Produção Nacional
Revisado por pares
Attributes of response in depressed patients switched to treatment with duloxetine
2010; Wiley; Volume: 65; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02546.x
ISSN1742-1241
AutoresDoron Sagman, Diane McIntosh, M. S. Lee, Hengyuan Li, Sandra Inês Ruschel, Nadia Hussain, Renee E. Granger, Arier Lee, Joel Raskin,
Tópico(s)Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
ResumoInternational Journal of Clinical PracticeVolume 65, Issue 1 p. 73-81 ORIGINAL PAPEROpen Access Attributes of response in depressed patients switched to treatment with duloxetine D. Sagman, D. Sagman Lilly Research Laboratories, Eli Lilly Canada, Toronto, ON, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorD. McIntosh, D. McIntosh Department of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorM. S. Lee, M. S. Lee Department of Psychiatry, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, KoreaSearch for more papers by this authorH. Li, H. Li Department of Psychiatry, Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorS. Ruschel, S. Ruschel Hospital Mário Kröeff, Psiquiatria, BrazilSearch for more papers by this authorN. Hussain, N. Hussain Lilly Research Laboratories, Eli Lilly Canada, Toronto, ON, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorR. E. Granger, R. E. Granger Intercontinental Information Sciences, Eli Lilly Australia Pty Ltd, Macquarie Park, NSW, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorA. C. Lee, A. C. Lee Intercontinental Information Sciences, Eli Lilly Australia Pty Ltd, Macquarie Park, NSW, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorJ. Raskin, J. Raskin Lilly Research Laboratories, Eli Lilly Canada, Toronto, ON, CanadaSearch for more papers by this author D. Sagman, D. Sagman Lilly Research Laboratories, Eli Lilly Canada, Toronto, ON, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorD. McIntosh, D. McIntosh Department of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorM. S. Lee, M. S. Lee Department of Psychiatry, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, KoreaSearch for more papers by this authorH. Li, H. Li Department of Psychiatry, Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorS. Ruschel, S. Ruschel Hospital Mário Kröeff, Psiquiatria, BrazilSearch for more papers by this authorN. Hussain, N. Hussain Lilly Research Laboratories, Eli Lilly Canada, Toronto, ON, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorR. E. Granger, R. E. Granger Intercontinental Information Sciences, Eli Lilly Australia Pty Ltd, Macquarie Park, NSW, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorA. C. Lee, A. C. Lee Intercontinental Information Sciences, Eli Lilly Australia Pty Ltd, Macquarie Park, NSW, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorJ. Raskin, J. Raskin Lilly Research Laboratories, Eli Lilly Canada, Toronto, ON, CanadaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 16 November 2010 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02546.xCitations: 10 Doron Sagman, MD, FRCPC, Eli Lilly Canada, 3650 Danforth Avenue, Toronto, CanadaTel.: + 1 416 699 7322Fax: + 1 416 699 7352Email: sagmand@lilly.com Disclosures This study (F1J-CR-S022) was financially supported by Eli Lilly and Company. RE Granger and A Lee are employees of Eli Lilly and Company. D Sagman and J Raskin are employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company. N Hussain is contractually employed by Eli Lilly and Company via Moncoa Medical Research Inc. D McIntosh has been an Advisory Board Member and Consultant for Astra Zeneca, Janssen Ortho, Eli Lilly, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lundbeck, Biovail, Sanofi Aventis and Servier. H Li has been an Advisory Board Member for Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Schering-Plough (Merck), GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer (China). No other authors have any conflict of interest to disclose. Clinical Trial Registry Information The results of this study (F1J-CR-S022) are available on clinicaltrials.gov under the identifier #NCT00696774. Re-use of this article is permitted in accordance with the Terms and Conditions set out at http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/onlineopen#OnlineOpen_Terms AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Summary Background: This study was designed to assess clinical and functional outcomes associated with switching to duloxetine treatment in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) experiencing emotional and painful physical symptoms in their current episode. Methods: In this 8-week, multinational, multicentre, single-arm, open-label clinical trial, 242 MDD patients were switched to duloxetine 60 mg/day after selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) treatment. The primary analysis compared mean change from baseline in Brief Pain Inventory – Modified Short Form (BPI-SF) interference score between initial responders [≥ 50% reduction from baseline on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD17) Maier subscale] and initial non-responders after 4 weeks. Initial responders continued with duloxetine 60 mg/day. Initial non-responders received duloxetine 120 mg/day for the remaining 4 weeks. Depression, pain, anxiety and functional outcomes were also compared after 8 weeks. Results: BPI-SF interference decreased from baseline in initial responders (n = 108) and initial non-responders (n = 85) after 4 weeks of duloxetine treatment, with greater reductions in initial responders [BPI-SF mean difference in reduction: 1.01 (95% CI 0.42–1.61); p < 0.001]. Reductions in pain interference favouring initial responders were also apparent after 8 weeks [0.68 (95% CI: 0.03–1.33); p = 0.042]. Depression, pain, anxiety and function improved over 8 weeks across patient groups. Conclusions: Elements of core mood and pain are important residual symptoms following poor treatment response in MDD. Early improvement in these symptoms after switching to duloxetine indicated an increased chance of functional recovery. What's known • Studies have shown that the presence of painful physical symptoms reduces the likelihood of remission in depressed patients. • A relationship between the effective treatment of painful physical symptoms and depression remission rates has been recently shown. • Duloxetine has demonstrated clinical improvements in painful physical symptoms associated with major depressive disorder. What's new • This study explores the clinical course and functional outcomes of depressed patients, experiencing emotional and painful physical symptoms, who are switched to duloxetine treatment. • The results highlight the importance of improvements in mood, pain, anxiety and functioning in the overall remission of patients with major depressive disorder. • An early response in these symptoms after switching to duloxetine may improve the chances of a clinically meaningful, functional recovery. Introduction Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a chronic, disabling condition encompassing emotional, behavioural and physical symptoms that impact considerably upon patients (1, 2). Treatment for MDD aims to achieve complete remission of depressive symptoms and facilitate a return to normal functioning. Antidepressant medications, particularly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), are widely used as first-line treatment options for MDD. However, suboptimal response to antidepressant medication is common; up to 35% of patients treated in routine clinical practice have an inadequate response to first-line therapy (3) and only a third of patients may achieve clinical remission criteria (4, 5). Failure to achieve full remission of MDD is associated with a high risk of chronic symptoms and impaired quality of life (6-8) and physicians routinely switch antidepressant medications to improve clinical response (9). Although switching antidepressant medications is widespread in clinical practice, systematic evaluations of the consequent efficacy and tolerability outcomes are limited. Identifying key response attributes that enhance earlier recognition of patients who benefit from switching antidepressants would be of value. Duloxetine hydrochloride (duloxetine) is a relatively balanced dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) (10, 11). In a previous study, a switch to duloxetine (60–120 mg/day) following SSRI treatment failure produced significant improvements in emotional and physical symptoms of depression, irrespective of whether patients were switched to duloxetine abruptly or tapered off their prior SSRI whilst receiving concomitant duloxetine (9). In addition, duloxetine has demonstrated clinical improvements in painful physical symptoms (PPS) associated with MDD (12). Significantly greater reductions in PPS were shown with duloxetine vs. placebo after 8 weeks of treatment in MDD patients with at least moderate pain associated with their major depressive episode (13) and an independent analgesic effect in MDD has been proposed (14). The aim of this current study was to focus on the attributes of response in MDD patients with at least moderate pain, further expanding on the available data on switching to duloxetine following partial or non-response to SSRIs. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the change in pain interference [as represented by the Brief Pain Inventory – Modified Short Form (BPI-SF) interference score], relative to a change in core mood symptoms [as represented by the Maier subscale of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD17)]. The core emotional symptoms of depression represented by the HAMD17 Maier subscale include depressed mood, feelings of guilt, loss of interest in work and daily activities, psychomotor retardation, agitation and psychic anxiety (15). With the relatively balanced dual mechanism of action of duloxetine (16), it was hypothesised that patients who demonstrated improvements on the Maier subscale initially would show a higher degree of improvement in pain interference than patients who did not (1). Methods Study design This multicentre, single-arm, open-label trial evaluated duloxetine in outpatients with MDD who failed to respond to one course of treatment with either an SSRI or SNRI antidepressant for the current depressive episode (at study entry). Patients who met the study eligibility criteria were treated with open-label duloxetine, 60 mg/day, for 4 weeks (acute therapy period), after which they entered a further 4-week treatment period. Patients who did not initially respond on the Maier subscale during the acute therapy period received duloxetine 120 mg/day (dose-optimisation period) for an additional 4 weeks, whereas responding patients maintained the 60 mg/day dose. In accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, all patients provided informed consent prior to the administration of any study drug. Based on a previous duloxetine study, the proportion of patients demonstrating a Maier response when switched from an SSRI or SNRI to duloxetine for 4 weeks was estimated to be 44% and 22%, respectively (9). The estimated ratio of SSRI/SNRI patients entering this study was 60 : 40, with the overall response estimated at 35%. Using data from another duloxetine study (17), the mean (SD) difference in BPI-SF interference score between initial responders and initial non-responders in the acute therapy phase was estimated to be −1.64 (2.8). Approximately 240 patients with a 25% dropout rate was calculated to provide 90% power at a response rate of 25% and provide 96% power for a response rate of 35%. Selection of patients Study participants were outpatients from 22 sites in Brazil, Canada, China and Korea, aged 18 years or older, who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) (18) disease diagnostic criteria for MDD. Patients were receiving either an SSRI or SNRI antidepressant prescribed for depression treatment at locally recommended doses, for at least 4 weeks prior to study entry. A HAMD17 score ≥ 15 (19), Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) score ≥ 3 and BPI-SF interference score ≥ 3 were required at screening and baseline. Patients were ineligible to participate if they met any of the following criteria: a current primary Axis I disorder other than MDD; a history of substance abuse or dependence; any organic pain syndrome or continuous analgesic use for chronic pain; pregnancy or breastfeeding; and previous failure with duloxetine treatment or treatment-resistant depression (20). Patients who were at suicidal risk, or had a serious medical condition likely to require hospitalisation and/or use of excluded medications were also excluded. Treatments administered Patients received duloxetine 60 mg/day, administered orally with food following a direct switch from an SSRI or SNRI antidepressant (with the exception of fluoxetine, which had to be discontinued for a minimum of 28 days prior to baseline). After 4 weeks, patients who responded to duloxetine (≥ 50% reduction from baseline on the Maier subscale of the HAMD17; 'initial responders, IR') continued to receive 60 mg/day for the remaining 4 weeks. Patients who did not respond to duloxetine in this initial 4-week period (< 50% reduction from baseline on the Maier subscale of the HAMD17; 'initial non-responders, INR') received duloxetine 120 mg/day for the remainder of the study. All concomitant medications taken during the study were recorded. Patients were excluded from taking any antidepressant other than duloxetine. Patients requiring continuous use of analgesics (>Step 2 of the WHO definition) because of chronic pain for greater than 6 months were excluded from the study. Episodic use of some analgesics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and narcotics was allowed if used to treat acute injury or surgical procedure for no longer than six consecutive days. Clinical and functional outcomes and safety evaluations The primary objective of this study was to compare the mean change in BPI-SF interference score from baseline to week 4 between the IR and INR groups. A secondary focus was the BPI-SF interference score in responders and non-responders at week 8. The terms 'responders' and 'non-responders' were used to describe the 8-week secondary outcomes of the IR and INR groups. Other secondary measures were: longitudinal assessments of mean baseline to week 8 change in HAMD17 total score and Maier subscales; the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) total score and subscales; the BPI-SF average pain score; the CGI-S score; the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score; and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). The proportion of patients achieving HAMD17 Maier response (≥ 50% reduction from baseline); HAMD17 Maier onset (≥ 20% improvement from baseline); HAMD17 Maier sustained response (Maier response sustained through the end of the study); HAMD17 total response (≥ 50% reduction from baseline) and sustained response (total response sustained through the end of the study); HAMD17 total remission (total score ≤ 7) and sustained remission (total score ≤ 7 sustained through the end of the study); BPI-SF interference onset score (≥ 30% improvement); BPI-SF interference score with ≥ 50% improvement, at 4 weeks and 8 weeks; and the time to onset of these criteria were also assessed. Dose-optimisation in the INR group was assessed using HAMD17 Maier subscore and HAMD17 total score response rates, as well as the HAMD17 remission rate. All adverse events were reported during the study period using spontaneously reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs) and vital signs. Safety measures included physical examination, blood pressure and heart rate, pre-existing conditions and concomitant medications. Laboratory measurements included haematology, chemistry and electrolytes, urinalysis, urine pregnancy test and urine drug screen. The measures used in this study have been documented and validated in the literature and are generally regarded as reliable and relevant tools for the assessment of MDD patients. All study investigators were trained in the proper administration of each scale. Statistical analyses Data of all enrolled patients were included in the statistical analyses. All patients who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. Patients with significant protocol violations or non-compliance were excluded from the outcomes analyses. Patients who received incorrect dose-optimisation at week 4 were included in outcomes analyses up to the time of dose-optimisation. Comparisons between initial responders and initial non-responders, as classified at week 4, were made for most of the outcomes analyses. Two-sided significance levels of 0.05 and 0.10 were defined a priori to evaluate group- and interaction-effects, respectively. No formal adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. No imputations were conducted for missing covariates. Descriptive statistics were used to characterise patients at study entry. A two-sample t-test was used to compare continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. Covariate adjustment, including prespecified known potential confounders as fixed, categorical effects of gender, group (IR, INR and responders, non-responders), country, visit number, previous therapy (SSRI/SNRI), reason for switch, response group-by-visit interaction, response group-by-country interaction, as well as continuous covariates of age and baseline score, were made to control for baseline imbalances for all adjusted mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) longitudinal analyses. All postbaseline cross-sectional analyses were adjusted for age, gender, baseline score, response group, country and response group-by-country interaction. Statistical analyses were performed using sas® for Windows, version 9.1.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Outcome-related changes from baseline were analysed longitudinally up to week 8 using a MMRM approach. Within-patient errors were modelled using the unstructured covariance matrix, and the Kenward–Rodger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. A type III sum-of-squares was used for the least-squares means. Longitudinal change in PGI-I was assessed using baseline CGI-S as a proxy control for baseline severity in the PGI-I MMRM model. A MMRM sensitivity analysis using all enrolled patients was conducted for the primary outcome and a cross-sectional analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted at weeks 4 and 8 as a sensitivity analysis for all outcome measures. Percentages and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for patients meeting criteria for all onset, response, sustained response, remission and sustained remission measures at week 4 and 8 were reported. Maier response, HAMD17 overall response and HAMD17 sustained remission for non-responders were analysed at week 8. The median time to onset of the indicator variables, with 95% CIs for the overall patient population, was obtained using the Kaplan–Meier method. Time to BPI-SF interference onset between IR and INR was compared using the log-rank test. Cross-sectional analyses at week 4 and 8 were conducted using an ANCOVA model to assess changes in vital signs from baseline to week 8. Results Patient disposition Of the 242 patients enrolled in the 4-week acute therapy phase, 206 completed this initial treatment period. Of these, 115 (55.8%) patients were classified as IR and continued receiving duloxetine 60 mg/day, whereas 91 (44.2%) were classified as INR and received duloxetine 120 mg/day for an additional 4 weeks; 92.2% of the IR group ('responders') and 89.0% of the INR group ('non-responders') completed the 8-week study. Thirty-six patients discontinued the study before week 4 and did not record a primary outcome measure; these patients were 'unclassified'. Figure 1 illustrates the patient disposition during the study. Seven IR and six INR patients were excluded from outcome analyses because of significant protocol violation or non-compliance. A further two IR and four INR patients were excluded from outcome analyses beyond week 4 caused by inadequate dose-optimisation. Figure 1Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Patient disposition Baseline demographics A majority of patients were women (75.2%), with a mean age of 44.9 years (Table 1). Most patients were enrolled from Canada (53.7%), with China, Korea and Brazil contributing 16.9%, 15.7% and 13.6% of patients, respectively. The most frequently prescribed previous treatments were SSRIs (177/206; 74.4%). Paroxetine and venlafaxine were the most commonly prescribed previous SSRI and SNRI treatments, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between IR and INR groups (Table 1). Table 1. Patient baseline demographics Characteristic IR (n = 115) INR (n = 91) Overall*(N = 242) Mean age, years (SD) 43.5 (12.9) 45.6 (12.5) 44.9 (12.5) Female, n (%) 88 (76.5) 64 (70.3) 182 (75.2) Country Brazil, n (%) 9 (7.8) 11 (12.1) 33 (13.6) Korea, n (%) 18 (15.7) 11 (12.1) 38 (15.7) China, n (%) 25 (21.7) 13 (14.3) 41 (16.9) Canada, n (%) 63 (54.8) 56 (61.5) 130 (53.7) Previous treatment SSRI, n (%) 83 (72.8) 69 (76.7) 177 (74.4) SNRI, n (%) 31 (27.2) 21 (23.3) 61 (25.6) Last previous SNRI/SSRI antidepressant Citalopram, n (%) 22 (19.3) 15 (16.7) 41 (17.2) Escitalopram, n (%) 16 (14.0) 15 (16.7) 32 (13.4) Fluoxetine, n (%) 3 (2.6) 4 (4.4) 9 (3.8) Paroxetine, n (%) 29 (25.4) 21 (23.3) 61 (25.6) Sertraline, n (%) 13 (11.4) 14 (15.6) 34 (14.3) Venlafaxine, n (%) 31 (27.2) 21 (23.3) 61 (25.6) *Overall data include patients with 'unclassified' response – these were the patients who discontinued before week 4 and therefore did not have a primary outcome measure (n = 36). IR, initial responders; INR, initial non-responders; SSRI, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor; SNRI, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. Primary and secondary outcome analyses The mean reduction in BPI-SF interference at week 4 was greater in IRs than INRs [BPI-SF mean difference of reduction: 1.01 (95% CI, 1.61–0.42); p < 0.001]. At week 8, the difference of mean reduction from baseline BPI-SF interference between responders and non-responders was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.03–1.33; p = 0.042) (Figure 2). Figure 2Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Change in BPI-SF interference score from baseline to week 8 (adjusted MMRM analysis). Overall mean difference in BPI-SF in initial responders vs. initial non-responders at week 4: 1.01 (95% CI: 0.42–1.61); p < 0.001, and responders vs. non-responders at week 8: 0.68 (95% CI: 0.03–1.33); p = 0.042. BPI-SF, Brief Pain Inventory – Modified Short Form Reductions in HAMD17 Maier subscale scores from baseline to week 8 were greater in responders than in non-responders (Figure 3). The mean difference in reduction between responders and non-responders at week 8 was 3.29 (95% CI, 4.10–2.48; p < 0.001) for HAMD17 Maier scores and 5.85 for HAMD17 total scores (95% CI, 7.34–4.36; p < 0.001) (Figure 4). Figure 3Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Mean change in HAMD17 Maier subscale score from baseline to week 8 (adjusted MMRM analysis). Mean difference in HAMD17 Maier score between responders and non-responders at week 8: 3.29 (95% CI: 4.10, 2.48); p < 0.001 Figure 4Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Mean change in HAMD17 total score from baseline to week 8 (adjusted MMRM analysis). Mean difference in HAMD17 total score between responders and non-responders at week 8: 5.85 (95% CI: 7.34, 4.36); p < 0.001. HAMD17, 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Responders also showed greater improvements in anxiety symptoms from baseline than non-responders [mean difference in reduction in HAM-A total score at week 8: 4.42 (95% CI, 6.04–2.80; p < 0.001); Figure 5]. Country and previous SSRI/SNRI were found to have no statistically significant effect on the change from baseline to week 8 in BPI-SF interference, HAMD17 Maier subscale score, HAMD17 total score or HAM-A total score. Figure 5Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Change in HAM-A total score from baseline to week 8 (adjusted MMRM analysis). Mean difference in HAM-A total score between responders and non-responders at 8 weeks: 4.42 (95% CI: 6.04, 2.80); p < 0.001. HAM-A, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale Table 2 summarises the change from baseline to week 4 and week 8 for primary and secondary outcome measures. In general, patients were moderately ill at baseline and disease severity improved over 8 weeks, with a higher degree of improvement shown by IR and all responders (mean change in CGI-S at 4 weeks: 1.94 in IR vs. 0.57 in INR, p < 0.001; at 8 weeks: 2.52 in responders vs. 1.40 in non-responders, p < 0.001). This was also reflected by PGI-I scores over 8 weeks in all patient groups (Table 2). Improvements from baseline in SDS were shown by all patient groups (Table 2). Table 2. Mean change from baseline to end-point over 4 and 8 weeks in primary and secondary outcome analyses (adjusted MRMM analysis) Variable/score Mean score at baseline (SD) Mean reduction from baseline to week 4 (95% CI) Mean difference between groups at week 4 (95% CI) p-value Mean reduction from baseline to week 8 (95% CI) Mean difference between groups at week 8 (95% CI) p-value IR (n = 115) INR (n = 91) Overall*,†(N = 242) IR (n = 108) INR (n = 85) R (n = 108) NR (n = 85) BPI-SF average pain 4.7 (1.9) 5.0 (2.0) 4.8 (2.0) 2.21 (1.67, 2.75) 1.03 (0.46, 1.59) 1.18 (0.60, 1.77) 0.001 2.56 (1.99, 3.13) 2.14 (1.53, 2.75) 0.42 (0.24, 1.08) 0.208 BPI-SF interference 5.2 (1.6) 5.9 (1.8) 5.5 (1.8) 2.90 (2.36, 3.44) 1.89 (1.32, 2.45) 1.01 (0.42, 1.61) 0.001 3.46 (2.89, 4.03) 2.78 (2.18, 3.38,) 0.679 (0.02, 1.33) 0.042 HAMD17 total 21.3 (4.5) 23.3 (4.5) 21.9 (4.6) 14.35 (13.30, 15.39) 5.20 (4.13, 6.270) 9.15 (8.04, 10.25) < 0.001 15.64 (14.41, 16.86,) 9.79 (8.47, 11.10) 5.85 (4.36, 7.34) < 0.001 HAMD17 Maier subscale 10.7 (2.6) 11.7 (2.6) 11.0 (2.7) 8.08 (7.51, 8.65) 2.54 (1.96, 3.12) 5.54 (4.96, 6.12) < 0.001 8.58 (7.90, 9.25) 5.29 (4.56, 6.01) 3.29 (2.48, 4.10) < 0.001 CGI-S 4.2 (0.6) 4.4 (0.6) 4.3 (0.6) 1.94 (1.74, 2.14) 0.57 (0.36, 0.78) 1.37 (1.14, 1.60) < 0.001 2.52 (2.30, 2.75) 1.40 (1.14, 1.65) 1.13 (0.84, 1.42) < 0.001 HAM-A total 17.9 (6.8) 21.4 (6.8) 19.2 (7.1) 12.14 (10.87, 13.41) 4.95 (3.64, 6.25) 7.19 (5.86, 8.52) < 0.001 12.97 (11.56, 14.37) 8.55 (7.06, 10.04) 4.42 (2.80, 6.04) < 0.001 SDS total 16.7 (7.7) 19.8 (6.8) 18.1 (7.5) 8.38 (6.50, 10.26) 2.49 (0.57, 4.42) 5.88 (4.02, 7.75) < 0.001 9.16 (7.33, 11.00) 3.93 (2.06, 5.79) 5.24 (3.49, 6.99) < 0.001 Baseline (SD) Week 4 (95% CI) Week 8 (95% CI) IR (n = 108) INR (n = 85) IR (n = 108) INR (n = 85) R (n = 108) NR (n = 85) Mean PGI-I score‡ 4.2 (0.6) 4.4 (0.6) 2.31 (2.07, 2.55) 3.20 (2.95, 3.44) 0.89 (0.64, 1.14) < 0.001 2.12 (1.85, 2.38) 2.61 (2.33, 2.90) 0.49 (0.18, 0.81) 0.002 *Overall data include patients with 'unclassified' response – these were patients who discontinued before week 4 and therefore did not have a primary outcome measure (n = 36). †Seven IR patients and six INR patients were excluded from outcome analyses because of significant protocol violation or non-compliance. A further two IR patients and four INR patients were excluded from outcome analyses beyond week 4 caused by inadequate dose-optimisation. ‡Baseline CGI-S was used as a proxy measure of baseline score for PGI-I. BPI-SF, Brief Pain Inventory – Modified Short Form; HAMD17, 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; CGI-S, Clinical Global Impression of Severity; HAM-A, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale; PGI-I, Patient Global Impression of Improvement; SDS, Sheehan Disability Scale; IR, initial responders; INR, initial non-responders; R, responders; NR, non-responders. The majority of patients (93.3%) reported Maier onset (≥ 20% improvement) by week 8, and 68.7% and 53.0% of patients achieved HAMD17 response and sustained response, respectively. Over two-thirds of all patients achieved ≥ 50% improvement in BPI-SF interference and HAMD17 remission was achieved by 46.4% of patients at week 8 (Table 3). The BPI-SF interference onset (≥ 30% improvement) and response (≥ 50% improvement) was achieved more quickly in responders than non-responders (Log-rank test results: onset, 14 days vs. 20 days, p = 0.008; response: 21 days vs. 42 days, p < 0.001). Table 3. Proportion of patients achieving secondary outcome measures at weeks 4 and 8 Variable (N = 193) Proportion of patients achieving outcome [n (%†)] Time to event [median days (95% CI)] Week 4 Week 8 HAMD17 Maier Onset (≥ 20% improvement) 166 (86.0) 167 (93.3) 12 (8–14) Response (≥ 50% improvement) 108 (56.0) 132 (73.7) 22 (21–28) Sustained‡ response 85 (44.0) 109 (60.2) 42 (30–44) HAMD17 Total Response (≥ 50% improvement) 88 (45.6) 123 (68.7) 28 (23–30) Sustained‡ response 70 (36.3) 96 (53.0) 44 (n/a) Remission (≤ 7) 54 (28.0) 83 (46.4) 56 (43–58) Sustained‡ remission 42 (21.8) 63 (34.8) 41 (29–43) BPI-SF interference Onset (≥ 30% improvement) 124 (64.2) 140 (78.2) 14 (14–16) Response (≥ 50% improvement) 98 (50.8) 120 (67.0) 21 (21–26)
Referência(s)