4.6 Article

Comparison of efficacy, safety and brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels in patients of major depressive disorder, treated with fluoxetine and desvenlafaxine

期刊

ASIAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 37-41

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajp.2015.10.006

关键词

BDNF; Depression; Desvenlafaxine; Fluoxetine; MDD; Open label

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This randomized, open label, prospective, observational study compared clinical efficacy, safety alongwith plasma BDNF levels in outpatients of depression treated with fluoxetine and desvenlafaxine. Patients (aged 18-60 years) with moderate to severe major depressive disorder (MDD) diagnosed by DSM-IV criteria, and Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score >= 14, who were prescribed fluoxetine or desvenlafaxine were included (n = 30 in each group). Patients were followed up for 12 weeks for evaluation of clinical efficacy, safety along with BDNF levels. In the fluoxetine group, HAM-D scores at the start of treatment was 19 +/- 4.09 which significantly (p < 0.05) reduced to 9.24 +/- 3.98 at 12 weeks. In the desvenlafaxine group, HAM-D scores at the start of treatment was 18 +/- 3.75 which significantly (p < 0.05) reduced to 10 +/- 3.75 at 12 weeks. The BDNF levels in the fluoxetine group were 775.32 +/- 30.38 pg/ml at the start of treatment which significantly (p < 0.05) increased to 850.3 +/- 24.92 pg/ml at 12 weeks. The BDNF levels in the desvenlafaxine group were 760.5 +/- 28.53 pg/ml at the start of treatment which significantly (p < 0.05) increased to 845.8 +/- 32.82 pg/ml at 12 weeks. Both the antidepressants were found to be safe and well tolerated. The efficacy and the safety profile of desvenlafaxine is comparable to fluoxetine in patients of MDD. BDNF levels were significantly increased post-treatment with both the antidepressive agents. Whether BDNF may have a prognostic value in predicting treatment response to antidepressant drugs needs to be investigated in a larger patient population. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据