title: Double-blind, comparative study of milnacipran and paroxetine in Japanese patients with major depression.
abstract: METHODS
  A double-blind, parallel-group, controlled study was performed to investigate if milnacipran was noninferior to paroxetine in terms of improvement in symptoms of depression in Japanese patients with major depressive disorders in a fixed-dose design. The efficacy and safety of milnacipran 200 mg/day were also assessed in comparison with those at the standard dose of 100 mg/day.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Changes in 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale (HAM-D) total score (mean ± standard deviation) for group M1 (milnacipran 100 mg/day), group M2 (milnacipran 200 mg/day), and group PX (paroxetine 30 or 40 mg/day) were -12.9 ± 5.8, -12.8 ± 6.1, and -13.1 ± 6.2, respectively, and the estimated differences in total score for group PX (Dunnett's 95% simultaneous confidence interval) were 0.1 (-1.1 to 1.3) for group M1 and 0.3 (-0.9 to 1.5) for group M2. The noninferiority of groups M1 and M2 to group PX was thus confirmed, because the upper confidence limit of differences between groups M1 and PX and between groups M2 and PX was less than 2.0. The estimated mean difference of change in HAM-D total score (95% confidence interval) between groups M2 and M1 was 0.2 (-0.9 to 1.2), indicating a comparable change in total score for both groups. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was 71.7% for group M1, 68.8% for group M2, and 69.3% for group PX, indicating no significant difference between the three groups.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  These results demonstrate that milnacipran 100 mg/day and 200 mg/day is not inferior to paroxetine in terms of efficacy and safety.
authors: International University of Health and Welfare, Tochigi.
authors: Kunitoshi
authors: K
authors: Kamijima
authors: Shinji
authors: S
authors: Hashimoto
authors: Eiichi
authors: E
authors: Nagayoshi
authors: Tsukasa
authors: T
authors: Koyama
keywords: Japan; depression; milnacipran; noninferiority; paroxetine
references: Curr Med Res Opin. 2004 Jun;20(6):855-60
references: 15200743
references: Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1996 Sep;11 Suppl 4:41-6
references: 8923126
references: Clin Drug Investig. 2006;26(3):135-42
references: 17163244
references: Hum Psychopharmacol. 2004 Dec;19(8):585-6
references: 15570574
references: Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1996 Sep;11 Suppl 4:35-9
references: 8923125
references: Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2010 Apr 07;6:71-9
references: 20396639
references: Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2001 May;16(3):145-51
references: 11354236
references: Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1996 Sep;11 Suppl 4:29-33
references: 8923124
references: J Affect Disord. 2004 Dec;83(2-3):233-6
references: 15555719
references: CNS Spectr. 2005 Sep;10(9):732-47
references: 16142213
references: Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 1991 May;1(2):113-21
references: 1821700
references: Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1997 Mar;12(2):99-108
references: 9219045
references: Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1990 Jan;5(1):49-56
references: 2185303
references: Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2002 Jul;162(3):323-32
references: 12122491
references: J Affect Disord. 2002 Oct;72(1):21-31
references: 12204314
references: J Affect Disord. 1993 Jun;28(2):71-9
references: 8354771
references: Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1992 Jun;6 Suppl 4:69-80
references: 1431015
references: Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1998 May;13(3):121-8
references: 9690979
references: J Clin Psychiatry. 1992 Dec;53(12):434-8
references: 1487471
references: Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2007;3(5):699-702
references: 19300602
references: Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2004 Nov;19(6):343-6
references: 15486520