Title |
Comparative clinical profile of mirtazapine and duloxetine in practical clinical settings in Japan: a 4-week open-label, parallel-group study of major depressive disorder
|
---|---|
Published in |
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, June 2013
|
DOI | 10.2147/ndt.s43600 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Kei Nagao, Taro Kishi, Masatsugu Moriwaki, Kiyoshi Fujita, Shigeki Hirano, Yoshio Yamanouchi, Toshihiko Funahashi, Nakao Iwata |
Abstract |
No studies have compared mirtazapine with duloxetine in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Fifty-six patients were nonrandomly assigned to a 4-week treatment with either 15 to 45 mg/day of mirtazapine (n = 22) or 20 to 60 mg/day of duloxetine (n = 34). The primary efficacy measurements were the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression 6-point Rating Scale (MADRS) scores. The second efficacy measurements were the response and remission rates of treatment. Tolerability assessments were also performed. Fifty-six patients (43 male; age, 43.6 years) were recruited. There was no significant difference in the discontinuation rate between the mirtazapine and duloxetine treatment groups (P = 0.867). Both mirtazapine and duloxetine significantly improved the HRSD and MADRS scores from baseline (P < 0.0001-0.0004). While mirtazapine was superior to duloxetine in the reduction of HRSD scores (P = 0.0421), there was no significant change in MADRS scores in terms of between-group differences (P = 0.171). While more somnolence was observed with mirtazapine (P = 0.0399), more nausea was associated with duloxetine (P = 0.0089). No serious adverse events were observed for either antidepressant. Mirtazapine and duloxetine were safe and well-tolerated treatments for Japanese patients with MDD. Double-blind controlled studies are needed to further explore the efficacy and safety of mirtazapine and duloxetine in Japanese patients with MDD. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 6 | 22% |
Other | 4 | 15% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 11% |
Other | 2 | 7% |
Unknown | 4 | 15% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 41% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 11% |
Psychology | 3 | 11% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
Other | 3 | 11% |
Unknown | 5 | 19% |