Conclusion Fluoxetine was not statistically different in either tolerability or efficacy when compared with duloxetine .
Venlafaxine was significantly superior to duloxetine in all analyses except dropout rate .
In the absence of relevant data from head-to-head comparison trials , results suggest that venlafaxine is superior compared with duloxetine and that duloxetine does not differentiate from fluoxetine
Background Data comparing duloxetine with existing antidepressant treatments is limited .
A comparison of duloxetine with fluoxetine has been performed but no comparison with venlafaxine , the other antidepressant in the same therapeutic class with a significant market share , has been undertaken .
In the absence of relevant data to assess the place that duloxetine should occupy in the therapeutic arsenal , indirect comparisons are the most rigorous way to go .
We conducted a systematic review of the efficacy of duloxetine , fluoxetine and venlafaxine versus placebo in the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder ( MDD ) , and performed indirect comparisons through meta-regressions .
Efficacy and tolerability of once-daily venlafaxine extended release (XR) in outpatients with major depression. The Venlafaxine XR 209 Study Group.
BACKGROUND This was a r and omized , double-blind , placebo-controlled evaluation of the efficacy and safety of once-daily venlafaxine extended release ( XR ) in out- patients with DSM-IV major depression . METHOD Patients were r and omly assigned to venlafaxine XR ( 75 - 225 mg ) once daily or placebo for up to 8 weeks . The primary efficacy variables were the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression ( HAM-D ) total score and HAM-D depressed mood item , the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale ( MADRS ) total scores , and the Clinical Global Impressions ( CGI ) Severity scale . Data were analyzed on a modified intent-to-treat basis using the last-observation-carried-forward method . RESULTS Venlafaxine XR ( N = 91 ) was significantly more effective than placebo ( N = 100 ) beginning at Week 2 on the CGI Severity scale , at Week 3 on the HAM-D depressed mood item , and at Week 4 on the HAM-D and MADRS ; this superiority was maintained through Week 8 . The most common treatment-emergent adverse events associated with venlafaxine XR were nausea , insomnia , and somnolence . The incidence of nausea was highest during the first week , decreased by 50 % during the second week , and was comparable to that of placebo from Week 3 onward . CONCLUSION These results demonstrate that venlafaxine XR is an effective and well-tolerated treatment of major depression
Conclusion Fluoxetine was not statistically different in either tolerability or efficacy when compared with duloxetine .
Venlafaxine was significantly superior to duloxetine in all analyses except dropout rate .
In the absence of relevant data from head-to-head comparison trials , results suggest that venlafaxine is superior compared with duloxetine and that duloxetine does not differentiate from fluoxetine
Background Data comparing duloxetine with existing antidepressant treatments is limited .
A comparison of duloxetine with fluoxetine has been performed but no comparison with venlafaxine , the other antidepressant in the same therapeutic class with a significant market share , has been undertaken .
In the absence of relevant data to assess the place that duloxetine should occupy in the therapeutic arsenal , indirect comparisons are the most rigorous way to go .
We conducted a systematic review of the efficacy of duloxetine , fluoxetine and venlafaxine versus placebo in the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder ( MDD ) , and performed indirect comparisons through meta-regressions .