A randomized clinical trial comparing two two-phase treatment strategies for in-patients with severe depression

5Citations
Citations of this article
38Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Your institution provides access to this article.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy of two antidepressant treatment strategies in severely depressed in-patients, that is, imipramine vs. venlafaxine, both with subsequent lithium addition in non-responders. Method: In-patients (n = 88) with major depressive disorder were randomized to 7-week treatment with imipramine or venlafaxine (phase I). All non-responders (n = 44) received 4-week plasma level-targeted dose lithium addition (phase II). Efficacy was evaluated after 11 weeks of treatment. Results: Analyzing phases I and II combined, non-inferiority was established and the difference in the proportion of responders (HAM-D score reduction ≥50%) by the end of phase II demonstrated the venlafaxine-lithium treatment strategy to be significantly superior to the imipramine-lithium treatment strategy (77% vs. 52%) (χ2(1) = 6.03; P = 0.01). Regarding remission (HAM-D score ≤ 7), 15 of 44 (34%) patients in the imipramine-lithium treatment group were remitters compared to 22 of 44 (50%) patients in the venlafaxine-lithium treatment group, a non-significant difference. Patients in the venlafaxine-lithium treatment group had a non-significant larger mean HAM-D score reduction compared with patients in the imipramine-lithium treatment group (16.1 vs. 13.5 points, respectively; Cohen's d = 0.30). Conclusion: The venlafaxine-lithium treatment strategy can be considered a valuable alternative for the imipramine-lithium treatment strategy in the treatment of severely depressed in-patients.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Vermeiden, M., Kamperman, A. M., Hoogendijk, W. J. G., van den Broek, W. W., & Birkenhäger, T. K. (2017). A randomized clinical trial comparing two two-phase treatment strategies for in-patients with severe depression. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 136(1), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.12743

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free