Duloxetine in the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: A comparison of efficacy in patients with and without melancholic features

BACKGROUND: The most prominent feature of melancholic depression is a near-total loss of the capacity to derive pleasure from activities or other positive stimuli. Additional symptoms can include psychomotor disturbances, anorexia, excessive guilt, and early awakening from sleep. Melancholic patients may exhibit treatment responses and outcomes that differ from those of non-melancholic patients. Pooled data from double-blind, placebo-controlled studies were utilized to compare the efficacy of duloxetine in depressed patients with and without melancholic features. METHODS: Efficacy data were pooled from 8 double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of duloxetine. The presence of melancholic features (DSM-IV criteria) was determined using results from the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). Patients (aged ≥ 18 years) meeting DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD) received duloxetine (40–120 mg/d; melancholic, N = 759; non-melancholic, N = 379) or placebo (melancholic, N = 519; non-melancholic, N = 256) for up to 9 weeks. Efficacy measures included the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD(17)) total score, HAMD(17 )subscales (Maier, anxiety, retardation, sleep), the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scales, and Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for pain. RESULTS: In data from all 8 studies, duloxetine's advantage over placebo did not differ significantly between melancholic and non-melancholic patients (treatment-by-melancholic status interactions were not statistically significant). Duloxetine demonstrated significantly greater improvement in depressive symptom severity, compared with placebo, within both melancholic and non-melancholic cohorts (p ≤ .001 for HAMD(17 )total score, CGI-S and PGI-I). When analyzed by gender, the magnitude of improvement in efficacy outcomes did not differ significantly between duloxetine-treated male and female melancholic patients. In the two studies that assessed duloxetine 60 mg once-daily dosing, duloxetine-treated melancholic patients had significantly greater improvement compared with placebo on HAMD(17 )total score, CGI-S, PGI-I, 3 of 4 subscales of the HAMD(17), and VAS overall pain severity (p < .01). Estimated probabilities of response and remission were significantly greater for melancholic patients receiving duloxetine 60 mg QD compared with placebo (response 74.7% vs. 42.2%, respectively, p < .001; remission 44.4% vs. 24.7%, respectively, p = .002 CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of pooled data, the efficacy of duloxetine in patients with melancholic features did not differ significantly from that observed in non-melancholic patients

The efficacy of duloxetine: A comprehensive summary of results from MMRM and LOCF_ANCOVA in eight clinical trials

BACKGROUND: A mixed-effects model repeated measures approach (MMRM) was specified as the primary analysis in the Phase III clinical trials of duloxetine for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). Analysis of covariance using the last observation carried forward approach to impute missing values (LOCF_ANCOVA) was specified as a secondary analysis. Previous research has shown that MMRM and LOCF_ANCOVA yield identical endpoint results when no data are missing, while MMRM is more robust to biases from missing data and thereby provides superior control of Type I and Type II error compared with LOCF_ANCOVA. We compared results from MMRM and LOCF_ANCOVA analyses across eight clinical trials of duloxetine in order to investigate how the choice of primary analysis may influence interpretations of efficacy. METHODS: Results were obtained from the eight acute-phase clinical trials that formed the basis of duloxetine's New Drug Application for the treatment of MDD. All 202 mean change analyses from the 20 rating scale total scores and subscales specified a priori in the various protocols were included in the comparisons. RESULTS: In 166/202 comparisons (82.2%), MMRM and LOCF_ANCOVA agreed with regard to the statistical significance of the differences between duloxetine and placebo. In 25/202 cases (12.4%), MMRM yielded a significant difference when LOCF_ANCOVA did not, while in 11/202 cases (5.4%), LOCF_ANCOVA produced a significant difference when MMRM did not. In 110/202 comparisons (54.4%) the p-value from MMRM was lower than that from LOCF_ANCOVA, while in 69/202 comparisons (34.2%), the p-value from LOCF_ANCOVA was lower than that from MMRM. In the remaining 23 comparisons (11.4%), the p-values from LOCF_ANCOVA and MMRM were equal when rounded to the 3(rd )decimal place (usually as a result of both p-values being < .001). For the HAMD(17 )total score, the primary outcome in all studies, MMRM yielded 9/12 (75%) significant contrasts, compared with 6/12 (50%) for LOCF_ANCOVA. The expected success rate was 80%. CONCLUSIONS: Important differences exist between MMRM and LOCF_ANCOVA. Empirical research has clearly demonstrated the theoretical advantages of MMRM over LOCF_ANCOVA. However, interpretations regarding the efficacy of duloxetine in MDD were unaffected by the choice of analytical technique

Longitudinal Observation of Treatment Patterns and Outcomes for Patients with Fibromyalgia: 12‐Month Findings from the REFLECTIONS Study

Objective To describe 12‐month treatment patterns and outcomes for patients starting a new medication for fibromyalgia in routine clinical practice. Design and Outcome Measures Data from 1,700 patients were collected at baseline and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Repeated measures and P oisson regression models controlling for demographic, clinical, and baseline outcomes were used to assess changes in health outcomes ( B rief P ain I nventory severity and interference, S heehan D isability S cale, F ibromyalgia I mpact Q uestionnaire), satisfaction, and economic factors for patients who initiated on pregabalin (214, 12.6%), duloxetine (264, 15.5%), milnacipran (134, 7.9%), or tricyclic antidepressants (66, 3.9%). Sensitivity analyses were run using propensity‐matched cohorts. Results Patients started on 145 unique drugs for fibromyalgia, and over 75% of patients took two or more medications concurrently for fibromyalgia at each time point assessed. Overall, patients showed improvement on the four health outcomes, with few differences across medication cohorts. At baseline, patients reported annual averages of 20.3 visits for outpatient care, 27.7 missed days of work, and 32.6 days of care by an unpaid caregiver. The duloxetine and milnacipran (vs pregabalin or tricyclic antidepressant) cohorts had fewer outpatient visits during the 12‐month study. Patients reported satisfaction with overall treatment and their fibromyalgia medication (46.0% and 42.8%, respectively). Conclusions In this real‐world setting, patients with fibromyalgia reported modest improvements, high resource, and medication use, and were satisfied with the care they received. Cohort differences were difficult to discern because of the high rates of drug discontinuation and concomitant medication use over the 12‐month study period.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/100168/1/pme12168.pd