. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Jul 19.

Published in final edited form as: JAMA. 2011 Jan 19;305(3):267–274. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.2016

Table 2.

Hot Flash Frequency, Severity and Bother at Weeks 4 and 8 by Treatment Arm

	Escitalopram		Placebo		Difference
	N	Mean (SD)	N	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	P value
Primary Outcomes
Hot flashes / day¹
Baseline	104	9.88 (6.24)	101	9.66 (4.88)	0.22 (5.61)
Week 4 – baseline	101	−4.37 (4.39)	99	−2.49 (4.12)	−1.89 (4.26)	0.001
Week 8 – baseline	97	−4.60 (4.28)	97	−3.20 (4.76)	−1.41 (4.53)	0.004
Severity² (1–3)
Baseline	104	2.16 (0.44)	101	2.19 (0.45)	−0.04 (0.45)
Week 4 – baseline	100	−0.43 (0.54)	97	−0.23 (0.52)	−0.20 (0.53)	0.003
Week 8 – baseline	96	−0.52 (0.58)	96	−0.30 (0.63)	−0.22 (0.61)	0.003
Secondary Outcome
Bother³ (1–4)
Baseline	104	3.12 (0.49)	101	3.16 (0.52)	−0.04 (0.51)
Week 4 – baseline	100	−0.59 (0.70)	97	−0.29 (0.62)	−0.30 (0.66)	<0.001
Week 8 – baseline	96	−0.63 (0.73)	96	−0.39 (0.76)	−0.24 (0.75)	0.013

Week 4 and 8 p-values from contrasts comparing Escitalopram vs. placebo at each visit in linear model of log hot flash frequency as a function of intervention arm and adjusted for race (p=0.07), clinical center (p=0.07), baseline log hot flash frequency (p<0.001), visit (week 4 or 8, p=0.04), and visit by intervention interaction (p=0.84).

Week 4 and 8 p-values from contrasts comparing Escitalopram vs. placebo at each visit in linear model of hot flash severity as a function of intervention arm and adjusted for race (p=0.02), clinical center (p=0.46), baseline hot flash severity (p<0.001), visit (week 4 or 8, p=0.15), and visit by intervention interaction (p=0.68).

Week 4 and 8 p-values from contrasts comparing Escitalopram vs. placebo at each visit in linear model of hot flash bother as a function of intervention arm and adjusted for race (p=0.02), clinical center (p=0.62), baseline hot flash bother (p<0.001), visit (week 4 or 8, p=0.07), and visit by intervention interaction (p=0.50).