Results In the primary analytic strategy in which participants (n=33) were censored at the time of dropout, mean cumulative response rate for escitalopram was 69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58%-80%) vs 51% (95% CI, 40%-62%) for placebo (P=.03). A conservative intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference in mean cumulative response rate between escitalopram and placebo (57%; 95% CI, 46%-67%; vs 45%; 95% CI, 35%55%; P=.11). Participants treated with escitalopram showed greater improvement than with placebo in anxiety symptoms and role functioning (Clinical Global ImpressionsImprovement scale: effect size, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.50-1.36;P.001; Penn State Worry Questionnaire: 0.30; 95% CI, 0.23-0.48;P=.01; activity limitations: 0.32; 95% CI, 0.01-0.63; P=.04; and the role-emotional impairment and social function: 0.96; 95% CI, 0.03-1.90; P=.04). Adverse effects of escitalopram (P.05 vs placebo) were fatigue or somnolence (35 patients [41.1%]), sleep disturbance (12 [14.1%]), and urinary symptoms (8 [9.4%]). Conclusions Older adults with GAD randomized to escitalopram had a higher cumulative response rate for improvement vs placebo over 12 weeks; however, response rates were not significantly different using an intention-to-treat analysis. Further study is required to assess efficacy and safety over longer treatment durations. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00105586
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lenze et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: