Cited by 73Bipolar Disorder and TreatmentTreatment of Major DepressionSchizophrenia research and treatment

Quetiapine for the treatment of bipolar II depression: Analysis of data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies

Suppes, Trisha, Hirschfeld, Robert M., Vieta, Eduard, Raines, Shane, Paulsson, Björn·2008·The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine monotherapy for depressive episodes in patients with bipolar II disorder. Methods A post-hoc evaluation was conducted in 351 patients with bipolar II depression combined from two similarly designed double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 8-week studies of quetiapine (300 or 600 mg/day) that included patients with bipolar I or II disorder (DSM-IV) exhibiting moderate to severe depression. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 8 in MADRS total score. Secondary endpoints included HAM-D, HAM-A, and CGI. Results In patients with bipolar II disorder, improvement in mean MADRS total score from baseline was significantly greater with quetiapine 300 (n = 107) and 600 mg/day (n = 106) from the first assessment (week 1) through week 8 compared with placebo (n = 108). The mean change from baseline at week 8 for quetiapine 300 and 600 mg/day versus placebo was -17.1 and -17.9 versus -13.3 (P = 0.005 and P = 0.001 versus placebo), respectively. Change in HAM-D, HAM-A, and CGI were also significantly greater for quetiapine groups versus placebo. Common adverse events in the quetiapine groups included dry mouth, sedation, and somnolence. Conclusion Quetiapine demonstrated significant efficacy as monotherapy, compared with placebo, for the treatment of acute depressive episodes in bipolar II disorder.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15622970701317265

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Suppes, T., Hirschfeld, R. M., Vieta, E., Raines, S., & Paulsson, B.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (US)
  • Universitat de Barcelona (ES)
  • AstraZeneca (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • AstraZeneca (Sweden) (SE)
Corresponding author
Suppes, Trisha
Venue
The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry
Published
2008-01
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
198-211
ISSN
  • 1562-2975 (ISSN-L)
  • 1814-1412
OpenAlex
W2105761999
Cited by
73
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 15
FWCI
7.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • AstraZeneca
  • Stanley Medical Research Institute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
quetiapine, bipolar II disorder, bipolar depression, monotherapy, atypical antipsychotics, treatment efficacy, tolerability, adverse events, sedation, xerostomia, sleepiness
MeSH terms
Quetiapine Fumarate, Adult, Bipolar Disorder, Dibenzothiazepines, Double-Blind Method, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Humans, Male, Severity of Illness Index, Antipsychotic Agents, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review