Dataset Information

An Open-Label Rater-Blinded Randomized Trial of Vilazodone versus Escitalopram in Major Depression.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Vilazodone, a novel selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and 5-HT1A partial agonist, was approved in 2011 for treatment for major depression. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of vilazodone versus escitalopram in patients with major depression at 4 weeks.

Methods

Participants (n = 52) were adult major depressive disorder outpatients who were randomized to receive either oral escitalopram (modal endpoint dose 20 mg/day; n = 26) or oral vilazodone (modal endpoint dose 40 mg/day; n = 26). Rater-blinded assessments of depression scores (primary outcome) and clinical severity of illness (secondary outcome) were obtained at baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks. Adverse effects such as weight gain, sexual dysfunction, and diarrhea were recorded at each visit. The primary analysis was performed on the Intention-to-treat sample.

Results

No significant difference was noted between groups on depression scores at study endpoint (F = 2.80, df = 1,50, P = 0.10); however, the vilazodone group had significantly lower endpoint clinical severity of illness (F = 7.69, df = 1,50, P = 0.01). At 2 weeks, there were no significant between-group differences on depression scores (F = 0.006, df = 1,50, P = 0.94). Instances of diarrhea (P = 0.001) were significantly higher in the vilazodone group.

Conclusion

Clinical ratings of major depression did not differ significantly between vilazodone and escitalopram groups at the end of 4 weeks. Our findings are limited by lack of statistical power to detect smaller differences between groups, should they exist.

SUBMITTER: Kumar PNS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9896102 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An Open-Label Rater-Blinded Randomized Trial of Vilazodone versus Escitalopram in Major Depression.

Kumar Pattath Narayanan Suresh PNS Suresh Rohith R Menon Vikas V

Indian journal of psychological medicine 20221027 1

<h4>Background</h4>Vilazodone, a novel selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and 5-HT1A partial agonist, was approved in 2011 for treatment for major depression. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of vilazodone versus escitalopram in patients with major depression at 4 weeks.<h4>Methods</h4>Participants (<i>n</i> = 52) were adult major depressive disorder outpatients who were randomized to receive either oral escitalopram (modal endpoint dose 20 mg/day; <i>n</i> = 26) or oral vilazodon ...[more]

PMID: 36778613

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesAlthough selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have become the standard of care for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), limited data exist to support their use in MDD with atypical features. The current study investigates the efficacy of the SSRI escitalopram in an 8-week, open-label, flexible-dose, rater-blinded trial.MethodSeventeen DSM-IV MDD subjects aged from 18 through 65 years completed screening procedures, provided informed consent, and went through a minimum 2-week washout from preexisting antide-pressants except fluoxetine (a minimum 4-week wash-out). They subsequently received escitalopram (10-20 mg/day) for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was a change in score from baseline to end of treatment on the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression-Seasonal Affective Disorder version (SIGH-SAD), which includes a set of items for atypical symptoms. Secondary efficacy measures were defined as changes from baseline to end of treatment in scores on the SIGH-SAD atypical symptoms subscale (consisting of 8 items specific to atypical features), Beck Depression Inventory-II, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Sheehan Disability Scale, and Epworth Sleepiness Questionnaire. The study was conducted from October 2005 to November 2006.ResultsThe mean age was 43.9 years, and 70.6% of subjects were women. The dropout rate was 11.8% (N = 2/17). The mean dose of escitalopram was 18.3 mg/day. The total SIGH-SAD score (mean ± SD) reduced by 53.8% from baseline (33.3 ± 8.2) to end of treatment (15.4 ± 9.4) (t = 4.24, p < .001). The atypical symptoms subscale score reduced by 44.5% from baseline (11.0 ± 4.3) to end of treatment (6.1 ± 2.8) (t = 5.26, p = .001). Ten subjects (62.5%) were classified as responders at end of treatment as defined by ≥ 50% reduction in SIGH-SAD total score. Overall, escitalopram was well tolerated.ConclusionsOur preliminary study indicates that escitalopram may be beneficial in the treatment of MDD with atypical features. Adequately powered, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials are necessary to determine the efficacy of escitalopram in this disorder.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00610506.

Project description:BackgroundIn clinical practice, physicians often need to change the antipsychotic medications they give to patients because of an inadequate response or the presence of unacceptable or unsafe side effects. However, there is a lack of consensus in the field as to the optimal switching strategy for antipsychotics, especially with regards to the speed at which the dose of the previous antipsychotic should be reduced. This paper assesses the short-term results of strategies for the discontinuation of olanzapine when initiating risperidone.MethodsIn a 6-week, randomized, open-label, rater-blinded study, patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, on a stable drug dose for more than 30 days at entry, who were intolerant of or exhibiting a suboptimal symptom response to more than 30 days of olanzapine treatment, were randomly assigned to the following switch strategies (common risperidone initiation scheme; varying olanzapine discontinuation): (i) abrupt strategy, where olanzapine was discontinued at risperidone initiation; (ii) gradual 1 strategy, where olanzapine was given at 50% entry dose for 1 week after risperidone initiation and then discontinued; or (iii) gradual 2 strategy, where olanzapine was given at 100% entry dose for 1 week, then at 50% in the second week, and then discontinued.ResultsThe study enrolled 123 patients on stable doses of olanzapine. Their mean age was 40.3 years and mean (+/- standard deviation (SD)) baseline Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score of 75.6 +/- 11.5. All-cause treatment discontinuation was lowest (12%) in the group with the slowest olanzapine dose reduction (gradual 2) and occurred at half the discontinuation rate in the other two groups (25% in abrupt and 28% in gradual 1). The relative risk of early discontinuation was 0.77 (confidence interval 0.61-0.99) for the slowest dose reduction compared with the other two strategies. After the medication was changed, improvements at endpoint were seen in PANSS total score (-7.3; p < 0.0001) and in PANSS positive (-3.0; p < 0.0001), negative (-0.9; p = 0.171) and anxiety/depression (-1.4; p = 0.0005) subscale scores. Severity of movement disorders and weight changes were minimal.ConclusionWhen switching patients from olanzapine to risperidone, a gradual reduction in the dose of olanzapine over 2 weeks was associated with higher rates of retention compared with abrupt or less gradual discontinuation. Switching via any strategy was associated with significant improvements in positive and anxiety symptoms and was generally well tolerated.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00378183.

Project description:BackgroundDiffuse interstitial myocardial fibrosis is a key common pathological manifestation in hypertensive heart disease (HHD) progressing to heart failure (HF). Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi), now a front-line treatment for HF, confer benefits independent of blood pressure, signifying a multifactorial mode of action beyond hemodynamic regulation. We aim to test the hypothesis that compared with angiotensin II receptor blockade (ARB) alone, ARNi is more effective in regressing diffuse interstitial myocardial fibrosis in HHD.MethodsRole of ARNi in Ventricular Remodeling in Hypertensive LVH (REVERSE-LVH) is a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) clinical trial. Adults with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) according to Asian sex- and age-specific thresholds on cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging are randomized to treatment with either sacubitril/valsartan (an ARNi) or valsartan (an ARB) in 1:1 ratio for a duration of 52 weeks, at the end of which a repeat CMR is performed to assess differential changes from baseline between the two groups. The primary endpoint is the change in CMR-derived diffuse interstitial fibrosis volume. Secondary endpoints include changes in CMR-derived left ventricular mass, volumes, and functional parameters. Serum samples are collected and stored to assess the effects of ARNi, compared with ARB, on circulating biomarkers of cardiac remodeling. The endpoints will be analyzed with reference to the corresponding baseline parameters to evaluate the therapeutic effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan.DiscussionREVERSE-LVH will examine the anti-fibrotic potential of sacubitril/valsartan and will offer mechanistic insights into the clinical benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in hypertension in relation to cardiac remodeling. Advancing the knowledge of the pathophysiology of HHD will consolidate effective risk stratification and personalized treatment through a multimodal manner integrating complementary CMR and biomarkers into the conventional care approach.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier, NCT03553810.

Project description:BackgroundReduced muscle strength is an independent risk factor for falls and related to postural instability in individuals with Parkinson's disease. The ability of resistance training to improve postural control still remains unclear.ObjectiveTo compare resistance training with balance training to improve postural control in people with Parkinson's disease.Methods40 patients with idiopathic Parkinson's disease (Hoehn&Yahr: 2.5-3.0) were randomly assigned into resistance or balance training (2x/week for 7 weeks). Assessments were performed at baseline, 8- and 12-weeks follow-up: primary outcome: Fullerton Advanced Balance (FAB) scale; secondary outcomes: center of mass analysis during surface perturbations, Timed-up-and-go-test, Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impression, gait analysis, maximal isometric leg strength, PDQ-39, Beck Depression Inventory. Clinical tests were videotaped and analysed by a second rater, blind to group allocation and assessment time.Results32 participants (resistance training: n = 17, balance training: n = 15; 8 drop-outs) were analyzed at 8-weeks follow-up. No significant difference was found in the FAB scale when comparing the effects of the two training types (p = 0.14; effect size (Cohen's d) = -0.59). Participants from the resistance training group, but not from the balance training group significantly improved on the FAB scale (resistance training: +2.4 points, Cohen's d = -0.46; balance training: +0.3 points, Cohen's d = -0.08). Within the resistance training group, improvements of the FAB scale were significantly correlated with improvements of rate of force development and stride time variability. No significant differences were found in the secondary outcome measures when comparing the training effects of both training types.ConclusionsThe difference between resistance and balance training to improve postural control in people with Parkinson's disease was small and not significant with this sample size. There was weak evidence that freely coordinated resistance training might be more effective than balance training. Our results indicate a relationship between the enhancement of rate of force development and the improvement of postural control.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02253563.

Project description:ObjectivesBecause of the limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) study may be an appropriate alternative, as the design allows the assessment of clinical outcomes in clinical practice settings. The Gastrointestinal (GI) Randomized Event and Safety Open-Label Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug (NSAID) Study (GI-REASONS) was designed to reflect standard clinical practice while including endpoints rigorously evaluated by a blinded adjudication committee. The objective of this study was to assess if celecoxib is associated with a lower incidence of clinically significant upper and/or lower GI events than nonselective NSAIDs (nsNSAIDs) in standard clinical practice.MethodsThis was a PROBE study carried out at 783 centers in the United States, where a total of 8,067 individuals aged ≥ 55 years, requiring daily NSAIDs to treat osteoarthritis, participated. The participants were randomized to celecoxib or nsNSAIDs (1:1) for 6 months and stratified by Helicobacter pylori status. Treatment doses could be adjusted as per the United States prescribing information; patients randomized to nsNSAIDs could switch between nsNSAIDs; crossover between treatment arms was not allowed, and patients requiring aspirin at baseline were excluded. The primary outcome was the incidence of clinically significant upper and/or lower GI events.ResultsSignificantly more nsNSAID users met the primary endpoint (2.4% (98/4,032) nsNSAID patients and 1.3% (54/4,035) celecoxib patients; odds ratio, 1.82 (95% confidence interval, 1.31-2.55); P = 0.0003). Moderate to severe abdominal symptoms were experienced by 94 (2.3%) celecoxib and 138 (3.4%) nsNSAID patients (P=0.0035). Other non-GI adverse events were similar between treatment groups. One limitation is the open-label design, which presents the possibility of interpretive bias.ConclusionsCelecoxib was associated with a lower risk of clinically significant upper and/or lower GI events than nsNSAIDs. Furthermore, this trial represents a successful execution of a PROBE study, where therapeutic options and management strategies available in clinical practice were incorporated into the rigor of a prospective RCT.

Dataset Information

An Open-Label Rater-Blinded Randomized Trial of Vilazodone versus Escitalopram in Major Depression.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

An Open-Label Rater-Blinded Randomized Trial of Vilazodone versus Escitalopram in Major Depression.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets