeated-measures approach on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. For secondary efficacy, we used the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and for safety, we examined adverse events and laboratory, vital sign/physical and electrocardiography findings. RESULTS: The ITT population consisted of 185 patients in the placebo group, 185 in the levomilnacipran ER 40 mg/day group and 187 in the levomilnacipran ER 80 mg/day group. Study completion rates were similar among the groups (76%-83%). On MADRS change from baseline the least squares mean difference (LSMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) versus placebo was significant for levomilnacipran ER 40 mg/day (-3.3 [-5.5 to -1.1], p = 0.003) and 80 mg/day (-3.1, [-5.3 to -1.0], p = 0.004). On SDS change from baseline the LSMD (and 95% CI) versus placebo was also significant for levomilnacipran ER 40 mg/day (-1.8, 95% [-3.6 to 0], p = 0.046) and 80 mg/day (-2.7 [-4.5 to -0.9], p = 0.003). More patients in the levomilnacipran ER than the placebo group prematurely exited the study owing to adverse events; common adverse events (≥ 5% and ≥ double the rate of placebo) were nausea, dry mouth, increased heart rate, constipation, dizziness, hyperhidrosis, urinary hesitation and erectile dysfunction. LIMITATIONS: Limitations to our study included short treatment duration and lack of an active control arm. CONCLUSION: Levomilnacipran ER at doses of 40 mg/day and 80 mg/day demonstrated efficacy on symptomatic and functional measures of MDD and was generally well tolerated in this patient population. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01377194.

Escitalopram in the treatment of adolescent depression: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled extension trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the extended efficacy, safety, and tolerability of escitalopram relative to placebo in adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Adolescents (12-17 years) who completed an 8-week randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose, placebo-controlled, lead-in study of escitalopram 10-20 mg versus placebo could enroll in a 16-24-week, multisite extension trial; patients maintained the same lead-in randomization (escitalopram or placebo) and dosage (escitalopram 10 or 20 mg/day, or placebo) during the extension. The primary efficacy was Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) change from the lead-in study baseline to treatment week 24 (8-week lead-in study plus 16-week extension); the secondary efficacy was Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) score at week 24. All efficacy analyses used the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach; sensitivity analyses used observed cases (OC) and mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). Safety was evaluated via adverse event (AE) reports and the clinician-rated Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS). RESULTS: Following lead-in, 165 patients enrolled in the double-blind extension (82 placebo; 83 escitalopram); 40 (48.8%) placebo and 37 (44.6%) escitalopram patients completed treatment. CDRS-R total score improvement was significantly greater for escitalopram than for placebo (p=0.005, LOCF; p=0.014; MMRM). Response rates (CDRS-R ≥ 40% reduction from baseline [adjusted and unadjusted] and CGI-I ≤ 2) were significantly higher for escitalopram than for placebo (LOCF); remission rates (CDRS-R ≤ 28) were 50.6% for escitalopram and 35.7% for placebo (p=0.002). OC analyses were not significantly different between groups. The most frequent escitalopram AEs (≥ 5% and more frequent than placebo) were headache, nausea, insomnia, vomiting, influenza-like symptoms, diarrhea, and urinary tract infection. Most AEs were mild/moderate and not related to the study drug. AEs suggestive of self-harm occurred in 5.7% and 7.1% of placebo and escitalopram patients. Occurrence of suicidal behavior and/or suicidal ideation assessed by C-SSRS was 10.9% (14/128) for placebo and 14.5% (19/131) for escitalopram. CONCLUSIONS: Extended use of escitalopram was generally safe and resulted in modest improvement in efficacy in adolescents with MDD.

Efficacy and safety of levomilnacipran sustained release in moderate to severe major depressive disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of levomilnacipran sustained release (SR), an antidepressant candidate in late-stage development, in major depressive disorder (MDD). METHOD: Between December 2006 and October 2007, a 10-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, flexible-dose trial assessed once-daily levomilnacipran SR (75 mg or 100 mg) in outpatients (18-70 years) meeting DSM-IV criteria for a major depressive episode (duration ≥ 1 month) with a 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS17) score > 22 and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) score ≥ 10. Levomilnacipran SR dose was increased to 100 mg/d over 12 days. The primary efficacy measure was Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score change from baseline to week 10; secondary efficacy measures were the HDRS17, SDS, Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale, and MADRS response (≥ 50% decrease from baseline) and remission (score ≤ 10). Safety was evaluated according to adverse events, laboratory investigations, and vital signs/physical findings. RESULTS: Efficacy analyses included 276 levomilnacipran SR-treated patients and 277 placebo-treated patients. Levomilnacipran SR was significantly superior to placebo on MADRS total score change from baseline to week 10 (least squares mean difference [LSMD] = -4.2 [95% CI, -5.7 to -2.6]; P < .0001). Statistical significance in favor of levomilnacipran SR was demonstrated on change from baseline to week 10 in HDRS17 total score (LSMD = -3.4 [95% CI, -4.7 to -2.2]; P < .0001) and SDS total score (LSMD = -3.4 [95% CI, -4.6 to -2.2]; P < .0001) and subscales. Significantly more levomilnacipran SR patients versus placebo patients achieved MADRS response (59.1% vs 42.2%; P < .0001) and remission (46.4% vs 26.0%; P < .0001). Levomilnacipran SR was generally safe and well tolerated; more levomilnacipran SR patients (9.4%) versus placebo patients (6.5%) discontinued due to adverse events, but more placebo patients versus levomilnacipran SR patients discontinued overall (24.9% vs 20.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Levomilnacipran SR demonstrated robust efficacy on all measures and was generally well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2006-002404-34

Efficacy and safety of levomilnacipran sustained release 40 mg, 80 mg, or 120 mg in major depressive disorder: a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: This phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of fixed-dose levomilnacipran sustained release (SR) compared with placebo in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD); the study was conducted from September 2009-May 2011. METHOD: Outpatients met DSM-IV-TR criteria for MDD with an ongoing major depressive episode ≥ 8 weeks' duration. After a 1-week placebo lead-in, patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n = 179) or levomilnacipran SR 40 mg (n = 181), 80 mg (n = 181), or 120 mg (n = 183) once daily for 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, followed by a 2-week double-blind down-taper. The primary efficacy parameter was change from baseline on the clinician-rated Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. The prespecified secondary efficacy parameter was change from baseline in Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) total score. Additional efficacy measures included the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS(17)) and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) and -Improvement (CGI-I). Safety and tolerability were also evaluated. RESULTS: The least squares mean difference (LSMD) for change from baseline in MADRS total score was significantly superior to placebo for all dose groups: -3.23 (P = .0186), -3.99 (P = .0038), and -4.86 (P = .0005) for levomilnacipran SR 40, 80, and 120 mg, respectively. The LSMD was significantly different for levomilnacipran SR 80 mg and 120 mg versus placebo on the SDS (-2.51 and -2.57, respectively, P < .05 for both doses), HDRS(17) (-2.09 and -2.34, respectively, P < .05 for both doses), CGI-S (-0.43 [P < .01] and -0.35 [P < .05], respectively), and CGI-I (-0.34 and -0.32, respectively, P < .05 for both doses) assessments. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (≥ 10% of any treatment group) were headache, nausea, constipation, dry mouth, increased heart rate, and hyperhidrosis. CONCLUSIONS: Levomilnacipran SR demonstrated significant improvement in depressive symptoms and functioning relative to placebo. In this study, levomilnacipran SR was generally well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00969709.

Early non-response in patients with severe depression: escitalopram up-titration versus switch to duloxetine.

BACKGROUND: Comparative evidence for second-step treatment strategies in severe depression is scarce. Up-titrating a well tolerated selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) versus switching to a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) after initial SSRI non-response are possible treatment options. It is often unclear whether relevant tolerability and efficacy differences exist between SSRI up-titration versus switch to an SNRI. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate tolerability and efficacy of up-titration of escitalopram versus switch to duloxetine in patients who failed to respond to escitalopram 10 mg/day. METHODS: This was an active-controlled, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized study in a general community comparing escitalopram and duloxetine in patients with severe depression; patients who did not respond (<50% Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] improvement) to 2 weeks of single-blind escitalopram 10 mg/day during the lead-in period were randomized to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment. 571 male and female outpatients aged 18-65 years with severe depression (MADRS total score ≥30) participated in the study and received at least one dose of escitalopram 10 mg/day in the single-blind lead-in phase. During the double-blind randomized phase, 474 patients who did not respond to lead-in escitalopram were randomized and received treatment with escitalopram 20 mg (n = 229) or duloxetine 60 mg (n = 245). Treatment was single-blind escitalopram 10 mg/day during a 2-week lead-in followed by 8-week double-blind escitalopram 20 mg/day or duloxetine 60 mg/day. The main outcome measure was time to all-cause premature study discontinuation. RESULTS: There was no difference in time to all-cause discontinuation between groups (hazard ratio escitalopram/duloxetine = 0.95 [95% CI 0.64, 1.41]; p = 0.727). Treatment with escitalopram compared with duloxetine resulted in significant improvement in MADRS total score at the end of week 8 (least squares mean difference [LSMD] = -1.87 [95% CI -3.60, -0.14]; p = 0.034) using last observation carried forward (LOCF) analysis. Significantly more escitalopram (54%) than duloxetine (42%) patients achieved remission (MADRS ≤10) by week 8 (p = 0.013). Adverse events were similar between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSION: In initial non-responders to escitalopram 10 mg/day, dose escalation to 20 mg/day provided better efficacy than switching to duloxetine 60 mg/day, while discontinuations for any reasons and adverse events were similar. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00384436.

A comparative study of paediatric oral premedication: midazolam, ketamine and low dose combination of midazolam and ketamine.

In a prospective randomised double-blind trial, 90 patients aged 1-7 years (ASA I) undergoing elective surgery less than 90 minutes duration were allocated into three separate groups to compare the safety and effectiveness of oral midazolam, ketamine, and low dose combination of midazolam and ketamine for premedication in paediatric patients. Group M received midazolam 0.5 mg kg(-1), group K received ketamine 6mg kg(-1) and group C received combination of ketamine 2.5 mg kg(-1) and midazolam 0.25 mg kg(-1) orally in 0.2ml kg(-1) of sugar syrup to make it palatable. The sedation score and emotional state on a four -point scale, ease of parental separation, cooperation for venepuncture, ease of mask acceptance and peri-operative cardiorespiratory status were evaluated. Peri-operative incidence of vomiting, nystagmus, emergence phenomenon and postanesthetic recovery time were noted. In the present study it was found that C group was more effective in sedating the children within 10 minutes and 20 minutes, whereas, the combination and midazolam groups are comparable in sedating the children at 30 minutes. Side-effects and recovery time were more in ketamine group. The recovery time was significantly less in group C. In conclusion oral combination of low dose ketamine and midazolam produced quick onset of satisfactory conscious sedation and more rapid recovery without significant side-effects, so that more children could be separated easily from their parents and provides smooth induction than the individual drug.

Healthcare utilization and costs incurred by patients with major depression after being switched from escitalopram to another SSRI for non-medical reasons.

OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare utilization and costs for major depressive disorder (MDD) patients treated with escitalopram and who were switched to another SSRI for non-medical reasons versus those who did not switch. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients were identified in the Ingenix Impact Database (2003-2006). The analysis group included patients who remained on escitalopram for ≥ 90 days and switched to another SSRI within 45 days of end of supply days for non-medical reasons; the control group included matched individuals who did not switch within 45 days. Switching for medical reasons was defined as switching within 7 days after having a hospitalization, an emergency room (ER) visit, or a psychotherapy visit. Outcomes (all-cause and MDD-related) were analyzed over 3 months and included use of hospital, ER, outpatient visits and professional services, and healthcare costs. Outcomes were compared between the two groups using descriptive statistics and regression analyses controlling for differences in baseline characteristics. Costs were inflation adjusted to 2006 US dollars. RESULTS: The study included 2,805 matched pairs. Compared to controls, switchers had higher rates of all-cause and MDD-related hospitalizations (relative risk [RR] = 1.4 and 2.0, respectively) and all-cause and MDD-related ER visits (RR = 1.2 and 1.6, respectively, all p ≤ 0.05). Results from multivariate analyses show that switchers had higher medical costs (+$138), drug costs (+$149) and total healthcare costs (+$322) compared to patients in the control group (all p < 0.0001). LIMITATIONS: This study's limitations include its short observational period and definition of switching for non-medical reasons. CONCLUSION: Patients who were switched to another SSRI for non-medical reasons after being stabilized on escitalopram used more resources and had higher healthcare costs within 3 months of switching than patients who did not switch.

Escitalopram in the acute treatment of depressed patients aged 60 years or older.

OBJECTIVE: The present study examined the efficacy and tolerability of acute escitalopram treatment in depressed patients aged 60 years or older. METHODS: Patients aged > or =60 years with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition major depressive disorder were randomized to 12 weeks of double-blind, flexible-dose treatment with escitalopram (10-20 mg/day; N = 130) or placebo (N = 134). The prospectively defined primary efficacy end point was change from baseline to week 12 in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score using the last observation carried forward approach. RESULTS: A total of 109 (81%) patients in the placebo group and 96 (74%) patients in the escitalopram group completed treatment. Mean age in both groups was approximately 68 years. Mean baseline MADRS scores were 28.4 and 29.4 for the placebo and escitalopram treatment groups, respectively. Escitalopram did not achieve statistical significance compared with placebo in change from baseline on the MADRS (least square mean difference: -1.34; last observation carried forward). Discontinuation rates resulting from adverse events were 6% for placebo and 11% for escitalopram. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported by >10% of patients in the escitalopram group were headache, nausea, diarrhea, and dry mouth. CONCLUSIONS: Escitalopram treatment was not significantly different from placebo treatment on the primary efficacy measure, change from baseline to week 12 in MADRS. In patients aged 60 years or older with major depression, acute escitalopram treatment appeared to be well tolerated.

Randomized placebo-controlled trial of escitalopram and venlafaxine XR in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder.

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is a highly prevalent and disabling condition. Escitalopram and venlafaxine extended release (XR) both are indicated for the treatment of GAD. Outpatients (ages 18-65 years) with DSM-IV-defined GAD (Hamilton Anxiety Scale [HAMA] >or=20) were eligible to participate in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, flexible-dose trial. Following randomization, patients received 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with escitalopram (10-20 mg/day; N=127), venlafaxine XR (75-225 mg/day; N=129), or placebo (N=136). The primary efficacy parameter was mean change from baseline at week 8 in HAMA total score, using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) approach. Secondary efficacy parameters were HAMA psychic anxiety subscale, Clinical Global Impressions of Severity (CGI-S) and Improvement (CGI-I) scales. Treatment was completed by 77% of patients. The least square mean difference for change from baseline at week 8 in HAMA total score for escitalopram and venlafaxine XR versus placebo were -1.52 (P=.09) and -2.27 (P=.01), respectively, for LOCF, and -1.92 (P=.033) and -3.02 (P=.001), respectively, for Observed Cases (OC). On all secondary parameters, both active treatments were significantly superior to placebo on the LOCF and OC analyses. Discontinuation due to adverse events was not different for escitalopram versus placebo (7 versus 5%, P=.61), but was significantly greater for venlafaxine XR (13%) versus placebo (P=.03). Venlafaxine XR, but not escitalopram, separated from placebo on the primary efficacy measure, using the LOCF approach. However, overall efficacy analyses suggest that escitalopram and venlafaxine XR are both effective treatments for GAD. Escitalopram was better tolerated.

Double-blind comparison of escitalopram and duloxetine in the acute treatment of major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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.

Escitalopram maintenance treatment for prevention of recurrent depression: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is a recurrent illness that often requires maintenance antidepressant treatment. Escitalopram is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that has shown efficacy in both acute and continuation treatment of major depressive disorder. The current trial examined the efficacy of maintenance escitalopram treatment in preventing depression recurrence in patients who responded to acute SSRI therapy. METHOD: Patients with recurrent DSM-IV-defined major depressive disorder (>or= 2 previous episodes; baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] score >or= 22) who had responded (MADRS score or= 22 or insufficient therapeutic response during the double-blind phase. The study was conducted between October 16, 2000, and February 4, 2003. RESULTS: A total of 234 patients who responded to acute open-label treatment with 1 of 4 SSRIs received at least 1 dose of open-label escitalopram continuation treatment. Of 164 patients who completed escitalopram continuation treatment, 139 were randomly assigned to double-blind maintenance treatment with escitalopram (N = 73) or placebo (N = 66). Mean baseline MADRS scores at the start of the maintenance phase were < 5 for both the placebo- and escitalopram-treatment groups. Time to recurrence was significantly longer in patients who received maintenance treatment with escitalopram compared with patients switched to placebo (hazard ratio = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.13 to 0.52, p < .001). Long-term escitalopram treatment was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Maintenance treatment with escitalopram was well tolerated and significantly reduced the risk for recurrence of depression. Patients with few residual symptoms following continuation treatment with escitalopram experienced a high rate of depression recurrence when switched to placebo, demonstrating the need for maintenance therapy of recurrent major depressive disorder beyond 4 to 6 months of initial symptom resolution even if few residual symptoms are present.

A double-blind comparison of escitalopram and paroxetine in the long-term treatment of generalized anxiety disorder.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram, a newer SSRI, with paroxetine in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). METHODS: Patients with DSM-IV-defined GAD were randomized to receive 24 weeks of double-blind flexible-dose treatment with either escitalopram (10-20 mg/day) or paroxetine (20-50 mg/day), followed by a 2-week, double-blind, down-titration period. Mean change from baseline to endpoint (LOCF) in Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) scores was the primary efficacy variable. RESULTS: Mean baseline HAMA scores for the escitalopram (N = 60) and paroxetine (N = 61) groups were 23.7 and 23.4, respectively. After 24 weeks of treatment, mean changes in HAMA scores were -15.3 and -13.3 for escitalopram and paroxetine, respectively (p = 0.13). Significantly fewer patients withdrew from escitalopram than paroxetine treatment due to adverse events (6.6% vs. 22.6%; p = 0.02). The frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events was higher with paroxetine vs. escitalopram: overall (88.7% vs. 77.0%), insomnia (25.8% vs. 14.8%), constipation (14.5% vs. 1.6%), ejaculation disorder (30.0% vs. 14.8%), anorgasmia (26.2% vs. 5.9%), and decreased libido (22.6% vs. 4.9%). Conversely, diarrhea and upper respiratory tract infection were reported more with escitalopram than paroxetine (21.3% vs. 8.1%, and 14.8% vs. 4.8%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of escitalopram as a first-line treatment for GAD.

Treatment of generalized anxiety disorder with escitalopram: pooled results from double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Escitalopram 10 mg/day is an effective and well-tolerated antidepressant. Three randomized controlled trials recently evaluated the safety and efficacy of escitalopram in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). METHODS: The trial designs were virtually identical, allowing data to be pooled across studies. Male and female outpatients, ages 18-80 years, with DSM-IV-defined GAD were randomized to double-blind treatment with escitalopram or placebo for 8 weeks. Escitalopram dose was fixed at 10 mg/day for the first 4 weeks, after which increases to 20 mg/day were permitted. The primary efficacy variable was the mean change from baseline in total Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) score. RESULTS: Approximately 850 patients were randomized to double-blind treatment. In each individual study, escitalopram was significantly superior to placebo (p<0.05) as measured by change from baseline in HAMA score. By-visit analyses of data pooled across studies revealed significantly greater improvement (p<0.05) in the escitalopram group beginning at week 1 or 2 and continuing through week 8 for all primary and secondary efficacy variables. The mean change in HAMA total score from baseline to endpoint also was significantly greater for patients maintained at escitalopram 10 mg/day than for those receiving placebo. Escitalopram was generally well tolerated. LIMITATIONS: The studies included in this analysis were of short-term duration and excluded patients with significant medical and psychiatric comorbidities, such as major depressive disorder. CONCLUSION: Results from the individual trials and the pooled analysis demonstrate that escitalopram is effective and well tolerated for the treatment of GAD.

Escitalopram in clinical practice: results of an open-label trial in a naturalistic setting.

Results from randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials have demonstrated that escitalopram is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of depression and anxiety disorders. Such trials typically employ stringent inclusion criteria that may limit the generalizability of findings to the broader population of patients treated in psychiatric and primary care practices. The objective of the current trial was to assess the effect of escitalopram treatment on depressed outpatients in naturalistic settings. This 8-week open-label trial enrolled 5,453 outpatients aged > or = 18 years with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder from primary care (n = 2,591), psychiatric (n = 2,289), and other specialty (n = 573) practices. Escitalopram was initiated at 10 mg/day, and dose could be increased to a maximum of 20 mg/day. Efficacy measures included the Clinical Global Impressions of Improvement (CGI-I) scale, Patient Global Evaluation (PGE) scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Sheehan Disability Scale, and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey. Overall, 76% of patients completed 8 weeks of treatment. The mean dose of escitalopram was 11.6 mg/day. At endpoint, response rates (defined as a score < or = 2 on the CGI-I or PGE) were 68% on the clinician-assessed CGI-I and 66% on the PGE. Improvement was not related to age or response to prior antidepressant treatment. Overall, 9% of patients discontinued due to adverse events. Escitalopram treatment was well tolerated and associated with robust response rates in a broadly representative population of depressed outpatients.

Safety and efficacy of escitalopram in the long-term treatment of generalized anxiety disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is a chronic disorder that requires long-term treatment. Escitalopram has previously been shown to be effective and well tolerated in the acute treatment of GAD. METHOD: Three 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of nearly identical design were conducted of escitalopram in moderate-to-severe GAD (DSM-IV criteria). Patients completing these trials were given the option of entering a 24-week, open-label, flexible-dose trial of escitalopram (10-20 mg/day). Data were collected from September 20, 2000, to August 15, 2002. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-nine (56.8%) of 526 patients completed 24 weeks of open-label treatment. The mean Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) score at baseline of open-label treatment was 13.1. Long-term escitalopram treatment led to continuing improvement on all anxiety and quality-of-life (QOL) scores. Of those completing 24 weeks of treatment, 92.0% were responders (Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale score < or = 2), and the mean HAM-A score in the completed analysis was 6.9; using the last observation carried forward (LOCF), 75.9% were responders, and the mean HAM-A score in the LOCF analysis was 9.2 at endpoint. Insufficient therapeutic response and adverse events led to withdrawal of 4.2% and 9.9% of patients, respectively. Mean increase in weight from baseline was 3.0 lb. No clinically notable changes in mean laboratory, vital sign, or electrocardiographic values were observed. CONCLUSION: These results support the long-term tolerability and effectiveness of escitalopram in the treatment of GAD.