Fluoxetine 40–60 mg versus Fluoxetine 20 mg in the Treatment of Children and Adolescents with a Less-Than-Complete Response to Nine-Week Treatment with Fluoxetine 10–20 mg: APilot Study
Abstract
Objective The aim of this study was to compare fluoxetine dosage titration to 40-60 mg/day with fixed fluoxetine 20-mg/day treatment for an additional 10 weeks in pediatric outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who had not met protocol-defined response criteria after 9-week acute fluoxetine treatment. Methods Patients unresponsive (less than or equal to 30% decrease in Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised [CDRS-R] score) after 9-week fluoxetine treatment were randomly reassigned to continue at 20 mg/day or to increase to 40 mg/day. After 4 weeks, patients unresponsive to 40 mg/day could receive 60 mg/day. Results Twenty-nine (29) patients, 9-17 years of age, received fluoxetine 40-60 mg/day (n = 14) or 20 mg/day (n = 15). At the conclusion of this study phase, 10 patients (71%) on 40-60 mg/day met the response criteria, versus 5 patients (36%) on 20 mg/day (p = 0.128). Mean CDRS-R scores improved in both treatment groups (fluoxetine 40-60 mg/day, -9.4; fluoxetine 20 mg/day, -1.5; p = 0.099). Adverse events were similar in both groups. However, this study phase was statistically underpowered for detecting differences between treatment groups. Conclusion More than two thirds of patients whose dosage was increased responded within 10 weeks, suggesting dose escalation may benefit some patients. Approximately one third of patients unresponsive to initial treatment with fluoxetine 20 mg responded to this fixed dosage within another 10 weeks. Fluoxetine 20-60 mg/day…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Fluoxetine uniquely has evidence to suggest that increased dosages may benefit those who do not respond to lower doses.
“Moreover, fluoxetine uniquely has evidence to suggest that increased dosages may benefit those who do not respond to lower doses [173]”
From A Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART) study of medication and CBT sequencing in the treatment of pediatric anxiety disorders (2021) · cites this paper as [173]
Cites
KELLER, M. B., RYAN, N. D., STROBER, M., KLEIN, R. G., KUTCHER, S. P., BIRMAHER, B., HAGINO, O. R., KOPLEWICZ, H., CARLSON, G. A., CLARKE, G. N., et al. (2001) · Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1097/00004583-200107000-00010 · Cited by 641 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Birmaher, B., & Brent, D. (2007) · Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1097/chi.0b013e318145ae1c · Cited by 1,056 · see citing works
Rohden, A. I., Benchaya, M. C., Camargo, R. S., Moreira, T. D. C., Barros, H. M. T., & Ferigolo, M. (2017) · Clinical Therapeutics · doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.03.017 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Dudley, M., Hadzi-Pavlovic, D., Andrews, D., & Perich, T. (2008) · Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1080/00048670802050538 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Peterson, B. S., West, A. E., Weisz, J. R., Mack, W. J., Kipke, M. D., Findling, R. L., Mittman, B. S., Bansal, R., Piantadosi, S., Takata, G., et al. (2021) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-021-03314-y · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Heiligenstein, J. H., Hoog, S. L., Wagner, K. D., Findling, R. L., Galil, N., Kaplan, S., Busner, J., Nilsson, M. E., Brown, E. B., & Jacobson, J. G.
- Venue
- Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-03
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 207-217
- ISSN
- 1044-5463
- 1557-8992
- Cited by
- 39
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
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