TY - JOUR
T1 - Acceptability of escitalopram versus duloxetine in outpatients with depression who did not respond to initial second-generation antidepressants
T2 - A randomized, parallel-group, non-inferiority trial
AU - Nakagome, Kazuyuki
AU - Yokoi, Yuma
AU - Nakagawa, Atsuo
AU - Tani, Masayuki
AU - Nishioka, Gentaro
AU - Yoshimura, Naoki
AU - Furukawa, Toshiaki A.
AU - Watanabe, Koichiro
AU - Mimura, Masaru
AU - Iwanami, Akira
AU - Abe, Takayuki
N1 - Funding Information:
KN has received lecture fees from Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Eli Lilly, Shionogi, Meiji Seika Pharma, Pfizer, MSD, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Mochida Pharmaceutical, and Yoshitomiyakuhin, and participated in an advisory board for Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Toyama Chemical, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma, Pfizer, Janssen Pharmaceutical, and Mochida Pharmaceutical, and received research funding from Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Astellas Pharma, Mochida Pharmaceutical, Meiji Seika Pharma, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, and Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma. YY has received speaker's honoraria from Eisai and research funding from Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, Biogen Japan, Meiji Seika Pharma, and Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma. AN has received lecture fees from Meiji, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Takeda, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mochida Pharmaceutical, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, and NTT Docomo, participated in an advisory board for Takeda, and received research funding from Johnson & Johnson. MT and GN have no COIs to declare. NY has received speaker's honoraria from Janssen Pharmaceutical and Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma and research funding from Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Biogen Japan, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, and Lundbeck Japan. TAF has received personal fees from Mitsubishi-Tanabe, MSD and Shionogi, and a grant from Mitsubishi-Tanabe, outside the submitted work; TAF has a patent 2018–177,688 pending. KW has received lecture fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kyowa Pharmaceutical, Meiji Seika Pharma, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, MSD, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Shionogi, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Takeda Pharmaceutical, and Yoshitomiyakuhin, and participated in an advisory board for Eisai, Eli Lilly, Kyowa Pharmaceutical, MSD, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Taisho Toyama Pharmaceutical, and Takeda Pharmaceutical, and received research funding from Astellas Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, MSD, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Shionogi, and Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma. MM has received grants and/or speaker's honoraria from Asahi Kasei Pharma, Astellas Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Sumitomo Dainippon-Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Fuji Film RI Pharma, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kracie, Meiji-Seika Pharma, Mochida Pharmaceutical, MSD, Novartis Pharma, Ono Yakuhin, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Shionogi, Takeda, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Yoshitomiyakuhin. AI has received grants and/or lecture fees from Astellas Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Meiji-Seika Pharma, Mochida Pharmaceutical, MSD, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Shionogi, Takeda, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Yoshitomiyakuhin. TA has received statistical analysis fees from Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, EA Pharma, Kissei Pharmaceutical, Mochida Pharmaceutical, and lecture fees from Johnson & Johnson, JCR Pharmaceutical, and Chugai Pharmaceutical.
Funding Information:
The study was funded by Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and the Japan Foundation for Neuroscience and Mental Health. The funding sources of the Japan Foundation for Neuroscience and Mental Health were Shionogi & Co., Ltd. and Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
Funding Information:
We thank Tomiki Sumiyoshi, MD, PhD (Department of Preventive Intervention for Psychiatric Disorders National Institute of Mental Health, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry), Yumiyo Morokawa, MD, PhD (Medical Research Center, Seimou Hospital), Ken Inada, MD, PhD (Department of Psychiatry, Tokyo Women's Medical University) for their devoted work as members of DSMC. We also thank Kazushi Maruo (Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba) for consultation with data analysis. Inada has received speaker's honoraria from Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Meiji Seika Pharma, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mochida, MSD, Novartis, Otsuka, Shionogi, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, and Yoshitomiyakuhin, and research grants from Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, MSD, and National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry. Sumiyoshi, Morokawa and Maruo have no COIs to declare.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Author(s)
PY - 2021/3/1
Y1 - 2021/3/1
N2 - Backgrounds: Antidepressants are widely used to treat major depressive disorder. First-line treatments with antidepressants are only successful in one-third of patients; however, evidence from randomized controlled trials on second-line treatments is limited. Moreover, recently acceptability is suggested to be a good indicator of overall treatment success. Methods: This is a multi-center two-arm, three-phased randomized controlled trial performed in Japan from December 2013 to March 2017 comparing the acceptability of escitalopram and duloxetine as a second-line drug. Patients, who failed to respond to antidepressants such as sertraline, paroxetine, fluvoxamine, milnacipran or mirtazapine for at least 3 weeks, were randomized to either escitalopram (Group A) or duloxetine (Group B) in Step 1 (8 weeks). In Step 2 (8 weeks), the drug was switched to the other if the first drug failed. The discontinuation rate at the end of Step 1 was the primary endpoint and non-inferiority of escitalopram vs duloxetine was tested. In addition, change in clinical measures from baseline were also assessed at the end of Step 1, 2 and up to 52 weeks. Results: At the end of Step 1, Group A (n = 82) was significantly superior to Group B (n = 78) in discontinuation rate (4.9% to 19.2%, P = 0.007). The change in clinical indices from baseline were not different between the groups at either timepoint. Limitations: As the major reason for discontinuation in Group B was the “withdrawal of consent” the concrete reason could not be verified. Conclusions: As a second-line treatment drug, escitalopram was suggested to be non-inferior to duloxetine in acceptability. Trial registration: UMIN[sbnd]CTR(UMIN000012367), registered on December 1st, 2013 and last updated on April 4th, 2017.
AB - Backgrounds: Antidepressants are widely used to treat major depressive disorder. First-line treatments with antidepressants are only successful in one-third of patients; however, evidence from randomized controlled trials on second-line treatments is limited. Moreover, recently acceptability is suggested to be a good indicator of overall treatment success. Methods: This is a multi-center two-arm, three-phased randomized controlled trial performed in Japan from December 2013 to March 2017 comparing the acceptability of escitalopram and duloxetine as a second-line drug. Patients, who failed to respond to antidepressants such as sertraline, paroxetine, fluvoxamine, milnacipran or mirtazapine for at least 3 weeks, were randomized to either escitalopram (Group A) or duloxetine (Group B) in Step 1 (8 weeks). In Step 2 (8 weeks), the drug was switched to the other if the first drug failed. The discontinuation rate at the end of Step 1 was the primary endpoint and non-inferiority of escitalopram vs duloxetine was tested. In addition, change in clinical measures from baseline were also assessed at the end of Step 1, 2 and up to 52 weeks. Results: At the end of Step 1, Group A (n = 82) was significantly superior to Group B (n = 78) in discontinuation rate (4.9% to 19.2%, P = 0.007). The change in clinical indices from baseline were not different between the groups at either timepoint. Limitations: As the major reason for discontinuation in Group B was the “withdrawal of consent” the concrete reason could not be verified. Conclusions: As a second-line treatment drug, escitalopram was suggested to be non-inferior to duloxetine in acceptability. Trial registration: UMIN[sbnd]CTR(UMIN000012367), registered on December 1st, 2013 and last updated on April 4th, 2017.
KW - Acceptability
KW - Antidepressants
KW - Duloxetine
KW - Escitalopram
KW - Randomized controlled trial
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85099482570&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85099482570&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jad.2020.12.148
DO - 10.1016/j.jad.2020.12.148
M3 - Article
C2 - 33601673
AN - SCOPUS:85099482570
SN - 0165-0327
VL - 282
SP - 1011
EP - 1020
JO - Journal of Affective Disorders
JF - Journal of Affective Disorders
ER -