Aim:The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of paroxetine controlled-release (CR) formulation compared to placebo. A secondary objective was to test the hypothesis that the CR decreases selective-serotonin-reuptake-inhibitorsinduced nausea as its formulation allows more distal gastrointestinal absorption than the paroxetine immediate-release (IR) formulation. Methods:We conducted this study in Japanese and Korean patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) in order to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of paroxetine CR compared with placebo. The primary efficacy end-point was the adjusted mean change from baseline in the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score at Week 8.Results: A total of 416 patients with MDD were randomly assigned to the CR, IR and placebo groups. The mean change from baseline in the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression was -12.8 in the CR group, -12.5 in the IR group, and -10.4 in the placebo group, which showed a statistically significant difference compared to placebo in CR (P < 0.001) and IR (P = 0.015). The incidence of adverse events was 65% in CR, 69% in IR and 55% in placebo. The adverse events were mostly mild or moderate in severity. In the early treatment period, when initiated from 12.5 mg, the incidence of nausea in the CR group was 6%, which was comparable with that of placebo (5%). Conclusion:Paroxetine CR is efficacious in the acute treatment of MDD and may have the potential benefit of decreasing the incidence of nausea in the early treatment period.

AIMSIndirect comparison (IC) and direct comparison (DC) between aripiprazole and olanzapine for schizophrenia were conducted to compare their efficacy and safety. The objective was to determine the usability of IC and consistency of results delivered by the two comparisons. Factors that might influence the inconsistency of results were also investigated. METHODSICs and DCs were conducted using the change from baseline of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score as an efficacy endpoint and the dropout rate was selected as a safety endpoint. Placebo and risperidone were used as common comparators for ICs. RESULTSA literature search identified 20 articles. The efficacy analysis gave results on the mean difference in PANSS change (95% CI) of −5.72 (−10.22, −1.22) in ICs using placebo as a common comparator and −7.41 (−15.96, 1.14) in DCs. When using risperidone as a common comparator, it was −9.15 (−20.12, 1.82). In rate ratio analysis of the all cause dropout rate, the IC result was 1.17 (0.83, 1.65) using placebo as a common comparator and 1.56 (0.57, 4.26) using risperidone as a common comparator. Both analyses gave consistent results between ICs and DCs. A slightly lower estimated value was observed in ICs using placebo. CONCLUSIONSThis study demonstrated that ICs between olanzapine and aripiprazole can deliver results consistent with those of DCs. It is also suggested that the selection of a common comparator is important when control group bias is suspected in the data set.

PurposeIndirect comparison (IC) and direct comparison (DC) of four inhaled corticosteroid (CS) treatments for asthma were conducted, and the factors that may influence the results of IC were investigated. Among those factors, we focused on the effect of common comparator selection in the treatment of asthma, where little control group bias or placebo effect is expected.MethodIC and DC were conducted using the change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1(L)) as an outcome parameter. Differences between inhaled CS were evaluated to compare the results of IC and DC. As a common comparator for IC, placebo (PLB) or mometasone (MOM) was selected. Whether the results of IC are affected by the selection of a common comparator and whether the results of IC and DC are consistent were examined.Results23 articles were identified by a literature search. Our results showed that ICs yielded results similar to DCs in the change from baseline of FEV1(L). No statistically significant difference was observed in inconsistency analysis between ICs and DCs. It was clinically and statistically confirmed that ICs with PLB and those with MOM did not differ in terms of the results of FEV1(L) analysis in this dataset.ConclusionThis study demonstrated that ICs among inhaled CS can deliver results consistent with those of DCs when using the change from baseline in FEV1(L) as an outcome parameter in asthma patients. It was also shown that using an active comparator has similar results if there is no effect of control group bias. It should be emphasized that the investigation of control group bias is a key factor in conducting relevant ICs so that an appropriate common comparator can be selected.

No abstract