Desvenlafaxine Versus Placebo in the Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Major Depressive Disorder

Special Populations: Treatment-Resistant Depression in Children and Adolescents

Major depressive disorder is a substantial public health challenge impacting at least 3 million adolescents annually in the United States. Depressive symptoms do not improve in approximately 30% of adolescents who receive evidence-based treatments. Treatment-resistant depression in adolescents is broadly defined as a depressive disorder that does not respond to a 2-month course of an antidepressant medication at a dose equivalent of 40 mg of fluoxetine daily or 8 to 16 sessions of a cognitive behavioral or interpersonal therapy. This article reviews historical work, recent literature on classification, current evidence-based approaches, and emerging interventional research.

Factors Related to Placebo Response in Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trials of Antidepressants in Children and Adolescents: A Meta-regression Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Many randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for antidepressants in children and adolescents have failed to demonstrate efficacy due to a high placebo response. The aim of this study was to identify the potential factors affecting placebo response using meta-regression analysis of RCTs for antidepressants in children and adolescents using the Children's Depressive Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) as the outcome.

METHODS

PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants for the acute treatment of major depressive disorder in children and adolescents. The outcome used in the present study was the mean change of the CDRS-R total score from baseline to the last assessment for the primary efficacy in the placebo arm. Potential factors related to the placebo response, such as study design, operational, and patient factors, were explored using meta-regression.

RESULTS

The analyses included 23 trials. On multivariable meta-regression, setting up a placebo lead-in period was significantly associated with a smaller placebo response in the CDRS-R.

CONCLUSION

Setting up a placebo lead-in period should be considered in future clinical trials of antidepressants in adolescents and children.

Vortioxetine for Major Depressive Disorder in Adolescents: 12-Week Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Fluoxetine-Referenced, Fixed-Dose Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of vortioxetine in adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHOD

After 4 weeks of single-blind lead-in treatment with a Brief Psychosocial Intervention (BPI) plus placebo, patients (aged 12-17 years) with MDD (DSM-5) who did not meet response criteria (Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised [CDRS-R]; total score ≥40 plus <40% reduction and a Parent Global Assessment score >2) were randomized 1:1:1:1 to 8 weeks of BPI plus double-blind treatment with vortioxetine 10 mg, vortioxetine 20 mg, fluoxetine 20 mg, or placebo. The primary endpoint was change from randomization in CDRS-R total score at week 8; the primary comparison was the average effect of 2 vortioxetine doses vs placebo.

RESULTS

Of 784 patients enrolled in the lead-in, 616 were randomized. At week 8, the mean change in CDRS-R total score averaged for vortioxetine doses was -18.01 (SE = 0.98) and the mean difference vs placebo was 0.21 (P = .878; not significant). For fluoxetine, the mean change in CDRS-R total score was -21.95 and the mean difference vs placebo was -3.73 (P = .015). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in ≥5% of patients in either vortioxetine arm and at least twice more frequently than placebo were nausea, headache, vomiting, and dizziness.

CONCLUSION

Patients in all groups showed reduction in CDRS-R scores by the end of the study, with no difference between combined doses of vortioxetine and placebo. The primary endpoint was not met, thereby rendering the study negative. The overall favorable safety profile of vortioxetine in an adolescent patient population was consistent with that seen in adults.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

Active Reference (Fluoxetine) Fixed-Dose Study of Vortioxetine in Paediatric Patients Aged 12 to 17 Years With Major Depressive Disorder (MDD); http://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02709746.

Efficacy and tolerability of antidepressant drugs in treatment of depression in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in treatment of depression disorder in children and adolescents by network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CBM, CNKI and Wanfang Data were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) related to antidepressants in treatment of children and adolescents with depression from inception to December 2021. Quality assessment and data extraction from the included RCTs were performed. Statistical analyses of efficacy and tolerability were conducted with Stata 15.1 software. Surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCAR) was used to rank the value of the antidepressants.

RESULTS

A total of 33 RCTs were included in 32 articles, involving 6949 patients. There are 13 antidepressants used in total, including amitriptyline, vilazodone, fluoxetine, selegiline, paroxetine, imipramine, desipramine, sertraline, nortriptyline, escitalopram, citalopram, venlafaxine and duloxetine. The results of network meta-analysis showed that the efficacy of duloxetine ( OR=1.95, 95% CI: 1.41-2.69), fluoxetine ( OR=1.73, 95% CI: 1.40-2.14), venlafaxine ( OR=1.37, 95% CI: 1.04-1.80) and escitalopram ( OR=1.48, 95% CI: 1.12-1.95) were significantly higher than that of placebos (all P<0.05); the probability cumulative ranks were duloxetine (87.0%), amitriptyline (83.3%), fluoxetine (79.0%), escitalopram (62.7%), etc. The results showed that the intolerability of patients receiving imipramine ( OR=0.15, 95% CI: 0.08-0.27), sertraline ( OR=0.33, 95% CI: 0.16-0.71), venlafaxine ( OR=0.35, 95% CI: 0.17-0.72), duloxetine ( OR=0.35, 95% CI: 0.17-0.73) and paroxetine ( OR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.30-0.88) were significantly higher than that of placebos (all P<0.05), and the probability cumulative ranks were imipramine (95.7%), sertraline (69.6%), venlafaxine (68.6%), duloxetine (68.2%), etc. Conclusion: Among 13 antidepressants, duloxetine, fluoxetine, escitalopram and venlafaxine are significantly better than placebo in terms of efficacy, but duloxetine and venlafaxine are less well tolerated.

Antidepressants in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder and the influence of placebo response: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are few available antidepressants for pediatric Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to review industry-funded studies of antidepressants in children and adolescents with MDD, and to better understand the contribution of study design and placebo response to the findings of these studies.

METHODS

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials that compared antidepressant with placebo for the acute treatment of MDD in children and/or adolescents were selected. Estimates of the standardized mean difference (SMD) in change in Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised scores were pooled, after examining for heterogeneity. A random-effects meta-analysis was completed.

RESULTS

Thirty-four antidepressant-placebo comparisons, involving 6161 subjects, were included. The SMD among all studies was 0.12 (CI 0.08, 0.17; p < 0.001), a very small effect size, lower than that seen in studies of adults with MDD. When the meta-analysis was limited to studies with a low mean placebo response, the SMD increased to 0.19 and further increased to 0.22 when studies with at least a 50% chance of receiving placebo were included.

LIMITATIONS

Many studies focused on older children and younger adolescents. Our findings may not reflect antidepressant efficacy in older adolescents.

CONCLUSIONS

The modest SMD identified in this analysis may reflect study design factors and the application of antidepressants developed for adults to pediatric patients. Given the urgent clinical need for more pediatric MDD treatments, the influence of placebo response and the need for drug development tailored to this population should be considered in pediatric MDD trial design.

Forks in the road: Definitions of response, remission, recovery, and other dichotomized outcomes in randomized controlled trials for adolescent depression. A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Definitions of dichotomous outcome terms, such as "response," "remission," and "recovery" are central to the design, interpretation, and clinical application of randomized controlled trials of adolescent depression interventions. Accordingly, this scoping review was conducted to document how these terms have been defined and justified in clinical trials.

METHOD

Bibliographic databases MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, and CINAHL were searched from inception to February 2020 for randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments for adolescent depression. Ninety-eight trials were included for data extraction and analysis.

RESULTS

Assessment of outcome measurement instruments, metric strategies, methods of aggregation, and measurement timing, yielded 53 unique outcome definitions of "response" across 45 trials that assessed response, 47 unique definitions of "remission" in 29 trials that assessed remission, and 19 unique definitions of "recovery" across 11 trials that assessed recovery. A minority of trials (N = 35) provided a rationale for dichotomous outcomes definitions, often by citing other studies that used a similar definition (N = 11). No rationale included input from youth or families with lived experience.

CONCLUSION

Our review revealed that definitions of "response," "remission," "recovery," and related terms are highly variable, lack clear rationales, and are not informed by key stakeholder input. These limitations impair pooling of trial results and the incorporation of trial findings into pragmatic treatment decisions in clinical practice. Systematic approaches to establishing outcome definitions are needed to enhance the impact of trials examining adolescent depression treatment.

New generation antidepressants for depression in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorders have a significant impact on children and adolescents, including on educational and vocational outcomes, interpersonal relationships, and physical and mental health and well-being. There is an association between major depressive disorder and suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide. Antidepressant medication is used in moderate to severe depression; there is now a range of newer generations of these medications.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate, via network meta-analysis (NMA), the comparative effectiveness and safety of different newer generation antidepressants in children and adolescents with a diagnosed major depressive disorder (MDD) in terms of depression, functioning, suicide-related outcomes and other adverse outcomes. The impact of age, treatment duration, baseline severity, and pharmaceutical industry funding was investigated on clinician-rated depression (CDRS-R) and suicide-related outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, the Cochrane Library (Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)), together with Ovid Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO till March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of six to 18 year olds of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed major depressive disorder were included. Trials that compared the effectiveness of newer generation antidepressants with each other or with a placebo were included. Newer generation antidepressants included: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs); norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine disinhibitors (NDDIs); and tetracyclic antidepressants (TeCAs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data as Odds Ratios (ORs), and continuous data as Mean Difference (MD) for the following outcomes: depression symptom severity (clinician rated), response or remission of depression symptoms, depression symptom severity (self-rated), functioning, suicide related outcomes and overall adverse outcomes. Random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted in a frequentist framework using multivariate meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA). We used "informative statements" to standardise the interpretation and description of the results.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six studies were included. There were no data for the two primary outcomes (depressive disorder established via clinical diagnostic interview and suicide), therefore, the results comprise only secondary outcomes. Most antidepressants may be associated with a "small and unimportant" reduction in depression symptoms on the CDRS-R scale (range 17 to 113) compared with placebo (high certainty evidence: paroxetine: MD -1.43, 95% CI -3.90, 1.04; vilazodone: MD -0.84, 95% CI -3.03, 1.35; desvenlafaxine MD -0.07, 95% CI -3.51, 3.36; moderate certainty evidence: sertraline: MD -3.51, 95% CI -6.99, -0.04; fluoxetine: MD -2.84, 95% CI -4.12, -1.56; escitalopram: MD -2.62, 95% CI -5.29, 0.04; low certainty evidence: duloxetine: MD -2.70, 95% CI -5.03, -0.37; vortioxetine: MD 0.60, 95% CI -2.52, 3.72; very low certainty evidence for comparisons between other antidepressants and placebo). There were "small and unimportant" differences between most antidepressants in reduction of depression symptoms (high- or moderate-certainty evidence). Results were similar across other outcomes of benefit. In most studies risk of self-harm or suicide was an exclusion criterion for the study. Proportions of suicide-related outcomes were low for most included studies and 95% confidence intervals were wide for all comparisons. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of mirtazapine (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.03, 8.04), duloxetine (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.72, 1.82), vilazodone (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.68, 1.48), desvenlafaxine (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59, 1.52), citalopram (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.76, 3.87) or vortioxetine (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.29, 8.60) on suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo. There is low certainty evidence that escitalopram may "at least slightly" reduce odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.43, 1.84). There is low certainty evidence that fluoxetine (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87, 1.86), paroxetine (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.85, 3.86), sertraline (OR 3.03, 95% CI 0.60, 15.22), and venlafaxine (OR 13.84, 95% CI 1.79, 106.90) may "at least slightly" increase odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo. There is moderate certainty evidence that venlafaxine probably results in an "at least slightly" increased odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with desvenlafaxine (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56) and escitalopram (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56). There was very low certainty evidence regarding other comparisons between antidepressants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, methodological shortcomings of the randomised trials make it difficult to interpret the findings with regard to the efficacy and safety of newer antidepressant medications. Findings suggest that most newer antidepressants may reduce depression symptoms in a small and unimportant way compared with placebo. Furthermore, there are likely to be small and unimportant differences in the reduction of depression symptoms between the majority of antidepressants. However, our findings reflect the average effects of the antidepressants, and given depression is a heterogeneous condition, some individuals may experience a greater response. Guideline developers and others making recommendations might therefore consider whether a recommendation for the use of newer generation antidepressants is warranted for some individuals in some circumstances. Our findings suggest sertraline, escitalopram, duloxetine, as well as fluoxetine (which is currently the only treatment recommended for first-line prescribing) could be considered as a first option. Children and adolescents considered at risk of suicide were frequently excluded from trials, so that we cannot be confident about the effects of these medications for these individuals. If an antidepressant is being considered for an individual, this should be done in consultation with the child/adolescent and their family/caregivers and it remains critical to ensure close monitoring of treatment effects and suicide-related outcomes (combined suicidal ideation and suicide attempt) in those treated with newer generation antidepressants, given findings that some of these medications may be associated with greater odds of these events. Consideration of psychotherapy, particularly cognitive behavioural therapy, as per guideline recommendations, remains important.

Desvenlafaxine in the treatment of major depression: an updated overview

Introduction: Major depressive disorder (MDD) remains one of the most prevalent mental health conditions. It is a chronic, relapsing condition and despite multiple treatment options, many patients fail to achieve remission of symptoms. Inadequacy of treatment has stimulated the search for agents with significant therapeutic advantages.Areas covered: This review examines literature concerning the use of desvenlafaxine in the treatment of MDD published since a previous analysis in this journal in 2014. Published papers were identified via a PubMed and Web of Science search and excluded congress presentations. Results from clinical trials in MDD, systematic reviews, and post hoc analyses in patient subgroups, are reviewed.Expert opinion: Desvenlafaxine was an effective antidepressant with favorable safety and tolerability in adults. Efficacy was demonstrated in the subgroup of peri- and post-menopausal women with MDD but not in children and adolescents. There is a relatively low potential for drug-drug interactions due to its metabolic profile. Hepatic impairment does not significantly alter dose requirements, whereas severe renal disease requires some adjustments of dose. Desvenlafaxine maybe suitable in patients with comorbid physical illnesses. Desvenlafaxine can be a first line consideration for the treatment of cases of MDD uncomplicated by medical comorbidities.

Psychiatric Diseases in Children and Adolescents

Pharmacotherapy of psychiatric illnesses in children and adolescents has grown significantly over the last few decades. However, the body of research examining pharmacological treatments for psychiatric illnesses is much smaller in children and adolescents than it is in adults. As most treatments for psychiatric disorders are more effective if started early in the course of illness, treatment options for youth are especially important in order to ensure better treatment outcomes. This chapter discusses currently approved medications to treat psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents. Research on medications that may be effective treatments but are not yet FDA approved is also discussed. The medications are broken down into major categories used in youth with psychiatric disorders including antidepressants, mood stabilizers, ADHD medications, and antipsychotics.

Safety of 80 antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-attention-deficit/hyperactivity medications and mood stabilizers in children and adolescents with psychiatric disorders: a large scale systematic meta-review of 78 adverse effects

Mental disorders frequently begin in childhood or adolescence. Psychotropic medications have various indications for the treatment of mental dis-orders in this age group and are used not infrequently off-label. However, the adverse effects of these medications require special attention during developmentally sensitive periods of life. For this meta-review, we systematically searched network meta-analyses and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), individual RCTs, and cohort studies reporting on 78 a priori selected adverse events across 19 categories of 80 psychotropic medications - including antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications and mood stabilizers - in children and adolescents with mental disorders. We included data from nine network meta-analyses, 39 meta-analyses, 90 individual RCTs, and eight cohort studies, including 337,686 children and adolescents. Data on ≥20% of the 78 adverse events were available for six antidepressants (sertraline, escitalopram, paroxetine, fluoxetine, venlafaxine and vilazodone), eight antipsychotics (risperidone, quetiapine, aripiprazole, lurasidone, paliperidone, ziprasidone, olanzapine and asenapine), three anti-ADHD medications (methylphenidate, atomoxetine and guanfacine), and two mood stabilizers (valproate and lithium). Among these medications with data on ≥20% of the 78 adverse events, a safer profile emerged for escitalopram and fluoxetine among antidepressants, lurasidone for antipsychotics, methylphenidate among anti-ADHD medications, and lithium among mood stabilizers. The available literature raised most concerns about the safety of venlafaxine, olanzapine, atomoxetine, guanfacine and valproate. Nausea/vomiting and discontinuation due to adverse event were most frequently associated with antidepressants; sedation, extrapyramidal side effects, and weight gain with antipsychotics; anorexia and insomnia with anti-ADHD medications; sedation and weight gain with mood stabilizers. The results of this comprehensive and updated quantitative systematic meta-review of top-tier evidence regarding the safety of antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-ADHD medications and mood stabilizers in children and adolescents can inform clinical practice, research and treatment guidelines.

Pharmacogenomics: an Update for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This paper aims to acquaint child and adolescent psychiatrists with the field of pharmacogenomics (PGX) and review the most up-to-date evidence-based practices to guide the application of this field in clinical care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite much research being done in this area, the field of PGX continues to yield controversial findings. In the adult world, studies have focused on the impact of combinatorial gene panels that guide medication selection by providing reports that estimate the impact of multiple pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic genes, but to date, these have not been directly examined in younger patient populations. Pharmacokinetic genes, CYP2D6 and CYP2C19, and hypersensitivity genes, HLA-A and HLA-B, have the strongest evidence base for application to pharmacotherapy in children. Although the field is evolving, and the evidence is mixed, there may be a role for PGX testing in children to help guide dosing and monitoring strategies. However, evidence-based medicine, rather than PGX testing, continues to play the lead role in guiding medication selection in pediatric psychopharmacology.

Duty to Warn: Antidepressant Black Box Suicidality Warning Is Empirically Justified

The United States Food and Drug Administration issued a Black Box warning in October 2004 after placebo-controlled trials of antidepressant medications found an increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors among children and adolescents taking antidepressant medications relative to placebo. Subsequently, some researchers have concluded that the Black Box warning caused severe unintended consequences; specifically, they have argued that the warning led to reduced use of antidepressants among youth, which led to more suicides. In this paper, we critically examine research regarding the Black Box warning's alleged deleterious consequences. One study claimed that controlled trials did not actually find an increased risk of suicidality among youth taking fluoxetine relative to those taking placebo, but its measure of suicidality is likely invalid. We found that ecological time series studies claiming that decreasing antidepressant prescriptions are linked to higher rates of suicide attempts or actual suicides among youth were methodologically weak. These studies exhibited shortcomings including: selective use of time points, use of only a short-term time series, lack of performing statistical analysis, not examining level of severity/impairment among participants, inability to control confounding variables, and/or use of questionable measures of suicide attempts. Further, while some time-series studies claim that increased antidepressant prescriptions are related to fewer youth suicides, more recent data suggests that increasing antidepressant prescriptions are related to more youth suicide attempts and more completed suicides among American children and adolescents. We also note that case-control studies show increased risk of suicide attempts and suicide among youth taking antidepressants, even after controlling for some relevant confounds. As clinical trials have the greatest ability to control relevant confounds, it is important to remember such trials demonstrated increased risk of suicidality adverse events among youth taking antidepressants. The Black Box warning is firmly rooted in solid data whereas attempts to claim the warning has caused harm are based on quite weak evidence.

New Somatic Treatments for Child and Adolescent Depression

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Depression is a common clinical problem in youth, with prevalence increasing significantly during the adolescent period. Although several evidence-based treatments are currently available for treating depression in adults, only a subset of these have been investigated in a pediatric sample. Unfortunately, even well-established, first-line interventions do not lead to sufficient treatment response for many children and adolescents suffering from depression. However, recent research has been conducted in the area of somatic treatments for youth with depression. This review focuses on current (past three years, including published results and ongoing studies) research on somatic treatments for adolescent depression in the following categories: psychopharmacology, nutraceuticals, interventions implicating motor and sensory systems, and neuromodulation.

FINDINGS

Results from recent randomized, controlled trials testing psychopharmacological options suggest that while antidepressants that have been recently approved for adult patients are safe and tolerable in children and adolescents, none have yet outperformed performed placebo in efficacy. Nutraceuticals, motor-sensory interventions, and neuromodulation techniques, present safe and promising results, but few have been tested against controls to support effectiveness over current treatment options.

SUMMARY

This review of research on pediatric depression treatment from the past 3 years highlights some disappointments (negative results following some of the well-designed clinical trials) and gaps (preliminary studies in need of follow up with robust methodology) but also some promising directions in research of the efficacyof these treatments in a pediatric sample. We offer suggestions for future research including consideration of treatment timing, sequencing, the role of symptom severity in directing treatment selection, the potential value of combined treatments, consideration of how to best account for high placebo response rates, and the incorporation of neurobiological assessments to examine mechanisms and biomarker predictors of treatment response.

Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy of Desvenlafaxine in Children and Adolescents with Major Depressive Disorder: Results from Two Open-Label Extension Trials

OBJECTIVE

Two similarly designed extension studies evaluated the long-term safety and tolerability of desvenlafaxine for the treatment of children and adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD). Efficacy was evaluated as a secondary objective.

METHODS

Both 6-month, open-label, flexible-dose extension studies enrolled children and adolescents who had completed one of two double-blind, placebo-controlled, lead-in studies. One lead-in study included a 1-week transition period prior to the extension study. Patients received 26-week treatment with flexible-dose desvenlafaxine (20-50 mg/d). Safety assessments included comprehensive psychiatric evaluations, vital sign assessments, laboratory evaluations, 12-lead electrocardiogram, physical examination with Tanner assessment, and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale. Adverse events (AEs) were collected throughout the studies. Efficacy was assessed using the Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R).

RESULTS

A total of 552 patients enrolled (completion rates: 66.4 and 69.1%). AEs were reported by 79.4 and 79.1% of patients in the two studies; 8.9 and 5.2% discontinued due to AEs. Treatment-emergent suicidal ideation or behavior was reported for 16.6 and 14.1% of patients in the two studies. Mean (SD) CDRS-R total score decreased from 33.83 (11.93) and 30.92 (10.20) at the extension study baseline to 24.31 (7.48) and 24.92 (8.45), respectively, at week 26.

CONCLUSION

Desvenlafaxine 20 to 50 mg/d was generally safe and well tolerated with no new safety signals identified in children and adolescents with MDD who received up to 6 months of treatment in these studies. Patients maintained the reduction in severity of depressive symptoms observed in all treatment groups at the end of the lead-in study.

Short- and Long-Term Antidepressant Clinical Trials for Major Depressive Disorder in Youth: Findings and Concerns

The diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) in U.S. youth is increasing as is the rate of antidepressant medication (ADM) treatment for the disorder. Fluoxetine and escitalopram are FDA approved for the short term and maintenance treatment of MDD in youth. Placebo-controlled short-term ADM trials represent the basis for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Meta-analyses in 2007 and 2016 revealed that short-term ADM treatment of youth diagnosed with MDD resulted in no meaningful benefit for children and only marginal benefit for adolescents. Placebo substitution trials of ADM short-term responders represent the basis for FDA approval of ADM maintenance treatment. These ADM placebo substitution maintenance trials for youth with MDD are characterized by high dropout rates, a rapid withdrawal that often can follow the switch to placebo, and relapse rates that are not dissimilar from those in the natural course of the disorder. Without the evidence from problematic ADM placebo substitution trials, there is no acceptable support for the inclusion of ADM in maintenance treatment for MDD in youth.

Desvenlafaxine Versus Placebo in a Fluoxetine-Referenced Study of Children and Adolescents with Major Depressive Disorder

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine (25-50 mg/d) compared with placebo in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

Outpatient children (7-11 years) and adolescents (12-17 years) who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for MDD and had screening and baseline Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) total scores >40 were randomly assigned to 8-week treatment with placebo, desvenlafaxine (25, 35, or 50 mg/d based on baseline weight), or fluoxetine (20 mg/d). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in CDRS-R total score at week 8, analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures. Secondary efficacy endpoints included week 8 Clinical Global Impressions-Severity, Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I), and response (CGI-I ≤ 2). Safety assessments included adverse events, physical and vital sign measurements, laboratory evaluations, electrocardiogram, and the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale.

RESULTS

The safety population included 339 patients (children, n = 130; adolescents, n = 209). The primary endpoint, change from baseline in CDRS-R total score at week 8, did not statistically separate from placebo, for either desvenlafaxine (adjusted mean [standard error] change, -22.6 [1.17]) or fluoxetine (-24.8 [1.17]; placebo, -23.1 [1.18]). Week 8 CGI-I response rates were significantly greater for fluoxetine (78.2%; p = 0.017) than for placebo (62.6%); desvenlafaxine (68.7%) did not differ from placebo. Other secondary outcomes were consistent with those obtained with CDRS-R. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable among treatment groups (desvenlafaxine, 60.0%; placebo, 70.5%; and fluoxetine, 64.3%).

CONCLUSION

Desvenlafaxine did not demonstrate efficacy for treating MDD in children and adolescents in this trial. Because neither desvenlafaxine nor the reference medication, fluoxetine, demonstrated a statistically significant difference from placebo on the primary endpoint, this was considered a failed trial and no efficacy conclusions can be drawn. Desvenlafaxine 25-50 mg/d was generally safe and well tolerated in children and adolescents in this study.