Tourian Karen A, Padmanabhan S Krishna, Groark James, Brisard Claudine, Farrington Deborah
Wyeth Research, Paris, France.
Clin Ther. 2009 Jun;31 Pt 1:1405-23. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2009.07.006.
Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common, chronic illness associated with substantial disability and economic burden. Although a number of effective antidepressants are available, the need for new medications that are effective and well tolerated remains.
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of fixed-dose desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg/d with placebo for MDD. A post hoc pooled analysis was conducted to evaluate this study in the context of all similarly designed, completed studies with the 2 doses.
This was an 8-week, Phase III, randomized, double-blind, duloxetine-referenced, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial conducted in 21 centers across the United States. Duloxetine was included for assay sensitivity as a positive control; the study was not designed or powered to compare desvenlafaxine with duloxetine. Participants were outpatients aged > or =18 years with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition-defined MDD and a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D(17)) score > or =20. Patients were randomly assigned at baseline to fixed-dose desvenlafaxine (50 or 100 mg/d), fixed-dose duloxetine (60 mg/d), or placebo. The primary outcome measure was HAM-D(17) total score at the final evaluation. Additional measures included the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) score, Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score, Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) score, and 6-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Bech version (HAM-D(6)). Tolerability assessments included discontinuation rates, adverse events (AEs), vital signs, and laboratory tests. The post hoc pooled analysis was performed using data from the current study and 2 previously published, positive studies that compared the efficacy and tolerability of desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg/d with placebo for MDD. The design and methodologies of the 2 studies were similar to the methodology of the current trial, other than not including a reference compound.
Of the 925 patients who were screened, 287 did not meet entry criteria, and 638 patients enrolled in the study; the intent-to-treat (ITT) population included 615 patients who were evaluated for efficacy (mean [SD] age range, 38.8-40.7 [12.1-13.2] years; mean weight range, 83.3-87.0 [22.8-23.9] kg; female sex, 398 [64.7%]; white race, 458 [74.5%]). The primary end point did not reach significance based on the global F test for controlling multiplicity of the desvenlafaxine doses. Based on pairwise comparison, significantly greater improvements on the HAM-D(17) were observed in the desven-lafaxine 100 mg/d (-10.5; P = 0.028, unadjusted for multiple comparisons) and duloxetine 60 mg/d groups (-10.3; P = 0.047) compared with placebo (-8.7). Desvenlafaxine 100 mg/d and duloxetine 60 mg/d were associated with significantly better scores compared with placebo on the CGI-I, MADRS, CGI-S, and HAM-D(6). No significant differences were observed in any scale between the desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d and placebo groups. Discontinuation rates due to AEs were 5%, 7%, 13%, and 6% for the desvenlafaxine 50-mg/d, desvenlafaxine 100-mg/d, duloxetine 60-mg/d, and placebo groups, respectively. The ITT population from all 3 studies in the pooled analysis consisted of 1388 patients (mean [SD] age range, 38.8-45.7 [12.1-12.6] years; mean weight range, 73.1-87.0 [17.6-23.9] kg; female sex, 896 [64.6%]; white race, 1136 [81.8%]). Significantly greater improvements on the HAM-D(17) were observed for desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d (-11.5; P < 0.001) and 100 mg/d (-11.8; P < 0.001) versus placebo (-9.6). Both doses were significantly better than placebo on the CGI-I, MADRS, and HAM-D(6).
The current study failed to meet its primary efficacy end point based on the a priori analysis plan. Desvenlafaxine was generally well tolerated. A post hoc pooled analysis of this trial and 2 previously published trials with both desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg/d found both doses to be effective for MDD compared with placebo. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: 00384033.
重度抑郁症(MDD)是一种常见的慢性疾病,会导致严重的残疾和经济负担。尽管有多种有效的抗抑郁药可供使用,但仍需要有效且耐受性良好的新药物。
本研究旨在比较固定剂量的去甲文拉法辛50mg/d和100mg/d与安慰剂治疗MDD的疗效和耐受性。进行了一项事后汇总分析,以在所有采用这两种剂量的类似设计且已完成的研究背景下评估本研究。
这是一项为期8周的III期随机双盲试验,以度洛西汀为对照、安慰剂为控制组,在美国21个中心进行的平行组试验。度洛西汀作为阳性对照纳入以评估检测灵敏度;该研究并非设计用于比较去甲文拉法辛与度洛西汀,也无足够效力进行此比较。参与者为年龄≥18岁的门诊患者,符合《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版定义的MDD,且汉密尔顿抑郁量表17项版(HAM-D(17))评分≥20。患者在基线时随机分配至固定剂量的去甲文拉法辛(50或100mg/d)、固定剂量的度洛西汀(60mg/d)或安慰剂组。主要结局指标是最终评估时的HAM-D(17)总分。其他指标包括临床总体印象改善(CGI-I)评分、蒙哥马利-阿斯伯格抑郁量表(MADRS)评分、临床总体印象严重程度(CGI-S)评分以及汉密尔顿抑郁量表6项版(Bech版,HAM-D(6))。耐受性评估包括停药率、不良事件(AE)、生命体征和实验室检查。事后汇总分析使用了本研究的数据以及另外两项先前发表的阳性研究的数据,这两项研究比较了去甲文拉法辛50mg/d和100mg/d与安慰剂治疗MDD的疗效和耐受性。这两项研究的设计和方法与当前试验的方法相似,只是未包含对照化合物。
在925名接受筛查的患者中,287名不符合入选标准,638名患者纳入研究;意向性治疗(ITT)人群包括615名接受疗效评估的患者(平均[标准差]年龄范围为38.8 - 40.7[12.1 - 13.2]岁;平均体重范围为83.3 - 87.0[22.8 - 23.9]kg;女性398名[64.7%];白人458名[74.5%])。基于控制去甲文拉法辛剂量多重性的总体F检验,主要终点未达到显著性。基于两两比较,与安慰剂组(-8.7)相比,去甲文拉法辛100mg/d组(-10.5;P = 0.028,未进行多重比较校正)和度洛西汀60mg/d组(-10.3;P = 0.047)在HAM-D(17)上的改善显著更大。与安慰剂相比,去甲文拉法辛100mg/d和度洛西汀60mg/d在CGI-I、MADRS、CGI-S和HAM-D(6)上的得分显著更好。去甲文拉法辛50mg/d组与安慰剂组在任何量表上均未观察到显著差异。因不良事件导致的停药率在去甲文拉法辛50mg/d组、去甲文拉法辛100mg/d组、度洛西汀60mg/d组和安慰剂组分别为5%、7%、13%和6%。汇总分析中所有三项研究的ITT人群包括1388名患者(平均[标准差]年龄范围为38.8 - 45.7[12.1 - 12.6]岁;平均体重范围为73.1 - 87.0[17.6 - 23.9]kg;女性896名[64.6%];白人1136名[81.8%])。与安慰剂(-9.6)相比,去甲文拉法辛50mg/d(-11.5;P < 0.001)和100mg/d(-11.8;P < 0.001)在HAM-D(17)上的改善显著更大。两种剂量在CGI-I、MADRS和HAM-D(6)上均显著优于安慰剂。
根据预先分析计划,本研究未达到其主要疗效终点。去甲文拉法辛总体耐受性良好。对本试验以及另外两项先前发表的使用去甲文拉法辛50mg/d和100mg/d的试验进行的事后汇总分析发现,与安慰剂相比,这两种剂量对MDD均有效。ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:00384033。