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 .
Duloxetine 60 mg once daily dosing versus placebo in the acute treatment of major depression.
Existing therapies for major depressive disorder ( MDD ) have either limited efficacy and /or poor tolerability . The present study examined the effects of duloxetine , a potent and balanced dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin ( 5-HT ) and norepinephrine ( NE ) , in patients with MDD . Adult patients ( N = 267 ) with MDD were r and omly assigned to receive duloxetine ( 60 mg/day ) or placebo in this 9-week , multi-center , double-blind , parallel-group clinical trial . Efficacy was evaluated using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ( HAMD(17 ) ) , Visual Analog Scales ( VAS ) for pain , Clinical Global Impression of Severity ( CGI-S ) , Patient 's Global Impression of Improvement ( PGI-I ) , and Quality of Life in Depression Scale ( QLDS ) . Safety was evaluated by assessing discontinuation rates , adverse event rates , vital signs , and laboratory tests .  Duloxetine ( 60 mg QD ) significantly reduced the HAMD(17 ) total score compared with placebo at the end of 9-week therapy . Estimated probabilities of response and remission were 65 and 43 % , respectively , for duloxetine compared with 42 and 28 % for placebo . Duloxetine also reduced overall pain , back pain , shoulder pain and time in pain while awake significantly more than placebo . Global measures of improvement , including PGI-I and QLDS , were significantly improved by duloxetine compared with placebo .  Discontinuations due to adverse events were more frequent for duloxetine-treated patients ( 12.5 % ) than for placebo-treated patients ( 4.3 % ) . Nausea , dry mouth , dizziness , and constipation were more frequent for duloxetine than placebo . There was no significant incidence of hypertension , nor any other safety issues . Duloxetine 60 mg administered once daily appears to be a safe and effective treatment for MDD
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 .