An Open-Label Rater-Blinded Randomized Trial of Vilazodone versus Escitalopram in Major Depression

3Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Vilazodone, a novel selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and 5-HT1A partial agonist, was approved in 2011 for treatment for major depression. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of vilazodone versus escitalopram in patients with major depression at 4 weeks. Methods: Participants (n = 52) were adult major depressive disorder outpatients who were randomized to receive either oral escitalopram (modal endpoint dose 20 mg/day; n = 26) or oral vilazodone (modal endpoint dose 40 mg/day; n = 26). Rater-blinded assessments of depression scores (primary outcome) and clinical severity of illness (secondary outcome) were obtained at baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks. Adverse effects such as weight gain, sexual dysfunction, and diarrhea were recorded at each visit. The primary analysis was performed on the Intention-to-treat sample. Results: No significant difference was noted between groups on depression scores at study endpoint (F = 2.80, df = 1,50, P = 0.10); however, the vilazodone group had significantly lower endpoint clinical severity of illness (F = 7.69, df = 1,50, P = 0.01). At 2 weeks, there were no significant between-group differences on depression scores (F = 0.006, df = 1,50, P = 0.94). Instances of diarrhea (P = 0.001) were significantly higher in the vilazodone group. Conclusion: Clinical ratings of major depression did not differ significantly between vilazodone and escitalopram groups at the end of 4 weeks. Our findings are limited by lack of statistical power to detect smaller differences between groups, should they exist.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kumar, P. N. S., Suresh, R., & Menon, V. (2023). An Open-Label Rater-Blinded Randomized Trial of Vilazodone versus Escitalopram in Major Depression. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 45(1), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/02537176221127162

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