Response Rate Obtained Using Milnacipran Depending on the Severity of Depression in the Treatment of Major Depressive Patients

The severity of psychiatric disorders

The issue of the severity of psychiatric disorders has great clinical importance. For example, severity influences decisions about level of care, and affects decisions to seek government assistance due to psychiatric disability. Controversy exists as to the efficacy of antidepressants across the spectrum of depression severity, and whether patients with severe depression should be preferentially treated with medication rather than psychotherapy. Measures of severity are used to evaluate outcome in treatment studies and may be used as meaningful endpoints in clinical practice. But, what does it mean to say that someone has a severe illness? Does severity refer to the number of symptoms a patient is experiencing? To the intensity of the symptoms? To symptom frequency or persistence? To the impact of symptoms on functioning or on quality of life? To the likelihood of the illness resulting in permanent disability or death? Putting aside the issue of how severity should be operationalized, another consideration is whether severity should be conceptualized similarly for all illnesses or be disorder specific. In this paper, we examine how severity is characterized in research and contemporary psychiatric diagnostic systems, with a special focus on depression and personality disorders. Our review shows that the DSM-5 has defined the severity of various disorders in different ways, and that researchers have adopted a myriad of ways of defining severity for both depression and personality disorders, although the severity of the former was predominantly defined according to scores on symptom rating scales, whereas the severity of the latter was often linked with impairments in functioning. Because the functional impact of symptom-defined disorders depends on factors extrinsic to those disorders, such as self-efficacy, resilience, coping ability, social support, cultural and social expectations, as well as the responsibilities related to one's primary role function and the availability of others to assume those responsibilities, we argue that the severity of such disorders should be defined independently from functional impairment.

Determining severity subtypes of depression with a self-report questionnaire

The American Psychiatric Association's recently revised guidelines for the treatment of major depressive disorder indicated that it is important to consider symptom severity in initial treatment selection. In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, we conducted two studies of psychiatric outpatients examining the correlates of severity classification based on a self-report depression scale. The first sample consisted of 470 depressed outpatients who completed the Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale (CUDOS) and measures of psychosocial morbidity at the time of presentation. The second sample consisted of 112 depressed outpatients who completed the CUDOS and were evaluated with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at baseline and after 3 months of treatment. Compared to mildly depressed patients, moderately depressed patients reported significantly more psychosocial morbidity across all functional domains. The same differences were found between moderately and severely depressed patients. Greater severity of depression was associated with lower rates of response and remission. The results of the present studies suggest that a self-report depression questionnaire can validly subtype depressed patients according to gradations of severity.

Influence of serotonergic/noradrenergic gene polymorphisms on nausea and sweating induced by milnacipran in the treatment of depression

The present study was conducted to find out the predictors of side effects such as nausea and excessive sweating induced by milnacipran, a serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. Both clinical characteristics prior to the treatment and gene polymorphisms such as serotonin transporter (5-HTT) gene-linked polymorphic region (5-HTTLPR), a variable number of tandem repeats in the second intron of the 5-HTT gene (5-HTTVNTR), 5-HT2A receptor gene (5-HT2A G-1438A), a TPH gene polymorphism in intron 7 (TPH A218C), norepinephrine transporter (NET) gene polymorphism in the promoter region (NET T-182C) and in the exon 9 (NET G1287A), a variable number of tandem repeats in the promoter region of monoamine oxidase A, were items to be assessed in this study. Ninety-six patients with major depressive disorder were treated with milnacipran. Side effects were assessed at 1, 2, 4, and 6 weeks of treatment with Udvalg for Kliniske Undersogelser side effects scale. The results showed that no gene polymorphisms included in this study affected the susceptibility of nausea and excessive sweating induced by milnacipran. Patients with older age are more likely to develop excessive sweating than others. The major limitation of this study is a small sample size. Further studies with larger populations and more kinds of gene polymorphisms should be needed to see if specific gene polymorphisms determine the susceptibility of side effects induced by milnacipran.

Efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran in the treatment of major depression in comparison with other antidepressants : a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Milnacipran, a dual serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, is one of the newer antidepressants that clinicians use for the routine care of patients with major depression. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran with other antidepressants.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran in comparison with TCAs, SSRIs and other drugs in the acute phase of treatment for major depression.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials registers, journals, conference proceedings, trial databases of the drug-approving agencies and ongoing clinical trial registers for all published and unpublished randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and adverse events of milnacipran versus any other antidepressant. The search was conducted in December 2006 and updated in May 2007. No language restrictions were applied. All relevant authors were contacted to supplement any incomplete reporting in the original papers. Randomized controlled trials comparing milnacipran with any other active antidepressants as monotherapy in the acute phase of treatment for major depression were selected. Participants were aged > or =18 years, of both sexes and with a primary diagnosis of unipolar major depression. Studies were excluded when the participants had specific psychiatric and medical co-morbidities. Two independent reviewers assessed the quality of trials for inclusion, and subsequently extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Meta-analyses were conducted for efficacy and tolerability outcomes. Sixteen randomized controlled trials (n = 2277) were included in the meta-analyses.

RESULTS

No differences were found in achieving clinical improvement, remission or overall tolerability when comparing milnacipran with other antidepressants. However, compared with the TCAs, fewer patients taking milnacipran were early treatment withdrawals due to adverse events (number needed to harm (NNH) = 15; 95% CI 10, 48). Significantly more patients taking TCAs experienced adverse events compared with milnacipran (NNH = 4; 95% CI 3, 7).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall effectiveness and tolerability of milnacipran versus other antidepressants does not seem to differ in the acute phase of treatment for major depression. However, there is some evidence in favour of milnacipran over TCAs in terms of premature withdrawal due to adverse events and the rates of patients experiencing adverse events. Milnacipran may benefit some patient populations who experience adverse effects from other antidepressants in the acute phase of treatment for major depression.

Predictors of antidepressant response to fluvoxamine obtained using the three-factor structures of the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale for major depressive disorders in Japanese patients

AIMS

Fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, is widely used to treat major depression. However, the symptomatological predictors of the response to fluvoxamine have not been studied.

METHODS

This study included 100 Japanese patients who fulfilled the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-IV criteria for the diagnosis of major depressive disorders and whose score on the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) was 21 or higher. Eighty-one patients were included. Patients with a pretreatment MADRS score of >or=31 were defined as 'severe' (n = 32) and the rest were defined as 'non-severe' (n = 49). The three-factor model of MADRS was used for analysis: the first factor was defined by three items, the second factor was defined by four items, and the third factor was defined by three items representing dysphoria, retardation, and vegetative symptoms, respectively. Fluvoxamine (100-200 mg/day) was administered twice daily for 6 weeks.

RESULTS

In the non-severe patients, the mean factor 3 score of the non-responders at pretreatment was significantly higher than that of the responders. However, a significant difference was observed in the mean factor 3 scores from 1 week onwards between the non-severe responders and non-responders. Furthermore, the fluvoxamine response rate in the severe patients was 75% and higher than that of the non-severe patients (65.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggested that a low factor 3 score at pretreatment was a good predictor of the response to fluvoxamine in non-severe patients. The marked efficacy of fluvoxamine in the treatment of severe patients was also confirmed.

No predictors of antidepressant patient response to milnacipran were obtained using the three-factor structures of the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale in Japanese patients with major depressive disorders

AIMS

Milnacipran, a new specific serotonin and norepinephrine re-uptake inhibitor, is as effective as tricyclic antidepressants. Symptomatological predictors of antidepressant response to milnacipran have not been studied until now.

METHODS

This study included 101 Japanese patients who fulfilled the DSM-IV criteria for the diagnosis of major depressive disorders and whose score on the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) was > or =21. Eighty-three patients were finally included. Patients with a pretreatment MADRS score > or =31 points were defined as severe (n = 28), and the rest as non-severe (n = 55). The three-factor model of MADRS was used for analysis; the first factor was defined by three items, the second factor was defined by four items and the third factor was defined by three items representing dysphoria, retardation, and vegetative symptoms, respectively. Milnacipran was administered twice daily for 6 weeks. The initial dose was 50 mg/day; after a week it was increased to 100 mg/day.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed in the mean score of first factor, second factor and third factor at pretreatment time between responders and non-responders in both severe and non-severe patients.

CONCLUSIONS

No predictor of antidepressant response to milnacipran was obtained using the three-factor structures of the MADRS in Japanese patients with major depressive disorders.

Japanese experience with milnacipran, the first serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor in Japan

Milnacipran is a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), with a balanced potency for the inhibition of the reuptake of the two monoamines. In this, it contrasts with venlafaxine and duloxetine which, while possessing a dual action, have a selectivity of the order of 30-fold and 10-fold respectively for the reuptake of serotonin. Milnacipran has mainly been launched in countries where the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and venlafaxine had been established for several years. As such it has attracted relative little interest from clinician investigators as a research tool. Japan, however, represents a unique situation because in 1999 milnacipran was launched within months of the first SSRI and is still the only SNRI in Japan together with only two SSRIs (a third has just been introduced). This has led to a large number of investigative clinical studies, many of which give interesting insights into the potential of milnacipran in the treatment of depression and of other disorders. This article reviews these Japanese studies with milnacipran.