Cited by 53

Escitalopram in the Treatment of Adolescent Depression: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Extension Trial

Findling, Robert L., Robb, Adelaide, Bose, Anjana·2013·Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the extended efficacy, safety, and tolerability of escitalopram relative to placebo in adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD). Methods: Adolescents (12–17 years) who completed an 8-week randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose, placebo-controlled, lead-in study of escitalopram 10–20 mg versus placebo could enroll in a 16–24-week, multisite extension trial; patients maintained the same lead-in randomization (escitalopram or placebo) and dosage (escitalopram 10 or 20 mg/day, or placebo) during the extension. The primary efficacy was Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) change from the lead-in study baseline to treatment week 24 (8-week lead-in study plus 16-week extension); the secondary efficacy was Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) score at week 24. All efficacy analyses used the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach; sensitivity analyses used observed cases (OC) and mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). Safety was evaluated via adverse event (AE) reports and the clinician-rated Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS). Results: Following lead-in, 165 patients enrolled in the double-blind extension (82 placebo; 83 escitalopram); 40 (48.8%) placebo and 37 (44.6%) escitalopram patients completed treatment. CDRS-R total score improvement was significantly greater for escitalopram than for placebo ( p =0.005, LOCF; p =0.014; MMRM). Response rates (CDRS-R ≥40% reduction from baseline [adjusted and unadjusted] and CGI-I ≤2) were significantly higher for escitalopram than for placebo (LOCF); remission rates (CDRS-R ≤28) were 50.6% for escitalopram and 35.7% for placebo ( p =0.002). OC analyses were not significantly different between groups. The most frequent escitalopram AEs (≥5% and more frequent than placebo) were headache, nausea, insomnia, vomiting, influenza-like symptoms, diarrhea, and urinary tract infection. Most AEs were mild/moderate and not related to the study drug. AEs suggestive of self-harm occurred in 5.7% and 7.1% of placebo and escitalopram patients. Occurrence of suicidal behavior and/or suicidal ideation assessed by C-SSRS was 10.9% (14/128) for placebo and 14.5% (19/131) for escitalopram. Conclusions: Extended use of escitalopram was generally safe and resulted in modest improvement in efficacy in adolescents with MDD.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/cap.2012.0023

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Findling, R. L., Robb, A., & Bose, A.
Venue
Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology
Published
2013-09
Volume
23
Issue
7
Pages
468-480
ISSN
  • 1044-5463
  • 1557-8992
Cited by
53
References
8
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