Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29189044›Full record

Trial reportJournal of child and adolescent psychopharmacology2018

Desvenlafaxine Versus Placebo in a Fluoxetine-Referenced Study of Children and Adolescents with Major Depressive Disorder.

Karen L Weihs, William Murphy, Richat Abbas, Deborah Chiles, Richard D England, Sara Ramaker, Dalia B Wajsbrot

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of child and adolescent psychopharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Efficacy and tolerability of antidepressant drugs in treatment of depression in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis.Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences · 2022
    Article
  12. Pediatric Psychopharmacology for Depressive and Anxiety Disorders.Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. New Somatic Treatments for Child and Adolescent Depression.Current treatment options in psychiatry · 2019
    Article
  17. Review
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

7 authors.

Karen L Weihs1 Department of Psychiatry, University of Arizona , Tucson, Arizona.
William Murphy2 Psychiatric Associates , Overland Park, Kansas.
Richat Abbas3 Pfizer Inc, Collegeville , Pennsylvania.
Deborah Chiles3 Pfizer Inc, Collegeville , Pennsylvania.
Richard D England4 Pfizer Inc , Groton, Connecticut.
Sara Ramaker3 Pfizer Inc, Collegeville , Pennsylvania.
Dalia B Wajsbrot5 Pfizer Inc , New York, New York.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine (25-50 mg/d) compared with placebo in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD).

methodsOutpatient children (7-11 years) and adolescents (12-17 years) who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for MDD and had screening and baseline Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) total scores >40 were randomly assigned to 8-week treatment with placebo, desvenlafaxine (25, 35, or 50 mg/d based on baseline weight), or fluoxetine (20 mg/d). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in CDRS-R total score at week 8, analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures. Secondary efficacy endpoints included week 8 Clinical Global Impressions-Severity, Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I), and response (CGI-I ≤ 2). Safety assessments included adverse events, physical and vital sign measurements, laboratory evaluations, electrocardiogram, and the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale.

resultsThe safety population included 339 patients (children, n = 130; adolescents, n = 209). The primary endpoint, change from baseline in CDRS-R total score at week 8, did not statistically separate from placebo, for either desvenlafaxine (adjusted mean [standard error] change, -22.6 [1.17]) or fluoxetine (-24.8 [1.17]; placebo, -23.1 [1.18]). Week 8 CGI-I response rates were significantly greater for fluoxetine (78.2%; p = 0.017) than for placebo (62.6%); desvenlafaxine (68.7%) did not differ from placebo. Other secondary outcomes were consistent with those obtained with CDRS-R. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable among treatment groups (desvenlafaxine, 60.0%; placebo, 70.5%; and fluoxetine, 64.3%).

conclusionDesvenlafaxine did not demonstrate efficacy for treating MDD in children and adolescents in this trial. Because neither desvenlafaxine nor the reference medication, fluoxetine, demonstrated a statistically significant difference from placebo on the primary endpoint, this was considered a failed trial and no efficacy conclusions can be drawn. Desvenlafaxine 25-50 mg/d was generally safe and well tolerated in children and adolescents in this study.

Indexed as

AdolescentAntidepressive AgentsChildDesvenlafaxine SuccinateDose-Response Relationship, DrugDouble-Blind MethodFemaleFluoxetineHumansMajor Depressive DisorderMalePsychiatric Status Rating ScalesSeverity of Illness IndexTreatment OutcomeAntidepressive AgentsDesvenlafaxine SuccinateFluoxetineadolescentschildrenclinical trialdesvenlafaxinemajor depressive disordertreatment efficacy

Identifiers

PMID29189044
PMCPMC5771543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.