Effect of pimavanserin on anxious depression in patients with major depression and an inadequate response to previous therapy: secondary analysis of the clarity study

13Citations
Citations of this article
63Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

In a post hoc analysis, the effect of pimavanserin on anxious depression was determined from CLARITY, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with major depression and an inadequate response to previous therapy. Patients were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to placebo or pimavanserin 34 mg daily added to ongoing antidepressant therapy. At 5 weeks, placebo nonresponders were rerandomized to placebo or pimavanserin for an additional 5 weeks. Mean change from baseline to week 5 for the Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD) anxiety/somatization (AS) factor was examined for all patients and those with a score ≥7 at baseline. Least squares (LS) mean [standard error (SE)] difference between placebo and pimavanserin for the AS factor score was-1.5 (0.41) [95% confidence interval (CI)-2.4 to-0.7; P = 0.0003; effect size: 0.634]. Among patients with an AS factor score ≥7 at baseline, LS mean (SE) difference was-2.2 (0.66) (95% CI-3.5 to-0.9; P = 0.0013; effect size: 0.781). Response rates (≥50% reduction in HAMD-17 from baseline) were 22.4 and 55.2% (P = 0.0012) and remission rates (HAMD-17 total score <7) were 5.3 and 24.1% (P = 0.0047), respectively, with placebo and pimavanserin among patients with a baseline AS factor score ≥7. Among patients with anxious major depressive disorder at baseline, adjunctive pimavanserin was associated with a significant improvement.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Papakostas, G. I., Fava, M., Freeman, M. P., Shelton, R. C., Thase, M. E., Jha, M. K., … Stankovic, S. (2020). Effect of pimavanserin on anxious depression in patients with major depression and an inadequate response to previous therapy: secondary analysis of the clarity study. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 35(6), 313–321. https://doi.org/10.1097/YIC.0000000000000328

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