Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17563128›Full record

Trial reportClinical drug investigation2007

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

Arif Khan, Anjana Bose, George S Alexopoulos, Carl Gommoll, Dayong Li, Chetan Gandhi

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical drug investigation, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
11.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Duloxetine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  5. Escitalopram versus other antidepressive agents for depression.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Arif KhanNorthwest Clinical Research Center, Bellevue, WA 98004, USA. akhan@nwcrc.net
Anjana Bose
George S Alexopoulos
Carl Gommoll
Dayong Li
Chetan Gandhi
Cornell University · USNorthwest Clinical Research Center · US

Funding

Cornell ACISR for Late Life DepressionP30MH068638 · NIMH · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI ALEXOPOULOS, GEORGE S · 2003 to 2007
$6.5M
NIMH NIH HHS P30 MH68638
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveEscitalopram 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.

methodsA 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.

resultsA 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).

conclusionThese 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.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntidepressive AgentsAntidepressive Agents, Second-GenerationCitalopramDouble-Blind MethodDuloxetine HydrochlorideFemaleHumansMajor Depressive DisorderMaleMiddle AgedPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesThiophenesAntidepressive AgentsAntidepressive Agents, Second-GenerationCitalopramDuloxetine HydrochlorideThiophenes

Identifiers

PMID17563128
OpenAlexW1985280182

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.